2001-09-20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
8:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
DISCUSSION ITEM:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION 91-2000 FOR WILLIAM & LINDA
NIZOLEK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUESTING PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW OF LONG TERM EFFECTS OF EXPANSION WITHIN TAKUNDEWIDE
PROPERTY.
WILLIAM MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BILL NIZOLEK, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re here because the ZBA has asked that your application come in
front of us for discussion, and with that I’m going to turn it over to Craig to give us some history of
what we’re going to try to discuss and come to some sort of understanding tonight.
MR. BROWN-I think the reason it’s here, and you’ve gotten a couple of memos from Marilyn Ryba
on the background of the property, and you’ve probably also received a copy of the resolution from
the Zoning Board referring it to the Planning Board. A history on this, and I don’t think it made it
to the Planning Board last year. The applicants presented a variance application to the Zoning Board
for an addition to the existing camp, upstairs addition and the downstairs addition, if you will. The
Zoning Board found that application to not be consistent enough with the neighborhood. They
denied that variance application. Recently, a couple of months ago, they reapplied with a similar
application, Zoning Board found it different enough to hear it again. Before they decided to
consider it, they wanted to refer the application to you, so you’d have a chance to look at maybe the
long term impacts of this type of development, this conversion from seasonal camp to year round
single family dwelling, if it was widespread throughout this, and I say widespread. There’s only 30
units in this approximately 18 acres, 21 acres?
MR. MASON-Twenty-one acres.
MR. BROWN-Twenty-one acres of common area, what the potential impact may be of 30 year
round single family homes on an area of land that would be less than what would be required if it
was a conventional subdivision, also within this Critical Environmental Area, the Lake George Park
Critical Environmental Area. So they’re looking for some sort of a recommendation, some sort of a
referral back that says here’s what we think. We think these things should be focused on, be aware
of septic, be aware of, whatever the items may be. They’re trying to get some direction from the
Planning Board to look at maybe the overall plan, the big picture of this type of development in the
future. Any questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go back and touch on the history, if we can, maybe a little bit, just so we can
get it on the record, as far as how it came to be a family owned situation to become independently
sold parcels.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I was not involved in those approvals in the early 80’s. I’d probably defer to
the applicant, to Mr. Mason. He’s probably going to have a lot better information regarding those
two chain of events, if you’d like to hear from him. Did you receive the minutes from the ’84
approval from?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MASON-That was what I was going to refer to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, your name?
MR. MASON-William Mason and Bill Nizolek.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please to meet you. It’s a perplexing situation because of the development of
those cottages and how they came to be. I guess one of the concerns that I have is that them going
from seasonal use to year round use, in a few instances, and the expansion of them. I don’t know
what the cumulative impacts of that are, and how that can be integrated into, from individually
owned parcels to a comprehensive review of the entire development, and maybe give us some
direction on that or give us some thoughts on that.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not completely comfortable with, I’m not at all comfortable with the
applicant being pinned with, do a complete environmental assessment of this project in order to do
your project.
MR. MAC EWAN-The applicant being one individual, one property owner.
MR. BROWN-Being one individual. That’s completely unreasonable to do that, and I don’t think
that’s why we’re here tonight, for that kind of direction, but maybe that type of recommendation,
that if this type of project is going to be widespread again, to the other parcels in the development,
perhaps maybe the Homeowners Association, seeing as how the common areas will be effected by
the infrastructure anyway, may be effected by this type of development. If all the homes were
expanded to the point where the septic systems need to be changed, although septic systems are on
common property, do parking areas or roadways need to be changed, based on the year round
impacts of maybe the traffic. If those types of changes effect the common area to the point where
somebody may, either the Planning Board or Zoning Board, determine it’s got a significant
environmental impact, that may trigger, interrupt me if I’m going in the wrong direction here, that
may trigger the next level of environmental review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, do you want to chime in?
MS. RADNER-Well, I think that where you’ve been a little bit confused is that, in your mind, you’re
thinking in terms of segmentation and big project versus little project, and what we have here is just
one small project, one individual, and don’t be mislead by my characterization of it as small, but
compared to like the Great Escape. We’re not dealing with something like that, where they’re going
to come forward and say, okay, review one ride, review another ride, review another ride, and we
have to say, no, wait a minute, that’s segmentation. We’re not allowed to do that. We have to look
at the big picture. There may or may not be any big picture here. As far as we know we have one
single application right now to change the existing cottage into a two story cottage with some
changes, and the only thing that’s before the Planning Board right now is setback relief, really, for
that individual project, that one cottage, but you are definitely within your scope to look at the
cumulative impacts of this. These properties all share certain services, septic, water lines, there’s
easements over them. Back in 1984, there was a declaration of covenants and easements that’s
supposedly still in place and binds all of these properties. All of the other land owners are effected
by this project, and I think what Craig was touching on is that each time a project comes to you, you
can consider the cumulative impacts of the things that have come before and the things that you
know are going to come after. Here we’re kind of in a quandary, because as far as we know, there are
no other applications pending, and we don’t really know what could come after, but we have ideas of
what might come after. Another point you may wish to clarify is, as far as I know right now, the use
is still a seasonal use. If the use is going to be changing from seasonal use to year round residential
use, your inquiry might be different as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Mason?
MR. MASON-When you said that, that’s the question I keep asking, and I really never found out
what that implies. I do understand the difference between seasonal and year round. In this case,
what we have, really, is when you undergo new construction in the Town of Queensbury, you can’t
really build it unless it’s built year round, with the exception, I’m told by the Building Department or
Planning Staff, of maybe not putting a heating system, which seems kind of, because you have to
insulate it and you have to go through all those things anyway. These people have no intention of
using it, nor have any of the other people at Takundewide or in our neighborhood for that matter,
they all build homes and they use them the same amount. They’re summer use, seasonal homes
mostly.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. NIZOLEK-I have a primary residence in Saratoga, and our only motive is we have four
children and, nine through sixteen, two girls and two boys and there’s one bathroom, and we’re there
for four months, and we just would like to act as a family without fighting and just getting something
as simple as a bathroom, and we’ve grown up in the North Country, and no one respects and takes
care of that lake like us and our, how we’ve taught our children, and we’re just looking for a place
where our family can go to and be comfortable, and God bless, if my wife and I make it that far, we
may retire, but if anything that would be two instead of six, as it is now, but we do appreciate your
time and consideration for this.
MS. RADNER-Some of the things that are typically looked at to determine whether a use is intended
as year round or seasonal are how deep are the water lines, how much insulation is there, is there a
furnace, are there washer and dryers. It’s those sorts of things, and we have kind of a creeping
problem. If a cottage looks, smells and acts like a single family residential year round home, but for
the fact that we have an applicant that says, no I’m only going to live here nine months, there’s no
guarantee that that applicant will own it forever, and I don’t know if your declarations and covenants
have changed, if there’s anything that restricts anybody from using those cottages year round or not.
MR. MASON-My question, though, is how do I address that? I don’t know, basically, how to argue
it. I don’t know what’s on the table. I understand seasonal versus year round very well, but what I
don’t understand is what’s the plus and the minus? From my standpoint, growing up in Cleverdale,
where on Labor Day everybody leaves, and you’re left alone, it would be nice to have a few more
year round residences now and then and a few more lights on, but I know I’m not, I don’t know
what the issues are. Is it the school, overtaxing school systems, or overtaxing?
MS. RADNER-That’s what this Board has to decide, typically, as part of site plan review. It may be
considered for, and it may change from project to project. It may be a plus to have a dwelling, a
seasonal, year round, or to have a dwelling be a single family year round , but if the septics aren’t in
place for it, if the water’s going to be overtaxed by it, if that’s going to have implications for lake
front, things like that, they have to consider those, and I can’t tell them one’s a plus or one’s a minus.
That’s their job to decide whether there are impacts that are negative or positive.
MR. MASON-Okay. I think I understand. It’s fairly neutral, whether you’re seasonal or year round.
One isn’t good or bad. It’s just with a year round, you have to look at all the facilities and make sure
that they’re in place to handle that.
MS. RADNER-Precisely.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many units do you have right now? There’s 32, right?
MR. MASON-Takundewide is a Homeowners Association. There are 32 residential units, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Out of those, how many of them are occupied year round?
MR. MASON-One is occupied year round right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the other 31, after Labor Day or mid October, whatever, they’re gone, and
you don’t see them until spring?
MR. MASON-The majority of them, the water is shut off. They just have seasonal water, and they’re
shut off, and you don’t see them, about October 15 or November 1 is when you turn the water
thst
off. I also manage the Homeowners water system, and I think that kind of determines, when the
water’s gone, you don’t see people that much, and right around November 1 we turn it off, and
st
right around April 15, May 1, it depends on the ice on the lake, we turn it back on again.
thst
MR. MAC EWAN-Now since you’ve started selling off these individual parcels and renovating some
of them that I remember seeing over the last few years, they’re being redone to the new Town
Codes, which pretty much tells you when you reconstruct these things or rehabitate them, that you
have to put.
MR. MASON-You put insulation in. They’ve already got heat, because you wouldn’t want to come
to Lake George in September without some electric heat. So, they’ve all pretty much got heat. It’s a
question, it makes sense. If you’re going to rebuild, you would insulate it. It’s just energy wise, and
so on. So that part of it never bothers anybody. They have to, did I answer your question? I’m
sorry.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think so. I mean, I’ll jump back to you for a minute. I mean, is there a set
building code, protocol you guys follow, seasonal versus year round, or what you look for and what
you will or won’t allow?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t want to speak for the Building Department, but my knowledge of that is,
if the building is going to be heated, the New York State Energy Code requires it to be insulated, and
that right there is the threshold whether it’s a seasonal cottage or a year round cottage, dwelling. I
don’t want to use the word “cottage”, but the Code requires if it’s heated, it has to be insulated.
Now when many of these camps were built, when t hey were built were camps, were they heated?
