2002-06-20 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 20, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
LARRY RINGER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED MARY CAROL WHITE PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AGENT: AMERI-LOG CONSTRUCTION ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: ROCKY
SHORE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK.
PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCK REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-60. APA, CEA, LGPC CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 1-92, AV 6-1990, BP 2002-068 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/02 TAX MAP
NO. 3-1-4 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16, 179-60
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we had a public hearing on March 26, which was tabled, and there is one this
th
evening.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2002, Mary Carol White, Meeting Date: June 20, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes construction of an open sided boathouse with sundeck.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
A boathouse is an allowable use in the Waterfront Residential zone.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
It is not anticipated that the proposed use will present a significant increase to the burden on the
supporting public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed structure should not present any public hazards related to traffic or the parking of
vehicles.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed structure will present a further visual impact to the area as no structure, other than the
dock exists in this location.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed location of the boathouse appears to be the most feasible.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Vehicular traffic should not be impacted by this project.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The off street parking on this site should not be affected by this project.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The stormwater drainage for this site is not an issue.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The water supply and sewage disposal systems are not at issue with this application.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the
maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased
plants.
This project does not propose the removal of any vegetation.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Not applicable to this project.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV-37-2002 res. 5/15/02 size of dock.
AV-6-1990 res. Tabled 1/17/90 not resolved 16x16 addition – shoreline setback relief
SP-1-1992 res. 1/8/92 second floor addition and lakeside deck
BP 8548 issued 6/7/84 two car detached garage reapplied for in 1988 BP 8824
BP 92-068 issued 3/5/92 second floor addition
Staff comments:
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved an area variance (AV 37-2002) on May 15, 2002, which allows for
the 938 square foot dock to remain on the property. As a part of that application the applicant stated that
they would limit the size of the boathouse to 28 feet long x 16 feet wide. The applicant has submitted
updated plans with these new dimensions. The revised plans also show the height of the boathouse to be 14
feet. The proposed boathouse meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted. A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
Site Statistic Confirmation:
The mean water levels appear to have been determined using the suggested LGPC method.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. BROWN-Just to paraphrase and catch up from last time. Recently, middle of last month, the Zoning
Board granted the applicant an Area Variance with regard to the size of the existing dock. As part of the
application, the applicant stated they’d limit the size of the boathouse, actually reduce it from the original
proposal down to 28 by 16. Subsequently, the applicant submitted revised plans that show a reduced, or
reduction in the size of the boathouse, and that’s the application you have before you tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm
of Little & O’Connor and I represent the applicant, and with me is Robert Sutliff who is the builder for the
project. Basically, this is a project that came before you and was sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals
because of a question as to the size of the underlying dock or I guess the dock’s wharf, which has been
resolved. As part of that process the sundeck is (lost words). The sundeck porch of the (lost word) of the
boathouse has been reduced from 19 feet by 38 feet to 16 feet by 28 feet. The plans have been submitted in
accordance with that. We think it’s in compliance with all the dimensional requirements for the sundeck. It
has a staircase that will come off the (lost word) of the sundeck down to the dock (lost words). Basically,
that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Good evening. What method did you use to determine what height this was ultimately
going to be? They show 14 feet, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-They determined what the mean high water mark is and measured the distance between
the mean high water mark and the deck of the dock, and then how far above that the construction would be.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So did they call the Lake George Park Association and get the water height that day?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe that’s, there’s a form that the Lake George Park Commission will give you that
tells you how (lost words) the measurement at Roger’s Rock, I think, or Ticonderoga.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s Roger’s Rock. You’re correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, there’s a letter in the file dated March 14 that says the Lake George
th
Park Commission is prepared to issue the permit for this dock and the sundeck once we complete all the local
approvals.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-No, that’s my only question. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Other than this rendition that I see here, showing the size of the upper addition, the
28 by 16, there are no other drawings here that define this new build upper deck. It’s not accompanied by
any construction drawings. Actually, we’ve required this of other applicants. We usually ask for a reasonably
good set of drawings to define the construction.
MR. O'CONNOR-A quick review of the file was that there was a set of drawings that were submitted with
the original application, and that the only modification to that is the size of the sundeck, dimensions of the
sundeck. Robert, where are you? This is the same sundeck and deck system that he has installed on maybe
two others at least that I’ve been involved with, Dr. Farber’s dock, which is in Queensbury, and I think one
other was in Lake George. I’m trying to think of who it was. I guess my question is, we will submit, have no
problem to submit both sets of drawings, if they aren’t in the file.
MR. VOLLARO-Are they in the file, Craig?
MR. BROWN-No. The original site plan file didn’t have a complete set of structural drawings. Typically,
that’s not something that’s included. Usually the elevation drawings give you a picture of, what you’re being
asked to approve is all we get, and that’s what we have here.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have?
MR. BROWN-Elevation drawings?
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t mean this one, do you, this little?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s similar to what was in the original application. Just the size, the dimensions of the
sundeck have changed, per the variance condition.
MR. STROUGH-The Zoning Board had asked them to make it smaller and they did.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And they did. That’s the Area Variance 37-2002?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. I’ll go along with it, but I would like to make sure that there’s a level playing
field, when these docks come before us, that we make some sort of decision as to what kind of drawings we
really want. I think what’s in here doesn’t portray the entire, and it gives you an idea of what it is, but, you
know, I’d like to see a little bit more than that, but as long as you’re happy with it, as far as a set of drawings
is concerned, that the file depicts what’s being built.
MR. BROWN-Absolutely. The details, the construction stuff is all worked out in the building permit process.
All that stuff’s submitted at the Building Department at the time of construction.
MR. VOLLARO-Good enough. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I kind of agree with Bob, as far as the drawing goes, but, nothing. I got a little break
here. I’ve got to think about something. I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing. Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? We need to do a SEQRA, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, is the correct address on this application Wild Turkey Lane or is it Rocky
Shore Road? Which of the two? This is not a quiz, Mike.
MR. O'CONNOR-If I remember right, there was a bit of controversy. One person called it one thing and
the next person called it the next thing.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. VOLLARO-They’re the same? You’re telling me.
MR. O'CONNOR-They actually have had signs, probably five or six signs up and five or six signs down. I
got involved in it about three years ago when they went around and named all these roads, and I don’t know
how it got resolved because they were still putting signs up and taking down. That was when Paul Naylor was
the Superintendent of Highways.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That explains it. One is Rocky Shore Road, and the other one goes under the name
of Wild Turkey Lane.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think Rocky Shore is what our client believes the name is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are three places that go in off one entrance off of 9L or whatever it is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, he’s saying that because on the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board had it listed as Wild
Turkey Lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Wild Turkey Lane, right.
MR. STROUGH-And for us it’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Rocky Shore Road. I’m just wondering what, will the real road please stand up.
MR. O'CONNOR-The tax map number is correct, I hope.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mike, this is what had me a little confused. Off 9L, I was driving, and it was a while
ago. That’s why I kind of have a little lapse here because when we see so many, they sometimes, they run in.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is quite steep going down.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but the road off 9L was, what was the name of that, because they’re all marked
really distinctly.
MR. O'CONNOR-Rocky Shore because you only go in about 30 feet, and then you come to the other named
road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the dispute.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we went down.
MR. O'CONNOR-It should all be one name, and I honestly, as I sit here, don’t know how that would
resolve.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do our SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MARY CAROL WHITE, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2002 MARY CAROL WHITE, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 10-2002, Mary Carol White proposing an
open sided boathouse with sundeck. APA, CEA, LGPC. Cross Reference: SP 1-92, AV 6-1990, BP 2002-
068. Tax Map No. 3-1-4. Section: 179-16, 179-60 and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 2/27/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/02, and
6/20 Staff Notes
6/5 Meeting Notice
5/21 New Information received: letter and drawing
5/15 ZBA resolution
3/26 PB resolution - Tabled
3/26 Staff Notes
3/22 PB from C. Brickman – public comment received
3/21 FOIL request: M. Jones
3/19 Notice of Public Hearing
3/18 FOIL request: D. Jones
3/14 M. Gallagher, LGPC to D. & M. C. White
3/13 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact
3/8 LGPC from D. Jones
3/6 Meeting Notice sent
2/21 LGPC, Notice of complete application
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 3/26/02 and 6/20/02 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 35-97 TYPE II MODIFICATION RICHARD MEYER PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 1512 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE CURRENT
GREENHOUSE OPERATION AND TO INCLUDE SALE TO GENERAL PUBLIC.
NURSERY IN A RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS
WELL AS ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 28-2-3 LOT SIZE: 76.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICHARD MEYER, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on May 21 was tabled, and there is one tonight.
st
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-97, Modification, Richard Meyer, Meeting Date: June 20, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant wishes to modify a previously approved Site Plan approval to allow sales to the public with an
existing greenhouse operation.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Nurseries in a RR-3 zone require site plan approval. The applicant is modifying a previously
approved site plan, which also requires site plan approval.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
Supporting public services and facilities should not be burdened by this proposal. The Bay Ridge
Fire Dept. has submitted a letter stating that emergency vehicles will be able to access the property
without difficulty.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
No public hazards related to traffic are anticipated as a result of this proposal. The site appears to
have enough area to accommodate the required parking spaces for a use of this type, however fewer
spaces than required are shown on previously approved plans. Access/vehicular circulation issues
could exist if the site cannot accommodate the required parking.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
No negative impacts of this type are anticipated with this project.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
Buildings and signage at this location appear to be compatible with the site.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Vehicular access should not be an issue at this location.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The site appears to be able to accommodate the required parking. The Planning Board may wish to further
discuss this issue with the applicant.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Stormwater drainage should not be an issue at this location.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The water supply and sewage disposal systems are not at issue with this application.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the
maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased
plants.
The site is setback a considerable distance with a large vegetative buffer surrounding the nursery operation.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
As previously discussed, it is anticipated that emergency vehicles will be able to access the property without
difficulty.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 35-97 9/23/97 approval of wholesale greenhouse operations.
Staff comments:
As previously stated, the area appears to be able to accommodate the required parking for this type of use.
The required number of parking spaces for this use is 49. Previous site plans show a total of 24 spaces at this
location. The Planning Board may wish to discuss this issue with the applicant.
The site plan has been revised to show turnouts along the access drive. The access drive does have some
stream crossings as it enters the property. In order to avoid any filling of these streams and to avoid
siltation/stormwater runoff into any stream, the Planning Board may seek to determine from the applicant
the location of the proposed turnouts in relation to the streams and discuss stormwater management methods
if required.
The applicant’s plans also show a free standing light to be used at this location. Although no negative
impacts are anticipated with lighting at this location, the Planning Board may want to further discuss what
type of style and intensity of lighting will be used at this location.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
SEQR Status:
Type: II No further SEQR review required.
Site Statistic Confirmation:
As previously mentioned, the site seems to be able to accommodate the required parking, however the
applicant should indicate where the required parking will be on the site.”
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett, representing Rick Meyer, who’s with me tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get Staff notes first. Please. I’m a creature of habit.
MR. BROWN-Okay. If you remember, the last time, the Board sent the applicant away for basically two big
issues, one’s some sort of confirmation from the emergency service department in that area, Bay Ridge Fire
Department. We’ve got a letter from them, and the other one was to address turnouts on the road, to
address potential for two way traffic. Like I said, we got the letter from Bay Ridge, and the applicant’s plan
has shown five or six new turnout areas, I think eight new turnout areas. One of the outstanding issues that
Staff still has is the stream crossings weren’t clearly identified on the plan, and if any these new turnouts and
the fill is in the proximity of the stream crossings, just to make sure that that’s handled in an appropriate
manner so there’s no erosion or sedimentation control problems there, and then a freestanding light is shown
back in the display area. A question of what type of light. Is it going to be portable. Is it going to be a
permanently mounted light that goes out during the seasonal displays and go back, I don’t know, probably
something that’s going to be portable, just to make sure that it’s not a 50 foot that can be seen from outer
space. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. As Craig mentioned, you asked him to go back and survey the road. Unfortunately,
three streams come across that road and were not surveyed. We can add them to the map for the record, if
you wish. We’ve tried to locate these turnouts away from those streams, but I understand the comment we’d
provide erosion control at those turnouts. We are also providing head walls and wing walls at each stream, so
that stormwater, normal stormwater will be deflected into the woods and not directed into the stream. The
lighting that was mentioned, that is to be a portable freestanding that can be taken down (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess one of the questions I had was, are we still looking for waivers on the
lighting plan and the stormwater management plan? Is that still a waiver that’s being requested?
MR. JARRETT-We submitted a letter regarding stormwater prior to last meeting. I thought that was
acceptable. The lighting, we provided this note regarding portable lighting will be provided late in the season,
if it’s necessary. We don’t have a permanent lighting plan to submit.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no waivers being requested at tonight’s meeting, either lighting or stormwater
management?
MR. JARRETT-At this point, no.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I don’t remember what we did the last time, or don’t see it anywhere. As far
as parking is concerned, you are talking about 24 spaces. I don’t see any, personally, any need to go up to the
maximum amount of parking on this, which would be, I think, 42. Is that correct, 42 spaces?
MR. HILTON-Yes, that was our calculation.
MR. VOLLARO-So far, just looking at this, I think it’s pretty straightforward. I don’t have any further
comments. There’s plenty of room here. They’re talking about 76.96 acres. God, that’s certainly enough
room. The turnouts provide spots on here where people can get off the road, in the event there’s two way
traffic. That was one of our biggest concerns at the last time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t have a letter from Bay Ridge in my packet, from the fire company, but it was
submitted? Okay. Fine. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought, when I looked at the turn off areas on the map, I thought they were located
in excellent, in great spots, and I think it’s going to work out nicely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t at the last meeting, but I did visit this site the previous month and I’ve read the
minutes of last month’s meeting. So I’m up to date on it, and I think the turn off’s are going to be adequate,
also. The lighting, you have no electricity into the greenhouse. So is that going to be a generator type
lighting? Or how are you going to light that?
MR. MEYER-We do have electricity in the greenhouse.
MR. RINGER-I thought I read in the minutes that there was no lighting in the greenhouse.
MR. MEYER-There is no lighting. It’s just daylight hours, but there is electricity in the greenhouse.
MR. RINGER-My question was, the way I read the minutes, there was no lights in the greenhouse itself.
MR. MEYER-There is none.
MR. RINGER-How are you going to run that portable lighting? Where is that, is that going to be a
generator, or is that going to be electric from the house?
MR. MEYER-We have electric in the greenhouse.
MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s what I, the way I read the minutes there was no power in the?
MR. MEYER-Yes, we do have power in the greenhouse.
MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. How high are you talking on that lighting, and what wattage do you have on
the portable lighting? I mean, I’d like to keep it down.
MR. JARRETT-The freestanding we anticipated 10 feet or so, and it would be relatively low wattage, to
provide safety. In fact, the real plan is not to provide lighting and not to run the operation at night, but late
in the fall and the sun goes down early, you may have to do that.
MR. RINGER-As I read through the minutes, I really didn’t want lighting there either, because I didn’t want
to encourage people driving that road at night, but if you have lighting, I’d certainly like to make sure that it’s
minimum, or minimal at best.
MR. JARRETT-One thing we do have is a little bit of screening.
MR. RINGER-Yes. It probably wouldn’t affect anything where it is. I still feel, I’d rather keep people going
in and out of there during the daylight hours than going in and out of there at night. I didn’t have anything
other than that, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No. The turn offs look fine. I’m all set with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with it. I actually drove it at one point where they had the turnouts marked, and
worked very well. It’s good.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-So I see this as being fairly minimum impact. The operation I think that the applicant’s
proposing is pretty limited. I mean, it’s not going to be a Home Depot. I mean, if the applicant realizes
significant bursts in business, I think he’s going to have to upgrade some of his accessibility standards, but for
now, given the limited operation that I perceive this to be, I find this pretty satisfactory, with the exception
that I remember very clearly that Mr. Chairman did request those stream crossings be noted on the plot. He
made that very clear, and so I’m somewhat dismayed that they’re not there, but otherwise, I have nothing
further to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? We left the public hearing open. Anyone want
to comment on this application?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-97 RICHARD MEYER,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by: Richard Meyer
Site Plan Review No. 35-97 Applicant: Richard Meyer
Type II Property Owner: Same
Zone: RR-3A
MODIFICATION Location: 1512 Bay Road
Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Request is to continue current greenhouse operation
and to include sale to general public. Nursery in a RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval as
well as any modification to an approved site plan.
Warren Co. Planning: 5/8/02
Tax Map No. 28-2-3
Lot size: 76.96 acres
Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 21, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/02:
6/20 Staff Notes
5/29 New Information Submitted
5/24 C. Mellon, Bay Ridge Fire Co. to C. Brown – access for emergency vehicles
5/21 Planning Board resolution – tabled
5/21 Staff Notes
5/14 Notice of Public Hearing
5/8 Warren Co. Planning: NCI
5/1 Meeting Notice
4/24 R. Meyer from H. Thomas Jarrett: Stormwater Management
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 21, 2002, June 20, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements
of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared
by staff and is subject to the following conditions:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
1. The stream crossings shall be noted on the plat before signature, and
2. Erosion control measures are going to be implemented at the streams, and
3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/20/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Rich.
MR. MEYER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-02 TYPE: UNLISTED HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 43 HANNEFORD ROAD
APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 8 BOAT
SLIPS AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-93, AV
27-94, SP 21-94, SP 38-94, AV 31-99 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX
MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-10
HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Special Use Permit No. 1-02, Harold & Eleanore Smith, Meeting Date: June 20, 2002
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes the establishment of a marina, which, per the Lake George Park Commission, is to be
classified as a Class A marina. Per Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A marinas require a Special Use
Permit from the Planning Board.
Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a
Special Use Permit according to Section 179-10-50 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance. The following general standards were contemplated during review:
1. Is the proposed use in harmony and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and what effects
may the project present relative to the health, safety and welfare of the town and its residents?
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies marinas and residential docks as uses needing attention
in Neighborhood 1. Recommendation R1.5 appears to discuss larger, more commercial applications,
rather than the “residential marina.” Recommendation R1.8 suggests that “each residential parcel be
allowed one dock of size and capacity suitable for the single family residential use allowed in the
area.”
2. Is the proposed use compatible with the neighborhood and what impacts may the project present
relative to density, community character, adjoining properties, districts and uses?
According to the applicants application, the Rooney parcel, to the north, has a Class A marina permit
from the Lake George Park Commission, (LGPC). A neighbor to the south of the Smith parcel,
Hopper, has applied for a similar Special Use Permit. It appears as though current the usage of the
shoreline in this area is not dissimilar to the proposed use.
3. What impacts may the project present relative to vehicular congestion, parking and existing traffic
conditions?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
The proposal calls for the parking of six vehicles along and within the public right of way for Pilot
Knob Road, apparently with the permission of Warren County Department of Highways under a
permit issued in 1979 to an Erwin H. Johnson, not the applicant.
4. What impacts may the project present relative to infrastructure, utilities and public services?
With the exception of the use of the public right of way for parking, the proposal does not appear to
present any significant impacts relative to these issues.
5. What impacts may the project present relative to environmental and natural resources including the
physical suitability of the site for the development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and the emissions
of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise that may be detrimental to public health, safety
and welfare?
The proposal calls for the usage of 100 feet of shoreline with 4 docks containing 8 boats. The Town
zoning ordinance, along with the LGPC regulations require at least 500 feet of shoreline to support 4
docks and, each dock is to be constructed at least 20 feet from the property line. The proposed
parking along Pilot Knob Road, per the “Special Conditions” of the County permit, is to be graded
“so that water will flow from the north to the south into the existing cross culvert.” This method of
stormwater discharge does not provide for any treatment of the water before it leaves the site. Under
the proposed plan, the stormwater from the parking area will be directly discharged into Lake George
with no treatment or removal of contaminants and solids. This is not allowed.
