2002-01-08 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 8, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
DISCUSSION ITEM: TAKUNDEWIDE MASTER PLAN AS REQUESTED BY THE
PLANNING BOARD
JON LAPPER & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. RYBA-(Lost words) this meeting during your last meeting to review master plan information, to
provide for some comments for the Zoning Board, my understanding of the situation.
MR. LAPPER-That’s sort of right. Actually, we applied for an Area Variance for one cottage that’s far away
from the lake, and you heard us, and you said that cottage doesn’t seem to be a problem, but we don’t want
anything else to happen. So you recommended to the Zoning Board that you would recommend this project,
but that anything in the future you wanted to see a Master Plan. The Zoning Board heard what you said and
said, look, we would rather you did the Master Plan now, and went to the Planning Board before we hear the
application for this one cottage. So we’ve done a generic master plan, and that’s what we’re here to talk
about.
MRS. RYBA-That’s fine. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at this. I have to get familiar with it again. I was
asked to comment, though. So I’ve submitted something.
MR. VOLLARO-Am I missing something here, because I haven’t seen the generic master plan. I hope I
have all the documents, submissions. I looked at that, but I guess I didn’t view that as a master, well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we just kind of go over everybody, because I know there’s going to be a
ton of questions from members. Why don’t we take up with you, Jon, and you just kind of bring us up to
speed where you come with your master plan and try to fill in some gaps that we’ve had, because it has been a
while since we’ve talked about this.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. Bob is right. I mean, there’s no (lost word) master plan, because there’s no plan for
expanding the rest of these cottages. So what we tried to do was to put together this submission that
addressed the following issues. The Association itself has very strict architectural requirements which over
the summer we made some pretty significant changes to make them even tougher. They’re all controlled by
the Board of Directors and the Architectural Committee, and what we wanted to say was that the, no one has
been allowed by the Board, let alone by the Town, to do anything other than add a second story to these
units. So in terms of a generic review of what the future maximum expansion could be, it would be adding,
raising the roof on these 700 square foot cottages to add a second story, and then we asked, well, we were
going to analyze, you said or the Zoning Board said what if everybody there wanted to add this, there’ve
been, I think, six out of thirty-two units roughly that have done this, and we were answering the question
generically, if everybody came in next month, or over the course of the next two years, and wanted to expand
this, would that be appropriate and could the handle it? So we addressed that by doing a submission about
the septic systems which concludes, and we’ll talk about it, that that can handle it, and the water system,
which Bill Mason is already in the process of upgrading to meet the current DOH standards, which he’ll talk
about, and we talked about the green space percentages, the floor area ratio, and to try and make the case that
even if the worst case, everybody raised their roof and added two more bedrooms, that that would not be a
problem, based upon what’s there. There’s no application for that. Everyone owns their unit individually.
Many people are retired couples. It’s unlikely that that would happen in that magnitude, but for the sake of
this discussion, we’re trying to do a worst case. So it’s not really a master plan, but it’s an analysis.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think you said a master plan will take you about two years to (lost words).
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. MASON-Yes, that was what we said. Actually, what the Board of Directors is setting out to do isn’t
really a master plan. Forgive me, I don’t really know exactly what a master plan is, and I tried to find out
from Planning Staff exactly what was required for this submission, and I really didn’t get a lot of help beyond
the general discussion of these items, was what they said needed to be provided. I don’t really know, it seems
to me a master plan would be if you were taking a piece of property and getting ready to develop it and you
wanted to show all the long term impacts of all the developments you were going to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Somebody would have to give you a scooping document to tell you what that was, I think.
MR. MASON-But I guess what I was trying to answer, and I got off the subject, is the Association has no
real intent of doing some kind of a master plan development of the properties. It’s fully developed. It’s fully,
as far as they’re concerned, it’s all set, with the exception of individual homes wanting additions, and this is
about it for them. You’ve received documents from the Association saying basically that.
MR. VOLLARO-So really don’t have a master plan in the formulation stage, as the general public would
understand the Master Plan, there is no such thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-A master plan can be as simple as you want it to be or it can be as complex as you want it
to be, and I think what the Board was trying to achieve, because it has been an ongoing development process
up there over many years. I think we’re trying to get a handle as to where you really want to be when it builds
out. I mean, what’s the intent up there? Is every building up there eventually going to become a two story
building or additions on them?
MR. MASON-To do the intent, you can’t ask any one person. There are 32 separate homes. They’re all
privately owned, and you’d get many, many different answers to that question.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s fair for us to continue doing a piecemeal.
MR. MASON-Well, that’s what why we addressed here, and that’s why I titled it more or less Regarding the
Cumulative Effects of Second Story Additions at Takundewide. Because it seems to me that that was the
door that was opened to do all of this. The planner at the meeting of this Board said that you could consider
cumulative impact if everyone were to do this kind of a thing. So that’s what, as Jon said, we looked at it like
a worst case scenario or a fully developed scenario. If everyone were to build that same second story
addition, what would be the impacts, and that’s all we can come up with. I mean, there’s no other, as far as
projecting as to what the future of the property is, nobody else has any plans for it. I would imagine it will
always be a 32 unit residential subdivision with 18 acres of common property and so on, just like any other
homeowner’s association set up like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you have questions? We’ll start right with you down at that end.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got a considerable amount of stuff written. So I’m going to take a little time, Mr.
Chairman, if you’ll bear with me for a little bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take as much time as you want. I’ve got to be in bed by ten.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s talk about, first of all, a couple of things. The conversion of the rental to single
family. Now, was there a year round, or a reference to year round or seasonal use in that conversion? I
couldn’t find it in here, in all these documents.
MR. MASON-I don’t believe that there was. I don’t believe it was an issue. I did address this in here, to
clarify, because every time I come in front of the Board, we’re kind of guessing at the numbers. So I’ve
outlined exactly my recollection of how many were winterized at the time of that.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that.
MR. MASON-Which there were two, I believe, two occupied and winterized. It may have been another one.
I forget every time. I’m sorry.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn said there were two at the time.
MR. MASON-Two at the time that were winterized. However, there was every intent.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn’s memoirs over there say that there was nothing specific about whether it was
seasonal or permanent.
MR. MASON-So there was nothing really specific. We did talk about at, or it was discussed at the Planning
Board meeting, as were so many other things, but.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Let me just go on. I looked at the HOA documents, the Homeowners
Association documents. Are they registered with the Attorney General? No. So you don’t have a
homeowners association that puts in a yearly amendment that goes to the AG and comes back with an
approval?
MR. MASON-No, because you only have to do that when the sponsor still owns it, in terms of the
amendments. Like your association doesn’t go to the Attorney General anymore.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does, every year.
MR. MASON-Usually you don’t have to if the sponsor is not selling it.
MR. VOLLARO-The AG wants an amendment every year to the Offering Plan
MR. MASON-Not in my experience, but this was all done, this was not done with an Offering Plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s the other question. Is there an Offering Plan?
MR. MASON-There was no offering plan. It did not go through the AG. It was an existing corporation that
was dissolved and the assets were distributed to the shareholders and the homeowners association was
formed among those shareholders. It was never offered to the public. I believe that is the purpose of an
Offering Plan, and so I believe, I wasn’t involved at that time. This question has come up before among our
members, and the answer to that was, no, there was not an Offering Plan because there was never an
offering.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when somebody comes to buy one of your units.
MR. MASON-I only own two. They’re private residences and I don’t sell them.
MR. VOLLARO-Who does? How do we buy one?
MR. MASON-If they want to buy.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a single family residence.
MR. MASON-Right. If they wanted to buy one of my pieces of property, I own two pieces of property. I
could sell them as a private, like a re-sale.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that house is sold with a deed.
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-And effectively they have a piece of property about 10 feet from the building, which is their
land.
MR. LAPPER-And an undivided interest in the common property. Like an offering.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that if you look at the Zoning Administrator’s decision on that, that we’re really, that
he talked about it being a lot, and it seems to me, in all I’ve read, that the 22% of the FAR should be on the
lot only, and not the attached piece of common ground.
MR. MASON-I completely disagree with that, with all due respect.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I read. That’s what the Zoning Administrator said. You have a right to
challenge him through the ZBA.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but he did not issue it as a formal, we have to appeal and we’re hoping that we get the
variance and that issue goes away.
MR. VOLLARO-So far, Jon, what I read is that’s what.
MR. LAPPER-That is the Zoning Administrator’s position. Let me address that. As Bill said, there are 18
acres of common property here. The Floor Area Ratio requirement in the Code was designed to address, in
the Waterfront Residential district, where you have undersized lots because the zoning changed that made the
lot size larger, and if all you were doing was regulating percentage green space and setbacks, the setback,
which are pretty small, would allow you to have really large houses on these small lots, and instead there’s
another overlay of 22% that you can’t, that the Floor Area Ratio can’t be more than 22%. So what that’s
regulating is the mass of building as it is compared to the land, and our argument, which Craig did not accept,
but we think we’re right, is that if you look at these tiny little lots with 700 square foot houses, that if you look
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
at what Floor Area Ratio is supposed to do and you’ve got to look at the whole piece of property, because if
all you’re looking at is the little postage stamp parcel which is the footprint of the house, then I guess you
have the right to develop the rest of the 18 acres which is vacant land also.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a contentious point, I think. I think that if, that’s why I asked the question, in my
Association, we don’t own any property. We own the footprint that the house is on. The rest of it’s
common ground, the land underneath it.
MR. MASON-Well, then you do. So you have a zero setback, zero feet setback.
MR. VOLLARO-Zero, but the FAR doesn’t apply there because I don’t have a plot outside my building.