Probably. Did the Energy Code say they had to be insulated? Who knows, probably not. So when
you do these conversions, absolutely. The building code requires you to insulate it when it’s heated,
and that right there turns it into a single family dwelling, a year round single family dwelling.
MR. RINGER-Of the 32 units up there, how many have been converted to basements and, well, we
an say full scale houses. We’ve had several before us I know.
MR. MASON-I believe there are seven of them.
MR. RINGER-Seven out of the thirty-two?
MR. MASON-No, I’m including this one. I’m sorry, because I was trying to, there was notes that
I’m looking at, again, your notes say in recommendations that there have been at least seven site plan
review/area variance applications for properties in this, and I can’t figure out where the seven are. I
don’t know them all, but, in fact, I count five, I’m sorry, I change my numbers as I go along, because
I was trying to address that Number Seven that was in that report. I count up five that have put
additions or tear downs and rebuilds.
MR. RINGER-Then the question would be to Cathi, on the segmentation, where does segmentation
come in? If five of the thirty-two have been converted?
MS. RADNER-The problem is that the five weren’t a single project. They’re separate ownership. If
Takundewide was all still one ownership, and they seemed to be on a pattern of, one by one,
systematically updating them all, eyebrows would be raised, but we’re talking separate ownership
here, and each application is a separate action.
MR. RINGER-So we could have 32 and we’d never get to segmentation?
MS. RADNER-You could have 32 here and you could, I mean, just as in any other subdivision in
Town, you can have 32 different homeowners come forward with 32 different projects, and it
wouldn’t be segmentation. The SEQRA Regulations say that it’s segmentation when you have an
action, and you take that action and you divide it up and look at it only one piece at a time, to avoid
SEQRA review.
MR. MASON-And just the same way that I can address you on what has gone on, I can tell you also
that I’ve spoken with many owners at Takundewide who have absolutely no intention of doing this.
They bought their home and they like it the way that it is, and they’re going to keep it that way, but I
always smile and think that, you don’t know what the future is either. None of us.
MR. RINGER-Cathi has said that before, that 10 years from now or 20 years from now.
MR. MASON-You don’t know. Either their children grow up and all of a sudden they have a
growing family or a larger family or something, or they sell and somebody else comes in. These are
private homes and Association doesn’t really have any control over that. I think that’s addressing the
segmentation issue. There’s really no one group that has control, because they’re private homes right
now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of the issue we have here, though, is, as I recall, some, if not all, the septic
systems go to a common area. Is that not right? How does that work?
MR. MASON-No. All septic drain fields and tanks are on common area, because the land that was
sold to each cottage is too small to support a drain field and septic. So they all have easements out
onto the common property, and the common property has all, I’m trying to draw the distinction
between, the are no group of cottages that share a septic system. They each have their own
individual tank and drain field with an easement on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s all in the common area.
MR. MASON-It is in the common area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who takes responsibility for the maintenance of those systems, each individual
homeowner?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-Each owner. In fact, we did have, probably five years ago, we had one that had a
problem, and I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I had a problem, but the Town came up and pointed it out. I
talked to the owner, and we immediately replaced the system. The tank was fine. It was a thousand
gallon tank. I don’t know exactly where the problem was, but he said it’s 20 years old at this point.
Let’s put in a new drain field. So that’s what he did. He got the permits and all of that was done.
There is plenty of land to handle that.
MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s a problem with a septic system or a failure of a septic system that’s
within the common area, what role, if any, does the Homeowners Association play in that?
MR. MASON-Well, the Association, as pointed out in this document, has a regulation that no abuse
of that common area will take place, and anyone breaking any of our rules as an Association gives us
the power to walk in and shut off the water, to do whatever we want to. In fact, we can effect a
repair, charge the building for that repair, and then put it as a lien on their property, and that’s all
spelled out in the Bylaws and the declaration and so on, that were a part of that 1984 filing that are
part of this record. So the Association has a lot of power.
MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t the Association declarations be changed?
MR. MASON-They are amended. We just amended them at our July meeting, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess what I’m trying to get at here is that, you know, even though there
may be some protections in those covenants, those can be modified by majority vote I assume?
MR. MASON-It depends on which document. Some is majority. Some is two thirds, but yes, but
they don’t want to give up their power, if that’s what, I don’t understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, for example, one of the issues that I read about in the minutes and in the
project notes was that washers and dryers are prohibited, but that kind of thing, majority vote or two
thirds vote.
MR. MASON-And those are currently allowed, actually. The reason that those were not allowed
originally had to do with two factors. One was the concern that some of the septic systems in the
older cottages, because they were starting, they were built, the first ones in there like 1952, and they
had cess pools, and it was felt that a cess pool couldn’t support a clothes washer. So, it was just
written into the rules, I believe it was, declaration of rules, covenants, conditions, that they weren’t
allowed. The other reason was selfish, and that was that the Association has a Laundromat, and the
Association wanted the income from the Laundromat. So the heads of the Association at that time
said they’re not allowed for those two reasons, and it was sound. Probably 10 years later, the
members got together and said, look, some of these properties have 1,000 gallon concrete septic
tanks with drain fields that are up to Code and can handle a washer. What’s the problem with
putting washers and dryers in? So our rule specifically stated that you are allowed to have it.
However, you have to demonstrate that your septic system is sufficient design capacity to, I’m
paraphrasing the words, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who makes that determination?
MR. MASON-The Association has an architectural control committee and a Board of Directors that
make all of these decisions. In fact, they’ve reviewed this project already, and they’re a very strict
group. I have, architecturally and aesthetics, I have a tougher time getting things through that Board
of Directors than I do getting things through any other group.
MR. MAC EWAN-So prior to coming to this Board, or making an application to the Town for a
proposed new parcel or working on a new parcel, you go see that Board first?
MR. MASON-That’s right. This has already been approved. This has their blessing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who pays that Board?
MR. MASON-It’s an unpaid Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s the Homeowners Association.
MR. MASON-It’s a volunteer directors and so on.
MR. VOLLARO-And usually the document which defines a homeowner association is an offering
plan that’s written to and approved by the Attorney General’s Office. What status is this plan in? Is
this a homegrown association, or is this one that has an H Number approved by the Attorney
General?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-I think it would be what you called the first one. It was formed originally without the
offering, because it was formed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s no offering plan that that goes with this, that defines what the
buyer buys? Offering plan usually says, this is the Offering Plan, and this is what it contains, and this
is what the buyers buy.
MR. MASON-And there was no Offering Plan because there was no initial offering.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what kind of clout do they have with the development itself if they’re trying to
act as directors or overseers of the development?
MR. MASON-In every deed restriction it says that you will, every deed says you will abide by all
homeowners association rules, regulations, covenants and so on, in the deed when you buy the
property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, can you give us a legal interpretation of that, please? I mean, as far as, if
it’s a homeowners association that’s not approved by the State, as Mr. Vollaro is suggesting, what
kind of legal standing do they have in regulating what goes on in the development?
MS. RADNER-It’s contractual, basically. This Board, or the counterpart of it, in 1984, made as a
condition of the approval of changing ownership that they had to formalize declarations and
covenants and they did that, and now they’ve changed it, and we’re really not totally aware of those
changes, but they also have, they also presented to the Planning Board their proposed deeded
language which would reference those declarations and covenants, and which would be incorporated
into their deed. When you buy a piece of property that has, you get the deed, the title to that
property. If it has conditions and if you’re bound by those conditions, because part of your contract
to purchase this property is accepting those conditions, and so each of these owners have accepted
the conditions that there’s mutual easements, that they’re members of a homeowners association,
that they abide by these declarations and covenants, as they exist.
MR. MASON-(Lost words) their assessments and so on, which is very important, of course.
MS. RADNER-Exactly. The enforcement, though, doesn’t come from you folks or even from the
Zoning Board. The enforcement is mutual. The deeded language says that it’s for the mutual benefit
of the neighbors, basically, and their successors and assigns. So if Property Owner A decides to paint
his house purple, Property Owner B can take him to court and sue.
MR. MASON-The Association can also rectify it.
MS. RADNER-I don’t know that. I’m not familiar enough with your contractual language to tell you
if they could or not.
MR. MASON-We just went, that was one of the things we’ve just been dealing with is architectural
control, because we’ve got a huge issue over that.
MS. RADNER-Right, and since your Homeowners Association is one of the other owners, I think, if
no other way, then they would just by that, because they’re one of the neighbors, then, that had an
interest. The Homeowners Association does own the common land, does it not?
MR. MASON-They’re not a voting owner, though. There’s 32 owners, and they own the
Association.
MS. RADNER-Thirty-two owners are all members of the Association. The Association owns the
comment land. You might want to review this with your attorney to make sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Your Board of Directors is chosen from the 32 members. Is that correct?
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Another question I have, if the deed references covenants, declarations, etc.,
and requirements, is there sufficient amount of data in the deed to satisfy the full disclosure
requirement on the sale? There’s a requirement that talks to full disclosure, when you buy, and I’m
wondering whether that deed is sufficiently exclamatory, with respect to full disclosure for the
purchase. What I’m driving at, Cathi, is the absence of an offering plan here leads me to think that,
the offering plan really defines what I am selling to you, when I offer that plan to you.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MS. RADNER-Right. In a subdivision where a homeowner gets, or a parcel owner would come and
get approval to subdivide this land and make a condominium, association and all that, the first step
would be an offering plan. This is what we’re offering. There was no offering plan here, but you
can, when you decide to sell your home, if you and your neighbor make a contractual arrangement
that each of you are going to include mutual easements, you can do that. You don’t have to have an
offering plan for a deed to have restrictions, and the full disclosure and the deed don’t necessarily
have anything to do with each other, and I think that the full disclosure issues would really be
enforceable by an owner who might feel he’d been cheated, not necessarily by his neighbors.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I have, I’m trying to understand something about common property
here. When common property’s in joint ownership, particularly for a homeowners association, for
the recreation and enjoyment of all the owners. Usually none of it can be set aside for a particular
owner. Usually it’s joint ownership, and nobody gets one thirty-second or one anything of that
property. It’s joint. So when they say that they’re going to, and I read in the minutes.