6. What impacts may the project present relative to the long term economic stability and community
character of the town and surrounding property, districts and uses?
From the statement in the applicants cover letter, this property an at least one adjoining parcel have
operated as such for several years. It appears as though some of the landowners in this area may be
supplementing income with the dock rental fees. It could be argued that this type of land use might
present a more commercial atmosphere or character rather than a residential one, especially, if such
uses become widespread.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 27-94 res. 6/22/94 12 x 23 addition – setback relief
Site Plan Review 21-94 res. 6/28/94 12 x 23 addition
Site Plan Review 38-94 res. 4/18/95 24x 36 single family dwelling
Area Variance 31-99 res. 6/16/99 240 sf deck – setback relief
Staff comments:
The proposed use, while utilizing existing site conditions and structures, appears to be a significant burden on
the subject property. While the CLUP recommendation states that parcels should be limited to one dock,
consistent with the residential use of the property, the current ordinance allows for multiple docks on a parcel
based on shore frontage. As stated above, the minimum shoreline required for four docks is 500 feet. Is any
boat or trailer storage anticipated? Boat cleaning areas?
In this instance, it appears as though the majority of the intensity of the use is proposed along Pilot Knob
Road and the shore; however, a significant environmental concern appears to be unanswered, specifically,
stormwater runoff. Additionally, the application does not appear to offer any provisions for the required
sanitary “pump-out” facilities. Town code requires one parking space per two boats, LGPC requires one
space per boat. Additional review criteria may be found in the LGPC regs; 646-1.2, (a) General Requirements
and (b) Specific Requirements.
With no marina “overlay district” established, it is very difficult to regulate the establishment of marinas by
location only. Specific standards must be used when reviewing this type of use and, provided the parcel can
support the use while at the same time protect the neighboring properties, community and environment from adverse impacts, the
project shall be allowable. Reasonable, easily enforceable performance conditions may be imposed.
Staff recommends, if approved, that the Special Use Permit be issued as a Renewable Permit. A one year
time frame may be granted to allow for monitoring of the use for compliance with the approval and to
monitor impacts, if any.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, before the Staff notes are issued and read, I understand we’re supposed to
get a short tutorial on?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he’s going to do right now.
MR. BROWN-I guess, rather than Staff notes, I guess the Staff notes pretty much speak for themselves.
They’re pretty lengthy. They bring some different issues to the table that you may want to consider during
your review, but Special Use permits was a new section, or is a new Section that was added to the Ordinance
with the revision of the entire Zoning Ordinance, and what the thought, the intent of the Special Use permit
is to recognize uses that may not normally fit in all neighborhoods, and allow for them, all for the uses to be
established or expanded, provided they meet certain conditions, performance standards, try and keep as close
as possible to the character of the neighborhood, community, district, zoning district that they’re in. In
reviewing a Special Use Permit, the Planning Board is empowered, I guess more so than they would be with a
site plan review. Special uses that have been listed in the Ordinance are, as they’re listed, they’re allowable
uses. So there’s not really a way you can tell somebody they can’t have a Special Use Permit. What you can
do is impose stricter conditions. With the Special Use Permits you can post timeframes. They can be
approved for weeks, months, years, renewable, come back next year, we’ll check your progress, or you could
issue it as a permanent special use, where once it’s issued, they don’t need to come back before the Board.
With marinas specifically, I guess what the intent here is, originally when they were added to the Ordinance
was to try and capture the commercial marinas that are out there, places that pump gas and service boats and
store boats and have trailers and gas docks, and to get a handle on those uses and correct any problems, if
there are any, at a time when they wanted to come in to expand, add a storage building, add some more dock
spaces, you know, increase the showroom. With the two applications that you’re going to see tonight for
Special Use Permits, they’re a little bit different flavor. They’re residential properties with, this isn’t a term in
the Ordinance, but residential marinas. There’s no gas docks. There’s no boat storage. There’s no boat
cleaning. There’s no pump out facilities. They’re extra docks on residential property that people want to rent
for whatever reasons. So, I guess the intent of the Special Use Permit, when it comes to these types of
marinas, isn’t to eliminate them or reduce them significantly. It’s more of an attempt to, or more of a review
to address any problems, either environmental or structural, whatever the conditions, site conditions might
be, get those conditions or problems rectified, if they are problems, and impose certain performance
conditions or performance standards on the use, if necessary, if need be, and depending on the location,
they’re going to vary, depending on the review and the information that’s brought forward. I don’t know if
that answers everything that you’re looking for. I’d certainly be happy to try and answer any other questions
you might have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, is there anything you wanted to add?
MS. RADNER-Again, the Zoning Ordinance has recognized that these are permitted uses. So you’re not
giving them a variance. What you’re doing is you’re doing SEQRA review to make sure that any
environmental impacts are mitigated, and you’re making sure that any measures that can reasonably be
imposed to ensure that the use remains in harmony with the neighborhood are put in place, and basically for
each kind of Special Use Permit you want to refer to the Ordinance and make sure you go through the criteria
the same as you go through your criteria for site plan review, and what you’re going to find is that it’s very
similar to site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-If anyone has a question, now is the time to ask.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll ask a question. In reviewing both of these applications, and I noticed that there
seems to be three marinas in question here. One already has a permit, and there’s the Smiths and the
Hoppers who are requesting Class A permits for marinas, but I’m trying to determine in my mind, is there
any cumulative impact considerations because, taking a look at Pilot Knob Road, for example, and how that’s
configured down there, three marinas in a row now getting Class A things. Parking is a consideration I have.
It’s quite congested there and it’s a small road. Is there any implications here that we should be looking at on
the cumulative basis, as opposed to individual marina permits?
MS. RADNER-It’s the same as with any other SEQRA review. If the projects are in close physical proximity
or in some way are related, for example, they’re all being managed by the same person, in the same area, if
there are things that lead you to believe that they will have combined impacts, then absolutely it’s appropriate
to consider those cumulative impacts. This isn’t a situation, though, where you have to bring all of the
applicants forward, have them all describe their projects, and do a combined SEQRA review. That’s not
what you’re doing here. You’re going to consider each project on its own, but by all means, you can consider
how many parking spaces is each one adding to the area. What will the cumulative impacts be, and for each
later when it comes down the road, you’re going to consider what’s already there and how what’s being added
is going to the cumulative impacts of what’s existing.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. That was my only question before we get into it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was a good question.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else have questions?
MR. RINGER-I had a question, and I’m not really sure, we’ve got this thing that Chris Round sent out, and
in it is the Special Use Permit thing from the State, reprinted from Pace Law School Land Use, okay, and
under Area Variances on Page Two of that, it says where proposed Special Use Permit contains one or more
features which do not conform to the zoning requirements, an Area Variance can be requested from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and both of these cases, since they don’t have the parking or the toilet facilities and
stuff, wouldn’t that require a variance from the ZBA?
MR. BROWN-No. I think that’s yet to be determined. That’s what the review we’re doing tonight is for, to
see if they have those things, and if they have the parking, if they have the septic facilities, if they’re found to
be adequate. That’s what the review right now is for.
MR. RINGER-But if they don’t, does that go to the ZBA?
MS. RADNER-If they require an Area Variance.
MR. RINGER-Would that require an Area Variance?
MS. RADNER-An Area Variance is a very specific, legal term under the Ordinance. If somebody does not
have the minimum area that’s required for them under the Code, in most cases, Craig will have identified that
in advance and told them in addition to a Special Use Permit you need to go get an Area Variance. Your
dock’s too long. It’s too close to your neighbor, whatever it is. If, in your review of the permit, you find that
there are issues that were not considered, the applicant’s intending to have a more intense use than what had
been obvious from the application, there may be times when you identify Area Variances that are required,
and then you’re going to have to tell your applicants you have to go get an Area Variance, but in most cases,
the people who are coming before you are not going to need Area Variances.
MR. RINGER-I was just, you know, the definition I was reading of a Class A marina and Class B marina,
that they don’t conform, that both of these are Class A marinas, or B marinas, whatever, and they don’t
necessarily conform to all the requirements of the definition of a.
MS. RADNER-Are you looking at your.
MR. RINGER-I’m looking at the zoning.
MS. RADNER-Are you looking at your Town Codes definition of a marina, or are you looking at the Lake
George definition of marina?
MR. RINGER-The Town Code.
MS. RADNER-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So what’s the question again?
MR. RINGER-Since they don’t comply with all the things that are necessary, that doesn’t require them to go
to the ZBA, of the definition of marina?
MR. BROWN-Let me take a look at the definition of a marina.
MR. VOLLARO-Larry, what Section of the Code are you on?
MR. RINGER-I’m trying to find it back in here again. Under the Page 23 Definitions, and they give a
definition of a Class A Marina, Marina Class B, Marina Class A. Okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes. What you find in the definition of, in the Town Zoning Ordinance for a Class A Marina
is, if you have these things, you’re a Class A Marina. You don’t have to have all those things to be a Class A
Marina, but if you offer these services, then you’re classified as a Class A Marina.
MR. RINGER-So you don’t have to have all this, the gas, the restroom facilities. You don’t need to have all
those.
MR. BROWN-My understanding of the Lake George Park Commission’s regulations are, if you rent more
than one dock space, you rent two, you rent two thousand, you’re a Class A Marina.
MR. RINGER-But not all the stuff is required.
MR. BROWN-Not all the stuff is required. In case you’re going this way, if you find in the review, or if the
application comes in, and it’s required to have 14 parking spaces, and they’ve applied and showed you 10
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
parking spaces, that requires an Area Variance. That’s a requirement in the Ordinance to have a certain
number of parking spaces per square footage or dock slip or whatever. That portion would require a
variance, but if they don’t have one of these items, does it need a variance? No.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MS. RADNER-Could I just clarify that for the record, because I see people shaking their heads. What Craig
is saying is, when he’s referring to these items that they don’t have to have, the different items listed in
Definition that then classify you as a Class A Marina, we’re not going to force every Class A Marina to sell
gas, even if they don’t want to, because we’re not asking them to sell gas.
MR. METIVIER-But are we opening up the possibility, if we give them a Class A Marina permit, does that
give them the right to do whatever they want with that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right.
MR. BROWN-When you give a Special Use Permit for a marina, what you need to do is you need to issue it
with specific conditions. It’s similar to an Area Variance or any application that’s reviewed by a discretionary
board. Whatever the application is before you, if the application doesn’t ask for gas facilities, they don’t get
the gas facilities. If they come in and ask for them and they’re approved as part of the application, then they
get them. You’re not going to give them carte blanche by giving them a Class A Marina permit. To go a little
further, when you issue, if you issue, a Special Use Permit for a Class A Marina, you can have a list of
conditions on there that says, no trailer storage, no gas pumps. You can be specific and take those things
away, but if they’re not asked for, they’re not given. Does that answer your question, Tony? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I think we ought to start in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. SMITH-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us about your project.
MR. SMITH-Basically, as we see it, the letter we’ve written on it, and request is to set up so we can rent our
docks out. We’ve been there for over 11 years. The docks have been there a lot longer than we have. We
feel we’ve fulfilled all the requirements and conditions requested, and if there’s any questions on them, just let
us know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to start with you?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Would this be a marina where the boats would be docked there all the time, or
would there be a trailer trailering the boats and letting people launch their boats on a daily basis?
MR. SMITH-No. There is no launch. A Class A Marina does not allow launch or trailer, trailer launch or
trailer washing or storage of trailers by the Park Commission.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now my next question has to do with, would the parking be, as you’re
going north on Pilot Knob, would it be on the right side of the road or on the left side of the road?
MR. SMITH-Going north it would be on the right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-On the right side of the road.
MR. SMITH-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right, and have you parked there recently?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, because we just thought it was kind of tight when we were, there were two
vehicles when we were there on site visits, two, one was the Town van and the other one was Craig’s Jeep and
it just seemed like to park four in there, can you get four right between the two boundaries?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. SMITH-Yes. They park a lot more than that. As you see it laid out there, the square footage, what it
can consist of, using the nine by eighteen or ten by eighteen foot lots, but most of them they park more at a
diagonal, and they fit in there with no problems at all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who’s “they”?
MR. SMITH-The people that come up who use the boats.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I remember seeing this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. What people that come up to use what boats?
MR. SMITH-We’ve been using the docks for many years. These docks have been there for a long time.
Whereas then it’s been guests and friends, and these people have been, they’ve been in use for a long time.
We’ve always registered the docks as three of them commercial, one personal. This year the Lake George
Park Commission came to us and said, look, really we probably should, if you’re going to use, label them as
commercial like that, we should go for a marina permit, and that’s what we’re doing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But before you weren’t, now you’re going to charge money to dock them.
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Basically before you said you were letting friends.
MR. SMITH-It was more, and what they call gratuitous fees, and friends and guys, a couple of guys that work
with me, other friends and stuff, but, yes, we’re setting it up so it will be a marina that we can charge.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now, when we got out and went over to the side of the lake and looked, it
seemed to be really, as I’m looking facing the lake, towards the right hand part, it seemed to be very shallow
there.
MR. SMITH-As you saw, okay, the water and bay is not conducive for swimming or any uses such as that,
and that’s why we’re making the best use of it, I believe, for boats. You can’t swim. It is very shallow. The
bottom is like a real murky bottom, and it limits the size of the boats there. Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So that’s my next question. What would the size of the boats be?
MR. SMITH-It varies, but probably the largest in there is a 26 foot boat.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re saying that probably there wouldn’t be, it wouldn’t really be safe for the
boats or for the people to dock a boat that would be bigger than 26 feet?
MR. SMITH-It’s probably not safe, what you’re saying safe, the word safe. The problem comes is last year
when the lake, the water table dropped low.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Got low, right.
MR. SMITH-The boats had a hard time getting in out of the docks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. SMITH-But there again, it is something that we did, and it is a real soft bottom. So it’s something that
they did manage with, but that was, you know, that was one of the problems of last year.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there a stream that goes in there or from the, you know how it’s very high, the
ledge, up on the other side of the road. Is there any water that runs down in there, any natural streams?
MR. SMITH-No streams, per se. There is spring runoff. There are runoff culverts, but for any brooks or
active water, no, there is none to my knowledge.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But there’s still quite a bit of sediment built up in there.
MR. SMITH-I think that came from years ago, is when they used to actually run logs down Lake George. A
lot of the bark and logs had settled in that bay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They ran logs down that?
MR. SMITH-They used to run logs down through Lake George.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Really?
MR. SMITH-And I can remember being quite a bit younger, and my parents used to rent a place right up
there, and the bottom, at that time, was more like a bark. Where today it’s decomposed. It’s actually turned
into a silt, but to my knowledge, remembering back many years, that was never a sand bottom. It always had
a thick coat of bark on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thanks. I don’t have anything else for right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-If I understand it, part of the requirements are, you are actually allowed to do boat cleaning.
Well, are you going to do boat cleaning on the site?
MR. SMITH-No. This is not allowed with a Class A Marina.
MR. SEGULJIC-How about boat fueling?
MR. SMITH-No boat storing.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m talking about going out and buying five gallons and bringing it out to the boat. I’m not
talking about having a pump on site. I’m talking about bringing a can out there. How about the handling of
garbage?
MR. SMITH-There is, we have two garbage cans located in a closed garage, sealed garbage cans, that they
have use of, access to.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then sanitary waste disposal?
MR. SMITH-They have access to the living quarters. We have an electronic combination lock on the back
door that can be accessed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Toilet facilities, and then if any of the boats have pump out.
MR. SMITH-Okay. Well, that there we have a letter from Fisher’s Marina where most of them actually do
their launch, when they do bring them up, or they go up there for fuel, they have access, and we have a letter
from them welcoming them there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then if I’m correct, you’re showing eight parking spaces that are all not on a road,
correct, or all at your residence, I guess. Okay. All right. My concerns are, well, and how about people
staying on your boats? It’s just going to be day use? You’re not going to have any, what are they, cutties, or
whatever they call those?
MR. SMITH-Nothing there that anybody’s ever stayed on a boat. There is no power hook up or anything
like that. Nothing like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And all eight slips are going to be rented?
MR. SMITH-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SMITH-Well, it depends. We use it for personal could, later on, or the next person there may use
personal, but right now, to go for the permit, we’re using it as to say that all eight are rented.
MR. SEGUJLIC-And how are you going to communicate this to the renters, the various, you know, how to
handle the garbage, no overnight sleeping?
MR. SMITH-They’ve been there for years, and I mean, like I say, we know them, and anybody say to go in
for new people, it would be set up on a, you know, for a contract.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because one of the things I’d like to see is whoever rents there gets a little, some kind of
handout or something stating you can’t fuel your boat, and I mean, none of the five gallon tanks that you spill
it in the lake, how to handle your garbage, where the bathroom is, no cleaning of your boats, things of that
nature.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. SMITH-They’re really, to clean a boat, not there on a trailer at all, and so to clean the boat.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you see some people cleaning their boats on the lake.
MR. SMITH-Well, I’m telling you, if you stepped in that water, you’d go right up to your waist in muck, but
anyway, I understand what you’re saying.
MR. SEGUJLIC-Okay. Now there was a note in here from the Highway Department saying that the
applicant is to grade the parking area so the water will flow from the north to the south to the existing cross
culvert. If I’m correct, it’s graded actually from the north, it will flow from the north to the south. It will
actually flow from the south to the north, doesn’t it?
MR. SMITH-No, I believe it flows north to south.
MR. SEGULJIC- It flows north to south? And there is a culver there?
MR. SMITH-There is. It’s probably a tenth of a mile up the road, not quite, six tenths, it’s quite a ways up.
There is a culvert that crosses, before you hit 9L.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but there won’t be any cars parking in the roadway there.
MR. SMITH-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m just trying to figure something out. In reading the Class A permits base from the Lake
George Park Commission, there are some concerns with how you have this set up. First of all, you need 25
foot setback on either side of your property line to your next neighbor’s dock, or I’m sorry, from your dock
to the neighbor’s property line, and on either side you only have 15 feet. So I don’t know how they’re going
to handle that, but you need 10 extra feet of property line on either side, in order to be in compliance with
the rules set forth. The second thing, you are required to have restrooms. You said that you did in the
house, and you are required to have garbage cans, but you’re also required to have disposal of sanitary waste
and a pump out station, which you said Fisher’s would accommodate, but technically speaking, from a Class
A permit, this is a requirement, and the last thing was, you have 82 feet of lake frontage. Is that correct?
MR. SMITH-One hundred foot.
MR. METIVIER-Ninety-seven?
MR. SMITH-It should be 100.
MR. METIVIER-So you have 66 to 150 feet of lake front, one dock or wharf constructed as a straight pier.
So technically, with 100 feet, you’re only supposed to have one dock, and you have four. So I don’t
understand how we’re going to get by the setbacks, the number of docks, pump out, and issue you a Class A
permit. It just doesn’t make any sense. I mean, that’s three of the main, you know, things here that you are
not in compliance with, and I realize that they said that we can make conditions on a Class A permit, no fuel
can be dispensed, this, that and the other thing, but technically speaking, you’re out of compliance with
almost everything that is required of a Class A marina. So, it just, I don’t know. How long have you been
there, since ’91? And the docks were there when you bought the place?
MRS. SMITH-Yes. We believe since ’79.
MR. SMITH-’79 before.
MRS. SMITH-Before, that’s when we got the highway, or the previous owners got the highway permit.
MR. SMITH-If you look at any Class A marina, any marina, if you’ll find one dock in 500 foot, I don’t know
if there’s one that could meet the requirement on Lake George.
MR. METIVIER-What do you mean, what requirement?