MR. MASON-Because you’re not in the Waterfront Residential district. The FAR doesn’t apply in that zone,
but it would apply in the same way. It’s just that you would have less property. You would have.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think this has to be hashed out. I mean, the Zoning Administrator’s made a
decision, and I’ve looked at it from that point of view. I’m not going to (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-Once you’re comfortable, on a recommendation basis, with what we’re submitting, we’ll go
back to the Zoning Board and ask them for a variance to allow this second floor expansion. The way we’ve
asked for it is that we were asking for a variance from the Floor Area Ratio because that’s what the Zoning
Administrator has determined.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. You want to go from 22% to 100%.
MR. LAPPER-Well.
MR. VOLLARO-Roughly.
MR. LAPPER-You’ve got a footprint that’s the same size as the building. It’s a 700 square foot, 776 square
foot building. We want to add a second story. If you say it’s 100%, it means that you’re just treating the lot,
you’re going the 18 acres, but if you look at it the way I’m looking at it, that you’re talking about the mass of
buildings on the land, we’re far, far under the 22% because these are tiny buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if it goes that way. In other words, the Zoning Administrator’s got to make the
decision that either the lot is the lot, or you have a percentage of the common ground that you’re going to
attach to that, for purposes of satisfying the FAR.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s already made that decision. You don’t agree with that decision, but for the purposes
of what we’re doing here tonight, I don’t think we ought to, you know, huddle around that too much.
MR. MASON-Also for the purposes of tonight, the one thing I wanted to say was it seems to me, especially
when I was writing this all up, you’re looking at a master plan type analysis of the property. So you should be
looking at the whole 21 acres, and we’re talking about, where is Takundewide going. The Zoning
Administrator’s ruling was in relation to the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, which isn’t even one of your
concerns tonight, the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, and I’ve tried not to talk about that, but I am talking, or
we are discussing the whole 21 acres with the 32 homes in seeing what’s the impact on the entire piece of
property if they were all developed.
MR. VOLLARO-When I reviewed this, my mindset, when you review something, my mindset was on the
fact that he had defined a lot. So that’s the way I looked at it, as I reviewed it. Because I have to go with
what the Zoning Administrator’s put down, rather than me saying, well, that’s a decision somebody else is
going to make. I don’t need to think about that here. I can review it from another point of view.
MR. MASON-(Lost words) a master plan type look. We’re looking at the whole project.
MR. LAPPER-If you ignore the 18 acres that are undeveloped, we would think that that would be arbitrary,
that that would meet the classic definition of arbitrary because you’d be treating the project as if you have
these 32 little tiny parcels and there’s nothing else.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you may be absolutely right. I’m just saying when I reviewed this, I had to review it
with a certain mindset, and that was the mindset I used to review this, because of what the Zoning
Administrator had already laid out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Until you come to some sort of agreement with the Zoning Administrator, there’s no
point in us just dancing around that topic.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re asking for a variance from his interpretation. We’re asking the Zoning Board,
these two fellows, for a variance, so that that, we’re not, at this point, depending on how this goes, we’ll have
to decide if there’s a challenge, because this is a real important issue for the Association with these tiny little
houses, but as of right now, we’ve accepted that that’s his determination and we’re asking the Zoning Board
for a variance from the 22% requirement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for Nizolek. I had the same concerns as Bob had, and that was one of the comments
I had written down here, sure, what Chris had
MR. VOLLARO-Chris Round, I think, made that determination.
MR. LAPPER-I think it was Craig. Usually, when you’re talking about Floor Area Ratio, it’s because
somebody wants to build some huge structure, and here, if you take all the square footage and all the second
floors which are not on the table, but if they some day were, you’d still be under the 22%. I mean, so it’s just
not even close.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what the Chairman has said is accurate, too, is correct. Let’s get off that, because it’s
something that we’re not going to be able to determine at this stage. So we ought to go on with it. One of
the things I noticed, in reviewing the document, is between the HOA bylaws and the deed which a buyer is
given when they buy the property, and I noticed that, if I can resurrect it I will in just a second here, there’s
the HOA document and there’s this document which comes out of DeSantis’ office, I guess, which is the
actual deed, I suspect, that a person gets when they buy the property. Is that correct?
MR. MASON-That was the deed that was going to be used to transfer the property to each of the
shareholders, okay, but it’s not the deed that’s used today. When a homeowner sells their property, they have
to still have all the deed restrictions in there. They can’t all of a sudden lose deed restrictions.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you 100%, and that’s why I want to go to a spot on this document that talks to,
and I’ll read it to you. It says that no structure of a temporary character, a trailer, a basement, a tent, a shack,
a garage, or barn or other outbuildings shall be used on any lot at any time, as a residence, either temporary or
permanently, and no trailers including boat trailers or any (lost words) shall be parked on the lot. Now that
reads, to me, like there’s a restriction against the basement.
MR. MASON-A basement being used as a residence. A basement could be used for storage.
MR. VOLLARO-It says no structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack. It doesn’t say
anything about.
MR. MASON-You just read it, shall be used.
MR. VOLLARO-At any time as a residence, either temporary or permanent.
MR. MASON-Yes, so you can’t have a bedroom in the basement. You can’t use it as a residence.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. My interpretation of that is different. My interpretation of that is they didn’t
want basements.
MR. MASON-He didn’t want tents on the property either, though? I mean, we do allow people to pitch
tents and stay overnight. I don’t mean (lost words) your Counsel tells that deed restrictions are not
something that’s a zoning matter. You just look at what’s in the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but my problem is that when I’m given a stack of paper like this to look at, I read it all,
and once I read it, I become educated on the whole problem, and for me to sit, as a Planning Board member,
and say, well, let’s see, now, I can’t even talk about that. I mean, I think, I don’t see why I should set aside
stuff that’s been given to me for review and say that it’s not within my purview to talk about.
MR. MASON-My answer to that is that that’s not relevant to what this Board’s role is, in terms of zoning
code, but regardless, I interpret what you just said as saying that you can’t have a bedroom in the basement.
It doesn’t say you can’t have a basement.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think some people have to, other people other than me have to look at that and
make a determination on their own. I see it, now, what you brought up is the fact that the original
submission included a basement and now you’ve pulled the living part of the basement out.
MR. MASON-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess when I looked at it, and Harold Berger’s letter, his letter and report indicates
that expansion of the existing systems, I think he would require 12 inches of fill. Now, if the ZBA says, it’s
okay, you can build this, they give you the variance to build your second floor, I think when I read Berger’s
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
letter, he said if all the buildings were to have, were to raised, all 31 of them by the way, not 32. I think the
main building is never going to get to that. Correct?
MR. MASON-You’re correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. His recommendation there was that each of the systems would require 12 inches of
fill, when I look at his letter. So that would lead me to say that if indeed the ZBA said that’s what we’re going
to let you do, the next step I think, my recommendation, I don’t know what the rest of the Planning Board
would say, I would probably want to go to a common leach field, because in your last, let’s see if I can get to
that, July 2001, the docking, this is an amendment to the Declaration of Covenants and Conditions.
MR. MASON-That’s the architectural control amendment.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, in there it talks about foundations shall be solid or skirted piers.
MR. MASON-That’s because that’s what they are right now.
MR. VOLLARO-And, you know, the more I read in here, the more basements seem to fail before what I
read in your old document. It doesn’t sound like a basement. It sounds like foundations shall be solid or
skirted piers, and when you go underneath and look in those buildings, they are all piers. A lot of them are
piers.
MR. MASON-They were all built as skirted piers, and with the exception of Number 31, which had a solid
foundation, and Number 32 had an existing basement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Full basement or crawl spaces?
MR. MASON-Number 31 had a crawl space, and Number 31 had a full basement at one time. The ones that
have been renovated, one at least has a crawl space, most of them have basements.
MR. VOLLARO-The ones we looked at seemed to have all basements in them when we were up there.
MR. MASON-We like to get the basement. It’s a nice little storage area. It’s a small building. Again, it’s only
(lost words) square feet. I can tell you, as an owner for many years, there’s never been an intent, on anyone’s
part, to limit basements, and there’s nobody there that wants to limit those. If the documents are a little
misleading, that’s a legal problem, but I can tell you that the homeowners don’t have any intent.
MR. VOLLARO-In the original bylaws under, I guess it’s Article Three, I believe, yes, Article Three on the
easements. It says the septic common area responsibility, the Association reserves the right to maintain all
septic common areas as well as maintain and repair all sewage disposal systems, through the delivery line and
the force main to each leach field. Now, somebody reading this might think there’s already one, but it sounds
to me that there’s provisions here in these bylaws for you to move to a central field.
MR. MASON-What that statement is, I believe, and as the manager of the property I’ve had trouble dealing
with that before, because people have wondered what does that mean exactly. The interpretation I got, and
the one that makes the most sense to me, is that if there is a system failing, that was the issue that was the
concern. If one of the homeowners has a failing system, all of the systems are on common property. That’s
why they call it common property.
MR. VOLLARO-All septic common area.
MR. MASON-Septic common area, which it’s a septic area that’s on common property. So I think it could
have been written a little more clearly, but the intent was that the Association has the right to fix it. If there’s
a problem, we fix it and we bill the homeowner for whatever was necessary. We’re not going to sit there and
fight with the homeowner for two months.
MR. VOLLARO-Again, this says the owners will be responsible to maintain and repair the sewage disposal
system from their home.
MR. MASON-They are responsible for their own unit, financially and so on, but the Association.
MR. VOLLARO-The physical labor is done by somebody you hire?
MR. MASON-It might be done, that’s right. It will get done. I’ll agree with that, then, that’s what it says. It
says that the owner is principally, primarily, initially responsible for maintaining their own system. If they fail
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
to do that, the Association can come in and do it and charge them back, so you don’t have a failed system
stinking up the joint.
MR. MAC EWAN-All the septic systems, all the septic fields are all in the common areas?