MS. RADNER-Before you go too far with that, the Zoning Administrator has already made a
determination that they cannot do that, and that when you’re considering the land area ratio.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not.
MS. RADNER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not considering, I’m specifically considering setting aside property to put in a
replacement septic tank, for example, or a replacement field. Now, that owner is now encroaching,
in a sense, on that common ground.
MS. RADNER-With mutual easements that allow them to do so.
MR. MASON-And they’re under the ground. They’re not on the surface. Normally, an easement is
the right to go over the ground. This is a little dangerous. A little knowledge is dangerous, and that’s
my little knowledge, and I should be careful, but I got into an easement problem with a couple of
neighbors battling it out, and it occurred to me, when they got all through, that the owner of the
property could actually be doing things under the ground, as long as the guy who had the easement
was able to egress through the property, if you had to egress through, so that was the ruling there.
MS. RADNER-It depends on the type of easement. The easement here is the flip of that. The
easement here is for underground use. So the people who need to encroach have an easement that
allows them to do these things underground, but it doesn’t mean that they could put a dog run on
top of their septic tank and keep out their neighbors, and let their dog have that piece of land.
Because they don’t own that land just because their septic tank is underneath it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not so much worried about the septic tank as I am about the septic field. The
field is a far more sensitive device than the tank. Far more sensitive. The laterals are usually a foot
below the ground. They’re usually bedded in some sort of gravel. They don’t take a lot of pounding.
They don’t take a lot of running over with grass cutting machines, etc., etc., depending on the loading
and the kind of tractor you’re using to cut the grass and all that, you know, believe me, the field is the
sensitive item to a septic system.
MR. MAC EWAN-When there’s a lot of gatherings up there during the summertime, do people park
in the common area?
MR. MASON-They would park normally in the parking lot. If they overflow the parking lots, they
park off the side of the road, like anywhere else, just off the parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-So your answer is they do not park in the common area.
MR. MASON-Not much, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the common area so designated that people know they can’t?
MR. MASON-They don’t drive across and park in front of their lots and things like that. I said they
park on the common area only in that they’ll park along the road, and to me, that’s common area, but
it’s really roadside parking that they’re doing. They’re overflowing the lot onto the roads.
MR. BROWN-You may want to just, I guess, clarify your question. All the roads are common area.
MR. MASON-Right.
MR. BROWN-Do they park on the grass, is that you’re question?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m referring to where the septic fields are.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That common area.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Everything except the boxes around the houses is common area. So do they
park in the common areas? Absolutely. Do they park on the grass? Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That may be true, but there’s no signs, we’ve just been up there. There’s no signs
on the common ground, what I would call the green colored grass common ground. So we define
that from the road. There’s no little sign that says septic field here.
MR. MASON-No, there’s none.
MR. VOLLARO-And yet there are 32 septic fields spread out in the common ground, all underneath
there.
MR. MASON-Right. That might be something that we have to deal with at some point. You’re
right. It’s not like I haven’t had a problem in my life with a truck going across as drain field and
crushing a main.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have there ever been any calculations done as to whether that area can handle
that many septic systems effectively, that you are aware of, on file?
MR. BROWN-Not by the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not by the Town. By any previous applications?
MR. BROWN-Not to my knowledge.
MR. MASON-I tried to address that. I don’t know if this is adequate. I don’t know how to address
it best, but I did it by comparing the amount of land that we have at Takundewide per lot, and
therefore per septic tank, and I thought that it would be a good comparison to do all of our
neighbors and see how much land they all had to do their lot, or to do their septic systems. So I
went to the north of Takundewide, 600 feet, to the south of Takundewide 600 feet, along the shore
of the lake, because that’s the most critical area that we’re concerned with, and I got the information
off of the tax maps, and off of the tax rolls, and they differed a little bit, but what I came up with
what, in those 1200 feet on either side of us, that there are 21 lots on 7.6 acres, or .36 acres per lot,
and that at Takundewide we have 21.35 acres and 32 lots that are .68 acres per lot, or double what
our neighbors have.
MR. VOLLARO-But that doesn’t make it good.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, and I don’t think that’s a fair equation, because your situation is, what I’m
getting at, your equation is the fact that you’ve got 32 lots, one common area with all 32 of those lots
sharing a very small parcel of land to do that, where your neighbors may have X number of acres, but
each one is individually spread out over that acreage.
MR. MASON-Well, they’re not. They’re not really spread out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they are. All your neighbors’ septic systems aren’t all concentrated in one
area.
MR. MASON-Well, if you look at the tax map, they run right along the shoreline. So they’re all
concentrated just like that. Takundewide, we’re spread, in fact, we have this entire, put at the bottom
of that a note that we’ve got approximately seven acres that are undeveloped, back here, that if we
ever needed to, we could go up there with a common system.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s really the thing you ought to do.
MR. MASON-We think about it a lot, but the reason we don’t do it is because we keep thinking that
the system’s going to go in, the municipal system, and why pump how many thousands of dollars
into this one, when these are all working. Nothing’s failing.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll be in the ground when the municipal system does.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get these up on the board, so everyone on the Board can see them.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because that’s what happened, what they did at Hewlett’s Landing, at
Eichlerville. They ended up putting their septic system way back up on the golf course.
MR. MAC EWAN-
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where is that house you’re requesting to?
MR. MASON-It’s up here. It’s the farthest back from the water.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got you.
MR. MASON-The one that we’re looking at is Number 25. It’s back here. The issues that I focused
on, for tonight, because I was told, first of all, it’s not first of all. I wanted to apologize. Our
attorney is not here tonight. He absolutely intended to be here, but due to a conflict, and the time
change, he was unable to be here, but he was confident that I would be able to do this, and I don’t
know, but anyway, he told me, and from reading Planning Staff notes, that some of the issues that we
needed to deal with, Number One, was views, and he and I talked at great length about that.
Number Twenty-five is the farthest back from the water of any of the cottages. It cannot be seen
from the water. So the view of it is not an issue, at least if it’s from the water. If it’s from the
neighbors, this is all woods. This is all woods, and the closest neighbor would be here. He clearly
can’t see this, and you’ve gotten, if it’s the neighbors at Takundewide, you should have received, or, I
don’t know if you have received everything. The Association sent in a few documents. One was
their approval of it and the other was their zoning support of it, but they think that it will be a
positive impact. The view of it will be better than what we currently have. So, from the view
standpoint, I don’t know what else to address really. The fact that it’s so far from the water, that it’s
all woods back here. I think that the Nizolek’s view to the woods and everything will be lovely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for clarification, point to the areas where the septic fields are.
MR. MASON-They are pretty well marked on here. Each cottage coming off the back has got a
drain, or a tank, and then a drain field right behind it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do you mean a drain field?
MR. MASON-That’s the drain field is the perforated pipe.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like the leachfield?
MR. MASON-The leachfield, yes. Okay. In this area, and this is exactly where it is, the tank is right
behind it here, and the drain field is out in here. Now this was the surveyor who was making sure to
satisfy that there was room for the drain fields, but I hope that he said, and that everybody
understood that knowing exactly where every drain field was put in since 1952 would be kind of
difficult. I know where every tank is, because I maintain them myself, and I can walk up to them and
point to them as I walk around the grounds, but the drain fields are a little more difficult to locate,
but this one has a 1,000 gallon concrete tank, and it has, I believe it has an adequate system right
now, but I’m not going to stake my life on it. What we would do is, at the time of building permit, is
we would absolutely investigate it, and then if we need to put in a new drain field we will. I’m
assuming that we’ll be able to save the concrete tank. I don’t see why we’d have to toss that. We
might need a brand new leachfield, but we may find that we can dig up the laterals and stake them all
out, and find the distribution box and determine that the drain field is adequate for the building that
we’re proposing.
MR. VOLLARO-Bill, I’d just like to call your attention to a paragraph here in 179-69 which is the
conversion of seasonal dwelling units, and at the end of that it talks to fire prevention building code
New York State energy conservation, and only after certification of the suitability of existing sanitary
septic system, by a licensed engineer, to accommodate the year round use.
MR. MASON-Okay. I’m happy with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Now that means that, because my understanding has always been that our building
inspector kind of does that, kind of looks at it. Does he make that determination, or does a licensed
engineer make the determination as to whether the system is satisfactory or not?
MR. BROWN-I think you’re right. He kind of looks at it, but the certification does come from a
licensed professional, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That hasn’t been my understanding in the past.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-Whatever has to take place, that’s fine with us. If it takes replacing the drain field or
the leachfield, that’s fine with us, but it also never makes any sense to me to tear things out if they’re
perfectly adequate and they’re working well.
MR. VOLLARO-The Department of Health, we’ll get into that in a second. The Department of
Health, when you’re going to replace a drain field, says you cannot replace that drain field in the same
place. You have to, if you want to do it, if you want to place it in the same place, you have to
excavate it out. It’s got to be allowed to dry. It’s got to be put on a truck. It’s got to be trucked
away, to either Plattsburg or Colonie. Those are the only two places that’ll take so called
contaminated material. So what you’ve got to do is find a place in the back of 25 to put the second
drain field, and when I was back there, there isn’t very much room. I looked back there.
MR. MASON-I could go all the way up into here. I could put a pump system in. This is common
property into here.
MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re talking.
MR. MASON-Mr. Nizolek has the right to go, he could put this anywhere, really. He’ll have to get
approval from the Board of Directors and everybody works together up there, but he technically has
the right, with his easement, to put this on the common property wherever he can find a good place
for it, and there’s a lot of room there, to get a good drain field in. There’s no, you know, you’ve got
this whole area right in here that isn’t used.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I’m somewhat concerned about 32 septic drain fields out there, that close to
the lake, when you people get your drinking water, really, from the lake.
MR. MASON-Yes, right here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MASON-Absolutely. It’s wonderful.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a real problem with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you have it tested regularly?