MR. SMITH-Have one dock within 500 feet? Didn’t you mention something about?
MRS. SMITH-One, one hundred?
MR. METIVIER-No, no, 25 foot setback.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. SMITH-That’s the line. Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Your property line you have to be from your dock to the owner’s property line, you have to
be 25 foot setback, and you have 15 on either side.
MR. SMITH-This is something that, with the Lake George Park Commission, is not unusual. We go before
them after this, and this is something that will come up. The same way when you’re talking about pump outs.
The letter we’ve provided, this is not unusual. These are normal things that happen, that they accept.
MRS. SMITH-Yes, rather than us, as a residential area, having a pump out facility in our yard.
MR. METIVIER-Well, that’s just it. This is a residential area, and you have, you know, four docks, eight
boats, no parking.
MRS. SMITH-We have plenty of parking.
MR. METIVIER-I don’t think so. We had a problem. There were two cars there the other day and we had a
serious problem with it. My God, we couldn’t even get across the road to look at this application because we
were in people’s way. Are all these docks registered as wharfs with the Lake George Park Commission?
MR. SMITH-They are, that’s correct.
MR. METIVIER-They are? Do you have little placards for all of them?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, could you offer some clarification?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Maybe if I could just address a couple of Mr. Metivier’s concerns, what the site has now
is what’s called pre-existing, nonconforming conditions. The docks are there. The docks have been there.
The docks were there before the Town, at least, said you need this much setback from the property line. So
we’re kind of stuck with them where they are. Certainly you can take that information, if it doesn’t meet the
setback, if there are too many for that shore frontage, mix that all in your deliberations and maybe come up
with some mitigation and put the small boats on the outside or do something, but the number of docks that
they have, and the location that they’re at, is something that’s part of the application. That’s the pre-existing
nonconforming nature of the site. That’s what we’re dealing with for starters. That’s not going to change.
The pump out letter, I couldn’t find it in the file, certainly, but I’m sure we could get that to be included as
part of the final application. That is something that is historically acceptable by the Park Commission, if
you’ve got confirmation with one of the acceptable pump out facilities that’s fine. The parking, that one’s
kind of up for grabs.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Fisher Marina has a letter in to another application we’re coming on. So they’re
going to do both of these, both yours and I guess the Hoppers as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I am sympathetic to the situation at hand. I mean, you bought the place. It had the
docks. They’re rentable. On the other hand we have a new Town Code. Now do you use any of those
docks for your own private use, Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH-I do used to use one. I have not used it this year yet, no. I was planning on renting it out.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. We’ll consider them all rentable, then. So that’s eight potential rentals with the four
docks. So it boils down to, I’ve got two issues that need addressing. The parking and public safety, and when
I say public safety, because you’re required to provide bathrooms, because you’ll be a Class A marina, and I
understand that the bathrooms will be in your house and your house will be open to your renters, and that’s
fine, but the access from the docks to your house is questionable. Now one of our jobs on the Board is to
ensure public health, safety and welfare. As a matter of fact, that’s the opening line to the job of the Planning
Board, and I think that could be remedied, I mean, especially once you get renting one of these rentals, just
one of them would probably pay for a new pedestrian walkway up to the house. So I think that’s something
that we can deal with that. The other thing is, is that this is not a surveyed map, and you don’t show me the
road’s right of way. If you start at the center of the road and go 25 feet from the center of the road, I think
you’ll find that most of the parking that you’re offering is on public land.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. SMITH-Which I have a permit for.
MR. STROUGH-From?
MR. SMITH-Warren County.
MRS. SMITH-Department of Highways, Public Works.
MR. STROUGH-All right, but I have no copy of that.
MRS. SMITH-It was, we have a copy of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-He has it labeled Attachment B in our packets.
MR. STROUGH-It is?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s from 1979, it’s Permit No. 79-10.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that was a concern of mine, because the Code says that you have to show one
on-site parking space for each berth, but if you’ve got Warren County’s permission to do this, which is kind
of surprising to me because even the parking, even turning around down there, I was there twice tonight, and
of course we met earlier, and I had trouble backing out and turning around, but I’ll give you this, that
between the two marinas that we’re looking at tonight, you have better parking than the other marina. I
mean, you’d have more area for parking down by the road, because the parking up by your home and
Hanneford, that parking there is kind of out of character with the neighborhood, and I’m worried about
getting that neighborhood looking too commercial, but if we can keep the parking down on the Pilot Knob
Road, that will keep your upper area looking more neighborly, more in line with the neighborhood character
of that area, the upper area. Now if I was to rent from the other marina, what’s to prevent me from parking
in one of your areas? Because parking is limited along there, and there’s a lot of docks, and I’m going to
assume that a lot of them are for rent. So, I would just go to the closest place to park, the closest open spot,
and that’s where I’d park, even if I had to walk a couple of hundred feet to my boat.
MR. SMITH-We label this no parking, and it’s our property, and we let the people know, if somebody else
parks there rather than a guest, and ask them to move.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Let me jump in here. Clarify that for me. You said your property, or is it
County property?
MR. SMITH-It’s my permit for parking.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So nobody else can use it.
MR. SMITH-Right.
MRS. SMITH-Yes, and our friends tell other people that park that they don’t recognize their car, they leave
them notes on their cars or trucks.
MR. STROUGH-Can you provide signage? Would Warren County allow you to provide signage saying that
these parking spaces are private use only?
MRS. SMITH-Well, we have no parking there. They’ve allowed that.
MR. STROUGH-I see the no parking signs, but, gee, I parked there.
MR. SMITH-Well, we’ve had no problem. We’ve had no problem in the past.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I suppose the market would run that to an extent. I mean, if it was a persistent
problem, I wouldn’t be back to rent the slip again next year.
MR. SMITH-Right.
MRS. SMITH-Yes. I was going to just mention, as far as the toilet facilities and the house, too, they’re more
than welcome to drive up. They don’t have to walk up the cliff if they, it’s quite a cliff. They can drive up if
they need to.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m going to try and be open minded about this because this is all new to us.
Okay, but let’s get a feel about what it’s all about, because this is all new. The other thing is, too, is I had a
boat on Lake George, and I’ve learned that the best thing is to have a friend that has a boat on Lake George.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. SMITH-You sound like a boat owner, that’s all. The hole that you keep pouring money in.
MR. STROUGH-The two happiest days of my life. In any event, so I go up with friends pretty often, and
the friends that I have, they’re not in this area. They’re over on Rockhurst, but again, we drive our own car
up, and I bring my kids, and my coolers and whatever else, paraphernalia, and so I know that boating includes
inviting guests, and so it doesn’t seem that, there’s limited parking here. I’m just thinking out loud here, that,
you know, if one of these wharfs were to invite a friend, where would they park?
MR. SMITH-Again, they’ve been notified. They know. They have one parking spot. If they bring friends,
they either ride with them or.
MR. STROUGH-They’re going to have to carpool. So is a parking area assigned to each dock slip owner or
rentee?
MR. SMITH-Well, not specifically assigned, but they are well aware that what the limitations are, that it’s one
parking spot. They know the limitations involved.
MR. STROUGH-Do you have that? Maybe where we ought to go with this is maybe you could show me the
conditions that you supply to potential rentors, like no nighttime, none of this, and no overnight stays, and,
you know, directions if you need to use the bathroom you’ll have to drive up. If you could provide me with a
list, I’d be more comfortable with this showing what each potential rentor is going to see.
MR. MAC EWAN-You made mention that you have a contract with each one of your rentors, right?
MR. SMITH-No, this is what we intend to do, okay, as to present, no. This is what we intend to do, but
there will be a rental contract, correct.
MR. STROUGH-And in that would be addressing a lot of our concerns like you have to realize there’s only
one parking area that if you’re going to bring guests that you’re going to have to carpool or find another way
for them to be dropped off or something like that. If you could show me conditions like that, I’d be more
comfortable with approving this, and like I said, I’m trying to be open, because it’s all new, and this marina
thing, standards can be tough, and I suppose we want to move in that direction, but not necessarily picking
on you to do that. Okay. So at least for now, Mr. Chairman, those are some of my thoughts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll get to the parking. I just looked at the permit. I have just a comment on the
permit, and I know that the issuer which is Warren County Department of Highways, says that this permit is
still valid, etc., but it says 23 years ago, and certainly densities have changed along that road, and when this
permit was issued, I’m sure Pilot Knob was not very well traveled 23 years ago, and that’s just a concern of
mine, that I have concerns with traffic. Now I’ll go through some of my notes, and we can discuss them, and
I’m in the same mode that my fellow Board member is in, Mr. Strough. This is our first time around on
permits. So we’re treading step by step. Some of the things I noticed in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
and I recognize this is a nonconforming use, a prior established use, but the same statement appears from the
Hoppers when they get up here, that each residential parcel is allowed one dock for single family residents.
Now that Comprehensive Land Use Plan was prepared in 1989, I’m sure those docks were there before that.
So we’re talking all pre-existing nonconformance here. I just thought I’d bring that out. Now, getting over to
Tony’s comment, where the four docks that are in there would require 500 feet of shoreline. I guess that’s
another thing where it’s pre-existing, nonconforming, and we’re going to probably have to buy that, I
suppose. If this was a brand new marina going in, then they’d have to conform to 500 foot of shoreline for
the type of dockage that’s there. I do have a comment on the stormwater discharge into the lake from the
parking area. It has to do with the culvert that was mentioned a little bit ago. I think something really has to
be done there, on the stormwater discharge, because cars, as well as they be maintained, can drop oil and
other contaminants on the ground, and over time that stuff runs into the lake. Just give me a description of
how does that stormwater discharge look now to you. What is it?
MR. SMITH-Never, never noticed anything what you’d call stormwater discharge of any amount at all.
MR. VOLLARO-After rain, what happens after it rains?
MR. SMITH-Most of it’s either absorbed right there, but to ever say that there’s been runoff or any kind of
erosion in that parking area, we have never added sand, never done a thing to it. Never needed to.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because it is mentioned here in our Staff notes, and it says, this method of
stormwater discharge does not provide for any treatment. The proposed parking along Pilot Knob Road, per
special conditions of the County permit, is to be graded so that the water will flow from north to south into
an existing cross culvert, and that’s what I’m dealing with. All I can deal with is the black letter print here,
you know. I’ve been there and I’ve seen it, but I haven’t seen it in a downpour condition. So I don’t know
exactly what physically takes place there, and that’s a concern that I have.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. SMITH-Did Mr. Vinosa speak with you? Are you Chris Round?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not Chris Round.
MR. BROWN-No. Mr. Vinosa spoke, I didn’t speak to him, but I spoke to Chris who spoke to Mr. Vinosa.
MRS. SMITH-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Said he called in. Is this hearsay? Said that the permit was issued in ’79. It was still valid.
Just an observation. Historically, what I’ve noticed with County permits, work permits, occupation of the
right of way, their big concern is drainage. If you don’t interfere with one of their drainage ditches, you can
do what you want to do. They don’t look at safety. They don’t look at stormwater. They just want to know,
are the drainage ditches and drainage facilities going to work.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the County has no interest in wanting to go back and reevaluate this?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know what interest they have. Apparently, they don’t have an interest in reevaluating
this. I don’t know what their criteria is for issuing a permit, but my observation is historically they only care
about the drainage and that’s going to be maintained. It doesn’t appear that they consider anything else.
MR. VOLLARO-In the County Planning Board’s recent recommendation, it’s a pretty benign
recommendation. It says, with the stipulation that the applicant concur with the Town requirements for the
operation of a Class A marina. That’s what we’re trying to do here. So they haven’t given us very much
direction there at all, as far as the County’s concerned. I have something here that I just want to talk about,
and that’s, I recognize that these are private homes, a private house with X number of docks, and your
intention is to rent those out. That’s what the intention is. Now, I guess I want to ask Staff a question, and
I’ll just read my question to them and let them grapple a little bit with this while I grapple with it. How does
this square with 179-5-080, and I won’t ask you to remember that. It’s the Home Occupations, where it says
no retail or wholesale transaction on the premises, and no exterior storage of stock or equipment such as
trash barrels, etc., etc. Now, how does that square with our other portion of the Code where these people are
going to be essentially, I see that we’re in somewhat of a home occupation territory here. I don’t know if
that’s exactly where we are, but I have some feeling for that. Does it, Cathi, I see you shaking your head no.
MS. RADNER-No, I don’t think it’s, historically, been treated as a home occupation, and I believe, Craig’s
checking now, but I don’t think it’s going to fall within your Town’s definition of a Home Occupation either.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t. I’ve already checked that, but I’m just trying to see if there was any
connection between those two, and if it isn’t, that’s what I really want to know, what you folks think about
the connection to that. It’s nothing that I don’t have a problem with. On the sanitary pump outs you’ve
made an arrangement with Fisher’s Marina. Is he intending to do Rooney’s, Smiths and Hoppers? Is that?
MR. SMITH-All I know is I’ve got a letter for my own. I have no knowledge of the others.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I’m looking at this essentially, in my mind, as three marinas, Rooney, Smith
and Hopper sort of lined up, and I asked that question, and as you know before, concerning the cumulative
impacts of these three marinas on Pilot Knob Road, it’s not just, but we have to look at these as each one,
but I have to keep in mind that each one of these has an additive effect as it goes along Pilot Knob, and that’s
something I have to keep track of in my own mind. I’m sort of looking at, again, at the traffic safety mode. I
just want to make sure that, somebody said that what happens a lot of times is people will park diagonally
into these parking lots. So we’ve got cars stacked up, essentially, and then there may be more cars parked
diagonally than the few parking spaces that you have. Now, you know, as I look at that, when people are
backing out of that diagonal on Pilot Knob Road, when we were up on site visits walking around, it seemed a
little bit congested there to me. Cars were coming, it was raining that day. So there was quite a bit of traffic
on the road, even during the rain. I can imagine what that’s like on a nice sunny Saturday afternoon in July.
There’s got to be a lot of traffic there. I just want to make sure that we’re not, you know, not looking at the
traffic safety component, I imagine there’s a lot of kids there, in cars and so on that.
MR. SMITH-There’s not a lot, but in the 11 years we’ve been there, there’s never been one accident that I’ve
ever heard of, never been one problem. We are right close to the stop sign, close at the end of the road.
They’ve got to be slowing down to come up to a stop, the same (lost word) it is a 30 mile an hour zone.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know all those things, and I agree. I’ve looked at that. I just want to go through my
notes before I turn this over to somebody else here. I did make a note, and it may be just something that you
might want to consider. In your permit application to the Lake George Park Commission, I think you made
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
that application out, and I noticed that where it says, will effluent from boat holding tanks and port-a-potties
be disposed, and of course you don’t have any reply in that column because you don’t intend to do that. I
suppose that’s why that’s blank.
MR. SMITH-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. You can take
that to the next.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a couple of questions here. I know that Fisher’s closes at eight o’clock at
night. Like, in other words, if you were out in your boat, you have to bring it back to the dock by eight, and
I’m just wondering if you could put that kind of information in the handout that you’re going to give your
renters, just to make sure that they know that Fisher’s would be pumping it out, pumping their tanks out, and
what time they close, so people wouldn’t get caught short? And then I have another question. Even though
they have to fuel at another marina to get their gas, do you find that many of them bring their gas/oil mixture
in in cans? Because it’s a heck of a lot cheaper to bring it, you know, to bring it in in a couple of five, or
whatever, gallon cans and then just pour it into their tanks in the boat, and I’m just concerned about any
spillage there, and also fire.
MR. SMITH-Honestly, no, have not noticed a lot of people bringing cans up and doing it. Really, to do that,
like you say, it is a lot cheaper, but to stand on the side of a boat and try to pour it sometimes, it’s difficult.
Most of them, I’d presume, use the marinas.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But would you find out the hours of operation? Just so the people know that if
they’re going to have to clean out their tanks before they come in, that they know, yes.
MR. SMITH-I definitely can.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have enough draft there to get a boat like that in? It’s pretty shallow draft there,
isn’t it?
MR. SMITH-It is, but like I say, the bottom, when you step off the dock, you go right up to your, almost up
to your waist in mud. It’s soft. It’s mushy. So, yes, they get in there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now another thing is like just a safety factor, I mean, the liability, going up the stairs
to your home to use the bathroom, you know, and I mean, I’m just thinking about little kids and when we
were there, there were seven of us, and we were right there on the side of the road, and I just could not
believe how we were actually cramped as far as with cars parked over here, on this side, on the lake side,
looking at everything, the cars coming by. We were cramped, and I guess I’m concerned about kids coming
in from down below, in the Albany area, and they’ve been riding for almost an hour. As soon as they get
there, mommy, I’ve got to go to the bathroom. So then they dart across the road and they go up your stairs
and all that, you know, and kids and they’re all excited and you know, hurry up because we’re going to leave.
I’m just concerned about all that, you know, the safety factor, and the liability on your part, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of insurance do you provide as a rider on your policy, your homeowner policy?
MR. SMITH-We’ve got about two million or four.
MRS. SMITH-Five million umbrella.
MR. SMITH-Five million.
MR. MAC EWAN-And your insurance agent, or your insurance company is aware that you are operating a
for profit marina?
MR. SMITH-They are aware we have docks.
MRS. SMITH-And friends at the docks, and that’s why we wanted to have it, in case somebody fell.
MR. MAC EWAN-But is your insurance company aware that you have an operating marina?
MRS. SMITH-They will be.
MR. SMITH-They will be if we get the license.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. SMITH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you have any sailboats, or are all those motor boats? I mean, some have the keel.
MR. SMITH-No, you wouldn’t, a sailboat would be really difficult. You’re right. That’s a little bit too
shallow for that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I mean it can pull the keel off.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have anything else?
MR. STROUGH-A couple of things. Just some thoughts. Now, you said that if someone who’s renting a
dock space needs to go to the bathroom, use the bathroom, you have facilities available at the house, and that
you could give them driving instructions to go up Hanneford, you know, up Pilot Knob, up Hanneford Road,
but how about someone that parks up there near Hanneford Road, how are they going to get to their boat?
MR. SMITH-They can go right down the front access.
MR. STROUGH-Then again there’s a public safety question, because that access doesn’t look safe. I mean, if
you’ve got kids, if it’s wet, I mean, there’s all kinds of things, and you’ve got to keep in mind my job is public
safety. Now, we could also get around that problem because you’re only asking for two parking areas up
there. If you could make one of those docks private use only, then we don’t have to worry about the parking
up near Hanneford Road, and rent six other slips, the other three docks, then you’d have ample parking down
below. That solves my problem. Then we wouldn’t have the problem of explaining, having somebody
having to walk down because they’ve got to park up here.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, from an enforcement position, that would be next to impossible to enforce.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, this is all new. I’m not so convinced by your argument, but, in addition to
that, and if this is what we’re going to request in my mind something I’d like to see from the applicant is
make clear to the prospective rentees, I’ve got trash disposal instructions, their parking rights, restrictions,
bathroom use instructions, may not fuel their boats at the dock, that this is for daytime use only, and to give
them pump out facility instructions for those boats with on board sanitation equipment, no additional PWC’s,
you know. I mean, if someone’s got a personal water craft, that’s one slip. I mean, I don’t want a boat and a
personal watercraft. I mean, one or the other, and if they want to keep there skidoo tied up there, that’s fine,
instead of a boat. That’s fine, but, you know, a notation of those kind of restrictions, plus I have no exterior
cleaning of the boat. Because people are going to clean the interior, and that’s not environmentally unsound.
Also, further instructions, just a general, that they act in an environmentally sensitive manner, because you
and I are all concerned about Lake George, and I don’t know about them, but just an addition onto your
instructions, and further instructions that there’ll be no storage of trailers on this site, no storage of gas or any
other hazardous materials. This is the kind of list I’m getting together in my mind, and keeping in mind this
is new. So if you’ve got anything you’d like to add, don’t feel restricted by what I’ve suggested, and I’m not
sure if the other Planning Board members want to go in this direction or not. I haven’t heard from them. So
I’m only speaking for myself as of this time, and thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, John, I’ve been making a list very similar to yours.