MR. MASON-Yes, they are, and there’s not enough room, Craig for, 10 foot from each building wouldn’t be
enough to put a leach field.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I understand that. I didn’t know if there were, don’t I remember something said
that one or two of the cottages share a system? Everyone’s on their own system?
MR. MASON-Everyone has their own.
MR. MAC EWAN-And they’re all leach fields?
MR. MASON-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are they?
MR. MASON-Not that I know of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an inventory of what you have?
MR. MASON-I know exactly what I have. I believe that I know what every one of them has, and some of
the ones that are the oldest ones have cess pools, seepage pits.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how old are they?
MR. MASON-Their earliest one was built in 1952, or ’53, and so there’s only about, let’s see, Number One
had one, but I rebuilt that for the owner three years ago and put in a beautiful, up to Code, 1,000 gallon
concrete tank and drain field and so on.
MR. LAPPER-As they’ve been renovated, Bill’s been improving the systems.
MR. MASON-Right. The only ones that would have a cess pool are a two bedroom, 768 square foot home,
the littlest one. The minute that they want to apply for anything, they’d have to upgrade the septic system,
move it back 100 feet from the water, but they’re not, well anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many of those left that have the cess pools?
MR. MASON-Number Two, Number Three, Number Four, Six and Seven. Five of them.
MR. VOLLARO-Are those the ones on the Waterfront?
MR. MASON-Yes, they are.
MR. VOLLARO-Does the Lake George Park Association know about those?
MR. MASON-Absolutely. They’re grandfathered in. They’re not failing. They’re working fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Cess pools don’t fail, but they leach like crazy to the wrong places. If the perc is real good,
boy, you’ve got.
MR. LAPPER-But you drink out of the lake, right? So you do water tests?
MR. MASON-I have the water tested monthly.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In terms of trying to make a recommendation to the ZBA, I tried to sum it up in my
own mind this way. Holding the expansion to 22% would allow the retention of on-site septic. Approving
100% expansion of all 31 units would require 12 inches of fill material for each system. This is by Berger’s,
your engineer’s letter. Another and more desirable alternative would be a common leach field per Article
Three that I just read to you a few minutes ago. Now, I wound up and I said, in order to determine the
cumulative effect of 100% expansion of 31 cottages, I think, and having read the SEQRA (lost words) and
taking a look at SEQRA in its area of segmentation, I tried to answer all the questions as to what is the basic
test for segmentation, and I really come up and see where the test for says that we have a good position to ask
for an Environmental Impact Statement on this, to see just what.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. MASON-The only thing, I heard the Planner at your meeting the other, that last time explaining, and it
seems to make sense to me, segmentation is when you have one entity that’s trying to do something like that.
These are all individually owned units. The Nizoleks, once they do their unit, they have no reason to do
another one. They’re not going to do another one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily them. It’s someone else down the line who may want to do something.
MR. MASON-But that’s similar to any neighborhood that you go into. You wouldn’t go into my
neighborhood.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a little different situation, now. From my viewpoint I don’t look at this as being a
Herald Square. I don’t look at it as being a Bedford Close. I look at it as being a unique situation on the lake,
and I think that’s what we’re trying to look at from that perspective. What else have you got, Bob?
MR. LAPPER-Well, in terms of Environmental Impact Statement, I just want to respond to that. We don’t
have, we were looking at a worst case scenario because the Planning Department correctly said, let’s look at
the big picture here, but there’s no application, and it is unlikely, I mean, this has been over all these years and
there’ve only been six so far and now seven that have been upgraded.
MR. MASON-You’re in the right neighborhood.
MR. LAPPER-So there’s no plan for this. There’s no proposal. There’s no application. We’re only here for
the Nizoleks that are the farthest from the lake that want to add an upstairs, and that’s all we’re talking about.
So I don’t think that you could say it’s segmentation because there’s no plan.
MR. RINGER-We’re not here for Nizolek because we’ve already had Nizolek and we sent a recommendation
back to the ZBA. We’re here for a master plan so, we can’t look at just Nizolek.
MR. LAPPER-Well, but the master plan is, it’s all generic because there is no plan. What we’re here for is to
answer the ZBA’s last motion. It says, with the provision that, this is the motion to accept the application for
William and Linda Nizolek, 24 Oneida Drive, with the provision that before the Zoning Board of Appeals
takes any action or even conducts a hearing, this will be submitted to the Planning Board for their guidance,
in terms of the long term effects, and that’s against 179-69.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what we’re trying to do here, I think.
MR. RINGER-Well, I thought we gave, in that, when we got that from the Zoning Board, we sent back to
the Zoning Board that Nizolek, we felt, was okay, but we were asking for a master plan. Wasn’t that our
recommendation to the ZBA?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess it was, but I think that we’re still here in terms of giving guidance for long term
effects.
MR. RINGER-Right, but not for Nizolek. Jon keeps bringing up, Nizolek is, you said you’re here only for
Nizolek, and as far as I’m concerned, Nizolek, we’ve finished.
MR. MASON-Well, actually, the Nizoleks are paying his bill. So he’s here for Nizolek.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not the issue. The issue is the Association, the only thing the Association has done was
to change their architectural covenants last summer and everyone agreed to it, to make it more restrictive, to
make changes to the units. The Association is not here with a Master Plan asking for the right to expand.
They’re saying, if everyone did expand, we’re saying, we hired an engineer to say what would be the impacts,
and could the septic, could the land handle the septic, and the answer from this engineer is, yes, they could
with the upgrades that Bob is quoting. So there’s no plan to expand.
MR. MASON-And that’s not unnatural to put 12 inches of fill on top of a new septic system.
MR. VOLLARO-Each one you have a mound on each one?
MR. MASON-(Lost words) mound, and in fact when I did Number One, the Forbes, we added about 12
inches of fill, just because, you know how the grade of the land, you can add a lot of fill and then feather it
out and it looks very pretty, in fact, it looks better, and that was what we were trying to accomplish there, and
so when he told me this, and did the whole study, I smiled and said, well isn’t that wonderful because,
without knowing this engineering report, we did exactly what you told me we had to do.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that’s just an aesthetic effect?
MR. MASON-We do not allow for mounds. Mounds would be an issue where we would definitely go to a
common field in the back. Nobody there wants to see mounds all over. There’s a lot of acres, also, there’s
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
tons. I mean, we put a system, “we”, I’m saying one of the owners put a system right out in the center of the
property, right in there where the swing sets are, about 125 feet back from the water. It’s a perfect place for
the septic system, no trees, and nice level ground, and you can’t notice that. I know right where it is. I saw
the guys digging it, and I can find, I mow it, so I know where the slight ruts are that need a little bit of fill,
again, but it just looks, it fits beautifully, no mounds.
MR. VOLLARO-So the engineering report, really for 12 inches of fill is strictly an aesthetic effect? Is that
what we’re saying?
MR. MASON-No. He’s saying 12 inches of fill because there’s only 36 inches of good soil, and you need 48.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. So he’s giving you the other.
MR. MASON-In his opinion, in his mind, in order to make the system up to Code, comply, you need 12
inches of fill to do it. I’m saying that in most locations on the property, you can do, well, and I know that the
Association would say to the owner, you have to do it and feather it. It cannot look like a septic system.
That looks terrible. You’ve got neighbors with mounds.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else do you have, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Right now that’s about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. Did you run the letters by legal? I notice the first comment he
made, any characterization of these lots as being substandard is illegal or false. Whenever I see something
like that, I always wonder if you ran it by legal, just the statement in itself.
MR. LAPPER-No, because this wasn’t.
MR. RINGER-What you meant is that this was approved in ’84 by the Planning Board.
MR. MASON-I know at the last meeting of the Zoning Board, there was a member of the community that
was, that got up and spoke and said that these lots are substandard and illegal, and I was bristling. I was like,
the Town approved them, there’s nothing, I own a couple of them. There’s nothing illegal about these lots.
They’re small.
MR. RINGER-It’s just when I see that in a letter I always want to make sure that (lost words).
MR. MASON-I crossed it out a couple of times but then I left it in. I didn’t mean to be argumentative.
MR. RINGER-And the other thing I had some concern with was our Zoning Administrator’s determination
on the, other than that, I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-From our position on the Board, his determination is what we follow, and until the
applicant argues that case with the ZBA and another decision is made, we’ll follow through on that one.
Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a few questions. I don’t know if we’re on the same page here. First, of all, if,
when the second stories have been built, on the few that have, how many square feet is that?
MR. MASON-It’s the same.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s probably less than 700. It’s not a cantilever or anything.
MR. MASON-No. They lose the corners because the roofline comes down on the side. So they lose about
10 square feet off of each corner.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’re not dormers, they’re just an extra story with another roof on the top?
MR. MASON-No, they are dormers.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They are dormers? Okay. So basically, so you’re not really going up that much (lost
words) roof.
MR. MASON-You have to raise the roof, the peak about four feet in order to get some pitch on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But not as much as you would if you were going to do a second story.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So that’s, to me.
MR. MASON-That’s all we’re talking about, four foot addition to the.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I wanted to double check on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Cathy, just to try to clear that up just a little bit there, their documents say that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I haven’t read it. I misplaced it. I don’t know where my set is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s immaterial whether you misplaced it or not. It’s just that the second floor has
got the same square footage as bottom floor. It’s 100% expansion of the building, exactly what it says, in
their documents.
MR. MASON-That’s what the application this time, I did it that way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. That’s doing the max.
MR. MASON-That’s true, but when you talk percentages, you’ve got these tiny little cottage, you’re adding
two bedrooms upstairs. So in perspective, sure, it’s absolutely 100%, but it’s adding another 785 square feet,
and we pointed out in the application that that, the units that exist now are under what would be the
minimum living space allowed if you were going to build it today, you’d have to have at least 800 square feet.