MR. MASON-Yes. In fact, the water is another issue that I’m ready to talk to you about.
MR. VOLLARO-You can chlorinate it. Do you chlorinate it?
MR. MASON-Not only chlorinate, I’m putting in a UV system.
MR. VOLLARO-An Ultraviolet?
MR. MASON-Yes, and we’re going to filter it. We are going to have the best, you’re going to be
buying water from us.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So where’s the little area where, where’s the little chlorination plant?
MR. MASON-What I have now is there’s a line running right up here, that goes about 150 feet or
something out into the bay. I don’t know. There’s two pumps up there. They pump it up into this
room which is labeled laundry, and in the back corner there there’s about, it’s an 11 by 11 foot room
now that I have all the tanks and the chlorine system in now, but we’re going to kick out a wall on
that and make them a little bit bigger, and put in a brand new UV.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to combine UV with chlorination?
MR. MASON-UV and filtration. Filtration first, UV, and chlorination as a residual. Yes, and it’ll be
great water, and we have plenty of water. We’ve just done an analysis.
MR. VOLLARO-That lake’s not going to run dry, that’s for sure.
MR. MASON-I don’t know if you want to see this, but this is about the water system. I just brought
it in to show it, if anybody wanted to see it, just to demonstrate where we’re going with it. This has
just been approved by the Department of Health, and this includes all the things that we just talked
about, and I’m now taking bids from contractors to get this installed. So the water system will be
better than adequate. The septic we talked about, and the views, and those were the three issues, as
far as my presentation, or my preparation went. I’m happy to talk about all the other things that we
talked about.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who is going to determine where and if, let’s say if, first of all, who’s going to
determine if the system, the leachfield needs to be re-routed?
MR. MASON-The way that would work is I’m the contractor, and I would go up and dig to find, dig
to expose the tank, the distribution box, and the ends of the laterals. Once I’ve got that all done,
then I would call in the engineer and the Town and say, what needs to be done to determine if we
have, if I can only find 150 feet of drain field or leachfield or something, and we know already that
that’s just not enough, and it’s not adequate, then we go from there, but it’s a case or working
together. I’ll do the physical work, but then.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, it’s not the Board of Directors that’s going to tell you what.
MR. MASON-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You have professionals that are, that’s their expertise.
MR. MASON-Yes. The Board of Directors would, if I wanted to move the drain field some place
else, I’d talk to the Directors and say, and the main reason would be because we’d be having to dig
up that area as a common property, and we have to keep them informed of where we’re going and
what our timetable is for getting that back into shape and looking nice again.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And would the final approval still have to be given by the Department of
Health on the septic system?
MR. MASON-I’m not certain about that. If it’s needed, we would get it. It seems to me that on
septic systems, we always just go to the Town to get our approval, but.
MR. VOLLARO-They don’t need Department of Health unless they had a SPDES Permit, and they
discharge more than 1,000 gallons a day.
MR. MASON-That’s right, in fact I do know that, because I tried to get it one time from the
Department, and they said they wouldn’t give it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see, and that’s per dwelling, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s per dwelling. Now, is there any, there’s not any Ordinance that says
that leachfields have to be so many feet apart?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question.
MR. BROWN-Twenty feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-From neighboring properties?
MR. BROWN-The Ordinance says that they have to be 10 feet from a property line. So you could
construe that to say that you only need to be 20 feet apart.
MR. MAC EWAN-In this case the property lines are actually the footprints of the cottages. Correct?
MR. MASON-No.
MR. BROWN-Within which the septic systems do not lie. They’re not within the property.
MR. MASON-They have 10 feet around them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Ten feet around them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you point out the other units that have been expanded? You seemed to
think there were six?
MR. MASON-Number Nine, that’s the Hickeys. Number Thirteen, that’s the Lightbody’s. Number
Twenty-seven, which is the Fraiser’s. Number Twenty, which is the Dennis’. Number One, which is
the Forbes’, and that, I think, is it on the expansions. We’ve had other work there, such as Number
Three, the Sachlo’s, knocked out the ceiling and we put up a cathedral ceiling in their living room and
so on for them. We’ve done, everybody up there is, of course, fixing their homes up the minute they
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
buy, construction is never going to stop, probably. Everybody, it seems to me, who buys, looks
around with plans on what they’re going to do.
MR. STROUGH-Could I sink a well in the common area if I was a?
MR. MASON-A homeowner?
MR. STROUGH-In the common area?
MR. MASON-I don’t know.
MR. STROUGH-I could if I got permission from the Association.
MR. MASON-Absolutely. If you got permission, you could. I don’t know why you’d want to,
because.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if I wanted to live year round.
MR. MASON-We have a winter water system throughout the system. That was put in back in 1984.
This addresses one of the arguments that was made by Marilyn Ryba, that possibly the intent was not
to go to year round conversions, but that doesn’t make any sense, because the year that all of that
was done, we dug trenching throughout the property, five feet deep, and put winter water lines
throughout it. We didn’t hook up all the cottages to it. We only hooked up the winterized ones. At
that time, they were just this house and this cottage, but the winter water was there, and so anyone
buying at any point, from the day that the first one was sold to anyone other than a Mason, knew
that all they had to do to winterize what hook up to the winter water, which there’s a loop, for the
Nizolek’s, there’s a loop of that that runs right up here, comes within 100 feet of his cottage. So
we’ve got to dig a 100 foot trench out to that, to insulate it, and put in a foundation and so around
the base. Because they all were originally on piers, and then they’re pretty much all set, because as I
said, they all have heat.
MR. VOLLARO-That was going to be my next question. I think somewhere in the documentation,
the party in Number Twenty-five is talking about moving her washing machine and dryer into the
unfinished basement.
MR. MASON-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So that most of these have basements, full basement conversions.
MR. MASON-No, they don’t all. I believe three of them do.
MR. VOLLARO-The ones we looked at, John, do you remember the ones, all of the ones of the
conversions that we looked at.
MR. RINGER-Looked like they had basements.
MR. MASON-They may look like it, for instance, I did Number Nine, and that has a crawl space
with windows for venting. It looks just like it’s got a basement underneath there, but it doesn’t. I
can attest to you, by crawling underneath there on my back.
MR. RINGER-And that’s one we looked at. Number Nine is one we looked at, too.
MR. MASON-So, some of them do. Some of them don’t.
MR. VOLLARO-This one is planned to have a full basement.
MR. MASON-Full unfinished basement, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Full unfinished basement, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has the Homeowners Association kind of given any guidance for build out plan
that they have in mind as to how far they’re willing to support individual property owners to develop
their parcels?
MR. MASON-From what I gather, they haven’t done a master plan, although this year they’ve been
talking about, we have formed a committee, a Long Range Development Committee, that one of the
things that this Committee, one of their bullet points, is to contact the Town and all other agencies
and try and coordinate this. It seems like a massive project to me, but God bless these volunteers
who are going to go at it and do it, and they’re going to try and formalize something, and get
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
everybody to agree with it. I can tell you, from my history dealing with the Boards of Directors, of
which I have not been a member since back in ’84 or ’85, and I’ve just been dealing with different
Boards, what they approve, and they’re very strict, but the basic plans that they like are the ones
that’s going to be in front of us for Nizolek’s, and the other one which is the one that was built at
Dennis’ and Frasier’s, with the twin dormers. They also approved Lightbodys in 13, and it’s a
smaller, but the problem with that one, they like it from the looks. The problem is you end up with a
very flat roof. The pitch on the flat roof on the top is about a 1/12 pitch, and it’s just nasty in the
winter. That’s the wrong thing to be doing in this neighborhood. So even though we like it, looks
wise, most people don’t like it practically.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have all 32 parcels been sold?
MR. MASON-Well, they’re all privately owned. I don’t know. There’s still Mason ownership in
here. I own two of the parcels.
MR. MAC EWAN-You own two of the parcels.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But all the rest of them have been pretty much sold off to other people, other
families or whatever?
MS. RADNER-There’s a lot of Masons.
MR. MASON-There’s a lot of Masons. I have six brothers and a sister.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you and your family holding these properties for future sale?
MR. MASON-No, in fact, at this point, well, again, all I can really speak to you about that is my own
personal. These are my brothers and my sister. I’m the youngest, at 45. I wish I knew what they
were all going to do tomorrow. I don’t really know. My intention is that my children will get them,
but I have three kids and only two parcels. So God bless us when we try and figure that one out, but
we’ll figure it out, won’t we. It’s not that bad of a problem, but I don’t really know. It seems to me,
if they were saving them for some sale that they would jump in now, because sales are good right
now, and I have nothing to sell, and it seems like everybody’s holding them. There’s nothing listed
up there right now.
MR. METIVIER-Is it safe to assume that, every time there’s something that comes up for
Takundewide, there’s never anyone objecting to it.
MR. MASON-At Takundewide?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, like docks, whatever. We had a few things in the last year. You never see
anybody come up here and say anything. Is it safe to assume that that is because it has to be
approved by the Association prior to even making application?
MR. MASON-I think that that’s part of it. I think part of it is that everybody bought in, wanting, not
necessarily wanting to do this, but wanting to know that they could. They felt, because that Dennis’
was approved, and the Frasier’s and so on. They watched different ones go up, and they all felt, well,
that’s okay. I like that. so they bought in and they want that option.
MR. METIVIER-All right, but do you think they’re afraid to step forward and say, no, I don’t like
this, because when it’s their turn, they’re going to come back and maybe somebody will retaliate
against them?
MR. MASON-Well, that is always possible, but here’s an owner who I don’t think he’d tell you that
that was one of the, I would think more likely, someone who was concerned that way would sell. I
mean, why?
MR. VOLLARO-I think I can sympathize with what Tony is saying. He’s really saying that the
Board, is there sort of a inbred opinion in the Board that, some day I’m going to do my house that
way, too, and therefore, I will vote for this individual to do his house that way. Because I don’t want
this Board to turn on me in a later date and say, no, you can’t do that.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that what you’ve got?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-There may be truth to that. I don’t know. You’re trying to get, I’m trying to figure
out what other people think, but I can tell you two of the most strident people that I talked to up
there are people who already built theirs, and I said to them, both of them, what is your problem?