MR. STROUGH-And if there’s anything in addition, you should speak up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who communicated with the County Highway Department regarding this application,
anyone from your office?
MR. BROWN-I think Mr. Vinosa spoke with Chris Round.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and their position was that?
MR. BROWN-Their position, I believe, was that the permit was still a valid permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. They had no intention of going back and making another visit, site inspection,
what have you?
MR. BROWN-Not to my knowledge.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-I would request that they do. Can we ask them to do that? I want to feel comfortable
with this, and I’m hearing all my other fellow members say, and I’ll echo their position as well. When we
went and did site visits last Saturday, it was a steady rain. There was only two vehicles we had. We parked in
that spot in that area, and we walked over, and we were on the shore side of the road, and literally traffic
came to a stop, one car at a time went by us, and that’s on a miserable Saturday. I can only imagine what the
Fourth of July weekend would be like, or, you know, a nice lazy day in the summer in August, and I want to
get confirmation, or some sort of reassurance, I guess, from the County, that this permit that was issued 23
years ago is still valid and they still are comfortable with it in their mind.
MR. BROWN-Maybe the most effective way to do that would be to have the applicant approach the County
and have a permit issued to the applicant, rather than Irwin Johnson, a current permit, applicant’s name on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the applicant did make reference that the permit was transferable. However, I’m
looking at the actual permit itself. I don’t see anything on here that says it’s transferable from one property
owner to another, whether it is or isn’t, but maybe that’s the course to take is have the applicant seek a permit
from the County Highway Department. I also go along with Mr. Strough’s thoughts about having this map
be a surveyed map so we actually know where we’re delineating where you’re parking, and how much of the
right of way you’re actually consuming by it, and I think it would give us a more accurate record of what we
have to work with here on Pilot Knob Road. I think that’s my biggest hang up is the parking and the
accessibility of people going to and from those docks and having a real safety hazard on our hands.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to take just a second. The Lake George Association has written a
letter here concerning Smith and Hopper, and I’d just like to read something in that letter. I’ve been trying to
digest it while all this is going on, but I’ll just read it quickly.
MR. BROWN-Do we want to do that at the public hearing part? Just a question.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I can read it during the public hearing, because Heather’s not here tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a very, very, section in here that I think all of us should understand, and it’ll
just take a second to read it, if it’s okay with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure, Bob.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-“The Lake George Association takes interest in the issue of residential docks renting out
dock space on substandard shorefront. In the above two cases”, being referred to Smith and Hopper, “the
current dock configuration does not appear to meet the regulatory requirements for the amount of shoreline
necessary to support the number of structures in the water. With the amount of shore frontage on each of
these properties there could only be on each lot one dock or wharf and one mooring. Therefore, the number
of boats that could potentially berth here is higher than what would be allowed under the current regulations,
thus putting a stress on the recreational resources and water quality of the lake. In both applications there
needs to be sufficient evidence provided that the rental businesses have been in existence since before the
Lake George Park Commission (LGPC) regulations were enacted, which would allow grandfathering of these
non-conforming operations. If the rentals are grandfathered, it would be helpful to know the capacity and
size of the operations when the LGPC regulations were created in order to limit the number of rental slips to
the number at that time.” And so that’s just something that I think we all ought to.
MR. MAC EWAN-In going along those lines, there’s a letter here from the Lake George Park Commission
who’s asked for more information before they make a determination. Do we even know where that stands
with them?
MR. BROWN-As far as requesting information from the applicant?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Obviously and them giving a permit.
MR. BROWN-The Lake George Park Commission, the permit application before them is pending, or is
conditioned upon getting approval from the Town first. So they can’t go any place with the Park
Commission until the Town acts on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything you wanted to add?
MRS. SMITH-I just wanted to add, regarding the highway parking and drainage, I have spoken to Mr. Vinosa
twice and he’s felt as if the parking area and the drainage, it’s their filtration system, and it’s their
responsibility on the highway, so he didn’t feel as if it should concern this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s great. I don’t want to be facetious here, but I’d rather have it in writing, from
them.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. SMITH-I can ask him to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m even thinking, I think Staff’s onto the idea that I’d rather see you, from my position,
seek a permit in your own name, than try to continue a permit that’s 23 years old.
MR. SMITH-We requested that. He said he would make phone calls, which he did.
MRS. SMITH-Yes. He doesn’t want to re-issue a permit. He says we are utilizing a permit that was issued 23
years ago, and that that is a good permit. I can ask him to put that in writing, but he doesn’t understand why
there’s a question when we’re utilizing a permit that they issued.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because your name isn’t on the permit. That’s why we’re questioning it.
MRS. SMITH-Okay. So I’ll ask him that, then.
MR. SMITH-One thing, when we keep talking about the traffic and running back and forth across the road,
usually when the people come up, it’s one time in the morning, to go to the boat, and then they come back.
It’s not like they’re crossing the road back and forth 50 times a day.
MR. MAC EWAN-We were up there in the morning. We were there about 9:30.
MR. SMITH-Yes, but what I’m saying is it’s one time, and you probably crossed the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-One time.
MR. SMITH-Okay. It’s not like it’s happening all day long.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but our point is that on a very quiet day on the lake, we were a traffic hazard to the
vehicles going up and down Pilot Knob Road for just the little bit of time we were there, and I think our
concern is if it’s a nice day, and it’s a busy weekend, and it’s a sunny weekend, and everybody wants to be up
there, as well as everyone else’s who’s going up Pilot Knob Road, up to Kattskill Bay to their camps, and to
their homes for the weekend, that road is going to be congested. It’s going to be heavily traveled and it’s
going to be a hazard. That’s our concern.
MRS. SMITH-I would just say I don’t think we’re adding anything to that, you know, with the friends that
come, you know, we haven’t had any problems these years or that we knew of from the prior owners. So it’s
not as if we’re adding anything different than what’s there, you know, there is congestion. There is 30 mile an
hour speed limit, that kind of thing, but we’re not adding anything, changing anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but our job is the public safety, and that’s one of the things we’re wrestling with right
now.
MR. SMITH-All the wharfs have been registered with the Lake George Park Commission since when we’ve
been there and many years before. They have them in their database. They have them in their figures. They
know what’s been there to figure and count. It’s not like we’ve added new ones or getting new wharf stickers.
These are something that’s been in their database of 20 years or better.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. METIVIER-I just had one more comment that’s been bothering me, since you mentioned it, and this is
on a more personal or professional, I don’t know what you want to call it, but as far as your insurance goes, if
you have a rider on your homeowners policy, the minute that they found out that you’re renting one of those
docks out, that policy is null and void.
MRS. SMITH-It’s not a rider.
MR. METIVIER-No, it’s an umbrella policy.
MRS. SMITH-Right.
MR. METIVIER-What I’m saying, it’s a personal umbrella policy, but the minute you rent out a dock space,
it’s not personal anymore. So you have to be very careful with that, make sure, for your own protection, that
they know what you’re doing because what’s going to happen, somebody will fall down those stairs, sue you,
and you have nothing. So just be very careful with that. I mean, trust me, I know. I know insurance law
more than anything else.
MRS. SMITH-Yes. Chuck Gohn is our agent.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. METIVIER-Okay. Just promise me that you’ll make sure he knows that. Because you’ll have nothing,
and you don’t want that if you need it.
MRS. SMITH-I appreciate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you supply some sort of documentation from your insurance company or your
insurance agent that you have an adequate policy to cover such an enterprise?
MR. SMITH-When we get the permit for sure. No, definitely we’ll provide that information. No problem. I
mean, yes, we will go through, just like he said, let them know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some letter from your insurance agent that, you know, they would give you a special
policy, whether it’s some kind of rider to your homeowners policy, whether it’s a policy that’s above and
beyond your homeowners policy, that’s something separate, some sort of documentation to us to assure us
that you have the right coverage to protect yourself and protect everyone else.
MR. SMITH-I’m sure, if other marinas can get insurance, we can get insurance. There should be no problem
there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could I ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public
hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Just please come up and
identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen. As most of you
know, we operate a marina on Lake George in the Town of Queensbury. I’d like to add, initially, that I
served on the Town’s Comprehensive Planning Committee that was the work of which produced this Zoning
Ordinance we have. During committee meetings, we toyed many times with the subject of marina
regulations, zoning on marinas, etc., because we were sitting there and the Town had virtually no Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to marinas on Lake George, it was kind of left to the Lake George Park Commission. I
cautioned the Town about entering this arena. I figured the Park Commission had pre-empted that subject,
had pre-empted the Town with the promulgation, with the enactment of their enabling legislation and their
regulatory program. However, I was not convincing, and you have what you have today, and there’s
probably even more confusion than there was before. The reason the Park Commission got into this was
there was an outcry of conflicting regulations, overlapping powers, people had to go to three different offices
to get a permit to do something, and it was just too much. So we needed one agency on the lake to do
everything, and that’s where we were before the Town enacted this most recent Zoning Ordinance bringing
forth this Class A, Class B marina subject. That said, I have not seen the site plan, and so appreciate that the
comments I make are in that light. Some comments made so far are well taken. Most recently, we are faced
with the problem of commercial liability insurance. Since 9/11, it’s gone through the ceiling. Everybody’s
making up for lost time. We received a notice early in this year that the carrier, the insurance underwriter for
our property, that has been insuring us for some 15 years, no longer insuring marina activity, and so we’ve
been searching around, and have been for the last four months, for coverage. The initial, I can tell you, the
initial quotes we got, some three times, four times, what we had been paying for an annual premium in the
past, and what they derive from these eight boat slips, what I think they derive from rental income, would
never cover it. The thing that we should appreciate here is that there’s no such thing as a residential marina.
You operate a marina, you’re in commercial business, and all the rules and regulations for commercial activity
apply, including insurance. We got a Special Use Permit in 1976 to operate a marina on Lake George, from
this Town. That was the system then. You didn’t have Area and Use Variances. It was a special permit use
system. We went to the ZBA. That’s where we got our Special Use Permit because there were, I guess,
variances involved. That was the way that had to be done. One of the activities, and by the way, we were
faced, we had been charged with erecting docks, boat docks, on our own land, I should say, without a permit
from the Town, a building permit from the Town, and we were faced with removing those docks, unless we
could show that we had ownership of the land. That’s where this, that’s where all of this realization came
from that we actually own underwater land. It was that, I’m telling you, we were faced, it’s in your record,
faced with the removal of the docks if we couldn’t show this. They figured they had us, and we were able to
show that we, in fact, own the land, and so we got a Special Use Permit for our marina. That system fell out
of use in, what, 1982, you went to the Area Variance and the Use Variance system. So this Special Use
Permit is still sitting there. As a commercial entity, we are obligated to obtain a vendor’s license that
authorizes us to collect and remit sales tax. Some of the services we offer as a marina operator are sales
taxable, and if you don’t separate those sales taxable items from your gross sales, you collect and remit tax on
the total sales. You’ve all read about The Great Escape. It’s a parallel argument. Parking is taxable. If you
include parking in your rental of a boat dock, collect sales tax and remit sales tax on the total package. Now I
don’t know anybody does that on the lake. We happen to do it because we recognize the law and we charge
separately. Garbage collection is taxable. So, these things, I mean, as these folks walk into this arena of
commercial activity, they should appreciate the minefield they’ve got to traverse. On the subject of parking,
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
you know, all too often we say one parking place per boat dock, and that’ll do it. Well, how about deliveries?
How about employees? How about emergency services? You’ve got to provide access for all of these.
Hanneford Road is woefully inadequate as an access route for the parking they’re proposing. You put
another eight cars, and John Strough’s comments about guests are well taken. I can tell you the problems we
have. I can tell you, and all you’ve got to do is have two teenage children and you’ve got two more families,
and they all come, they all enjoy coming to the lake, and, you know, the access is limited, and so the burden
of use is high. Those comments are well taken, and I think parking is something that you should really be
concerned about. These highway permits you talk about are revocable permits. No highway department is
going to give you exclusive use for an unlimited length of time over their right of way. How do you know
when you’re going to have to expand the road? They are revocable permits at their will. You usually have to
indemnify them from any damages that occur when you obtain a use and occupancy permit. I haven’t seen
that permit, but there are two kinds of permits. There’s a work permit, which is just for one single incident,
and a use and occupancy permit that gives you some privileges, but as I say, those are revocable permits. You
talk about toilet facilities. I’m sure the septic system on this property is sized for the dwelling that is there,
not an additional eight families from the boat slips. Where is that going? Is that system sized properly to take
that? We have pump out facilities at our marina. We have a method for people to discharge their port-a-
potties. They’re not going to take the port-a-potties home, believe me. They’re not going to truck them
home. They’ll either dump them with the chemicals in this septic system, or beside the road, and Craig
Brown knows about that. So it’s not a practical solution. The solution they have to furnishing the toilet
facilities is just not practical, and the point is well taken, walking up, you know, two o’clock in the morning,
going up the stairs to, no, it doesn’t happen. It appears that this is an existing operation. So what you have
here is really a conversion. It’s a new use, and I think a Use Variance is going to be required, unless under the
scope of your site plan approval you can approve that, but it is, from what I hear tonight, this is a commercial
activity that will be going on in an otherwise residential zone, which has not been the case in the past. The
subject of fueling. It’s virtually impossible to stop people who want to fuel their boats. I mean, what are you
going to do, stand there and guard the place day and night? You don’t know when they’re coming, when
they’ll come up and fuel their boats, and it is a very, we’re very concerned about it ourselves. In fact, in this
regard, we ask, as the operators, we ask for indemnification from any of our rules and regulations that they
violate, this being one of them, and cause any kind of an accident that would produce a claim. We get
confused with rents that people would collect from the rental of an apartment or a room, and rental of a boat
dock. In the eyes of the tax authorities, this is income in one form or another. If it’s a company, a
corporation, that’s revenue that they generate. It’s reportable as income, and as individuals, this is income
that they get, and this all has to be duly recorded. As a commercial entity, I would think this operation would
have a name, the ABC Marina, if you will, have a tax number, an identification number that you report again.
These liability insurance companies, this is the first thing they want to know is your tax number. They want
to make sure that they’re insuring a legal operation, not something that’s not up to standard. The Park
Commission, I guess, has been collecting fees on these boat docks over the years. They have a two tier fee
system, one for residential dock and another one for a commercial dock. I don’t know how they’ve been
paying, if they’ve been paying. I don’t know what the situation is there, but if they’ve been operating as a
commercial entity all these years, they’ve been in noncompliance with the Town Code, and being in a
condition of noncompliance, I don’t believe they have any standing to come before a Board for a site plan
approval that is going to clean up the past illegal operation. They’re entitled to get a permit or a revision or a
variance for a legally pre-existing, nonconforming use, legally pre-existing. It could be nonconforming, but
illegal, they’re not entitled to relief.
MR. VOLLARO-John, I think that one of the things that the Lake George, this little letter that they wrote to
us concerning Smith and Hopper, it seems to me what I’ve just read before, and I won’t bother reading it
again, but it seems that they’re kind of asking us, here on this Board, to take a hard look at this before this
permit gets to them. Because they take an interest in the issue of residential lots renting out dock space on
the substandard shore fronts.
MR. SALVADOR-I could understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re reading the Lake George Association letter.
MS. RADNER-That’s not Lake George Park Commission. That’s Lake George Association. They have no
permitting authority. It’s not going to go to them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re just the watchdogs for the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then why do we have this?
MS. RADNER-It’s a public comment, same as another other, similar to a homeowners association.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I need it, then. It’s public comment then it’s not something that I want to
have to wrestle with here on this Board, to be honest with you. That’s how I feel about that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that your crumpling that up. Okay. I’m a very supportive member of
the LGA.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine, but I’m trying to follow the rules that they laid out, and if they don’t have any
authority, then why am I even looking at that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because like anyone else, they’re allowed to have public comment. They have a vested
interest in the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I understand that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John?
MR. SALVADOR-In the agenda here it says eight boat slips, and John Strough touched on this subject, will
there be a limit to the number of boats? The perception is that a boat slip, one boat, one boat slip. That’s
not always the case, and John mentioned we have many, many boaters that, especially the larger boats, they
have a jet ski on the swim platform. It’s a nice storage area, okay. We have jet skis stored between the
bulkhead and the boat where the bow is. It’s a nice place to put them in there, nice and safe, but jet skis bring
traffic, bring people, bring use. Where you’d have a very large cruiser, 26, 30 foot cruiser, you could put two
smaller boats in there, let them hang out, that one boat hang out a little bit. So instead of eight boats you’ve
got more, something more, this is more on the septic system, more on the parking, more on everything else.
So there’s got to be a correlation between a boat slip and a boat. You say here you’re going to establish a
marina. I think it should be clear that you’re establishing a commercial marina. There is no such thing as a
residential marina. The Class A and Class B Marina you talk about, there’s no indication there that there’s a
difference. You might think Class A is commercial. Both could be commercial. Doesn’t it have to do with
the number of boats is the criteria for whether you are an A or a B, but not whether or not you’re doing
commercial business. It’s very important that I think we address the issue of commercial because I argued at
length in that Comprehensive Planning Committee that we have no provision on the lake shore of Lake
George for commercial activity, and there are 10 some marinas up there that pre-date the zoning in this
Town. They pre-date the zoning. They have not changed their character since the beginning of time.
They’re doing the same thing today they were doing in the 50’s, the 60’s, and the 70’s, and yet they’re all
nonconforming uses. That’s unjust, and these folks are walking right into the firestorm of that injustice, but
anyway, you have it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-I would recommend that you leave the public hearing open. I would like a chance to look
at the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you know I will.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay. Do you folks want to come back up.
MR. RINGER-I’ve got a question for Cathi. John mentioned nonconforming legal, nonconforming illegal
operation. I don’t understand. Could you?
MS. RADNER-We did not have a permitting process in place before this Special Use Permit was adopted for
marinas. So they weren’t in violation of any Town Code provision in that regard. Those aren’t terms that are
found in our Town Code, and as far as I’m aware, there’s no enforcement action pending against them for
any use that’s in any way illegal under the Town Code at this time.
MR. RINGER-So there would not be, they do not have an illegal nonconforming operation currently?
MS. RADNER-Not to my knowledge.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Any other questions from Board members?
MS. RADNER-I think you have another public comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to come up and comment?
KEN KAMBAR
MR. KAMBAR-My name’s Ken Kambar. I’m a relatively new neighbor. I live five lots down, to the south.
I don’t have a marina and I don’t rent boats, dock space. However, I asked the County last year if I could
add another parking space across the road, on my side, on the house side of Pilot Knob Road, and yes he said
he considered it as a driveway, and I was given a permit from the County in writing. So that’s one part of
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
that, and as far as, just a comment on my part. This is something that’s been taking place for many, many
years, and there’s some points well taken, but you can carry these things to extremes that you could put up
road blocks so that we wouldn’t be able to live our lives completely. We all have to wait for traffic to go by if
we pull out in a thoroughfare, no matter where we live. We all have to look both ways before we cross the
street. So you cannot say that someone else is liable for your mistakes in every instance, but I’m just looking
at it from a layman’s, practical standpoint, and these are things that have been going on for many, many years.