So these are tiny little cottages.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-My next question is, what is the role that, or is there a role that the Lake George
Commission and the APA has, the Lake George Park Commission or the APA, do they have any role in this
matter?
MR. MASON-I don’t believe so.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and has the Lake George Association, which is kind of like a watchdog of the
lake. Have they sent anything?
MR. MASON-To us?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay. All right, and my next thing is, it has to do with this generic master plan
which, to me, is kind of ambiguous. Right now, if I had to tell you what I thought was going to happen, or
what we were sitting around here discussing, the very last sentence would probably be within so many years,
the other 26 cottages are going to have a second story, and that is going to be the extent of any building that’s
going to go on in Takundewide.
MR. LAPPER-That’s our position. We don’t expect that the Association would approve anything more than
that anyway, and it would require coming to the Town.
MR. MASON-I look at it that way. It would require coming to the Town, and the Town’s, are you dealing, I
mean, going up a third story would be?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no. I’m just saying that you’ve said that six out of thirty-two have already gone
up. So there’s 26 left, and I want to also put in with that that it would be under rules that would be like
subdivision rules, that once the plan is okayed, those people would never have to come back to the Planning
Board for, or the Zoning Board for any kind of variance to finish the rest of it, to have the rest of the
cottages put their two stories on.
MR. LAPPER-And the answer is no, that that everybody would have to come, anyone that wanted to add a
second story would have to come back to the Town. Because we’re not asking for approval for everybody
else. Everyone else hasn’t said they want the approval.
MR. MASON-I think then we would have to have the details on every one of them also, and they are slightly
different, each one of them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. Yes. Okay. All right.
MR. MASON-In fact we had one guy who kicked up a dormer only on one side. He only, I included him, he
raised half the roof, but on this I said now what if he, my what if scenario was he’d kick up the other side,
too. He has no intention of ever doing that. He’s already expanded his right where he wants it.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same token he may sell in three years and the next owner may have the
intention.
MR. MASON-Right. That’s true. So we’re trying to say if everybody added the upstairs, would that create an
undo impact? Could the septic handle it? Could the water handle it, parking, green space, and we’re saying
here that that would be no big deal to, even though it sounds like a lot, 100%, it’s still only the 700 square
feet, and we’re saying that it’s okay, even though there’s no plan to do that.
LEWIS STONE
MR. STONE-May I say something?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go around and I’ll get to you folks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I’m okay for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I came here, you know, originally, the first meeting, a couple of weeks ago, was that,
you know, and I said from the very beginning, let’s go ahead and approve the Nizolek’s. I’ll work with you
on a master plan, or anybody else, a committee or the Board, whatever, we’ll work and develop a master plan.
So I’ve got a lot of ideas on a master plan, and then, while reading the 1984 minutes, this is basically changing
this from a commercial enterprise into a residential.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. MASON-For the most part.
MR. STROUGH-Single family residential.
MR. MASON-For the most part. Some of the commercial aspects stayed. The management grew, but it’s a
much reduced commercial presence. It used to be a fully a resort, and now it’s a homeowners association
with some rental and other things that go on.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think one of the reasons why they approved it was that I got the opinion that it was
going to go to residential area. I didn’t see any mention of it being a.
MR. MASON-It is residential.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it is. I mean, just like anyone else on the lake. If somebody wants to rent their cottage,
they could rent, you know, like they rent their house on the lake for a couple of weeks, but it’s completely
residential.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s a passive rental situation.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s single family residential.
MR. STROUGH-And so, you know, if I look at it that way, you know, I’m all set to go with you, you know,
help you with the master plan, and I’ve got a whole bunch of ideas there, but I’ve got some questions first.
Because I typed into the Internet, and so first of all I see, you know, you’re on for the water filter violations,
which is no surprise, and you’re working on that, but then I see you listed in hotels in Cleverdale, NY, here’s
Takundewide. I see you in the Adirondack Gateways, Page 26, you’re listed on this website, Takundewide.
MR. MASON-Can I, you’ll find me in a lot of places. Can I explain it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Let me go through it.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And let’s see, you know, and this was a soft search. I didn’t do a hard search. I would have
found more. Here’s hotels in Cleverdale. Here’s the Lake George Chamber of Commerce. You’re listed as
being rentals. Here is hotels, casino hotels, motels in the New York area, see next page, you’re listed. Here’s
New York Hotel Directory, see Page 16, and on Page 16, well you’re here with a whole bunch of New York
hotels, and then on 16 you’re listed. There you are. Cottages and cabins, okay, this is from the
Adirondacks.com website, Page Three, Takundewide. Here’s another. This is from USA Lodging.com,
hotels and motels in Cleverdale, and you’re listed. Here’s American Hotel Search, hotels and motels in
Cleverdale, NY, Takundewide Cottages, on the American Hotel Search.com. Lake George.net,
accommodations, cabins and cottages, Page Eight. There you are. Lake George Lodging Guide, okay, Lake
George Lodging Guide, it’s got the 1,000 Acres Ranch, Mohawk Campgrounds, Adirondack Camping
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
Village, Bonnie View, Dutchess, and Nassau, Nomad, and Takundewide, it’s there. Glens Falls Area and
Lake George Business Locator, okay, see Page Five. There’s Takundewide, along with, you know, the other
commercial enterprises in the area. On the Americade, you’re linked, okay, Accommodations, How to List
Your Business, Lodgings, Page Three, well, you know, with the Blue Manor, Blue Moon, Boathouse, Dillon
Campsites, and Takundewide, right next to, under Tahoe. I mean, that’s not passive rental.
MR. MASON-I know. Now, first of all, most of the listings that you mentioned are Internet listings that I
have no control over. It’s just good business, and so I like seeing our name there, but the ones that I belong
to are like the Lake George Chamber of Commerce and the Americade, and I give them money and so on. I
am a member there. I have never hidden that, and if you look in the documents in the discussion, back in,
when they said that it was going to residential, this is true. The properties themselves become residential,
with the exception of one thing, that there was going to stay on the property, a property manager or
managing agent, and that was a company that was formed, and I purchased at that time Takundewide
Management Group Incorporated. What I do is deal with the owners of Takundewide and I clean for them.
I mow the lawns, do all the maintenance, all of the stuff for each of the individual owners. Actually, the
lawns, I’m sorry, is the Association. I work for the Association, and I also rent their properties for them if
they want to rent them out, and we basically market the property together. It makes sense, from the
standpoint of all the owners, that we can advertise.
MR. LAPPER-How many people rent out of the 32?
MR. MASON-There are approximately 15 of them that are rented for part of the season.
MR. MAC EWAN-So half the development gets rented at one time or another?
MR. MASON-Right, not for the whole season, because the owners do use it, but they rent it for part of the
season.
MR. MAC EWAN-July and August?
MR. MASON-They don’t rent them for all of July and August, because that’s the whole season.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean you have some parcels a couple of weeks or one week or long weekends or
whatever.
MR. MASON-Right. It’s predominantly weekly rentals. It’s weekly rentals in July and August. It’s daily
rentals in May, June, September and October. That is the same thing that has been going on at the property
since 1953, that never changed. Now, we’re getting into a use area of the Code, and that use has never
changed since 1952. It’s always been the same thing. It’s just the ownership structure changed, and when the
corporation, Takundewide Incorporated, was dissolved, and the Homeowners Association (lost words),
residential, and John answered it, was answering it one way, and I was starting to answer it the other and
saying, except for the rental property or rental business that has always been ongoing there, that part never
went away. It’s always been there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, when I read the 1980 permit, certainly giving me, the reader, and I think the
Planning Board at that time, the opinion that it will lead to residential. All through this, when we dealt with
the Nizoleks, I felt, in drawing this up and helping you with your master plan, I’m dealing with a residential.
If I’m dealing with something other than residential, which this advertising seems to suggest, then I have to
look at the master plan differently.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Because there’s going to be different impacts.
MR. MASON-That might be true, but as far as the Nizoleks go, or the Forbes go, that I was in here with you
before, or the Hickeys, which was the other one that I did, every one of them are owners that never rent their
property. They are residential, purely, through and through. They do not rent it out at all. That’s not to say
that they might not want to in the future, just like you with your own home might want to do that, but the
Nizoleks are coming in front of you as a residential owner. They don’t rent it to anyone else, and I’m
representing them not as my role that I do hold with many of the owners up there, as their managing agent
that rents their property for them. I’m acting only as like their contractor.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, what I said was I need to know, because if I’m going to work with you and
develop a master plan, I need to know what I’m dealing with, and I’ve been fully under the impression that
I’ve been dealing with something that’s, it’s family. It’s residential, and certainly this is an aggressive rental
program. Now, if that’s the case, then, fine, we’ll deal with the master plan with a hybrid situation like we
have. I mean, I’m speaking for myself, but I have to consider the impacts, the impacts of noise when
Americade moves in, how many people are going to be, I know when I go on vacation, we rent a place and
we try and pack it with as many people and families as we can to cut the price down. I mean, how many
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
people are going to be in these, you know, these built out cottages? Is it going to accommodate more people?
I mean, most of the time, let’s say a family of three or four, a family owns it. That might be the impact I was
looking at was a family of three or four.
MR. LAPPER-But is this any different than everyone else on Cleverdale and on the lake?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it is. No one aggressively.
MR. LAPPER-I disagree. They go to the realtors. They go to Owen Davies.
MR. STROUGH-You’re welcome to go through here and show me where they are.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not talking about Cleverdale, though. We’re talking about this place.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t see anybody else.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s more to it than that, because a year and a half ago, John Salvador brought a
challenge to the ZBA saying that this is a motel, and it’s not a single family property, because he felt it was
competing with his motel, and so this issue came before the ZBA, and we debated it, and the ZBA agreed
that this was the same as anyone else that wants to rent their single family house on the lake.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what if the ZBA saw this and changed it’s mind?