You’ve already got yours, and they said, it’s not there.
MR. METIVIER-And you see that everywhere.
MR. MASON-Is that the truth?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I think so.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not fair, if they already built there, they said it’s not fair about what?
MR. MASON-It’s not fair to my neighbors, because we thought that we should be able to, it’s a good
plan. I mean, it’s still a small house. One of the things that we are always talking about up there is
the fact that we’re starting with a very small 768 square foot home, which is under Code. Eight
hundred square feet is the minimum sized home in the Town of Queensbury. Six people in a two
bedroom, bathroom with a shower, and it’s a living room, dining room, kitchen combination. We all
know, as the family starts growing and getting bigger, these guys are like stepping on each other.
MR. MAC EWAN-But what I think people need to recognize is that was originally developed as
small, seasonal cottages, and what we’re seeing here are people utilizing those as beyond seasonal
cottages, and when they come in with bigger families, they are steadfast on wanting to increase those
cottages to accommodate their growing families, and that’s where we need to try to balance this out,
as to how far are we willing to go and let this development take place, versus what the original
scheme of what those buildings are.
MR. MASON-I understand that. However, the same size issue comes into play. We’re taking the
768 square foot building, even though we’re doubling it. We’re only getting to a 1500 square foot
home. That’s for a family with four children, is still.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you said it yourself that you’re doubling it, and that’s not what the original
intent was of that development.
MR. MASON-All right, but if these were 20 square foot homes, and doubling it would make it 40.
That’s, my point is that even though we’re doubling it, it’s only a 768 square foot home. This is not a
768 square foot addition. This is not a large home that you’re looking at, on a small parcel. These
are still very small homes.
MR. MAC EWAN-On very small parcels.
MR. MASON-Well, on very small parcels if, the issue we’re talking about are septic and water and
room to move and so on, which, whether we’re able to use the common property on the floor area
ratio worksheet or not, commonsense says that for issues like views and room to move and septic
and so on, you have to include it, because that’s where the septics go in all of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you, you know, along the lines of what you have here, with this
development, and another development that’s always been a pet peeve for me has been Rockhurst.
Rockhurst started out the same way this started out, as seasonal camps, not used year round, and
they’re all doubled and tripled in size up there, and they’re right on top of each other.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it’s also, when that plan was made, a long time ago, because it was
seasonal, most people spend most of the time outdoors, because it’s not much, it probably wasn’t
much different than staying out on the island, where you have a tent but you don’t only go into the
tent to sleep. So now what’s happening is, we want more of the amenities and want more of the
comforts, so we want more square footage to live in, because we want to spend more time there, but
that wasn’t the original intent though, was it, Mr. Mason?
MR. MASON-It depends, the original intent, back in 1952 when it was first built, was to make
money. My father and mother built it, not knowing where the future was going to go. I’ve had more
people say to me that they were brilliant for seeing the future.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did they put 32 units in in ’52?
MR. MASON-No. They started in ’52 and put in three. The next year they put in four, and then
every couple of years they built three or four.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And when did the 32 one, the final one?
nd
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-The final one.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Was it ’84?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what I guess I’m saying is that I understand they’re need to double the
size, but now what if everybody comes in now and wants to double the size? Now what do we have?
MR. MASON-Okay, and I do understand that issue. Going back, first, to the Rockhurst issue, I was
trying to hold up this map, because Rockhurst is more like our neighbors that are right along the
water, have no back property, and there is no room to move, and it is very crowded, and yet if you
do the math on those parcels, they can build much larger homes than each one of these can, and
whereas on these homes, and I’m trying to deal with the septic issue tonight and so on, where we
clearly do have plenty of space for septic and we’ve got a great water system, all of the infrastructure
is there to handle it, from what I thought was a planning standpoint, and it just seems to me that to
compare that to a Rockhurst or to our neighbors is apples and oranges. What we should be doing is
looking at that neighborhood and saying what can we do to solve that. This is not the same thing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the saving grace here is all that.
MR. MASON-All of this. Absolutely. That’s wonderful, and all of the buffers around it.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s all wooded over there.
MR. MASON-This is all woods and so on, yes, it’s gorgeous. So if you started to have a septic
failure, in the years to come, and you start piecemealing a new septic system in, piece by piece, you’re
going to be starting to cut down a lot of trees over there to put in the septic fields.
MR. MASON-Well, I can’t imagine that individual owners would start pumping up here for a single
tank. I mean, when I said that the Nizolek’s could do it, that’s only because they’re right here. They
have all of this property right behind here, which is all green grass that they could use if they needed
to. Right in here is green grass, and then from here back is all woods. This will be developed by the
Association as a community property, if we ever go that way.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it also has utility, in the future, for a common septic field for all 32 units.
MR. MASON-Absolutely. I’m sorry, that’s what I was saying. If I didn’t say, this area does, yes, and
it would be a waste of the Association, actually, to allow individual homeowners to come in here and
put in small systems and have to fight that battle with them, whereas, they could design it with the
grand scheme.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about if, three years from now, you guys wanted to develop five or seven
more of those cottage type parcels back there?
MR. MASON-You mean get five or seven more buildings back here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. MASON-To get five or seven more buildings, we would have to come in front of this Board, in
front of, it would never be approved. There’s no way. Because we’re in a one acre zoning, and we’re
already over that. We’re at two thirds of an acre per parcel, instead of one acre per parcel, or per lot.
There’s just no way. Can you see the Boards approving that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I’m trying to look at every angle here.
MR. MASON-Because people have, owners have talked to me. What are we ever going to do with
all of this property? And we’ve had the same discussion that we’re all having right now. No one
wants to build camps back there right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Somebody, in the past, when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was put together,
and if you look at, I’m just taking this out of Mrs. Ryba’s notes, of her letter of September 13. She
th
says Page One through Seven notes that residential development demand is an issue, especially the
increase in construction of larger homes on relatively small lots in neighborhood of traditionally
smaller structure. These larger homes can block views and sunlight and potentially overload pre-
existing septic systems, not capable of handling the increased load. So somebody back when this
Comprehensive Land Use Plan was put together, already recognized that there was a latent problem
here, that they wanted to discuss, and they put it right in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We, as
a Planning Board, use this Plan as a guide.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-I think you should. My contention is, though, that what they’re talking about here,
and I would expect that they’re talking about mostly is larger homes, and even though, again this is
doubling the size of this home, this is still a very, very small home. It ends up being a 1500 square
foot home, and the septic system, by the building code, I mean, I don’t, this is just a straightforward,
easy septic system put in to handle.
MR. VOLLARO-How many bedrooms will this home have when it’s finished?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Three.
MR. MASON-Yes, three.
MR. VOLLARO-Three. Septic systems are sized by bedrooms.
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-So, you’d have to take a look at what the septic system is now for, how many
bedrooms do you have in there now?
MR. MASON-There’s two bedrooms now.
MR. VOLLARO-Two. So you’re adding a third bedroom.
MR. MASON-Right, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to take a look at whether that third bedroom, by whatever numbers are
in the tables.
MR. MASON-It’s sized on bedrooms and not on bathrooms.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s my understanding. Is that correct? A septic system is sized
on the number of bedrooms, not the number of bathrooms?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’ve got to see whether an additional bedroom, in some way, taxes the
existing system.
MR. MASON-But that would be done at the time, if this gets passed, at the time of the building
permit and the time of our addressing the septic with the building permit, we will bring that up to
Code, and you have our assurance.
MR. VOLLARO-You have to bring it up to Code in any event.
MR. MASON-Right. So it doesn’t have to be, anyway, I think we’ve asked.
MR. VOLLARO-Then really what we’re grappling with on this Board right now is just the
modification of a single unit, and we’re really not looking at the down stream implication of
expansion. Is that correct?
MR. RINGER-I thought the purpose of the workshop was to look at the future plans?
MR. BROWN-That’s the purpose, but I think what Bob is saying is that what everybody is focused
on is just one application.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’re trying to make a recommendation to the ZBA, as to what they should
do. They’re going to be looking for this Board to recommend what they should do when they get
this variance.
MR. BROWN-Or make a recommendation outlining things they may want to consider when they act
on a project, maybe not what they should do, but, Dear Zoning Board, please consider these things,
or please, our recommendation is that if you have a project, you may want to consider an approval if
these five conditions are outlined in that, and these are just examples, and I don’t want, I don’t
expect you to use them, that the floor area ratio not be more than, and come up with a realistic
number, recognizing the lots are this big, and the houses are this big, that the floor area ratio not
exceed 100%, and that sounds like a big number, and it is a big number, but given that the existing
size of the lots, that may be a recommendation that you make, and you may not come to that answer
tonight. You may need to look at it a little further.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve got to grapple with this before.
MR. BROWN-You may want to, we recommend approval of these conversions or variances if the
septic systems are investigated to the point where they look at a community system, maybe not do it,
but investigate the feasibility of a hook up. I think what the Zoning Board doesn’t want to have
happen is to get down the road, in 15 years, and look back at 30 homes in here with a big problem,
and say why did we do this? It may not be a bad idea. It may work out to be a great idea, that the
property can support it. The land can support all the septic systems and the water lines won’t be
overtaxed, and the system won’t be, and the other infrastructure, the roads and the, I don’t think
there’s any on-site lighting, not that that would have a huge effect, but traffic, school systems, all
those things could be fine. I think what the goal is to just take an overview and say, here’s a few
recommendations to consider. So we don’t have that big problem at the end. Maybe make them do
medium sized steps all the way, but let’s try and avoid that big problem at the end.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two concerns I have are the comments that Cathi had made earlier, regarding
cumulative impacts, because this isn’t one huge project. These are 32 individual projects that aren’t
subject to one another’s.
MR. BROWN-Potentially could be.