So it’s not like something new is happening here, and generally speaking, it would be a rare occasion that all
eight parking spaces would be taken. I’m not saying it would never happen, but for the most part, the boats
sit there most of the time, and people occasionally come, but it’s rare that they all go out at the same time. So
it’s not a constant congested problem. It wouldn’t be a constant thing. These are just some practical
observations as a homeowner on that road, and that’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Could I get you to read that letter into the record, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. This is in regard to Site Plan 1-2002 for Smith, and No. 27-2002 for
Hopper, “Dear Board Members: I am writing on behalf of the Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) to
provide input and comments on the above referenced projects. I regret that I cannot make these comments
in person, as I am committed to be at another meeting this evening. For your information, the LGA has long
been advocating for a reasoned approach to the management and development of the Lake George
watershed to insure long-term stability of water quality, the aesthetic resources of the Basin, and the
watershed’s economic viability. Since 1885, we have been ‘working together to protect, conserve, and
improve the beauty and quality of the Lake George Basin through education, advocacy, and broad-based
community involvement’. We have broad support from over 5,000 members from many groups – year round
residents, seasonal residents, members of the business community and local governments, plus other
interested individuals and organizations. The Lake George Association takes interest in the issue of
residential docks renting out dock space on substandard shorefront. In the above two cases, the current dock
configuration does not appear to meet the regulatory requirements for the amount of shoreline necessary to
support the number of structures in the water. With the amount of shore frontage on each of these
properties there could only be on each lot one dock or wharf and one mooring. Therefore, the number of
boats that could potentially berth here is higher than what would be allowed under the current regulations,
thus putting a stress on the recreational resources and water quality of the lake. In both applications there
needs to be sufficient evidence provided that the rental businesses have been in existence since before the
Lake George Park Commission (LGPC) regulations were enacted, which would allow grandfathering of these
non-conforming operations. If the rentals are grandfathered, it would be helpful to know the capacity and
size of the operations when the LGPC regulations were created in order to limit the number of rental slips to
the number at that time. If one or both of these applications are approved please be sure that there is an
agreement with a local marina for pump out facility service. While there may not be a need for it now there
may be new needs with new rental customers. It seems easier now to have that set up so the applicants are
ready for any scenario. The LGA asks you to consider and address all of the issues raised before making your
decision on these applications. Please carefully weigh the impacts of these proposed operations on the
shoreline, water quality, and recreational resources of Lake George. Thank you for your consideration of our
comments and concerns. Respectfully submitted, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko Land Use Management
Coordinator”
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any other correspondence? Okay. Time to discuss a little bit. I get the sense
that we’re looking for a little bit information.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got surveyed map showing the right of way of the roads, because if this is a road by
use, then they may, in fact, own more property than what I’m thinking, because if it’s a dedicated highway,
then certainly, you know, if they do have a problem with getting the permit renewed from Warren County,
that may make a difference. So I would like to see a surveyed map showing the road right of ways and the
parking locations, etc. I think that we wanted instructions that they would have to, perspective rentees, and I
kind of gave indicators as to what we would like in those instructions. I think that if they are going to have
parking and two might be acceptable. I’m still not comfortable, but if the Board is comfortable with two,
then I think they have to show that the public access is going to be improved with to Code stairway and rail,
and attempt to build that and schedule when they’re going to build it, and I think that the last thing that we
mentioned was we wanted a parking verification from the County.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we were leaning toward asking the applicant to seek his own permit from the
County in his name.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we could draw up that. Those are just a list, Mr. Chairman, of things that I’ve
noticed were brought up at some point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Insurance.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if that’s our purview.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. METIVIER-As far as the insurance goes, it’s not up to us, it’s up to them if they want to get it or not,
and, I mean.
MR. RINGER-We don’t require it of anybody else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, what’s your thoughts on that?
MS. RADNER-It isn’t one of the criteria that’s set forth in your application review procedures, and yet if
somebody’s going to be inviting people to their house, I think it’s a very valid area of inquiry, and you can ask
them, most assuredly, to show you what they have and I think encourage them to get it. I haven’t looked into
the legalities of mandating it, but I think in appropriate circumstances you could definitely make a claim for it
being a reasonable condition. How is that for wiggling?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Cathi, well, could like a worst case scenario be if somebody was indeed injured
severely, and then they could finally come back to the Town and say we approved this, you know, you were
the ones that did approve this.
MS. RADNER-Yes, and it’s a stretch there, whether the Town would be liable for that, as long as you acted
in good faith and consistent with your goal as a Planning Board. If you turned a blind eye towards a known
hazard, then I think you have a greater risk of that, but just going through the application review process
doesn’t open you up to that kind of litigations as a general rule.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, are those all your conditions that you had? Because there were other things that
I thought were talked about.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve added a couple of things to them, but, you know, one expectation that I think the
applicant is aware of is that I think they know what we’re looking for, and that if they don’t have it, we’re
going to add to it when they do submit it, but as Mr. Salvador brought out, that there’s other sanitary
situations that might need to be addressed, and I would expect that. People cannot dump port-a-potties in
the lake. That should be made clear to them, and I don’t know if there’s anything that we can do to
absolutely eliminate that, as Mr. Salvador also points out, but at least we can put it in the instructions, and
then, I don’t know, once we get these approved, since this is new, Craig, could we have the applicant, I’m just
thinking ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what I’d like to do is let’s take a 10 minute recess here and let you, Cathy.
MR. STROUGH-But let me finish up my statement, and then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. STROUGH-Possibly have the applicants in these new situations send copies of the lease agreements to
the Town, so that they’re on record, I mean, as people rent the things and sign it, saying, you know, they’ve
signed it, and we don’t have to do anything with them. We’ll just keep them on record.
MR. BROWN-I think it’s an excellent idea to ask for a list of all the conditions that you want to offer to the
renters, here’s where you pump, here’s where your garbage is. I don’t know about getting copies of the
leases.
MR. STROUGH-Well, just an idea, throwing it out there. It may not have been a good idea.
MR. BROWN-But that, definitely a placard that says this is going to give, be handed out to all of my renters.
That’s a great idea.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I was just thinking so we had proof that they got this, and a copy with something
signed, we’d just keep it on record, but just one more thing for you to do.
MR. BROWN-Right. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So, I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. You were going to take a break.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Why don’t we take a 10 minute recess. You, Cathy, Tony, do you want to help them
out, too, put your two cents in, the three of you come up with a draft resolution as to what we’re going to be
looking for, right down on paper so that we have it in black and white. Okay. I’ll call the meeting back to
order. Do we have a motion to table here? Are you going to read it in, John?
MR. STROUGH-I will, and if there’s any additions from any of the other Planning Board members, please
feel free to speak up. We have, one, you’re going to request a surveyed map, showing road right of ways,
survey map will also delineate parking area and spaces, and show dock locations, number two, the
instructions agreement with renters will include but not limited to, one, parking rights and restrictions, which
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
will include parking space limitation, one space per rentee, restroom facility use instructions, three, trash
disposal, sanitary disposal instructions, four, no boat trailer or gas storage, five, no fueling boats at dock, six,
one boat or PWC per dock berth, seven, pump out facility instructions instructing customers for potential use
of Fisher’s Marina, eight, no storage of hazardous materials, nine, no retail sale, ten, no exterior boat cleaning,
and eleven, just as an add all, rentees are expected to act in an environmentally responsible manner, and
anything else that you might think of you can add to this. It’s not restricted to this. These are just some
thoughts.
MR. SEGULJIC-You might want to add no overnight staying.
MR. STROUGH-We discussed that, and it’s not enforceable, or it would be very difficult to enforce.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I think we’d just be setting a tone that if people stay overnight is when you get a lot of
these issues.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s talk about it.
MR. METIVIER-People who have boats are going to stay over, regardless, and I don’t care if you, you know,
it doesn’t matter. They’re going to stay out. So if you tell somebody, you know, you can rent here but you
can’t stay overnight, it’s going to last all of about one day. There’s nothing you can do about it, and there’s
no one that’s going to enforce it and it’s just not going to happen, and you can’t, you know, you just can’t
enforce it.
MR. SEGULJIC-My concern would be more so if someone out of state, for example, who rents the slip and
then thinks that that’s the place to, my concern would be someone from long away who would rent the slip
and then figure they could stay there for the weekends.
MR. STROUGH-Well, how about if we put down no overnight use?
MR. METIVIER-Again, first of all, there’s no way to enforce it, and second of all people live on their boats
for the weekend.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not particularly crazy about them living on their boat for the weekend, especially
in this very congested area. Maybe other places okay, but not in this particular spot, and we may not be able
to enforce everything, I mean, the dumping of the toilets or whatever they’re doing. It’s impossible to
enforce everything, but this is an agreement that the rentee has signed, that they will not stay overnight in
their boat. Now either we think that’s a good idea or we don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Keep in mind it’s a residential area. It’s not a commercial area of the lake where there’s
heavy boat usage, marina usage as far as something like.
MR. STROUGH-Is it the will of the Board to add no overnight use?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think you should add it and we’ll go from there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are we on the insurance part? I have real interest in that.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s talk about it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think after what Cathi’s remark was, as far as, it’s on record that we’ve had
quite an interest in making sure that the applicant does have the umbrella policy.
MR. MAC EWAN-That it’s not a problem for them to provide some sort of documentation from their
insurance carrier that they’re going to be able to get that. Let’s suppose we didn’t ask for that, and for
whatever reason they couldn’t get it. Are you guys inclined to approve such a use when you didn’t have the
coverage?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we don’t ask other people for coverage.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a Special Use Permit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is the first time we’re doing one of these.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t think having insurance is a requirement for this Special Use Permit review.
MR. MAC EWAN-I realize that it may not necessarily be a requirement.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. BROWN-But when you talk about, can you, do you want to approve it without the insurance. I don’t
think you can hold them up if they don’t have it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s what I have. Provide documentation that the facility is appropriately insured.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me take that comment a step farther. If they came back and said, gee, no, our
insurance carrier is not going to cover us to have a commercial enterprise of a marina up there, we’d be stupid
to approve it.
MR. METIVIER-But again, there’s a lot of places in the Town that you’d be shocked.
MR. MAC EWAN-Great, they aren’t in front of us. They aren’t looking for an application.
MR. METIVIER-But first of all, if we issue them a Class A Marina permit, their personal liability insurance
will not cover them as a marina, period. It’ll specifically exclude any marina operation. So if somebody who’s
renting, falls down the stairs, breaks a leg, cracks their head open, they’re going to be specifically excluded
from their personal insurance policy. They’re going to have to get a marina type liability policy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, with your insurance background, how does this work now with the case that we’re
going to allow them to use?
MR. METIVIER-He’s going to have to talk to Chuck Gohn and see about getting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how does this figure into the equation, though, if they’re going to be utilizing the
home for the restroom facilities and for the garbage disposal facilities.
MR. METIVIER-They’re going to have to open it up to a commercial type use, their home.
MR. MAC EWAN-In a residential zone?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Mr. Salvador said, and I think probably accurately, there’s no such thing as a
residential marina. It’s either a commercial marina or it’s not. I think that’s one of the things we’re wrestling
with here on this insurance. This has got to be insured as a commercial.
MR. MAC EWAN-You mean your insurance carrier has assured you that you’re going to have coverage to
run a commercial marina on your property?
MR. SMITH-You can take, I believe, and if you want to pay enough money for insurance, you can buy
insurance and insure anything. I can go to Lloyds of London and insure anything for a price..
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not answering my question, though.
MR. SMITH-My insurance carrier, I have not specifically asked my insurance carrier if he would cover me.
You did?
MRS. SMITH-Yes.
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MRS. SMITH-Chuck Gohn said, yes, it would cover rental of docks. I can revisit that, but I guess I would
agree that, you know, it’s my problem, you know, and if I’m running this as a business, I should be
responsible in covering myself or my home or my issues, and that, you know, it reminds of just like 9/11 and
they’re taking away or making terrorism coverage so unaffordable, and putting people out of business because
they can’t get insurance. I think it’s, we’ll figure that out.
MR. METIVIER-I guess what’s going to happen, a typical home, if you have a dock, you can rent out a dock
space and you’ll be covered for insurance, but if an insurance company shows up and sees that you’re renting
eight dock spaces, like you are, it’s a different story. Usually it’s four.
MRS. SMITH-It’s, you know, I don’t have the policy in front of me, but it’s through Resort Hotel
Association, and they offer their members this particular umbrella liability policy, which I just got a couple, I
think it was April, and I asked Chuck specifically, I have four docks. We intend on renting, would it cover,
and he said yes, that he checked with the underwriters.
MR. METIVIER-But again that could be now, but if you get a Class A Marina permit, it might change. So
you just have to check that out.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. SMITH-Yes, and I appreciate your advice on, you know, us taking care of ourselves. I mean, I think
that’s a good recommendation. I guess I don’t want to feel as if I’m held hostage, that if I have to get marina
insurance and it’s however much money.
MR. METIVIER-It’s expensive.
MRS. SMITH-Then.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my response, on behalf of the Board, would be we didn’t ask for this application.
We didn’t ask for the way the Ordinances were re-written. We didn’t ask for a pre-existing use to come to us.
We’re trying to deal with something we have in front of us and try to do what’s best for you and for the
Town, and because you have a real unusual situation where you’re utilizing your home as rest areas for
people, you have a very steep stairway for people to climb. You’re on a very congested road during the
summertime. We want to be sure that not only are you going to be protected, but the people who are going
to be utilizing your facilities are going to be protected as well, and I think it’s reasonable for us to ask, provide
us with some sort of proof that you can obtain this insurance to cover not only yourselves but those of the
people who are going to be renting dock space from you. I think it’s reasonable to ask for.
MRS. SMITH-So, like an umbrella liability.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it needs to be phrased in such a manner you are going to be operating a
commercial Class A Marina, can I get coverage for it, and what would satisfy me is a letter from your
insurance carrier or an insurance carrier of some kind saying they’ll supply you with the insurance to run that
Class A Marina, utilizing your home as part of the facilities for this marina.
MR. SMITH-We will take that to our insurance company.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I left off, we talked about the surveyed map. We talked about the instructions
agreement with the rentors and the twelve subcategories that were included but not limited to those twelve
categories. Now three, I’m going to save that for last, three I’ll make signage will designate private parking
area, four, submit the following permits, Lake George Park Commission wharf permit, and the Warren
County Highway Department parking permit with the current owner’s name, and five, provide
documentation that the facility is appropriately insured, and the last item, and I mentioned it last because
something came up in our discussion that may change this, but if parking is allowed from the Hanneford
Road, then the public access must be improved, and that will include a stair and rail to Code, and the
applicant must submit intent to do so and a schedule to do so next time they come before us, but it was also
mentioned that if one of the docks be designated as private, and rental allowed only with the other three
docks, there would be no need for the additional two parking spaces from the Hanneford Road that would
eliminate that parking area, and would leave the parking area down below, and there were some Planning
Board members who wanted me to mention that because they supported that concept.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be a difficult thing to enforce, to determine which is the private dock, which is a
pay to use dock.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s listed here as Dock One, Dock Two, Dock Three, Dock Four.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, but how would you know?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, with a sign that says private use.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would you know.
MR. BROWN-It’s almost impossible for us to do that. If you want eight boats on the shore, then you’re
going to get eight boats on the shore. Who owns them or what color they are, how they are, you’re going to
get eight boats on the shore.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what if we disallowed parking from the Hanneford Road area?
MR. BROWN-(Lost words) the amount of boats that would be allowable on the dock.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in essence, we would end up with the same result, possibly. It’s an idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I know.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a good idea.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-I do not like applications like this. It’s nothing against the applicant. It’s just that it’s a
very difficult situation to work with. Is there anything that anybody wants to add to that? We’ve pretty much
got it covered? Does someone want to second that motion then, please?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second it.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-02 HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
1. For a surveyed map showing road right of ways. The surveyed map will also delineate
parking area and spaces and show dock locations, and
2. The instructions agreement with renters will include but not limited to:
a. Parking rights and restrictions, which will include parking space limitation, one
space per renter
b. Restroom facility use instructions,
c. Trash disposal/sanitary disposal instructions,
d. No boat trailer or gas storage,
e. No fueling boats at dock
f. One boat or PWC per dock berth
g. Pump out facility instructions instructing customers for the potential use of
Fischer’s Marina,
h. No storage of hazardous materials
i. No retail sales
j. No exterior boat cleaning
k. Just as an add all, rentees are expected to act in an environmentally responsible
manner,
l. Provide documentation that the facility is appropriately insured.
3. Signage will delineate private parking area
4. Submit the following permits:
a. Lake George Park Commission Wharf permit
b. Warren County Highway Department Parking permit with the current owner’s
name
5. Provide documentation that the facility is appropriately insured.
.
6Now the last item, if parking is allowed from the Hanneford Road, then the public access
must be improved, and that will include a stair and rail to Code, and the applicant must
submit intent to do so and a schedule to do so next time they come before us, but it was also
mentioned that if one of the docks be designated as private, and rental allowed only with the
other three docks, there would be no need for the additional two parking spaces from the
Hanneford Road. That would eliminate that parking area, and would leave the parking area
down below, and there were some Planning Board members who wanted me to mention that
because they supported that concept.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June 2002 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Our deadline for submission to get back on the July agenda is next Wednesday. That’s a
pretty long laundry list for him to come up with to get back on by July.
MR. STROUGH-Well, is July going to be one of those months where we end up with a couple of more
meetings than originally scheduled?
MR. BROWN-Do you want to extend the deadline to submit information or check with the applicant to see
how fast they can turn it around?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Let’s give them until the close of business next Friday, give them the extra two days.
That way we can track it, because then you’re dealing with July 4.
th
MR. BROWN-Maybe the applicant doesn’t think that can be, I mean, if you don’t need to extend that. If
they need more time to do that.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the survey map is going to probably take some time. So I really don’t see him
making either one of the deadlines, actually.
MR. SMITH-Yes, with the survey alone. Even though it being the road and dockage, it’s just getting
somebody out there.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Why don’t you just submit in July and we’ll get you on for August. I think
that’s probably where we’re going to end up going with this anyway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then we’ll just keep everything going, or you just keep doing what you’ve been
doing.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, where does it stand with his use now? I mean, it’s just?
MS. RADNER-It’s in limbo.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in limbo.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then all those people can’t go on the lake until, and dock there until.
MR. BROWN-There has been no approvals issued to operate a marina.
MR. SMITH-The Park Commission had issued the permits and said we’ll go as we have been until we go
through, they issued me the work permits.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you have in your thing Lake George Park Commission permits for the docks? That’s
one of the things you requested?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, he did.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, right now, the LGPC said, they’ve issued you the permits. So they’ve given you
the go ahead to just let those same people come back with their boats, and probably some of those boats are
there now.
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, and they just said just keep doing what you’ve been doing until all of this has.
MR. SMITH-They knew we were in the process.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’re still the governing body of this.
MR. SMITH-I believe so.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The lead agency of this. They override us until we.
MR. VOLLARO-I thought they said they wouldn’t issue a permit until we did?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they already did.
MR. BROWN-They were issued wharf permits to register their docks for the year. They haven’t issued a
Class A Marina permit to operate a marina.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But if the docks have been registered, then people can put a boat there.
MR. SMITH-Yes, just like they have for the last 20 years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and whether he takes any money for it, that’s not any of our business.
MR. SMITH-Well, what we’re here for, I believe, is a Special Use Permit for a Class A Marina.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. SMITH-I do not have a Class A Marina. I can’t get one until I get through to get a Special Use Permit
to have a Class A Marina, and that’s what we’re trying to get.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you just keep doing what you’ve been doing.
MR. SMITH-I believe that’s what the Lake George Park Commission told me that, you know, we’d follow
through on it. I mean, it’s a matter of now, I can let people use these docks free of charge, or in the manner
that it’s been doing. It’s just I want to set it up so that I can for, formally, and get rent and contracts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You still can do that, and they could just say it’s a gift.