MR. LAPPER-Well, it was all on the record that Bill talked about the fact that he lists these things and he
rents half the people’s cottages who want to rent them, but I don’t think that that’s different than what other
people do, even though they go to Owen Davies.
MR. MASON-And that’s a separate corporation. I know it has the same name, and that seemed important to
me all the time, to not confuse the people who have rented. These are very nice people. They come back
year after year, and I didn’t want to all of a sudden start changing the name of the place. So I named the
management company Takundewide Management Group, Inc., and I go under Takundewide. Because that’s
all I do is that one piece of property. So it’s a marketing thing, but all we discussed until this very minute here
is Takundewide Homeowners Association or the individual owners, and do you see what I mean, we’re
pulling in another corporation. I never was hiding that from you. I thought everybody, frankly, anyone
who’s been up there in the summer knows that it’s rental, if they just ask a question.
MR. STROUGH-All right. It’s a hybrid. It’s 50% residential, 50% commercial almost.
MR. MASON-Well, it’s a residential neighborhood that half of the properties are rented out for part of the
time, but it is a residential neighborhood. They’re all residences, and each, I think that if one person were to
buy a certain number of them and start renting them, then they would be engaging in a rental, or commercial
activity in the Town, but since they’re all privately owned.
MR. VOLLARO-Just let me inject something here. Now I’m beginning to see why this is not registered with
the Attorney General, why there was not an offering plan to each buyer. Essentially this is a corporation, and
when you buy into it, you buy shares into it, just like you would any other corporation.
MR. MASON-No. You’re confused. That’s not true.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what it was.
MR. MASON-That’s what it was. They’re private residences.
MR. RINGER-You’re a separate corporation.
MR. MASON-Takundewide Management Group is a separate corporation that doesn’t rental. In fact,
Takundewide Management Group doesn’t own one piece of real estate.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the Homeowners Association then? I’m really confused.
MR. MASON-That’s the Association of the 32 owners that also owns the 18 acres of common property, and
they’re a non-profit corporation that does the work maintaining.
MR. VOLLARO-I live in exactly the same kind of thing. I have managers just like you. I have a
homeowners association.
MR. LAPPER-That was an exception to the Homeowners because this was a family that owned
Takundewide. It was owned as a stock corporation, and when the parents wanted to retire, they gave the
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
stock to their kids. So it wasn’t a public offering. So it got around, 1984, I wasn’t there. This is what they
did.
MR. MASON-Frank DeSantis was there.
MR. LAPPER-It got around the requirement of having to do the public offering where you have to register
with the Attorney General’s Office because they gave it to their kids as separate units. The Planning Board
approved it so that it would be a subdivision, so that everyone owned the footprint, and then thereafter each
of the individuals, if some of them kept the units and some of them sold the units, there are still Masons that
are there now, like Bill, and there are other people that are there. It’s, what, about 50/50?
MR. MASON-It’s actually 17, 15, well, 14 are Masons.
MR. LAPPER-So the answer at the time was that an Offering Plan wasn’t required, but it is Association
property.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a unique.
MR. LAPPER-No question.
MR. MASON-Yes, it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Very unique.
MR. LAPPER-But it does have bylaws, it has bylaws and covenants.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks just like, reading that document, then taking the one that I live under and reading it,
it’s almost the same.
MR. LAPPER-But the Attorney General regulates public offerings.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, let’s get back to you.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So, anyway, in reading the minutes, and the covenants at that time, by looking at
the amendments to the covenants since that time, at the time the Planning Board approved that, the
covenants said there would be no washers and dryers. Since that Planning Board approval, and I think the
Planning Board approved the direction you’re going in, based on the covenant restriction that there was no
washers and dryers, thinking that that would help eliminate year round use. It would help keep it as a
summer camp, cottage concept. All right. Well, since that time, the covenants are allowing, with Board
approval, washers and dryers, and if the septic systems can handle it. Well, we can deal with this, but I think,
you know, this perspective is starting to change. Now do we have, and I think the 1984 conditions to your
approval asked for a survey that will show all the water lines and septic systems for each unit, and that was to
be filed with the Warren County Clerk. I haven’t seen that. It was a survey done by VanDusen and Steves
dated 12/29/83, revised 9/15/84, and that survey was to be revised to show that water lines and septic
systems.
MR. MASON-On that survey, all of the water lines and septic locations and so on are shown.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that this?
MR. LAPPER-The VanDusen and Steves map, dated December 29, ’83. Is that what you quoted, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and revised on September 15, ’84.
MR. LAPPER-Right. So this is the map that that refers to.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. Well this we can start using, we can use this as kind of a basis for a master
plan.
MR. MASON-That shows all of, I mean, everything that’s underground you do your, I assume you do your
best guess.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I mention that, that’s good. I’m glad to see that, and the reason why I
mention that is, I look at your Amendment Seven, Article Seven Amendment to the Covenants, the
architectural standards, okay, well, that’s fine, and that’s a step in the right direction, but we’re talking about a
master plan and as you admitted, you really didn’t fully understand what the master plan.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s not that I didn’t understand. It’s that they have 32 individual owners or a little fewer
because some people own two, and they’re, and the Nizoleks are trying to accomplish something, and the
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
Town said let’s look at the big picture, not inappropriate, but there are not 32 people that agree on anything.
So the idea of getting them to the table. These things were heavily debated over about a year and a half
before these changes were implemented, and the problem with the master plan is that nobody has any
authority. Everyone isn’t getting together.
MR. STROUGH-They don’t have to have authority. Here’s, listen to me and see where I’m going.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And here’s what I want to do with the master plan. I want to describe, inventory,
document, location, size of current systems, assess the age and the current condition. I want to inventory the
soils, percolation rates, and other conditions that would be applicable to the septic systems. I want to show
potential locations and size of systems, if full build out maximum impact were to occur, and the greatest
amount of possible usage, consider the number of bedrooms, year round use, clothes washers, rental use,
dock renters, consider the whole picture, and the above would be developed, designed by a qualified engineer,
approved or approvable by New York State Department of Health. We would restrict the use of the
common areas above filtration beds and even alternate, proposed alternate filtration beds, so that we know
that they’d remain viable, as a viable, potential possibility. Septic system plat should show right of ways,
utilities, parking, etc., and I see we’ve got a start on that, okay. Also should be defined on the septic system
plat would be alternate septic system locations for each unit to allow for possible future septic failure, and a
contractual guarantee that each cottage and home has the right to locate a septic system in the above
identified areas and the same for the alternate septic site locations. I want a stormwater management plan
using best environmental and planning practices, and then some restrictions. No further subdivision.
Current defined common area will be as described and will remain that way, not to be developed. Building
footprints cannot be expanded. Building additions/remodels, will be limited in size and similar in
architecture to the Nizoleks. Okay. Fireplace size, locations, interior petitions, window size and locations
may vary. We understand that. I think that a visual impact analysis should be considered for each possible
building layout to ensure the protection of the quality of view, shading, other factors that may occur by its
design and location, and the dock rentals. I have some questions here. Well, anyhow, that’s where I’m
thinking about going with the master plan. Now, I’m going to have to re-think this a little bit because this
was just the other night I came across this. We’re dealing with a hybrid, half commercial, half residential
situation. We can still go with a master plan. I’m in favor of approving the Nizoleks, but that’s it. From now
on we go to the master plan. We get the master plan laid out and everyone’s happy, then we’ll go on with
some future expansions, should they come. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think there’s anything you’ve said that’s unreasonable or inappropriate. I think that
that expands on what the engineer that Bill hired, Harold Berger, he was saying it generically, based upon
some soil tests, and you’re saying in each case you’d like to actually lay it out.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just thought it would give Mr. Mason a clearer idea of where I thought we should be
going, just so everything’s out on the table.
MR. LAPPER-The issue for us is that we would have to go back to the Association and they would have to
buy into this, which they’ll only do if a number, if a majority of the people there think that at some point in
the future they might want to either expand or have the right to expand something they might sell.
MR. STROUGH-I think it might be in their best interest to do that.
MR. LAPPER-I think it would be, too, but we can’t speak for the Association.
MR. STROUGH-I realize that, but just so you realize what I’m looking for in a master plan.
MR. MASON-But this is why it’s difficult. This is why I came forward with the cumulative effects study,
instead of trying to call it a master plan and acting as if I was submitting a master plan, because I’m not
authorized to.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in my mind, it’s not enough. Here’s the direction I want to go in, and I’m one person
on the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe it would be appropriate if we have another meeting here, which I get a
sense we probably will, is to get a couple of officers from your Homeowners Association here.
MR. LAPPER-They would if there was a majority of people that indicated that they cared about this, but
right now we only have Linda and her husband, but in any case, we’re certainly talking to the president of the
Association and they’re aware of what we’re doing and they passed a resolution supporting this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, then I guess I would have to ask myself, then how much effort should we all be
putting into this at this point if there’s not going to be any interest or cooperation from the Homeowners
Association.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. LAPPER-The only reason there might not be interest is because they might not want to expand their
units. So it’s sort of a Catch-22 that they may not want to bother because they’re not looking for any
approvals, and the only one looking for approval are the Nizoleks, and they don’t have the ability to go and
agree to a master plan, or anything other than their unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you know based on that comment, I don’t know whether it would be just a fruitless
effort for us to put a lot of time into this thing, and go nowhere without any resolution to it and just leave it
as such a fact that, you know, we’ll deal with the Nizolek property, and then we’ll deal with that application,
but send a clear message that anything else that’s going to come out of that development up there, you’re
going to do that before anything.
MR. LAPPER-The Nizoleks could agree with everything that John just said, that they want to expand their
footprint, that they’ll show an alternative leach pad, that they’ll get the detailed plans for the septic system.