MS. RADNER-You’re confusing segmentation, again, with cumulative impacts, and they overlap a
lot, but they’re not exactly the same.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MS. RADNER-Segmentation is when you take one big project and you pretend you don’t know
about everything else that’s going to happen, so you can just look at one piece at a time, and keep it
small. Cumulative impacts, though, are when you have one project and you can look at the effects
that had on its neighbor. Then when the neighbor comes in you can look at the effects that both of
these two projects that you’ve reviewed. When the third neighbor comes in, you can look at all three
of them, and so you don’t get to that game where you keep putting the straw on the camel’s back. At
some point it’s going to break, an you can consider those cumulative impacts, but you have to
consider that this project, just with what is existing or foreseeable now.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Cathi, they have a common area, and each residence has an impact on the
common area.
MS. RADNER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, there’s septic system, the traffic, people, other uses. Now every time you
increase the size of the residence, theoretically, you’re increasing the size of some kind of an impact
on the common space.
MS. RADNER-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-So it’s not quite as black and white as it appears. I mean, there is a core of
togetherness in this project.
MS. RADNER-You’re absolutely right about everything you’ve said, and those are all permissible
things for you to look at.
MR. STROUGH-And to look at each one separately, and not look at the cumulative impacts seems
to be amiss.
MS. RADNER-I’m saying you can look at the cumulative impacts. I’m not saying you can’t. I’m
saying you can, but that’s different than segmentation.
MR. STROUGH-All right. What’s the vehicle, then, that we can use, if not an impact study, what’s a
vehicle that we can use to look at the cumulative impact?
MR. MAC EWAN-The vehicle, to me, would be the common area.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it seems to me that you’re at a point where you have a discretionary decision.
Okay, and then you’ve got to classify the discretionary decision. I mean, if the impact seems to be
fairly substantial, I mean, we could be looking at a Type I situation. If it’s a Type I situation, then we
could ask for a full environmental assessment, and if that environmental assessment points to an EIS,
or does it point to a neg dec with conditions, I mean, that all depends. It seems to me that the only
vehicle that we possibly could use, well, actually, two vehicles. One was suggested by Mr. Mason,
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
would be an impact study, visa vie the line of thought that I had, because there is a core of
commonality. They are not separate entities. They are tied together, and each has an impact on the
common area, but I kind of like Mr. Mason’s idea of submitting, in the near future, some kind of a
master plan that hopefully he would review with the Planning Board, and that we could talk about,
develop, and agree, and then we could go from there, and everyone would feel comfortable about
that. I don’t know if the master plan is a legal recourse that we can take or not.
MS. RADNER-It’s questionable, at this stage.
MR. MASON-And although I like that, and I like a lot that is said, one of the things that gets
confused a lot here is that because I say that that Homeowners Association is thinking about a
master plan, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to do it or that I control them. I have no control. I
am just an owner, as Mr. Nizolek is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if the Homeowners Association sees the wisdom. In other words, I don’t
know how the Zoning Board feels, and I don’t want to speak for the Zoning Board, but if they seem
to be opposed to future development because they are concerned about cumulative impacts, which
seems to be the reason why we’re here tonight, then I’m suggesting it might be in the best interest of
the Association to come up with a master plan, so that we’re all comfortable with future growth in
Takundewide.
MR. MASON-Okay, and I agree with you.
MR. STROUGH-And with that sense it would make the Zoning Board, and possibly members of the
Planning Board, feel more at ease if we knew which direction this was going to go. We don’t know,
and that seems to put some of us at ill ease.
MR. MASON-And I agree with you. However, my concern is that, for fairness to the Nizolek’s, who
are just one applicant. I don’t know what we’re saying that we’re agreeing to what that leads to, but I
worry that if we’re going to saddle them with some large.
MR. STROUGH-Again, I don’t want to speak for the Zoning Board, but as a potential solution. I
mean, the Zoning Board, if they knew a master plan was going to be developed, and it would be
developed before possibly the next applicant came forward, let’s assume that this winter there’s not
going to be applicants coming forward and asking for a building this winter in Takundewide. Fair
assumption?
MR. MASON-It’s fair to me. I don’t know.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying. They might be more appeasing in giving Mr. Nizolek his
permission slip to build a second story in his basement if they knew a master plan was forthcoming.
MR. MASON-All right.
MR. STROUGH-As a suggestion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along Mr. Strough’s lines, both of you guys are members of the Homeowners
Association?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. NIZOLEK-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-All 32 people who own parcels up there are all members of the Association?
MR. MASON-Yes. They each have a one thirty second share.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are either one of you on the Board of Directors for the Association?
MR. MASON-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-The last question for you. Has the Association ever denied someone a plan that
they’ve submitted for review to expand?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many times have they done it. Do you know?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-I don’t keep track of that, but I do know that I’ve fought with the Board of Directors
many times over small, what I consider to be small items, architecturally, and they do not give.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give me an example?
MR. MASON-Bilco door. It seems small to you, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not thinking along the lines of bilco doors versus Anderson windows or
whatever, but I’m thinking along the lines of actually expanding a cottage, size wise.
MR. MASON-All right. This was part of an expansion. They looked at the project and they said, we
will approve it, this is what they typically do, we will approve it, less this, this and this, and I look at
them and shake my head, and then they say, these are our reasons why, and we can appeal if we want
to, and then I meet with the owner, and Mr. Nizolek and I went through this, and they looked over
his plan, and I don’t know where we had to give and take on that, but it was issues like this. One of
the areas that I get into now a lot is the grade of the land. They want it absolutely maintained, and
no change.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s their reasons, from your discussions with the Board of Directors, as to
wanting to have a master plan or a buildout plan? What’s their cause of concern?
MR. MASON-It would be what you might expect, that it would help to stabilize the expectations of
the homeowners as we go forward, to open up a dialog. Part of it was to open up a dialogue with the
Town and the County and so on, Park Commission if they’re involved in whatever we’re talking
about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do they have some kind of written criteria now, so that when someone buys a
cottage up there, they kind of a handle, knowing, if they plan on wanting to buy something, with the
thoughts of expanding its use or expanding its size, is there something that the Association has
available to a potential buyer or a current homeowner?
MR. MASON-We have a pre-approved plan that was never built, but then in our By-laws we have
provisions which allow homeowners to put a plan in front of the architectural control committee, to
try and gain their approval, but you can build the pre-approved plan, or you can try to get approval
of your plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Your architectural approval committee, do they have a set of criteria or
written rules or written things?
MR. MASON-Yes, they do.
MR. MAC EWAN-They do. So that’s partially on your way to coming up with a master plan of
some kind. You’ve got some groundwork there.
MR. MASON-Absolutely. There’s a lot of it in this documentation.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do they have like a maximum square footage that they would allow?
MR. MASON-We don’t talk about that. Because their feeling is that no one can go outside of the
existing footprint. So 24 feet by 32 feet is as large as they will allow. They are in support of
basements, 24 feet by 32, and they are in support of second story additions, and that’s it. So I guess
their maximum would be the same size building with a basement and a second story.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then have them put that in a master plan, and whatever else you’ve expressed
tonight, that there would never be any development on any of the common area. That would set a
lot of minds at ease. All those things that you’ve mentioned are things that I think we’d find
generally agreeable.
MR. MASON-Okay. I just worry that I’m committing somebody else to something that I’ll never get
them to agree to, but, in some of these things they would agree, and in some they might not.
MR. MAC EWAN-And whatever comes out of here, there’s no real formal agreement being done. I
mean, we’re sitting here, going to pass on a recommendation to the ZBA because they’ve asked us to
kind of give them a handle of what’s going on up there, and what our concerns would be, and I think
what you’re hearing from the Board is that we’re concerned about continued piecemeal development
out there, and how it’s going to have cumulative impacts on the entire development.
MR. MASON-Okay. I’m sorry for arguing, actually. I think I didn’t understand where we were
going with this. I thought that it would take a different form. That sounds absolutely, and that
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
sounds like, I’m going to look at you now, Bill. Does that sound like something that our members
would agree with?
MR. NIZOLEK-I mean, even down to where we don’t even store our wood outside the camps.
We’re that stringent with outside wood boxes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t happen to have with you tonight the Homeowners Association rules
or something, do you?
MR. MASON-I don’t have a copy of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it wouldn’t be asking too much, would you forward a copy to?
MR. MASON-I think you already have one, the Town has one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have one?
MR. MASON-They have it in the ’84.
MS. RADNER-We have the ’84 one, but we don’t have any of the changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about the current one? That’s 15 years old. How about a current one?
MR. MASON-I can find, I can get that for you. There have not been that many changes. They just
tweak it a bit, here and there, where there are some obvious problems, and one of them was the one
that we did this year, which was architectural control, and we strengthened it, which, that speaks to
what we’re talking about here. That’s one of the concerns that the Association has right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what I’m hearing from my fellow Board members, the consensus here is
that we’re concerned about the continued increase in development in that whole area, and how is it
going to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What I think Craig is saying is, when you put in another bedroom, and you
put in another bath, so now you’ve got a place that is going to be able to accommodate more people,
and then you multiply that by 32, down the road. So now you have 32 more bedrooms, 32 more
bathrooms, even though the bathrooms don’t make any difference, because you can still have one
bathroom and have another bedroom with two more people using that bathroom. So now you’ve
got an incredible load, and I think that there should be something down that’s going to make a
provision for what’s going to happen to the whole septic system when that time comes.
MR. MASON-Okay. I have to also address this one thing. This is just anecdotal, but I have to tell
you this. I’ve been there since the place, since 1978, I started working there, and it was a resort back
then, and it was packed. It had much more intense usage. In fact, back in ’78 and ’79 and ’80, I was
looking at the similar map and trying to figure out where to put in a swimming pool, to take some of
the pressure off of the beach and dock area, and things of that nature. Since it’s gone to private
ownership, those issues have virtually disappeared.
MR. NIZOLEK-I think we have maybe eight to ten people on the beach at the most, at a time.