MR. SMITH-I can take and turn around, I can turn around, I can deed them to the people. There’s a lot of
ways. What we’re trying to do is go through the proper procedures and get the Class A Marina to do what’s
been going on there and the use, proper use of that land for the last 20 years of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bear with us. This isn’t going to be an easy task.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I think we’ll get there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Somehow, some way. Okay.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 27-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY, MATTHEW FULLER ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS
APPROVAL OF THE RECONFIGURATION OF AN ENCLOSED PEAKED ROOF
BOATHOUSE TO A BOATHOUSE WITH A FLAT ROOF/SUNDECK. THE PROPOSAL IS
SIMILAR TO SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 21-99. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2002, SP 21-99, BP
99-338 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.16-1-14 LOT
SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MATTHEW FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2002, David & Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: June 20, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant has constructed a boathouse with sundeck at this location.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
A boathouse is an allowable use in the Waterfront Residential zone.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
It is not anticipated that the proposed boathouse will present a significant increase to the burden on
the supporting public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed structure should not present any public hazards related to traffic or the parking of
vehicles.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
As the proposed structure has already been built, any visual impacts already exists.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The location of the boathouse on an existing dock appears to be a feasible location for a boathouse.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The existing boathouse itself should not impact vehicular access at this location.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The construction of a boathouse should not impact parking at this location.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The stormwater drainage for this site is not an issue.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The water supply and sewage disposal systems are not at issue with this application.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the
maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased
plants.
This project does not propose the removal of any vegetation.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Not applicable to this project.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV-32-2002 res. 5/15/02 setback relief for boathouse.
SP-21-1999 res. 5/24/99 construction of covered boathouse/sundeck
BP-99-338 6/17/99 construction of covered boathouse/sundeck
Staff comments:
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved an area variance (AV 32-2002) on May 22, 2002, which addresses
side setbacks for the boathouse. This application addresses the site plan review for the boathouse. A Special
Use Permit application for a Class A Marina on this property is scheduled to be heard at the June 20, 2002
meeting along with this application. It is anticipated that as a part of that Special Use Permit review issues
such as traffic, noise, and other neighborhood impacts will be reviewed more closely.
It should be noted that as a condition of AV 32-2002 the applicant has agreed to remove the “finger” dock,
which is actually located on the property to the north. The Planning Board may want to condition any
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
approval of this application with a similar stipulation stating that this portion of the existing dock is to be
removed.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted. A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted.
Site Statistic Confirmation:
The dimensions of the boathouse as constructed meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.”
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing you’re going to know the drill.
MRS. HOPPER-Got it.
MR. FULLER-My name’s Matt Fuller. I’m an associate attorney with the law firm of Fitzgerald, Morris,
Baker, Firth in Glens Falls, and I represent Jane and Dave Hopper, and I’m here tonight with Jane, and also
for, I guess, any construction questions, we have the builder of that boathouse, Mr. Frank DeNardo.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Before we get to the Special Use Permit, we’re looking at the site plan review for the
boathouse, and that’s what that application is before you right now. Just to note an Area Variance for the
setbacks for the boathouse was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 22. The boathouse
nd
before you itself meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted, as I’ve
noted in the Staff comments, that as a part of that Area Variance, the applicant had agreed to remove the
finger dock to the north of the boathouse, which actually sits on the property line to the north’s property.
The Planning Board in reviewing this application may want to consider a similar stipulation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Mr. Fuller, the floor is yours.
MR. FULLER-All right. Other than the stipulation at the Zoning Board was that we would convey the
riparian rights and real property rights to the land in front of Mr. Harris’ property, the shoreline also, that the
Hoppers have acquired by adverse possession. So technically that finger is on the Hopper’s property, by
adverse possession. So we’ve agreed to actually convey by deed those property rights back. You can’t simply
say, once adverse possession has, you’ve fulfilled the requirement, you can’t just say I give up. You have to
convey it because you own it. That was one of the agreements and concessions at the ZBA.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. FULLER-Questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-How did it get built without the approvals to begin with?
MR. FULLER-It was approved previously, and earlier this year, when, again, as with the Smith’s, the Lake
George Park Commission identified to the Hoppers that they need a Class A Marina permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Let’s talk about the boathouse and the boathouse only.
MR. FULLER-That’s where we’re going. Then that went to Craig Brown, and he issued and went back and
pulled the minutes from the ZBA meeting in ’99 when they got the permit for the building of the boathouse,
and the Area Variance, and there it was, one of the discussions at that meeting was whether there was rentals,
actually was there a Class A Marina I believe is how it started, and they were unrepresented at that time. They
did not believe there was a need for a Class A Marina. They didn’t know what it was, and they answered that
no, and then the question followed, do you rent slips, and I sincerely believe this, the Hoppers took that
under the purview, was it a Class A Marina, and do you rent as a Class A Marina. They’ve always rented slips
at this property, as far back as our research could reveal, but certainly, and quite emphatically, members of the
Board, of the ZBA that were at the ’99 hearing and are still on the Board felt that it was otherwise, and they
felt that since Craig revoked that permit, that there was an intent, I guess, to mislead the Board. So we came
back, as was required, when that ’99 variance was revoked, and got that, you know, made the concessions that
the Board wanted, and had got that variance again. So that’s why we’re back again today. Technically it’s
built. It was built correctly the first time, from what I understand, but the procedure being what it was when
that permit was revoked, now we’re back.
MR. MAC EWAN-When was the boathouse built?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. FULLER-’99.
MR. MAC EWAN-It takes site plan approval to get that done.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Well, we’ve got Site Plan 21-99, and it was res, what’s “res”? Resolved? On 5/24/99,
construction of a covered boathouse and sundeck. So I guess we did approve it under Site Plan 21-99, and
we’re just re-approving it again because the ZBA revoked their 32-2000?
MR. FULLER-That was an issue that I didn’t, I guess, contest with Craig, was that the ’99 Use Variance was
revoked but not the site plan review.
MR. RINGER-We’re not looking at a new boathouse that you just built?
MR. FULLER-No, no.
MR. RINGER-All right. That was my question, really. We’re not looking at a boathouse you built last week.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. FULLER-As far as the letter that revoked the Area Variance, I’m pretty sure that it didn’t discuss site
plan review, but I guess it was inferred that that revocation of the Area Variance revoked the site plan as well.
MR. RINGER-You answered my question.
MR. FULLER-That hasn’t been technically revoked. Maybe Craig has to do that.
MS. RADNER-It’s been revoked because that’s what led us to getting the permit. It was that whole process
that was felt to be tainted. That’s why they make you go through it again, so that if new concerns are raised
by the commercial use, that they have an opportunity to question those and make sure that the right
precautions are in place.
MR. FULLER-Certainly conceded, but as I said, we don’t contest that. We’re here, and we put in the
application for that.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have any questions, then, on the boathouse and the sundeck.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with the boathouse.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with the boathouse.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-What’s the height of the boathouse above, skip that question.
FRANK DE NARDO
MR. DE NARDO-13’ 7”.
MR. STROUGH-He’s going to take care of that, trust me, but now just the rental spots. Who uses the
boathouse? The owners?
MR. FULLER-Yes, the Hoppers.
MR. STROUGH-And is there a one or a two boat capacity?
MR. FULLER-One.
MR. STROUGH-And are they going to remove that northward finger projection?
MR. FULLER-That was the concession to the ZBA, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. When?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. FULLER-With the application I think I submitted the exact letter indicating the concession, and the deal
with them was all of this will be done when we’re done with the approval processes, not only here but, if we
get to the Park Commission, with the Park Commission, and the ZBA concession was if any of those events
does not happen,, you have to come back to the ZBA. So that, and that was agreed up. We did do that. We
said, okay, if anybody says no, either the Planning Board or the Lake George Park Commission, then we’ll
come back, because obviously it didn’t work.
MR. MAC EWAN-No to you getting an approval of some kind.
MR. FULLER-Exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you got all your approvals, when is that finger dock coming out?
MR. FULLER-Well, Frank’s availability with the clients.
MR. DE NARDO-I’d say within a couple of weeks of the approval I should be able to get in there and
remove it.
MR. FULLER-This is part of a larger project, too. I mean, they have.
MR. MAC EWAN-But why, if this Board deemed that they wanted that finger dock out of there, and as part
of the concession for you to get your variances from the ZBA, what’s the Lake George Park Commission got
to do with it?
MR. FULLER-I believe that, I’m not going to speak for them, but they may want an interest in the riparian
rights question, too. That would be my only thought. I can’t speak for them.
MR. BROWN-I’d just be cautious issue an approval based on the performance of another body, the Park
Agency.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s why I’m asking.
MR. BROWN-If we don’t get the Park Agency.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would they even have an interest in whether that, what we do?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know. I don’t think they’d have an issue with removal of the dock.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. BROWN-Only if this was to add a dock, but to take one out shouldn’t be a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, thanks. Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to let that one still sink in. Okay. So are you going to rent the north side berth?
MR. FULLER-No. Again, that’s, per our discussion with the ZBA, is strictly private.
MR. STROUGH-So the whole boathouse will be just for the private use of the owner?
MR. FULLER-The slip located inside the boathouse, and the slip located to the north of the boathouse.
MR. STROUGH-Then the slip to the south will be rentable?
MR. FULLER-Yes. That one.
MR. BROWN-The last page of your application lists each slip and the statuses of each one. I think it’s in the
very back.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, regents exams have limited my thoroughness. Okay. Thank you, Craig, and
thank you, applicant. I see now. Okay. Then that’s all the questions I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-On the construction drawings, what you submitted as the construction drawing, or as a
drawing, let me get to it, I think I’ve committed some of that to memory. It looked like an 11’ 6” and a 3 that
you’re on that drawing?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That comes out to be more than 14 feet.
MR. FULLER-If I read that correctly, that was the existing, when you guys did the construction and
remodeled.
MR. DE NARDO-11’ 6” was existing to the top, yes.
MR. FULLER-They replaced a boathouse that was already standing.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I’m looking at, is this was approved in 1999?
MR. FULLER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is the drawing, and then it was recently modified on the existing footprint, or it’s
as it was built in ’99, no changes?
MR. DE NARDO-The only change was from a peak roof to a flat roof.
MR. VOLLARO-That was the change?
MR. DE NARDO-That was the change.
MR. VOLLARO-And how recently did that flat roof get?
MR. FULLER-Well, that was the change that was approved in ’99.
MR. DE NARDO-’99.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the ’99 change?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So as this stands right now.
MR. DE NARDO-Nothing’s changed since then.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I assume that this 11’ 6” existing is from the high water mark, this 11’ 6” to the top,
and then another three.
MR. DE NARDO-11’ 6” was from the top of the surface of the dock that’s there.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think that’s the drawing that was submitted in ’99.
MR. DE NARDO-Submitted for existing roofline. You see that drawing in there where it peaks, that’s where
the peak was.
MR. STROUGH-Does anyone go out and verify these things?
MR. VOLLARO-See, I don’t have any way of knowing, looking at this, and maybe this is another pre-existing
condition, because this is not a 14 foot height boathouse.
MR. DE NARDO-Actually it’s lower than 14 feet, and it was approved by the Park Commission as lower
than 14 feet because they mark our docks for the mean high, mean low.
MR. STROUGH-They come up and mark them?
MR. DE NARDO-Actually, they were there when I was there and we marked them together, yes. That’s
what I do with all my structures.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. DE NARDO-Try not to leave any gray areas.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to, you know, without having somebody like Craig home with me, in afternoon
reviewing this stuff saying this is what this is and this is what that is, the drawing doesn’t convey to me what
you’ve done. This drawing doesn’t speak to me hardly at all, in that way.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. DE NARDO-My new drawings, if I come in front of you, they do speak now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what I need to know. This is the thing that I look at, and when I saw what
the existing was versus then Craig points out, well, it’s 10 foot proposed and three to the top, that’s 13.
That’s fine, but without knowing that, I don’t have any way of even getting close. All right. We went over
the, now, this application is for retroactive approval. Is that correct? At least that’s what the Staff notes.
MR. FULLER-Technically, yes. I concede that it’s already built and we are seeking approval as the built
structure.
MR. VOLLARO-As a built structure. So we’re really looking at an application for retroactive approval.
Okay.
MR. RINGER-But it was previously approved as built in ’99 by us.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, then if it was previously approved.
MR. RINGER-We approved it on site plan no. 21-99 as built, that we look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think we approved it with the peak roof at that time, the ’99 approval.
MR. RINGER-No, no, with a sundeck, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-With a sundeck. Then why, if we’ve approved it once, why are we?
MR. RINGER-Because the ZBA took theirs back, so that forced us, that made our approval invalid, the way
I understand it. So we’re looking at the same thing we approved in 1999, however they are going to remove
the finger now.
MR. BROWN-The only difference is that the way it was presented in ’99 it was going to be a residential use
of the shoreline, now that’s not the case. It’s a commercial use of the shoreline. This dock is part of a
structure that’s associated with a proposed marina, and if that change between what was offered then and
what’s offered now alters your decision on this, that may change the outcome conditions. Everything else
stays the same. The structure hasn’t changed. It’s not any bigger, taller, the same structure that was approved
in ’99. It’s the usage.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re really, we’re slowly drifting into the Special Use Permit area here. That’s what
we’re really saying.
MR. BROWN-Unless you drop an anchor here and close it and move on to the next one. Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If this is a boathouse that’s been previously approved, then I don’t even know what
we’re talking about.
MR. FULLER-None of the boathouse is used, no access is allowed for the three people that rent the slips.
MR. VOLLARO-So as far as the site plan is concerned, we’ve pre-approved this site plan. That’s what we’re
saying here. This has been a pre-approved site plan?
MR. RINGER-No, not pre-approved. We approved it.
MR. VOLLARO-So why is there a site plan in front of us?
MR. RINGER-We approved it because the ZBA granted a variance. The ZBA took back their variance, so
that made our site plan invalid.
MS. RADNER-Legally, when the applicant presents material facts to you, and those material facts are wrong,
then your action is invalidated, and your action was invalidated when it was learned that the applicant has
represented that this was strictly their own private facility and that there was no renting. There is renting, so
you have to go through the process again because what you did before is invalid.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. That’s what we’re talking about, retroactive approval. I don’t see anything, in
terms of the site plan review, that I have comments on, based on what I’ve heard.
MR. MAC EWAN-The boathouse.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you folks wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application? Any takers?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-We just have that same letter that was issued from the Lake George Association, and we have
a public comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you folks to give up the table for a minute.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. My name is John Salvador again, and the comment I’m going to make now is
one that I forgot to make on the previous application, but it’s applicable to both, and I won’t belabor the.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re only doing, right now, the site plan for the boathouse alone.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This deals with the issue of commercial again. As we are permitting, through a site
plan process, or whatever the process is, you’re permitting commercial use in an otherwise residential zone
where it’s not allowed, and as we talked about insurance and we talked about these other things, there’s
another aspect of commercial operation that everyone tends to overlook, and that’s the requirements of the
ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. In recent years, and by the way, I should say that we made
application to this Town for a permit to make a modification to one of our waterfront facilities, and they
required us to go to the Glens Falls Independent Living Center, where our design was reviewed and certain
changes had to be made to accommodate the handicapped. They have a gentleman on staff there. He’s
called an architectural barrier consultant. We all know that commercial activity, commercial facilities, are to
be barrier free, and I make the point that this barrier free requirement applies not only to your guests, but
your employees. Your employees have to be able to work in a barrier free atmosphere. This is sometimes
more difficult to attain than for the guests. The guests come and go. You could have an employee that’s
there every day, and your facilities have to be barrier free to accommodate that. So that’s just one thing I
wanted to point out, that as you permit commercial activity, and you are involved with a site plan review, that
site plan should reflect barrier free accommodations, be there parking, toilet facilities, access to the docks,
stairways, this sort of thing. This would make it extremely difficult for some of these operations to function.
That’s, you know, the only point I wanted to make.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, John. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do our SEQRA.
MS. RADNER-Can I interrupt for a second? I think you’re going out of order, here, because you’ve got two
applications before you that are both dealing with the same property, and they both require SEQRA review.
So your SEQRA review needs to encompass both of them, so that you’re including the cumulative impacts
and are not guilty of segmentation.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Interesting.
MS. RADNER-I wanted to stop you before you got too far into it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. So noted, and how would you like to handle this site plan, then, on this?
MS. RADNER-I think you should table this application and hear what he has to say on the Special Use
Permit issue, and then return to this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then I’m going to re-open the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then, Cathi, should we do two SEQRAs, then, or just one?
MS. RADNER-You can do one SEQRA for both projects, but you really need to consider it all together,
when it’s all before you at one time.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move on to the next one, then.
MR. FULLER-I believe you can knock out one at that time, then, if they find that one doesn’t have an
impact, then they can proceed with.
MS. RADNER-You still have to, when you’ve got two of them on the table, even if one were, by itself, a
Type II action requiring no SEQRA review, and both of them are here, you’ve got to consider them all
together, the entire project.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY MATTHEW FULLER ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS
TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 5 BOAT SLIPS AND
ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2002, SP 21-99, BP 99-
338 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.16-1-14 LOT SIZE:
0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-10
MATTHEW FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Special Use Permit No. 2-2002, David & Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: June 20, 2002
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes the establishment of a marina, which, per the Lake George Park Commission, is to be
classified as a Class A marina. Per Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A marinas require a Special Use
Permit from the Planning Board.
Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a
Special Use Permit according to Section 179-10-50 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance. The following general standards were contemplated during review:
7. Is the proposed use in harmony and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and what effects
may the project present relative to the health, safety and welfare of the town and its residents?
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies marinas and residential docks as uses needing attention
in Neighborhood 1. Recommendation R1.5 appears to discuss larger, more commercial applications,
rather than the “residential marina.” Recommendation R1.8 suggests “each residential parcel be
allowed one dock of size and capacity suitable for the single family residential use allowed in the
area.”
8. Is the proposed use compatible with the neighborhood and what impacts may the project present
relative to density, community character, adjoining properties, districts and uses?
A previous application, (Smith) indicated that the Rooney parcel, to the north, has a Class A marina
permit from the Lake George Park Commission, (LGPC). A neighbor to the north of the Hopper
parcel, Smith, has applied for a similar Special Use Permit. It appears as though current the usage of
the shoreline in this area is not dissimilar to the proposed use.
9. What impacts may the project present relative to vehicular congestion, parking and existing traffic
conditions?
The proposal calls for the parking of nine vehicles on a property along Hannaford Road. Hannaford
Road is a narrow, dead end road servicing a small residential neighborhood. It appears as though use
of the spaces on the east side of Hannaford Road could require vehicles to back onto Hannaford
Road.
10. What impacts may the project present relative to infrastructure, utilities and public
services?
The proposal does not appear to present any significant impacts relative to these issues.
11. What impacts may the project present relative to environmental and natural resources including the
physical suitability of the site for the development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and the emissions
of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise that may be detrimental to public health, safety
and welfare?
The proposal calls for the usage of 100 feet of shoreline with and E-shaped dock and a U-shaped
dock containing up to 7 boats. The Town zoning ordinance, along with the LGPC regulations
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
require at least 250 feet of shoreline to support the existing configuration, and each dock is to be
constructed at least 20 feet from the property line.
12. What impacts may the project present relative to the long term economic stability and community
character of the town and surrounding property, districts and uses?
It appears as though this property and at least one neighboring parcel have operated as such for
several years. It appears as though some of the landowners in this area may be supplementing
income with the dock rental fees. It could be argued that this type of land use might present a more
commercial atmosphere or character rather than a residential one, especially, if such uses become
widespread.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 27-02 6/20/02 construction of covered boathouse/sundeck.
AV 32-2002: 5/15/02 side setback relief for boathouse/sundeck
AV 40-1999: 04/10/02 (revoked); side setback relief for boathouse/sundeck.