There’s nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy just made a very good point, and I’ve been thinking about that for about the last 20
minutes. What I’m seeing here is a small scale Great Escape. Where we have a certain use that’s been going
on for a long period of time. We’ve seen piecemeal expansions up there, and we’re looking at the cumulative
impacts and how it’s going to impact a vast majority of individual homeowners now, and I think that we need
to take the position, in order for this thing to continue evolving the way that we see the trend happening, we
need to get a handle on where it’s going to go and what we’re going to be able to do to handle or mitigate any
potential problems down the road.
MR. LAPPER-And we were trying to show you generically with our submittal that that’s a legitimate question
to ask and that we’re addressing it generically, that the site can handle the development, without the authority
to go and do this on behalf of all the other people. So I guess maybe the answer, and we would have to go
back to the ZBA and see how they feel, we would have to go back to the Association and see, and say, look,
the Town isn’t going to accept any application for anybody. So the thing to do, even though nobody wants
to expand now, is you guys all get together and do this right, and hire an engineer on behalf of the
Association and actually do the plan so that the next time somebody wants to, the Town will approve it, but I
guess we would ask you, or we’d ask them, because you’ve already said it’s okay with you, we’d ask the
Zoning Board, if we did what John is asking for, and this Board is asking for, with respect to the Nizoleks,
which is more specific than what we’ve done so far, an engineer their system, can we go back and be heard
for the Nizolek addition, and it’ll be up to the Association. They’ll either say they want to do this and buy
into what you’re asking for, or, if they say no, they’re saying, okay, no one’s ever going to be able to expand,
in which case I guess there’s no impact because no one will ever expand because the Town won’t accept an
application.
MR. VOLLARO-Inevitably there’s going to be expansion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bill, after our last meeting, our meeting we had in September, when we talked about, and
I remember you brought up the comments that you weren’t in a position of authority or had the approval of
the Homeowners Association to speak or act on their behalf, and I know one of the things we asked you to
do is go back and talk to that Board of Directors.
MR. MASON-You’ve got a letter in here from the Board of Directors. I had a long discussion with them and
then they wrote a letter and had a.
MR. LAPPER-They passed a resolution.
MR. MASON-Passed a resolution, if you will regarding all of this.
MR. RINGER-That’s the one to Lew.
MR. MASON-That’s to Lew. I don’t know why they would address it to Lew.
MR. RINGER-They like Lew.
MR. LAPPER-Because he’s a lake guy.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m somewhat frustrated here because it’s going to take that Homeowners Association,
and/or the Board of Directors, to kind of bring this altogether.
MR. LAPPER-The problem is that the Nizoleks only have one vote.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that, but when we had that meeting back in September, part of our direction
was to talk to the Homeowners Association and the Board of Directors.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. MASON-I did talk to them. I think the biggest part of that, the fact that’s frustrating, I think, to the
Nizoleks and to me, right now, is that we’re trying to satisfy the call for the cumulative impact. The objective
here, and their objective, is that this addition, which they wanted to build last year, and then they wanted and
still want to build this year, they still want to get it done, and we all recognize, in my discussion with the
Board of Directors, they recognize, that a master plan is a long term process. It can’t, we can’t expect this
Board, I couldn’t have given you a full submission and you guys sit down and digest it all and give us an
approval on it, but yet the Nizoleks still would like to build this addition, and we were trying to satisfy what
was the actual concern, which was the cumulative impact on the septic. I believe that was out of the minutes,
I looked at it, that was what I geared this toward was the concerns from your meeting. So we’re trying to do
both. My frustration is I would like to do both. I would like this to stand as having satisfied what you asked
for, and prompt you to recommend that the Nizolek thing be approved, because we have really done
everything that you asked us to do, I believe. I think we’ve done it in spades, and then if you want to go
forward, as we had said back in September, talking to the Association about a master plan for the future of
the place, and it would be a little bit more timely, I guess, because then we don’t have somebody who’s been
waiting since last year to build something, which seems a little unfair. Frankly, their neighbors have built it,
and they keep saying to me, why us, and it just seems like it’s all coming down on them. They’ve spent a lot
of money already. Jon is not cheap, and the engineers, and so on, and then you’re talking about all of the
engineering and so on that needs to be done. All I’m doing is thinking dollar signs and who’s going to pay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your response from the Town is what kicked it with the cumulative impacts. That’s what
kicked it. That’s why we’re here tonight.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s why we (lost words) cumulative impact analysis, really, rather than a master plan.
MR. MASON-We’re trying to address that. Now, I understand that you’re worried, down the line, and
maybe you want to do the master plan and so on in the future. Linda isn’t here tonight.
MR. LAPPER-She is.
MR. MASON-She’d be asking, please, just, you know.
LINDA NIZOLEK
MRS. NIZOLEK-I’m biting my tongue.
MR. MASON-This has been a long process.
MR. MAC EWAN-Understandably, but the situation is that, you know, we didn’t bring this to bear.
MR. LAPPER-You recommended that the Zoning Board approve, or could hear the Nizoleks based upon
what we had said last time, and it was the Zoning Board that said, look, if the Planning Board wants a master
plan, maybe they should have it now rather than after the next expansion.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well my thinking on that was the Nizoleks work as a great model for future expansion,
because I think it’s reasonable. It is also in a location that’s one of the furthest camps back that would have
the least impact.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-So I thought, fine, and I realize, Mr. Mason, this is going to be a long process. It’s going to
be involved, and it’s going to involve some money. So, go ahead and approve the Nizoleks, with the
understanding that we’re going to work together, in the next year or so, whatever the case may be, and
develop some kind of a master plan, and I don’t expect anybody, beyond the Nizoleks, to come before us
until that master plan is done.
MR. RINGER-That’s basically what we said at our meeting. We said that, and it went to the ZBA, but then
the ZBA decided to wait.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got anything else?
MR. STROUGH-One last thing, on docks, and like Bob said, trying to get the complete picture.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thirty-two of them.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Here are my questions. Takundewide Homeowners. If you buy into a cottage, are
you guaranteed a dock?
MR. MASON-Yes.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MASON-You actually get, each cottage right now has a specific dock or sailboat mooring assigned to it.
So when the owner of that cottage sells it, they sell the assignment with it.
MR. VOLLARO-So does the rental, I would guess.
MR. MASON-Well, if they’re renting it then, that’s right, but it’s, that’s the individual owner. They’re all
individually owned.
MR. STROUGH-So they each have dock space?
MR. MASON-Right, each one. They either have dock space or a sailboat mooring. Yes, sir.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s fine. Just things I just need to know so I can get the complete picture. Okay.
So, now what if I’m a Takundewide owner and I want another dock, do I get first refusal on the rentals?
MR. MASON-No.
MR. STROUGH-All right. How many docks are there altogether?
MR. MASON-Twenty-eight dock slips, four sailboat moorings.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is there parking for dock renters, those that rent the docks?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Does it always seem to be ample? I don’t know.
MR. MASON-There’s community parking lots.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Does it always seem to be ample? I don’t know.
MR. MASON-There’s community parking lots.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Stop there. You lost me on that. What do you mean parking for dock
renters?
MR. MASON-How do I answer that? If I say no, that means that they park up on the mound. People who
own a dock space and rent it out to somebody, that person pulls into the community parking and parks, and
there is ample parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So a homeowner can take their slip or take their sailboat mooring or their dock,
allocated dock space and rent it out for the season?
MR. MASON-Just like any other residential owner on Lake George.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many of those have you got up there?
MR. MASON-I’m not really sure who does that. There are. I don’t think there’s anywhere near.
MR. STROUGH-When we do the master plan, these are kind of the things, we’re going to have to make sure
there’s ample parking, make sure there’s public facilities for, depending on what kind of numbers we’re
dealing with. Maybe the numbers are so small, that’s not a concern. That was, my last question was
approximately what percentage of the docks are usually rented out each year, 50%, 25%? I mean, I have to
kind of get a figure and a handle on how much parking I’m going to need, how many people we’re talking
about. Okay. Those are my questions. Like I said, I designed these questions, with a residential in mind, not
that that, you know, when we do the master plan, I’m going to keep in mind that I think this is a hybrid
situation, and I’m going to look at it that way, and I’ll probably be a little stricter about how I look at the
master plan development. Okay. I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought there was a lot of real good information in here, and I agree with a lot of the
comments that have already been made. I think Cathy said that, you know, down the road, and I agree with
this. I envision that every house, at some point in time, will be expanded. I mean, it might not happen in 10
years, but certainly, you know, over the course of time, and I think a lot of the controls that you have in place
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
now through the Homeowners Association, that are outlined in the letter, do the kinds of things that I think
we need to do, but the concern that I have is they could always be changed, and, you know, we’ve talked
about the use of washing machines as being, I think, a good example of how the rules can change, the bylaws
can change. I’m specifically thinking of the architectural control issues, the fact that footprints have never
been expanded.
MR. LAPPER-The footprints you don’t own. So you would have to get land, because the Association owns
it. So that would be a real issue that you’d have to get a conveyance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they do own, what is it, five feet or ten feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Ten feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s true, but in terms of the architectural, they got into this fight where they almost
sued somebody because on his dock he did his handrail a different wooden design than everybody else. So
they’re pretty uptight about making everybody conform, which isn’t to say that they couldn’t all vote and
agree in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But the history has been that they’ve been pretty careful.
MR. MASON-Right. They’re uptight and getting more uptight every year.
MR. MAC EWAN-A good opportunity for them to come up with a master plan, then.
MR. MASON-Proliferation of rules is.