MR. MASON-What we find is that ownership means that since, you don’t need to use it all 60 days
of the summer. Rental meant that you rented the cottage, you spent a lot of money, and you packed
in as many people as you could, and you used it 24 hours a day for seven days a week, and then you
left. Ownership means owners are gone for two, three weeks at a time. I could walk down through
the center of the property, on a beautiful summer evening, and the lights are out in five out of ten
cottages that I see because the owners aren’t even in residence, and I’m sitting here, part of my job as
a rental agent, and I’m crying, because I could be renting these things.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good point, Bill, that you’re making, because.
MR. MASON-But the usage is way less, and I know that they’re building bigger buildings, but they’re
using them less.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what happened at Hewlett’s Landing, at Eichlerville, when, way back
in the 60’s, all of those cottages that George Eichler owned were, he rented out, and then he started
selling them to the people that would rent them every year, and it did.
MR. MASON-They stopped coming.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’re right. I understand where you’re coming from on that. That’s a
good point, and the beach, the main beach isn’t as crowded as it used to be.
MR. MASON-It’s not crowded at all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I used to work down there.
MR. MASON-There’s far less usage there right now. That’s not guaranteeing what will happen in
the future either. It’s just anecdotal, and I understand, but it is true.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. RINGER-As you expand these now, in 32, you know, if it was built out and everything
increased, that would increase, you would have more people because they’d use it more often, as
their investment became greater, and I’d think you’d have year round residences and stuff, and we
have to look at the long range picture, 10 years down the road.
MR. MASON-If you want to look at the long range that I see, it’s that each one of my brother’s and
my sister that each now own two cottages, they’re going to start selling one of them, and when that
happens, I’m going to lose rentals, because those are most of my rentals, right now, are the people
that own two places. They use one and they rent the other, and the one they use, they’re never there.
The one they rent, I.
MR. RINGER-These are the cottages, though, not the renovations, and if you renovate, like Mr.
Nizolek is going to do, eventually, he said himself that he may wish to retire there, and then it would
become a full time home, and how many others? I think that that’s the issue we have to look at,
what’s going to be 10 years, what’s going to be 15 years down the road. Certainly what Mr. Nizolek
has presented here, if we look at it all by itself, would be approved with nothing. I mean, the septic
seems to be okay. His view’s not obstructing anybody. Everything would be fine, but if we have to
look at the overall picture.
MR. STROUGH-Along with that thought, extending from that thought, if this were blank land, and
were to be developed today, as Waterfront Residential One Acre, you’d only be able to put up 20
residences.
MR. MASON-Twenty or twenty-one, correct.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you take out for commonly used areas, roads and things like that, and then
we determine how much is left. So let’s say 20, and it appears, in effect, to be a cluster development.
I mean, conceptually, and clustering is two acres per residence. So you’d only be allowed to cluster
10 residences in the manner which looks close to what you have now, versus 32. See, in the
Waterfront One Acre zoning is what we consider to be desirable, and as the zone says to protect the
ecological balance of the Critical Environmental Area in which it’s in. So, you know, with that, but
that’s, you know, you have your situation. We have our concerns.
MR. MASON-And I understand that. My biggest argument with the general train of that thought,
just on this application alone, because I keep looking at this one, is when I look at the surrounding
properties, and part of the reason I provided that paper to you was to show you that we have plenty
of room for septic, but the other was to show you what exactly is the size of the properties that are in
our neighborhood right now. Granted it is Waterfront Residential One Acre, and that’s a good goal,
but when it’s zoned as Waterfront Residential One Acre, and not one property, I think there’s only
one property due south of us, is a one acre parcel. Every other parcel in that area is smaller than the
one acre, and a lot smaller, and the homes are much bigger. We’re looking at 3, 4,000 square foot
homes that are on these parcels, and they’re fine. I mean, they can fit within the floor area ratio
worksheet and everything, but you talk about an intense use of the land, and that’s the neighborhood
that we’re in, and it seems to me that we should be fitting within our neighborhood and not being
expected to give more.
MR. STROUGH-I agree with your assessment, but I also think that one of the reasons why we zone
it Waterfront One Acre, even though very few residences actually fit that description, and most are
nonconforming, is to try and take any future pressure off of future development, in essence.
MR. MASON-That’s right, but that’s not really what this is. This is a nonconforming, just like those
other ones are, and I would ask for the same.
MR. RINGER-We struggle with this, every month we seem to have an application in from Lake
George, and it is difficult every time, and a few of them we have been denying because they have
exceeded it, and we’ve reached a point where it says no more.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. MASON-I did the research on them. I mean, I know these homes and these parcels very well,
and I looked at a couple of them and I couldn’t believe the size of them. I know the house that’s on
that lot, and I’m like, this is incredible, and I know these people that are building right now, there’s a
ton of building going on up there.
MR. VOLLARO-From a planning point of view, we’ve really got to take a look at that. In other
words, we should, I don’t know that we do, but we should be looking at the overall impact of what
you develop, what your program is about, and what kind of cumulative impacts that’s having on the
lake that’s in North Queensbury. We should be doing that. We don’t.
MR. MASON-Well, actually, this Board, or the members of this Board, did this back in 1984, and we
discussed, I didn’t attend it as a participant like this, but I attended in the audience, and I listened to
all of the issues that were spoke about, and they talked about almost all of these issues that we’ve
discussed tonight, and the Planning Board approved it, and it seems to me that you do address those.
We did address them tonight. I don’t know if we addressed them to your satisfaction, or getting
what you want accomplished, but we are talking about them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re talking about them. There’s been a lot of talk. I mean, I sat here, and
we’ve gone through this once before with Takundewide, and I remember the last application, I
believe, that came before us talked about building an addition to the top two dormers, like you
normally do back and front, and somehow or other when you got to do that, the building wasn’t
worth doing so it came down.
MR. MASON-That was Number One, the Forbes.
MR. VOLLARO-And we built a brand new.
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Foundation and a brand new building.
MR. MASON-No. The foundation was part of the plan. The foundation and the finished basement
were part of the approved plan, and I got that through, and my object there was to try and pick up
the building and move it over to the lake, dig a hole and put a finished basement, or put a basement
in, put the building back on it and put a second floor.
MR. VOLLARO-But structurally it wasn’t sound enough to do that.
MR. MASON-The back of the building was in the dirt, and was rotten, and the front of the building
had a fireplace cut out that had been leaking. So, between the two rotten spots, when we started
picking up the building, it started to come apart, and I said, we can do it, but I called up
Queensbury’s Staff and I said, you guys know we can do it, but you know what we’re going to be left
with, and they said, tear it down and put up a new one. I mean, they said it made sense. It was
ridiculous, but I’ve been characterized at some times, not by this Board, but by other people, as
having gotten away with something on that, and pulling a fast one or something and that can’t be
farther from the truth. We spent probably $20,000 trying to do that. In fact, a year before, the
owner hounded about $15 or $20,000 into getting joists in the ceiling and so on, and beefing it up
and getting it ready to move it, and then that year we spent about two weeks stripping the building,
everything else, getting ready to move. When it started falling apart, and we went that route with it,
the demolition guy came in and in one day he knocked down the building and out it went, and I was
like, two weeks of work just shot, but that wasn’t for lack of trying, and I was trying to do it that way.
I poured my heart and soul into that building.
MR. MAC EWAN-How soon, Craig, is, do we need to make a recommendation to the ZBA? When
is this application on their agenda?
MR. BROWN-Next Wednesday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Next Wednesday. You said earlier tonight, though, we didn’t have to come up
with some sort of consensus tonight. So when would we be looking to do a consensus?
MR. BROWN-Well, I didn’t want to put the pressure on you tonight, but it’s there.
MR. MASON-I’d like to put pressure on you.
MR. BROWN-Yes, but I think I’ve heard from more than one member of the Board, a big item that
you’d like to see is some long range plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-A master plan of some kind.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. BROWN-And Cathi and I talked about this briefly. I certainly don’t want to make a
recommendation for you, or suggest that you make it a certain way, but you certainly could consider
a recommendation to the Planning Board that says, we would recommend that you don’t approve
any other applications in this development without first seeing a master plan, approving a master
plan, reviewing a current copy of the covenants and restrictions to ensure that there’s other internal
review and other internal restrictions in their Homeowners Association, and be comfortable with that
before you review and approval any other applications, maybe with the exception of the current one
that’s before the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m thinking of is, because this issue seems to have come to a head, my
personal feeling is I wouldn’t want to hold Mr. Nizolek as the martyr here.
MR. BROWN-That’s reasonable.
MR. MAC EWAN-That the message I would want to send from the Board is that, recognizing his
impact on this whole parcel up there, or this whole development, that my message would be, I don’t
want to see any other ones until you guys come back with a master plan. That would be my message.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t know how to word it, but that’s what I was thinking.
MR. RINGER-I feel that way, too. Can we do that, Cathi? Can we do something like that? I would
feel comfortable with that. Because as I said before, I think that your project hurts no one, but 32 of
them might have an impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to put some sort of a resolution together to pass it on to the ZBA so
they get our message.
MR. HUNSINGER-In the form of a recommendation.
MR. MASON-It seems to me we’ve talked a lot, though, about septic and water and common area,
you know, infrastructure things, and it seems to me that I’d be correct in saying that you’re
convinced, as a Board, that those issues are not the issues, on this one parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t say, no, don’t say that. What we’re saying is that, and chime in anytime
you folks don’t agree with me. We’re saying that we’re looking for a long range plan development
for this Takundewide Village.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because of this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because of those issues.
MR. MASON-I’m trying to say because of this one particular one, it’s not an issue, but the
cumulative one is the concern that you have.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it is an issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I guess my feeling is very similar to what was in the Staff memo. At
some point, who knows what that point is, these additions would be too great of an impact on the
property. Whether that’s 20, whether that’s 15, whether that’s 32, you know, and right now, the only
way we could do something like that would be to set an arbitrary number, and you can’t really say yes
to one homeowner, without saying yes to all of them. So we’re trying to be fair in that respect as
well, but if we had a master plan to look at and understood, you know, what these long term
ramifications may be, then you can develop a comfort range of what would be acceptable.