AV 62-2001: 10/17/01 (denied); height relief for single-family home.
BP 2001-638: 08/28/01; demolition of seasonal residence.
BP 2001-640: 08/23/01; septic alteration.
BP 99-338: 06/17/99; construction of covered boathouse/sundeck.
SP 21-99: 05/24/99; construction of covered boathouse/sundeck.
AV 40-1999: 05/19/99; side setback relief for boathouse/sundeck.
Staff comments:
The proposed use, while utilizing existing site conditions and structures, appears to be a significant burden on
the subject property. While the CLUP recommendation states that parcels should be limited to one dock,
consistent with the residential use of the property, the current ordinance allows for multiple docks on a parcel
based on shore frontage. As stated above, the minimum shoreline required for this dock configuration would
be 250 feet. Is any boat or trailer storage anticipated? Boat cleaning areas?
In this instance, it appears as though the majority of the intensity of the use is proposed along Hannaford
Road and the shore; however, a significant environmental concern appears to be unanswered, specifically,
stormwater runoff. Is there a stormwater management plan to address the potential runoff from the parking
areas? Town code requires one parking space per two boats; LGPC requires one space per boat.
Consideration may be given to the proposed “shared” use of the two parking spaces associated with the
cabin. Additional review criteria may be found in the LGPC regs; 646-1.2, (a) General Requirements and (b)
Specific Requirements.
With no marina “overlay district” established, it is very difficult to regulate the establishment of marinas by
location only. Specific standards must be used when reviewing this type of use and, provided the parcel can
support the use while at the same time protect the neighboring properties, community and environment from adverse impacts, the
project shall be allowable. Reasonable, easily enforceable performance conditions may be imposed.
Staff recommends, if approved, that the Special Use Permit be issued as a Renewable Permit. A one-year
time frame may be granted to allow for monitoring of the use for compliance with the approval and to
monitor impacts, if any.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to comment?
MR. BROWN-No. I think the Staff notes would be that, see Smith notes. No. I think you were on the right
track, identifying the issues. It’s just a different property. Different issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Fuller.
MR. FULLER-Thank you. I do have comments on this one. At the outset, and I guess we should address
that right up front, and I still feel this, particularly with how the previous application was handled by the
Board, and in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, there is a provision for nonconforming uses, and as, you know,
as reflected in your Code, and also in the laws that have interpreted various codes, the nonconforming use
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
can continue, and when I spoke to Craig, I briefly highlighted this in our application letter, and I come back
to it once again. This is a use, actually the rental of more slips than they currently propose, the three is a
concession that was, right off the bat, made to the Lake George Park Commission. They immediately, they
initially sought, I believe it was five rentals. The Park Commission said we don’t think we like that. Let’s
tone that down a bit, and so they agreed to do that. Now the rentals, which is why we’re here I understand,
the commercial, as Mr. Salvador addresses, the use of this property has not changed. They have not increased
the burden of the nonconforming use, and I, again, reiterate that there is no provision in your site plan, or
your Special Use Permit that was recently enacted, or a change to the nonconforming use portion of the
Zoning Ordinance, that outlaws all presently nonconforming uses. So, if that’s the case, and your code allows
them, and I would read it, if that would bring anything further to us, then, again, I don’t understand the
applicability in this case. There’s a big distinction between this application and the Smith application. You’re
right on, and I don’t want to bash this application of the Smiths. Believe me, I feel for their plight, but they
are admittedly going from a status or a use where they did not rent boat slips. They were used for friends,
and now they’re seeking to rent those boat slips. This, the Hoppers situation, is one where they continued a
use that pre-dates the Lake George Park Commission rules and regulations, and they’ve admitted that. It
doesn’t stop us from having to go and get that permit, and we’ll address their issues, and we’ll go in that
instance.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you feel you’re exempt and you don’t even need to be here?
MR. FULLER-Well, I guess that’s a question that’s not resolved, and the Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m asking you.
MR. FULLER-I don’t see that they have fallen out of the nonconforming uses part, and when I spoke to
Craig about this, the indication was if you don’t have an Lake George Park Commission permit, you’re not
nonconforming, and I think, if that’s going to be the stance of the Town, that they’re going to decide
nonconformity on the status of a Park Commission permit, I mean, the Park Commission doesn’t even
decide nonconformity on that status, so I’m not going to advise you on that. That’s up to Cathi and how you
guys want to proceed on that, but again, there’s just no difference that would subject them to increased
burdens. Having said that, we are here, and as I said to Craig, we are willing to discuss this with the Town,
because Craig and I highlighted a very important part. We can’t get any further with the Park Commission
unless we get the Town to sign off. Because the Park Commission says you comply with the Town zoning.
The Town is saying, no, you need a Special Use Permit, to answer your question directly, I don’t agree with
that based on the Code as it’s written now. There’s just, to completely outlaw a nonconforming use, as of the
date of the enactment of that new Zoning Ordinance, it has to be expressly done. There’s no authority for an
implied, you know, complete outline of a nonconforming use.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Fuller, just let me ask a question. In your letter, I think you address this on Page Two
of your letter when you say, “however in no way is the application meant to imply an admission that such
vested prior nonconforming use has been terminated or waived”. You’ve put it very succinctly on paper. Is
that what your position is?
MR. FULLER-Yes. I, initially, briefly albeit it admittedly, had a brief discussion with Craig about it before we
put the application, and we were under I think the, we were at the ZBA on Wednesday before the
applications were due to get on the June deadlines, or the June meetings. So we just moved quickly to get the
applications together, and I met with Craig and had the pre-application meeting, and highlighted things that
he wanted to see, a survey being one of them. So we moved quickly to get those materials together. So my
putting that in there was to reserve the fact that, while we are submitting the application, because we would
like to get on for June, if this is, in fact, the case, we don’t believe it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious. If you’re so steadfast in your position you don’t think you need to be
here, why didn’t you use another venue to argue your case instead of coming here?
MR. FULLER-Because the Town of Queensbury has far more money than the Hoppers, and has been noted
in numerous legal articles on the subject of challenging zoning laws, it’s much easier to come before you and
see if we can work out the application than it is to try to fight you.
MR. RINGER-Cathi, how do you feel on this?
MS. RADNER-Two brief points. Number One, if the applicant disagreed with the Zoning Administrator’s
determination that they needed a Special Use Permit, they should have appealed that determination to the
ZBA and didn’t do so, and, Number Two, they’re going to have a real hard argument that they have a pre-
existing, nonconforming use that’s grandfathered when they stood before you on the record and said, we are
not a commercial use, in 1999.
MR. FULLER-As I’m sure Counsel is aware, statements to the contrary of a use are in no way the authority
for what that use is, and certainly it’s something that should have been corrected then, and I went, believe me,
over it with the ZBA, that they certainly had a duty to correct it, once they kind of figured that the Board was
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
heading in the wrong direction in ’99, and that’s something they’ve admitted, and we don’t hide it. They
should have admitted that it was a rental. They didn’t know it needed a Class A Marina permit. They do
now, but again, I don’t think that that’s a.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s water under the bridge, so they say.
MR. FULLER-Yes, but again, as I said before, we are here with our application. So, again, she’s right, we can
challenge, and that’s a remedy, but how far does it get you?
MR. MAC EWAN-So how does your marina differ from the previous one we just looked at?
MR. FULLER-Existence.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as accommodations, accessibility, parking, so on and so forth. What makes yours
different?
MR. FULLER-Well, I wasn’t able to comment previously on the Pilot Knob Road parking versus the
Hannaford Road parking issue, but I think, if I have my meeting notes from when I met with, Craig and I
met on the 28, just before we got this in, and I asked him. I said, you know, the cars which originally parked
th
on Pilot Knob Road, you know, is that what the Town is the most interested in? Because we would have put
it either way, and I said point blankly, should we proceed with putting the parking spaces on Pilot Knob Road
or Hannaford Road? The map was as per my discussion with him. He said the Hannaford Road was the
better indication to put the parking spaces. Now I find out that that isn’t the case. If this Planning Board
wants us to get approvals for parking on Pilot Knob Road, I guess that’s something we’d have to consider,
but that’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the Board gave that indication to the last applicant that preferred parking is
on Pilot Knob Road. We want verification that he’s allowed to do that. That’s what we’re looking at.
MR. FULLER-I thought one member said no parking on Hannaford Road. So that’s why I was directing
that comment. There’s stairs down the front. As far as I know, they are in good condition, and regarding
access over Pilot Knob Road, you may note that one of the concessions to the ZBA was the erecting of a sign
at the bottom of the stairs indicating to pedestrians that they should, you know, essentially stop, look both
ways, and mind traffic, so as not to interfere with the flow or their own safety. So that was addressed, and
that’s certainly still our intention. We haven’t changed on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-You make it sound so easy, look both ways before you cross the road, and it’s not that
easy.
MR. FULLER-No, and I agree, but again, you know, along with the enforcement issues, how do we enforce
things, other than put a crossing guard near the roads or something, we’d have to give a little bit of faith to
the people that are going to rent from them, that they are, you know, they could trip on the docks or fall off
the docks into that murky water and not be able to swim out, and those are concerns that you have in that
area of the lake. So, it’s, to a large extent, it’s up to the people who rent from them.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you using for insurance? How are you insuring it?
MR. FULLER-Well, currently they have, this is actually two properties, 35 and 36 Hannaford Road, two
houses, one on either side of Hannaford Road, that are under this, the one on the east of Hannaford Road is
rented. So they must have a commercial policy for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which parcel, does the parcel that’s closest to the lake would be on the western side of
Hannaford own the property, own the docks?
MR. FULLER-It’s all, they’re all on one parcel. They would have to, it’s blanketly insured.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of insurance do you have to cover the rental of the docks?
MRS. HOPPER-We have commercial insurance for the motel.
MR. FULLER-The also own a business in the Village of Lake George, which, again, if the Board wants to see
insurance issues, then, again, we’ll get you some insurance issues, but I.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing that our laundry list would be very similar to the previous application, maybe
not quite as in-depth, but we’re going to be looking for the same stuff.
MR. FULLER-Well, I, as the previous applicant said, and again, it comes back to an issue of enforceability
with Craig, we can get you the proof that they can get the insurance, and obviously, as the previous applicant
said, when it all comes right down to it, it is in the property owner’s best interest to have adequate insurance.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
If any property owner in any part of the Town, be it Home Depot or the Hoppers, decides that they’re not
going to have adequate insurance, that’s a risk that both of those parties take on, that they would probably be
advised not to. So, can they get the insurance? We can certainly get out and get that to you, and, yes, it
would be in their best interest to have insurance that covers the rentals of the docks, because they have quite
a bit to lose. They have a business in Lake George that would, personally, be subject to an asset.
MR. MAC EWAN-My response would be, see the comment I made to the Smiths regarding that. That’s
where my mind is coming from. I mean, we’re talking residential properties that are now moving into the
area of commercialism with a marina. I think it’s.
MR. FULLER-Again, it comes back to the nonconforming commercial use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you and I could bounce this back and forth all night, and we can sit here and debate
this all night, and it’s not going to get anybody anywhere.
MR. FULLER-Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, we’re frustrated just like you’re frustrated because this is a very unusual situation.
We’re trying to, best we can, deal with something that’s been existing for a long time and now kind of like in
one way or another bring it under control and make it work for everybody, and if you guys want to give us
this information, we can try to think of the next step further, hopefully get you some sort of approval. That’s
where we’re going, but in order for us to make that decision, this is part of what I think we’re going to be
looking for.
MR. FULLER-Absolutely, and again, I would just reiterate that we knew that we could try to challenge that
decision. That’s not the route we wanted to take.
MR. MAC EWAN-Instead of continuing to bring that up, then you should have gone and challenged it. Let’s
move on now. Let’s get what we’ve got to get done here tonight so we can get you on your way and get the
information that we’re going to be looking for and try to make everybody happy.
MR. FULLER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have we got any other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-On the Special Use Permit?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’ll start with you, Robert.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Currently, the way this plan is laid out, the parking is satisfied by 10 house parking
spaces as I see it. Is that correct? Ten spaces, up in the back, on either side of Hannaford Road. That’s how
they’re currently looking to satisfy parking. Trash cans are going to be maintained in the garage, in the house
garage. Restrooms will be at 35 and 36 Hannaford Road. Both 35 and 36 are under the same ownership. Is
that correct? The septic on existing system, now there’s a note in here somewhere that their permit for a new
advanced system, and I looked at that permit and it expires in August of 2002, but that can be extended, I
believe. Is that right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Typically the Building Department will extend it one time.
MR. VOLLARO-One time. Do you intend to exercise that permit for an advanced system?
MRS. HOPPER-I intend to advance on the process of developing that property, septic system, a well, and
putting probably a $300,000 home on that property, if I can move past the waterfront. That’s my intention,
to retire on this piece of property. That’s what I intend to do, and, yes, this septic system will be built, and it’s
large enough to handle both properties for the Town of Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Plus the load that the marina would put on it.
MRS. HOPPER-Absolutely. Mr. Jay Sweet of Queensbury Septic has looked at this and worked with us on
it. It’s going to be a very expensive system because of how large it has to be to accommodate this, and we’re
more than willing to go to the expense of having this done, which I think would be greatly improved over
what’s on there now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you have a thing here called a proposed house, which is dotted. This is this new
home you intend to build, shown by the dotted line. Now, when that new home is built, and your septic tank
is improved, you’re still going to run this marina, this commercial marina?
MRS. HOPPER-Well, there’ll only be three boats we’re renting. I mean, only three boat slips basically,
because the little cottage that you see, that we also own.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Out in the back?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. We’ve already discussed this with the ZBA. That strictly goes to the little cottage.
Those docks are not rented. They are used. There’s two spaces that are used by that little cottage.
MR. VOLLARO-By that cottage. I see that in the thing. That’s referred to as the 36 Hannaford.
MRS. HOPPER-Right, and we also, you know, that that would be stipulated that’s not a problem. The two
spots are going to be used by my personal use in the boathouse and on the north side. So I’m only asking
this Board for permission to rent three dock spaces. That’s all I’m asking, and it was from seven. When I
bought this property, they were renting seven dock spaces. I’ve dropped it down to three, in hopes that the
Board would look a little more favorably on me than the last time I came before them.
MR. VOLLARO-You also have an agreement with Fischer’s Marina for pump out?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, we do, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s another one.
MRS. HOPPER-Anybody that has gone by my waterfront that we have done will see that my husband and I
try to run a nice, modern, clean facility, and that would continue. The renters that we’ve had have been with
this piece of property for over 20 years. They’re the same people. Two of them live within a mile of this
house. The other one lives about 10 miles away from the house. They would be the exact same individuals.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the other thing I’m just looking at, you know, the business of cumulative impacts of
these three marinas in this area has really got my stymied, in terms of how I feel about this, and I know that
you’ll have eventually three marinas running here with the Smiths, the Rooney’s, and yourselves.
MRS. HOPPER-I’m the only one that’s come before the Board that’s actually diminished the use of those
docks, as far as renting.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and you’ve been renting before. In other words, you’ve had this rental process going
on right along.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, we have. We bought it this way. It was presented that way, and that’s the way we’ve
been doing it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll let some other Board member go forward while I think a little more, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just think that that whole part of the bay is all marina. We have Castaway’s
across the other side. It’s just, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s residential anymore.
MRS. HOPPER-I think part of the problem is the water quality of that bay. If the homeowners along Pilot
Knob Road where Mr. Smith, myself, and Mr. Rooney could pull all our docks out and utilize the water with
floats and swim, that’s what we would probably do, but there’s nothing you can do with this bay. Like Mr.
Smith said, if you jump off my dock, you’re going to go right up to here in muck. There’s nothing else you
can do with this waterfront. As I said, if I could pull my docks out and have crystal clear water and go
swimming like a lot of the lake is, that’s exactly what I would do, but I can’t do that. There’s nothing else you
can do to utilize this waterfront, and therein lies the dilemma. I understood, years ago, that there was a
sawmill on the other side of the bay where the marina is now, and that’s why you have the silt level that you
have. Not only were they floating logs, but you also had a sawmill that was actually on the other side of the
bay, and that’s the predicament we’re in, and I realize that that’s a lot of boats docked there, but it’s been
going on for years, and the neighborhood has absorbed it, and we work without a problem with it. There’s
no accidents that I have been aware of. I’ve asked a couple of, I’ve called the Warren County Sheriff to see if
maybe the traffic has had an impact with that. There is none. There’s no accidents. People don’t get run
over. Because it’s been going on for years and people use caution, and we all run and have our responsible
properties, at least we try to be, and anything this Board recommends that they would like to see to improve
those conditions we will gladly do, and if you’d like me to hand handbills out to anybody, the three people
that rent my docks, I would gladly do that, and anything else this Board recommends, and insurance, I think I
can handle that. I carry a great deal of commercial insurance. I own a motel. I know exactly what kind of
insurance they’re going to be looking for. I carry a lot of it, and I do believe, I’ve got the property on
Hannaford Road covered, probably better than anybody else over there does, because of the business I’m in,
and I also own property in Florida that the insurance covers, because I rent part of that out during the winter
when I’m back here running the motel. So my insurance has a very massive umbrella over it.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mrs. Hopper, I think you’ve given a very convincing argument. I think that the fact
that you’ve emphasized that the bottom, I mean, it’s been brought up this evening, but you’ve said it with a
lot of passion. The bottom of that lake really is not good for swimming, and the fact that there really isn’t a
lot of opposition here from a lot of neighbors, and the fact that you also emphasized that you’ve all kind of
worked together there because you don’t have the nice recreational accessibility that most homeowners with
frontage on Lake George have. That’s good. I mean, I understand what you’re saying, and I feel a little bit
more at ease with your request.
MRS. HOPPER I don’t think you’ll ever find a neighbor on Hanneford Road that will complain about the
boat rentals that the three of us have done because we’re careful who we rent to. We don’t allow partying. If
any of that happened, we would ask them to leave period, because it is our home, and that’s the thing. We’re
going to live there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the people that live in the, rent the little cabin keep coming back and the boat
docks go with that cabin?
MRS. HOPPER-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, do they rent it for the whole summer?
MRS. HOPPER-The whole summer. I rent it from May right through until October, and with talking with
the enforcement officer for the Lake George Park Commission, that I would give him the name of the
person that rents our cottage, and he is going to check the numbers on their boat and make sure that they are
in that cottage. That I guaranteed with the ZBA. That’s not a problem. I come before this Board with not
the cleanest hands in the world, but I do this time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You seem to have a lot of your, everything in order.
MRS. HOPPER-I’ve had a lot of time and a lot of stress putting this project together. I spent a lot of money.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think we can work something out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-The only difference between you and the Smiths, as you say, is that you’ve been renting yours
all along and the Smiths haven’t been renting theirs all along?
MRS. HOPPER-I’m going to be honest with you, sir, I’ve been renting my docks.
MR. RINGER-That’s why you feel yours is different than the Smiths?
MRS. HOPPER-No, I don’t feel that’s the only reason. I feel that I can put parking off of Pilot Knob Road,
which I think, in my opinion, and I’ll be honest with you, gentlemen, two of my people walk. They don’t
even take their cars. So I’m talking one car, maybe two if somebody has a bad day, and I’ve got enough
property to put two cars up there that’s going to have no impact on Hannaford Road, I feel, at all. This is
where I’m going to live. I’m going to be very careful of how I handle my neighbors, and Mr. Harris is here. I
think you have a letter from Mr. Hansen who’s my other neighbor, who’s been my neighbor for four years,
and he is totally in favor of this marina because he knows I run and have a very nice place, and I keep it nice.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think there’s any question that your place is a nice place. That’s not what’s before us,
unfortunately. This is, I’ve been on this Board for five or six years, and these two applications are two of the
most difficult that I’ve had to look at.