MR. LAPPER-When they got together to vote on the new covenants, that really took a lot of negotiating to
get everyone together.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I guess I really didn’t want to buy into the whole debate about what is defined
as a lot. I seem to agree with the interpretation that the zoning, the planning administrator took and quite
frankly I thought it was also, it was the same interpretation that I saw in the bylaws. The way that lots were
defined in the bylaws were consistent with his interpretation, but personally I don’t think it’s an issue because
there is so much common land with the property, but again the concern is the homeowners could always
decide, well, let’s sell off this seven acres over here because we need cash to do something.
MR. LAPPER-That would require subdivision approval from this Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that, but, then the game changes.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess maybe sort of the bottom line, for me anyway, is really two specific issues. I
think, overall, I, personally, would not have a problem, if all of the cottages were to put the second floor on,
and I think the examples that you provided of all the adjoining properties on the lake, certainly have much
greater concentration than the entire Takundewide development, but what I don’t think has really been
demonstrated is that the individual septic systems is the proper way to go, and I think that’s something that
really needs to be looked at more closely, and then there was another issue that we had asked about, I thought
specifically at the meeting, and that was stormwater runoff and management. Now, I understand that the
footprint of the buildings will not be changing. So, therefore, there’s really no significant impact of
stormwater runoff, but there should be some analysis done regarding the whole property.
MR. LAPPER-Do you do drywells, roof drains? Because there’s not enough topsoil?
MR. MASON-It’s just, there isn’t really a problem. There is so much green space. There is no macadam to
speak of. It’s all lawns, and it’s kind of. I really understand stormwater management, that that’s an important
issue, but it generally, I believe it generally causes a problem when you get into an area with large building,
small green areas to absorb it. We try and keep all, no macadam. I mentioned that before, and so on,
because it’s so environmentally friendly. We put no fertilizer on the lawn. We weed control once a year, and
nothing more, and that’s a fairly new add, but it was because everybody was getting stung by the bees that we
had to go that way, but we try and limit all of these things.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think if, and John could probably confirm this. We’re pretty much at the point,
now, where any time we see any kind of site plan property on the lake, we kind of require them to put in
drywells and roof drains to capture, you know, any stormwater that comes off the (lost words).
MR. MASON-They’re very small roofs, though, at the same time.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand, but, you know, we’re getting beat up by the Lake George Association
for golf courses that are three miles away from the lake.
MR. MASON-But that’s different. I mean, that’s with all of the chemicals they put on. I mean I have
problems with them sometimes. Well, anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-But my contention is that the properties that are on the lake have a much greater
significant impact than some that are three miles away.
MR. STROUGH-It may well be, after doing the stormwater analysis, that not a whole lot needs to be done.
MR. HUNSINGER-That could be the conclusion.
MR. STROUGH-But I’m just saying we need to do some kind of an analysis.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that could be part of an engineering report and see where it goes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess just one final comment. I agree with the comments that have been made,
also, about approving of Nizolek’s application for review by the Zoning Board. So, anyway, I mean, I really
don’t want to reiterate things that have been already said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing further. I read through this and I feel like I’m reading just a bunch of
covenants and wonder how we could ever enforce anything, and I do have a concern about doing a master
plan, in that, you just have to ask yourself, you’re opening yourself up for just anybody, and in the future, if
we do a master plan, will we still have site plan review for any future development, and as long as that’s the
case, that’s fine, but, you know, everybody’s made good points tonight. I really have nothing further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, anything you wanted to add?
MRS. RYBA-Just a little bit, and I think that, A, from a technical perspective, and secondly from the
environmental effect. My notes were just approached primarily using the Town Plan as a basis, because we
don’t have a master plan outline, and so if Staff appeared to be not helpful it’s because we didn’t have an
outline to give you under the regulations, other than what’s in the municipal plan, and that’s certainly
available, and the notes are outlined here about just really assuring that because it is in a Waterfront
Residential area, assuring that the land is capable of the septic, and I think Chris Hunsinger’s point is a good
one, too, that not only the stormwater, maybe nothing has to be done, but that properties along the lake,
there’s more susceptibility for contamination, and it’s to protect, essentially, the homeowners, as well as the
Town, but from a technical point of view, it’s really imperative that, or an administrative point of view, I
should say, that there is this authorization from the Homeowners Association, because they’re the ones who
do have control over that common area. So that we don’t have an application for a master plan. So it’s
essentially like everyone applying for some kind of review, and generally when master plans are done, usually
it’s an incentive. There needs to be an incentive in there, and the incentive is, and I’m talking about other
communities, because I’m not sure how much Queensbury has done with master plans or if they’ve ever
done anything requiring a master plan, but it’s an incentive to have this broad picture, and then you’re
subtracting from it, you know, there’s so much that’s allowed, and then it’s subtracted from everything. So, I
think that if the Planning Board can think a little bit about what kind of incentives they can give to
Takundewide for the homeowners to make Mr. Mason’s job easier. To get people to come into this situation
at the beginning would be helpful and one of those might be not to have further site plan review, although I
understand where Tony might want to see that, but essentially giving your site plan review all at once, now,
and letting people go ahead, unless they go outside of the conditions, such as the ones that John Strough
outlined.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe what we could do, and try to convey our thoughts and our position to the
Homeowners Association, with the Board’s blessing, I’ll sit down with Marilyn and we’ll put together a letter.
We’ll send it to the President of the Homeowners Association, kind of giving our viewpoint, from the
Planning Board, where we want to see this thing go, and the reasoning behind wanting a master plan, as
Marilyn’s saying, that that would be the incentive for them to do such a thing, and that would probably make
it clear and put it on the table what our position is from the Town.
MR. LAPPER-That incentive, which is something we hadn’t asked for, because we don’t think everyone
wants to expand, but that is very similar to The Great Escape, which you mentioned, that a blanket approval,
and if all that was was that you could add the second story, if you did everything that John, and what the
Board ultimately comes up with, I mean, that might be enough incentive to get them to do it, if that’s
something that the Board’s interested in, and again, that’s beyond what we were going to ask for, but that
might work.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, from a starting point, I mean, I think we need to get the message to the
Homeowners Association how important it is for them to come up with a master plan and I think I’ll sit
down with Marilyn and draft it and we’ll put together a letter to that effect, and get it to them.
MR. LAPPER-That would go to Mike Dennis, the President.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-No, I think that’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that we still have to, on the table is still the resolution from the Zoning
Administrator on the definition of a lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get to it.
MR. VOLLARO-Until that’s cleared up, I think, until there’s a resolution to that, I don’t know.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re asking for a variance from that.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. So let’s see how that goes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I think the reason, I think it’s very clear, I think, to all of you, and the Nizoleks and Jon
and Bill, why we asked you people to get involved. You’ve done a very insightful job of looking at this thing,
and I think it’s very important, Cathy expressed some of the concerns about, what is the future of this place?
This is not the first application that we have had for an expansion. This is the second one, and this is why we
took the time to ask the Board to look at it. There was one previously that we gave approval to. It turned in
to be a little horror story for the builder because the house broke when they tried to expand it, and so they
ended up with a totally new house on the piece of property, and I don’t know the.
MR. MASON-There were some others prior to that?
MR. STONE-Were there some?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STONE-But certainly in terms of Chuck’s and my relationship to the Zoning Board, this was the second
one, the Nizolek application. So the logical question is, and I think you have addressed it better than I would
have ever imagined anybody could, because of your experience, you have addressed the question of where we
go. One of the things that we, as a Zoning Board, cannot do, is condition (lost words) applicants. You can, I
believe, we can’t, and that’s another concern. We could tell the Nizoleks they can go 692 square feet, and
everything else has to be the same. That’s as far as we can go. We only act on the application before us.
This is one of the reasons that we asked you people to look at it. I think it’s very important that the owners,
the Homeowners Association and anybody who owns property, they need information for their future plans,
and I think that’s the kind of things that John certainly has tried to put together, Bob, very insightful. All of
you have been very insightful in looking at this whole situation and raising a whole series of questions, which
is really what I think we wanted when we started this whole process. We wanted these questions raised. We
did not want to just put the Nizoleks on the spot, in terms of answering questions for the Homeowners
Association. We’re concerned that this wonderful project, I mean this wonderful piece of property, and it is,
there’s no question. I mean, Bill takes pride in it, and should take pride in it. It’s a beautiful spot there, a lot
of green space, well taken care of. The idea of renting, it’s a reasonable question, and I think, well, we
couldn’t ask that question of the Nizoleks, except, do you rent your property, and they would have said no,
and then we’d have been done. So I appreciate the fact that it has been brought up. I’m not, personally, Lew
Stone, is not concerned that people ask Bill to advertise the properties to rent them for him. I don’t think
that the use is any more than you would have if they were using it all the time, but that’s another thing. I
think it’s important, not how aggressively you market, and even if Bill put all those in, Jon, that’s fine, but
there’s only limited inventory. There’s only half the people, I think he said, who even consider renting. So
it’s a concern, and should be addressed, but that’s why we came to you people. These are questions that,
quite frankly, I don’t think we have the purview to do anything about. So I appreciate what you’ve done. I
think what you’re saying, Craig, in terms of a guidance document, certainly, for the Nizoleks, certainly for the
Homeowners Association, and certainly for us, is very important, but we’re still going to look at this
application with the idea of its effect, as far as the cumulative, the fact that this is the second or third where,
are we going to have it? And I think Bob raised the point, I think you have to go to, if every house on the
property went to two stories, what does it do to the property? And I hope that’s what you look at. That’s
why we asked, because we can’t condition him.