MR. STROUGH-And working with us, like Chris is suggesting, on the master plan, and we have a
little feedback, a little powwow, see if we can find common ground, bingo, print it, and then we go. I
don’t see any reason for going to the County, though.
MR. VOLLARO-What I would like to do is within that master plan, is I’d like them to consider the
pros and cons of building a common septic field on that large piece, as opposed to having individual
septic.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with you on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Part of that master plan would consider that.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-Let’s say in the master plan if it appears within a certain time period, I mean, I
don’t know if we’re going to know this in a year or two, that there doesn’t seem to be any realization
of a North Queensbury sewer project, then they should give due consideration to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s a lot of other impacts other than just sewer. I mean, there’s things
like storm runoff and fertilizer runoff.
MR. MASON-As I said, we can talk, all of these are good issues, and we can talk about these forever,
and I have a con to that one I wanted to argue.
MR. STROUGH-At the time of a master plan.
MR. MASON-I would love to sit down and do that some time. So that would be good.
MR. VOLLARO-How are your soils up there? What kind of soils do you have?
MR. MASON-They’re characterized as clay. Wonderful for growing grass.
MR. VOLLARO-But not good for percolation.
MR. MASON-It’s not the greatest for percolation.
MR. STROUGH-What’s the depth to bedrock?
MR. MASON-I have been down eight feet, ten feet and never seen it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you fertilize?
MR. MASON-Very little
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you still do?
MR. MASON-Well, actually, I have not fertilized, but I have applied weed killer, because without
weed kill, the clovering dandelions attract more honey bees, and we get more per capita stings than
you can imagine. So once a year we apply a weed kill, broad leaf weed kill, and that’s it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We solved that dilemma by cutting the grass really short, and it’s amazing
how we don’t have anymore bees.
MR. MASON-That’s not bad, but whenever I cut the grass really short, I turn it brown. If I time
that wrong, then I have brown.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m quickly jotting down some ideas here, a long range development plan.
MR. STROUGH-A moratorium after Mr. Nizolek.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think we can set a moratorium, but the.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what we’re suggesting is.
MR. RINGER-The next one that comes in has some kind of a long range plan. We can’t, ourselves,
say that there’s a moratorium.
MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re suggesting here is that we will not entertain anymore applications
until we see a long range master plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a better position, because if we don’t do that, each plan that comes in
front of us they’ll say a master plan is coming.
MR. RINGER-Cathi, can we take a position like that?
MS. RADNER-Well, I think you have to be careful what you’re asking for. You can’t just arbitrarily
and capriciously say we’re not going to consider anything. I mean, if somebody comes in and they
want to do something that is, doesn’t require site plan approval beyond, say they want a covered
porch or something. It may be completely different, but what you are doing tonight is you are giving
an advisory recommendation to the Zoning Board, and if it is your impression that this community is
reaching saturation point, you can advise them that you think that it may have reached saturation
point and that future applications should have to consider, until you’re satisfied that it hasn’t
exceeded that point.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. BROWN-And you may want to qualify future applications, substantial improvements, rather
than just, you know, a dog run or a wood shed, you know, a second floor addition or.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, some of the things that I’m hearing talking about here is a common
septic system or a common septic system area, to service.
MR. STROUGH-Well, as a discussion item.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, these are all open for discussion, just to get an idea of, I think
what we’re trying to do is get an idea from the Association what their plans are, right?
MR. STROUGH-I thought that they could outline their plans, and then we’ll start with what they
present.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what I thought, rather than we dictate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Let them state, you know, sometimes they might come up with things more
restrictive than we do, especially by the tone of the Homeowners Association. So I’d like to see what
they have and then we’ll work from there, but like Craig suggested that we would like to see some
kind of a master plan before any substantial came before us, after Mr. Nizolek.
MR. MAC EWAN-Everybody feel that way?
MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to ask the question, who presents this to the Board? Do you, Bill?
Mr. Mason? Do you present this idea to the Board? Do you go to the Board of Directors?
MR. MASON-Yes. You don’t think they’re going to string me up here, do you, when I bring this to
them? When you talked about moratorium, I got a little bit worried for my neck.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you acting as a sponsor to this?
MR. MASON-Not at all. I am a contractor for Mr. Nizolek. I do work for the Association as their
manager, as their janitor. I trim the lawns and I clean the whole place and I keep it nice and pretty
for everybody.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but you’ve got to bring this recommendation, if you will, before your Board
of Directors to tell them what this Board is thinking.
MR. MASON-And I have to tie that into their current long range planning committee that they’re
just forming this year, and get them to buy into it, that it is a real good idea, and that they need to, I
don’t think that that will be hard. I worry a little bit about an owner who I don’t know about, who’s
planning to come here next spring, with an application, and when they find out what I’ve just agreed
to, they’re going to kill me, and I’m going to have to do a lot of, you understand. I just don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re probably not empowered to agree to anything.
MR. MASON-I’m not empowered to agree to anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-All you’re doing is delivering a message.
MR. MASON-Right. I’m trying to be the go between and making sure that you understand that by
me agreeing, it hasn’t really affected them. However, your message sounds very clear to me that they
will feel like they have to move, and it will prompt them to move.
MR. MAC EWAN-All we want you to agree to is that you will deliver the message.
MR. MASON-I’d be happy to.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all we want you to agree to.
MR. MASON-That’s good.
MR. NIZOLEK-And all I can say is if this was approved, Mr. Mason is my contractor, and that is
like we all know an environmentally sensitive area, and I know Bill would take care, he knows the lay
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
of the land, and he knows every bit of that property. So we chose him for our contractor if this was
approved. I think that’s important as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NIZOLEK-He knows every piece of the land.
MR. VOLLARO-How does this effect the next unknown expander in this property? In other words,
where are we, let’s just hypothetically talk for a minute that the ZBA gets our message, the ZBA
gives you variances to do what you have to do, and then you come before this Board and you get an
approval to do that. What about the next one down the line? Are they prohibited from coming
before this Board? And the answer is no. Well, what are we really?
MS. RADNER-You cannot prohibit them from bringing an application, but you’re giving an
indication that, depending on the scope of the next project, is likely going to be a denial, because you
feel that this property, when you consider the cumulative impacts of everything that is already
occurred, has already reached the maximum that it could support.
MR. VOLLARO-So the next expander already has a message that, if I go before that Board, I’m
likely to be denied based on the fact that that Board considers.
MR. MASON-Without our Board working with this Board, on a master plan, and coming up with
some dialogue and figuring out, right. I get that message.
MR. BROWN-It’s a message, it’s a recommendation that the Zoning Board act a certain way. Don’t
do it unless we’ve hammered out a master plan. We recommend that you don’t do it. They can still
do it, but the recommendation is that, here’s our intention. Here’s our issues, please don’t, and in all
likelihood, they won’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to have a formal resolution here for you?
MS. RADNER-Yes, you should make a formal resolution as to what recommendation you wish to
make.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask Staff to take our thoughts here, and what we’re looking for, and
formulate some sort of resolution for us to do next Tuesday night. So that the ZBA will have it for
Wednesday night? Is that doable? Can we do that?
MR. BROWN-We can do that, or we can try and come up with something simple tonight, a simple
resolution that says we recommend, in effect.
MS. RADNER-You can take a five minute recess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we do that. Five minute recess. Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer, and Mr.
Hunsinger, sit down with Staff. Okay. Are you ready? All right. Let’s reconvene. Has someone got
a motion they want to put up?
MR. STROUGH-Do you want me to read the draft first?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like him to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Read the draft.
MR. STROUGH-All right. The Town of Queensbury Planning Board concurs with the Zoning
Board of Appeals concern over the long term cumulative effects of potential adverse impacts caused
by over intensified use of the Takundewide development/community. We feel this most recent
application, Nizolek, if approved, would demonstrate a need for the development of a master plan.
This master plan should precede any other future, other than the Nizolek application, substantial
project applications. It is understood that the development of this master plan should seek and
involve Planning Board input.
MR. MASON-That sounds just like what we were talking about. My only concern, as you were
reading that, is one of, not being a lawyer, I don’t really understand, sometimes I worry, it doesn’t
matter anyway. Just give you my concern, we’re going to shoot this by Jon Lapper and he’s going to
tell me what we’ve committed to, basically, because I don’t really know what master plan means.
MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t committed to anything.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-You haven’t committed to anything. This is a recommendation to the Zoning
Board.
MR. MASON-It sounds like it’s a good recommendation from our standpoint.
MR. MAC EWAN-And all we’re asking you to commit to is to deliver this message back to the
Association’s Board of Directors.
MR. HUNSINGER-And really all we’re doing is suggesting that. We can’t force you to do that.
MR. MASON-And we will be happy to do that.
MR. STROUGH-Is there any suggested changes to verbiage?
MR. VOLLARO-It sounds good to me.
MR. RINGER-This should not affect the Nizolek application. The ZBA will do whatever they want
to do and we will do whatever we feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-You guys are comfortable with it, seeing you helped with it?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Move it as written.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONCURS WITH THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS CONCERN OVER THE LONG TERM CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS CAUSED BY OVER INTENSIFIED USE OF THE
TAKUNDEWIDE DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNITY. WE FEEL THIS MOST RECENT
APPLICATION, NIZOLEK, IF APPROVED, WOULD DEMONSTRATE A NEED FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER PLAN. THIS MASTER PLAN SHOULD
PRECEDE ANY OTHER FUTURE, OTHER THAN THE NIZOLEK APPLICATION,
SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS MASTER PLAN SHOULD SEEK AND INVOLVE
PLANNING BOARD INPUT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 20 day of September 2001 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. Deliver the message.
MR. MASON-Thank you very much everybody for coming tonight on this extra night.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
27