MR. LAPPER-And that was our intention in making the submittal to answer that question.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. STONE-Yes. I understand. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I agree with what you’ve said, you know, I think you’ve covered most of, I think three
points that strike me, that are more specific, one, I heard some comments which we hear in zoning at times,
of, well, this property over here has more intense development, and one on the other side has more intense
development, therefore we’re entitled to more intense development. Well, just because my neighbor’s got
three junk cars on his property and my other neighbor’s got three junk cars on his property doesn’t give me
the right to have three on mine, and I think with lake property that’s important. Just because it’s crowded
here and it’s crowded there doesn’t mean that this area should be crowded. It needs some protection that
way. I think the point John made about rental use. Rental use does intensify use of the property. It is a
problem with lake rentals. Having spent six years up in a real estate office that does lake rentals, I know a lot
of times owners are concerned, and they’ll ask the renters, is it just you, or is it you and other members of
your family? And there’s some of them that won’t rent to these multiple groups where I’m going to get my
neighbor and my co-worker to go in with me and rent the property, to cut the cost down, and what happens
is everybody brings their friends in. So it’s not just, you’ve got three families of two members of each.
You’ve got three families, two members each, and all their friends, that will show up for a time. So that is a
concern to be considered, and I think the third thing that’s been mentioned already of the need to consider
the worst case scenario, and years ago, I forgot what place it was I heard, but the basic rule in zoning is any
time you’re dealing with zoning, you have to assume the worst case scenario, if you’re going to set up rules or
consider something, because the worst case can happen, so I think, again, the thing to do with this is what
happens if all the cabins, at some point, go up to two stories, and if we can determine that that’s not going to
be a problem, then we’re covered, and if they all don’t go that way, fine.
MR. STONE-Let me just add one comment. Speaking of, this property is, I don’t want to say unique, but it’s
certainly different, in that you have 32 houses, all of which use common property, for waste disposal,
individually, and that’s different than most property. So you do get into a cumulative effect, and that’s the
concern that we’ve had from the beginning. That’s why we came.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, can I ask Bill something? Bill, when you take your water samples, you drink the
water and you have the water purifying plant right there.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where do you take your water samples?
MR. MASON-I take them, the routine samples I take from the office, which is an endpoint.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Of after they come through the water purifying plant?
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now, so, any ecoli or any coliform would be killed by the time it got to that
point.
MR. MASON-It better be.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but the bathing area where the boats are that has to, that’s checked, I
assume, by, because I know what we go through up at Hewlett’s Landing, by the LGA comes, not the LGA.
MR. MASON-The DOH used to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but who are the people that do the dye thing, to make sure there’s no septic
runoff into the swimming area?
MR. VOLLARO-The DEC.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that the DEC?
MR. STONE-Well, it’s usually the Town. In this particular case here it’s the Town of Queensbury.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s done on a periodic basis, right? Well, I guess what I’m getting at is, here’s
what happened up at Hewlett’s Landing in Eichlerville, which is the main part of Hewlett’s Landing. A man
named George Eichler owned all these cottages, and then, as he got older, he started selling them off to all
the people that had been renting them for years, and years, and what ended up happening was, after these
people bought them, they started adding on and building them. Now there’s quite a few more than 32
cottages in Eichlerville, or at The Pointe at Hewlett’s Landing. So, apparently, there was just an incredible
discharge of, you know, of failed septic systems that was going into the lake in various parts, because what
was happening was is many of the homes were built farther back on the golf course. There’s a stream that
runs through, and the septic runoff was getting into the lake. So I guess they were, I don’t know if they were
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
ordered or what happened, but they ended up building a septic system or a sewer system or a water treatment
plant that’s pumped back, all the way to the golf course, which is not much different from your 18 acres
there. What I’m just saying is, I’m just interjecting this because it was the only solution, and now it works,
but they had to float a bond and they all had to chip in. It was very expensive. Again, we’re talking more
than 32 families. Now, this is very similar because those people still, they rent their places out, too.
MR. MASON-In Eichlerville?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Like the people that own them, I know that they’ll come up for maybe a month
and then they’ll rent their cottage out for another month to help pay the taxes, or for whatever reason that
they can’t come the whole month they might as well be making some money on their property, but there is an
incredible amount of traffic and play on the land, and I’m sure the same is here, and another question I had
is, when somebody, let’s say one of those homeowners doesn’t have his own boat, so he rents his dock space
out to somebody else, where do they park right there? Show me on the map. I’m just curious on this.
MR. MASON-Cathy, all of the roads and the parking lots are shown in brown.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So if they were renting the dock from let’s say somebody.
MR. MASON-Here?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, then that would be that.
MR. MASON-They’d probably park in that lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Probably park there. Yes. That’s near the place where that person owns that dock?
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MASON-We don’t have reserved spots. So I can’t say that. Anybody who comes to my office, they get
a map, a reduced map of this, which just shows the parking, and, you know, I have had people who’ve come
in and said, don’t I get a reserved spot, and I’ve said, no, we don’t have that here at Takundewide. Find a
spot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just assuming that if any of those people were going to rent their place, they’d
probably screen the people that are renting them, because it’s their own personal, and they probably are
getting the same people every year coming back.
MR. MASON-It’s a good group of people, and if we do get a bad egg in, they don’t come back the next year.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They don’t come back, yes.
MR. MASON-It’s a nice place, and we don’t allow that, and then I just wanted, two things came to my mind,
one was on the rental. I do agree with you, rental is more intense, but I remember, Carol, you and I talked
about this at the last meeting. You were in the property and you were aware of this statement I’m going to
make. What I’ve noticed, since 1985, is that the place is under utilized compared to private ownership. Each
year, as we get more and more use by owners, we have less use of the facility as a whole. I’ll walk up through
the property on a beautiful night in the summertime and half the cottages (lost words) the lights are out. The
owners aren’t here, and that didn’t used to be. Prior to 1985, all 31 cottages were rented and they were
packing them in just like people do, you know, some not, some were, but the whole place, lights on
everywhere, and it’s used less and less through the years. I’d just make that statement. It’s anecdotal, but it’s
true, and then the other thing, I think some people had a misconception about the 18 acres. Takundewide
consists of 21 acres total, and that includes all this green here plus this white area here. The 18 acres is this,
plus anything that’s green. This isn’t an 18 acre separate parcel. I know that. I’ve heard other people
mention that, and I keep meaning to point that out. The 18 is all throughout, and where the septic systems
are are on the 18 acres currently. What we have as an option is this approximately seven acres up in the back
that we could use for a community system, if we ever needed one. We’ve always felt that was a great asset to
have. We’d never sell it, but you don’t know what finances are in the future. The Homeowners Association
owns that, and all the green, all the roads, the tennis courts, yes.
MR. STONE-So, I’m just curious, why isn’t it green?
MR. MASON-It was white because the initial application back in 1984 we were going to split that into three
lots, three residential lots, and there were going to be 35 units at Takundewide, and the Planning Board, as a
condition of approval of the thing, nixed the three lots. It was easy, like I said. We said, fine, we’ll always
keep it as the use that I’ve just mentioned, and that’s exactly what all of the owners, I believe, that’s what
owners anticipate that land to be used for some day.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-So is the white area a separate lot?
MR. MASON-The white area is part, it should all be green.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MASON-It was separated just in, back in ’84, but there was never a deed drawn and separated. That’s
all part of the Homeowners Association.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, just living and growing up in another Association on Lake George,
up at Piklo Bay, just north of Hewlett’s Landing, this is, when I look at this, and then I look at what Piklo Bay
is like, oh my heavens, it’s like day and night. I mean, this is so much more aesthetically tuned in and
environmentally, the people are so much more concerned, and I don’t know if it’s the Town of Queensbury
or what, but, compared to the Town of Dresden, but, oh my heavens. I mean, they’re just, I get really
worried up there sometimes, because, you know, they don’t have that checks and balance.
MR. MASON-That environmental look to the place, and we’re trying to maintain it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments?
MR. STEVES-I just wanted to clarify a comment I mentioned earlier, and I’m sure everybody understood
what I meant, but when I said that we haven’t done other master plans, I meant with individual homeowners
rather than commercial activities.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to do a resolution on this thing because we’ve already sent an
acknowledgement to the ZBA, but what we’ll do is I’ll work with Marilyn. We’ll put together this letter.
We’ll carbon copy everybody, including the ZBA, Jon, Bill, the Homeowners Association, direct it to them.
MRS. RYBA-Are you sure you don’t need a resolution? Do you need a resolution, Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I’d like to see what the letter says.
MR. LAPPER-Your Board’s going to want to read all the minutes anyway.
MR. STONE-Yes. We definitely are.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the purpose of this thing was to try to come to some consensus here of where
we’re going with this thing, and I think we kind of achieved that here tonight, and the message that the
Planning Board is going to be sending is that we won’t be entertaining anymore applications for expansion up
there until we achieve a master plan.
MR. STONE-Yes, but you’re also saying, I gather from the consensus, is that you, if it were before you, you
would approve the Nizolek application?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we already sent that resolution to you to that effect.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s already been done. Okay. Is everyone in agreement with that, Planning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we go that far?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, with the last resolution we did.
MRS. RYBA-Do you want me to read it?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s all right.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know if we approved it, but we basically said that we would approve it, and they may
have to come back for a formal approval, but we couldn’t approve it until the ZBA.
MR. MAC EWAN-We felt that this application that we didn’t have issue with it, that if it went back to the
ZBA and you did your thing.
MR. STONE-If we granted a variance, would it come before you?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/08/02)
MR. RINGER-It would still have to come before us for a site plan, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it would.
MR. RINGER-And we couldn’t approve the site plan until you approve the variance. Conceptually we said,
hey, you get the ZBA approval, and we’ll approve it. That’s basically what we said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, so we’re all set on that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right.
MR. STONE-We still reserve the right to do whatever we’re going to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s true.
MR. STONE-Well, no, I thank you for, I certainly thank you for the time and the effort you guys have gone
through.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll carbon copy you. You’ll get the minutes so you can pass them along to your
members of this meeting. Is that it, everyone?
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MASON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I move to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
25