MRS. HOPPER-I can understand that.
MR. RINGER-And you can look at something and say, well, it’s been there for 40 years or 30 years or 20
years or whatever the case may be. We, unfortunately, can’t look at that as our criteria for making decisions.
It’s very difficult.
MRS. HOPPER-My dilemma, sir, is that if I don’t get approval from this Board and from the Lake George
Park Commission there’s no way I can afford to buy seven boats, or five boats or three boats. I have one
boat, and I’m going to get a smaller one, or my son can put his on my other dock. That’s it. That’s all the
boats this girl can afford. That’s the reality of it.
MR. RINGER-And we understand because these are all the things that make this so difficult.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. HOPPER-I understand that.
MR. RINGER-And I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with it, other than all the conditions you spoke of before, the no fueling,
no overnight camping, all those things.
MRS. HOPPER-Not a problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just have a few comments that I have to state my mind about. I can’t understand how
anybody could sit here and say that this is any different than any other application, whether somebody rents it
or lets somebody stay there, it’s still boat docks. I would love to, and think I will at some point, if I ever get
time, research how all these docks showed up, because this is just ludicrous, and for you to sit there and say
that that part of the lake is ruined so there’s nothing else you can do but put docks there is just a rotten
statement because I just don’t understand how you could justify saying that, you know, we can’t do anything
else so let’s just rape and pillage the land with docks so we can put as many boats there as possible. I just, it
just, I don’t know. It just blows my mind that you can look at this in a different light than the Smith dock
and say it’s a different application. It’s not. It’s the exact same thing. You’re utilizing, you know, as much
land as you possibly can, where everybody else in Lake George has one boathouse, one dock, and here
there’s, how many docks are you looking at? What, ten, within 200 feet? I just cannot believe that you can
honestly say that because you can’t swim there that this is justifiable (lost words) absolutely not, and I would
love to know how these docks got here in the first place. Everybody else on Lake George has to go through
an application to have a dock put up, a boathouse, what have you, and one dock, or one boathouse per
person, and there’s seven docks here within two hundred feet. I just cannot believe it. It blows my mind,
and you justify it by saying the lake is ruined there. Well, maybe it’s ruined because there are so many boats.
How could that possibly be? I grew up on this lake. I know Warner Bay just as well as anybody else, and I’ll
tell you what, from what I’ve seen lately, there’s something going on in there. Could it possibly be the
number of boats that are sitting there? What could it possibly be? I’m not happy with this.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’ll concur with Mr. Metivier. I’m not happy with it, but there’s a
grandfathered situation. I mean, I’d like to do something about it, but I also respect the owner’s situation,
and I certainly think the owner has a certain amount of rights, and I also think that I shouldn’t treat you any
differently than I had treated the previous person with a very similar situation. So, I, for one, would ask of
you what I asked of them, and I, too, would like to add that I was uncomfortable with the parking off of
Hannaford with them, and I’m not changing that position for you. I’m not comfortable with the parking on
Hannaford. I think that that area up there is beautiful around the Hannaford Road, is very residential, and I
think to allow commercial parking takes away from that character, and I think that the commercial parking, if
you could, and you suggested that you could, keep it, for the rentals, keep it on Pilot Knob Road, and keep
that commercial activity focused down there, I think it would be better, and so it’s basically, I’ve taken the
same position with you as I did the prior applicants the Smiths. So, I, you know, and I don’t think, at the
time it comes we’ll get into more detail, but if you can move some of that rental parking down the Pilot Knob
Road, and you have three slips, it would make me more comfortable. So if you can do that, we’ll just proceed
on and maybe everybody can be happy. That’s all I have to say for now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve already given my little thing. I don’t have much more to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry about that. I lose track after a while.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I think I kind of go along with Mr. Strough’s position that we don’t want to
pertivate the commercial, the residential capability out back there. I’d much rather keep all the commercial
aspects of this down near the docks, but I would vote in favor of that with John, or if that’s just, if it came
down to voting to move those docks, those parking spaces, I would vote for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus I’m hearing from the Board is pretty much that the list that we requested
of the previous application, as far as what additional information we’re looking for, is very similar to this
application.
MR. VOLLARO-With the exception that he has his.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s already got his surveyed drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-But the other things, we should just review those other things to make sure they fit this
application, but I think they all do. We’re talking parking. We’re talking garbage. We’re talking invasive
operation from May 1 to 31 October, restrooms, of course I’ve got the additional thing on septic up there,
st
but I don’t think that that really applies until she builds the new house.
MR. MAC EWAN-As with the Smith application, you’re utilizing your home for restroom and garbage
disposal?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-And the pump out is being supplied by Fischer’s Marina. So it’s pretty much an overlay of
this proposal. I think that Tony’s right in that section. We’re looking at almost a one to one here, except that
this applicant has already been rented, whereas, the Smiths are looking to do the same.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we have the two slips that go with the cottage, and then the three slips that you’re
renting and then the rest is yours. Yes, now, and with those three that you’re renting, you said very seldom
that you have more than one vehicle, and how do you feel about moving that parking area down on Pilot
Knob?
MRS. HOPPER-If the Board wants people to park on Pilot Knob Road, I, personally, thought that three
vehicles would be much safer up on Hannaford Road. That’s why I went to the expense of having the survey
done this way, because I’m in awe that you would prefer Pilot Knob Road. That’s my.
MR. RINGER-Not all of us do.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s my initial reaction. I didn’t even, my attorney said, he said go to the expense, because
I said, I’m in awe. I can’t believe you prefer Pilot Knob Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you know what my position on parking on Pilot Knob Road is.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I think you’re better off there, because they’re by the cottage.
MRS. HOPPER-Exactly. I thought it was safer. I thought it was less intrusive. I thought it was less
dangerous. I’ve got a list this long.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the only people that are going to be really impacted by them are the people that
rent the cottage.
MRS. HOPPER-Absolutely, and there’s no.
MR. VOLLARO-On the flip side of that, the argument is that the other marinas are parking their cars along
Pilot Knob Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they were going to anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-I know.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They have more boat docks so they need more parking spaces.
MRS. HOPPER-We’re talking eight and five. I’m talking three, three cars, and with having both sides of
Hannaford Road I own, I could easily put two in front of the cottage and one on my big house, and it would
be absorbed like you’re having company. I mean, I don’t think it would have a major impact because I’m
only talking three vehicles. That’s my point. It’s not eight. It’s not five. It’s three.
MR. FULLER-The reason we showed so many spaces was the 1.5 spaces times the total amount of dock
spaces, plus two for each residence, and we wanted to show exactly what was required under the Town Code
and that we could, if we had to do that.
MRS. HOPPER-And I also thought if I showed some of you, you might want to pick, well, I like this one
and this one, but I don’t care for this one, I would leave it to the Board to pick, where do you want them
parked. I’ll park them where the Board wants them. That’s why I showed as many as I did, and my surveyor
said I’ve got more than enough. I don’t want a bunch of little lines. This is enough. So that’s why I did what
I had him do on here, to show more than enough parking, and these are not all going to be utilized,
gentlemen, by any stretch of the imagination, just enough for three cars.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. FULLER-Again, the provision for having guests parking, I mean, I remember my parents renting a
space for all of my childhood, and, you know, very flatly, one car. You want to bring anybody, you pick them
up in Bolton Landing over at the public dock or you picked them up at the village, at the public dock, and
that was 10 years ago when there was more parking, but, again, you couldn’t, you had to park off site and
bring everybody on. So, as far as putting a condition like that on the renters, I don’t think that’s unreasonable
at all, and again, the no refueling on the shore I think is pretty much a no-brainer for them.
MRS. HOPPER-Absolutely.
MR. FULLER-Because of what it does to the water. It’s better for the marinas also if you have to fill up
elsewhere, and the same with transporting the wastes out of the boats, porta-johns and what not. Again, right
to the marina with that. They don’t want to see it on their property, and it is easier for them to enforce. If
these people are breaching these things, they’ve got the power to tell them to hit the road, if there’s a
shortage.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you park your private cars up there, your own vehicles?
MRS. HOPPER-One.
MR. VOLLARO-One.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The cabin itself, those people would probably keep their car close to the cabin, and walk
down to their slips. Is that what they do now?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-For the two slips that are reserved for the cottage?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So that means really you’ve got, you’re renting only three, and you’re saying that, of those
three, there may be only one car?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-So if you were to put two spaces down on Pilot Knob Road, to serve those three slips, and
then this parking up in the back would be almost at your discretion. Is that fair?
MRS. HOPPER-I hesitate to do that, sir, because I know Pilot Knob Road. I hesitate to do that. We are
closer to the corner than Mr. Smith. Okay. That’s one reason. The second reason is Mr. Smith has more of
a, it pushes in more than what we do. I truly, wholeheartedly, would like to impress upon the Board that I
don’t think in front of my property would be the safest place to park two vehicles. I’m not comfortable
parking my car there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, you’re on the losing end of this one.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all right.
MRS. HOPPER-I would ask any Board member to go look at the bottom of my stairs. It’s not the same as
Mr. Smith’s. It’s not as wide, gentlemen. I’m probably shooting myself in the foot saying this, but I’m trying
to be open with the Board, and I don’t think it’s a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you the majority of the Board is probably going to want to see the parking up by
your house.
MRS. HOPPER-I’ve got it staked out. I had them all staked for the Board to come look at them. I had the
surveyor, I’ve been mowing the lawn around these now for nine to three weeks, gentlemen, with a weed
whip, by the way. I have them all staked out. I don’t know how long I’m going to keep the stakes in,
gentlemen.
MR. STROUGH-I was up there this afternoon. I saw them staked out. I think that you may see some
change of minds after they see it.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, I put more than I needed.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That may be the case. Why do you need two boat slips for the cabin?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. HOPPER-Because it’s easier, when you rent the cabin, for one thing, it’s entity unto itself, and that’s
their dock. That goes with their cabin.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re saying usually they’ll only have one boat there?
MRS. HOPPER-It’s their option to have one or two. They can have either or.
MR. STROUGH-Most people don’t have two boats. Well, can I assume that most of the time it will be one
boat?
MRS. HOPPER-I just say they have the option of one or two boats. They can use one or they can use two.
They have, that’s their option. That dock goes with their cabin, and they can only have two. They can have
none, one or two, and that’s it.
MR. STROUGH-Can the people that rent the cabin rent out a slip?
MRS. HOPPER-No. That’s not an option.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s not an option.
MR. STROUGH-So generally speaking, I’m going to assume that they have one boat. I mean, maybe people
have got two boats, but.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They go with their sunfish and they.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, do you have your list on there?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I have my list.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go through your list and see what’s applicable to this application.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I have surveyed map showing road right of ways, delineate parking and dock
locations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t need it. It’s already done.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re okay with that.
MR. STROUGH-I have instructions agreement with the renters, to include but not limited to, parking rights
and restrictions, to also include one parking space limitation for rentee, restroom facility use instructions,
trash disposal, sanitary disposal instructions, no boat trailer or gas storage, no fueling boats at dock, one boat
or PWC per dock, pump out facility instructions suggesting Fisher’s Marina, no storage of hazardous
materials, no retail sale, no exterior boat cleaning, rentees are expected to act in an environmentally
responsible manner, no overnight use. I have if parking is allowed from Hannaford Road, then public access
must be improved, stair and rail to Code, submit intent and schedule. Signage will designate private parking
area, submit the following permits: Lake George Park Commission Wharf permit, Warren County Highway
Department Parking permit with owner’s name
MR. MAC EWAN-Not applicable.
MR. STROUGH-And provide documentation that facility is appropriately insured. That’s what I have, Mr.
Chairman.
MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, you also still need to open your public hearing.
MR. FULLER-And the railing, was there a problem with one of the railings?
MR. STROUGH-There was a missing railing on one side, and probably Code would say you have to have it
on the other side as well. You know the side toward the hill? Even though it’s toward the hill, Code
probably would say you have to put a railing up there. Otherwise, it seemed fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
BARBARA LYNN
MRS. LYNN-My name’s Barbara Lynn, and I live on 11 Hannaford Road. I object strongly to a commercial
parking lot on our road, particularly if it’s set up for as many sites as what we’re talking about, ten or even
five. It would be lovely to think that the three people who have been renting the docks for many years will
always be the ones doing it, but once this is opened up for commercial parking, it will be commercial parking.
There is no room on Hannaford Road for that. It’s a narrow road, as it is we have people going off on the
side of the road because only one car can get through at a time. I think you all probably know that. I felt
very good about your comments about the residential aspect of the area, and I feel that this would not be
good. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MRS. LYNN-Please don’t park there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
GRACE HANNAFORD
MRS. HANNAFORD-My name is Grace Hannaford. I’ve lived on Hannaford Road for about 70 years, and
I feel that this is not a good idea to have these cars coming up and down and having this parking lot there.
That’s a narrow road, as Mrs. Lynn has just said. The cars have to pull onto our property when they go to
pass, and coming up that little grade, that’s dangerous, too. So I am totally against it. I’ve lived there all my
life, and I’d like to live there as a residential district. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador. The issue of Hannaford Road is indeed very, very important. I’m a
former owner of some building lots in the subdivision that Bob Schultz created. You probably saw that
private road called Constitution Way? That leads to a 10 or 12 lot subdivision that is in the early stages of
development. There are a few houses there, but anyway, when Bob Schultz was bringing that subdivision
forth, the Town had serious objections to him accessing his subdivision where it accesses Hannaford Road,
and there was a court case over this, and Bob won, but the issue was that this road couldn’t, didn’t have a
right, Number One, and the road couldn’t handle the traffic. Now that subdivision has been approved, and
he has the approval to access the road. Now the point has been brought up about commercial parking, if you
will. That’s a very narrow road. It’s not, doesn’t meet Town standards for a road. The Highway
Superintendent’s obligated to open roads to 50 feet, if they’ve been a Town road by use for 10 years. He
ought to get off his duff and do it. The problem is it’s going to necessitate a land taking and these folks
wouldn’t like that either. So it’s a serious problem, but you shouldn’t overburden it by requiring additional
parking and access. There’ll be a ton of cars up there. That’s one issue. The second one, I look forward to
the day when I might have to come here and get another Special Use Permit or something for the operation
of our marina, and I certainly wouldn’t want the precedent set that I am obligated to get insurance that is
satisfactory to the Board. I have a right to be self-insured if I so choose. It might be a dumb business
decision, but it’s my right to make these dumb decisions. As long as I’m the only one affected, and I don’t
think you can obligate these people to carry an insurance that is to your liking. They have a choice, if they
want to, to be self-insured. This is their risk. There’s one other. I really think that the problem I have with
all of this, and I think you need some kind of a coordinated review, cumulative impacts, and it deals with the
wastewater. This area is already a very poor location for even, you know, residential dwellings that are in a
density that you have there, that they can locate, site adequate on-site waste disposal, and now you’re
burdening it with the requirements from this marina. Now I know what the load is for a marina use. People
who have the ability to use on land toilet facilities very seldom use their holding tanks. It costs money to
pump out a holding tank. It doesn’t cost them anything extra to use the toilet. That it is a practical solution,
what you’re requiring that these people, you know, climb a flight of stairs, go into a private home to use a
toilet facility when they might have to, at two o’clock in the morning, not likely. So, although it may sound,
you know, it sounds good in words, it’s just not workable, and you shouldn’t put a program or conditions in
place that are not workable, least of all not enforceable. What you’re requiring here in these conditions could
take an army of people to enforce.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not asking them for any conditions. We’re just asking them for additional
information.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open.
MR. STROUGH-But, like I said to my Planning Board members, you have to get up there. I mean, I did
before the meeting. I drove up there.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-When we go back out on site visits next month we’ll go back and revisit these two all over
again.
MR. STROUGH-And I think that you’ll find what their hearing is that the parking up on Hannaford Road is
not that suitable, and if we could move some of it down Pilot Knob Road, I think it would make everyone
happier.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Is there anything else you wanted to add? We’re going to do the same thing
that we did with the other application. We’re going to table this thing, ask for this additional information,
and take it from there.
MR. STROUGH-But the additional information, you said not, to do away with a survey map that showed
delineated parking. Do you want to see the, at least the, so the applicant doesn’t have to come back, that they
can do parking down on Pilot Knob Road? I mean, otherwise you’re going to send the applicant out, and
you’re going to do a site visit, and you’re going to say, gee, these people that spoke tonight are right, we
should move some of the parking down on Pilot Knob Road. Then we’ve got to make the applicant go back
out and get a survey map showing that they can do parking down on Pilot Knob Road. Why don’t we do it
now?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. STROUGH-Just do the same thing we did with them as we did with the others.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d probably take it a step farther and contact the County and see what kind of reaction
they get from the County getting the necessary permits to park on the road.
MR. STROUGH-You’ve got that in the same provision as we provided the other person. You said that they
had to get Warren County approval in their name, showing parking down on the Pilot Knob Road.
MR. VOLLARO-That would require him to get a new permit, though. In other words, the Hoppers would
need a, this would be a brand new permit application to Warren County.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it might be easy. I don’t know. I think it should be something we should investigate.
They can come back to us and say, well, maybe it’s impossible and we’ll have to go to Plan B, but we’ll put it
down as something we’d like to see. That’s what I say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do your list right now, and we’ll get a second on that and take it from there.
MR. STROUGH-As it is? Do you want me to go down through, just like I did before?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, only the things that are applicable to this application.
MR. STROUGH-All right. What’s not?
MR. VOLLARO-You could just make a recommendation on there that you get a hold of Mr. Bolster, Dave
Bolster, and just, rather than have an expense of doing another site plan or anything like that, just have him
delineate down on Pilot Knob Road where the possibility to put, if it’s possible to put parking spaces within
that 100 foot frontage.
MR. STROUGH-That’ll save money.
MR. VOLLARO-That would save you some money. You don’t have to do this all over again.
MRS. HOPPER-He’s a dependent by now. We’re putting him on our taxes as a dependent.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I know.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002 DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced
by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
We would like:
1. A surveyed map which shows the potential for parking on Pilot Knob Road and delineate
that parking, just a modification to the existing surveyed map, and
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
2. We want an Instructions Agreement with the renters to include, but not limited to:
a. Parking rights and restrictions, to also include parking space limitation for rentees,
b. To include restroom facility use instructions,
c. To include trash disposal/sanitary disposal instructions,
d. To include no boat trailer or gas storage,
e. to include no fueling boats at dock,
f. To include one boat or PWC per dock,
g. To include pump out facility instructions, suggesting Fischer’s Marina,
h. To include no storage of hazardous materials,
i. To include no retail sales,
j. To include no exterior boat cleaning,
k. To include that rentees are expected to act in an environmentally responsible
manner,
l. To include no overnight use,
m. If parking is allowed from Hanneford Road, then the public access must be
improved,
n. Stair and rail to Code,
o. Submit intent and schedule.
3. Signage to designate private parking area, and
4. Submit the following permits:
a. Lake George Park Commission Wharf permit
b. Warren County Highway Department Parking permit in owner’s name
5. Provide documentation that facility is appropriately insured.
6. When they submit and locate parking along Pilot Knob Road, they would also show where
they would delineate parking on Hanneford Road, so that we could take away some of those
spots.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. STROUGH-Provide documentation that facility is appropriately insured. Do you still want to go with
that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I do. My position hasn’t changed. I don’t mean, I’m not trying to imply that we’re
going to dictate, delegate, or tell them what kind of insurance they’re going to have. All I want to know is
that they’ve got it.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s something that’s going to be doable for them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good job, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have the public’s interest in mind. Do we have a second on that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it.
MR. STROUGH-One other notation, though. When they resubmit, and locate parking along Pilot Knob
Road, would they also show where they would delineate parking on Hannaford Road, so that we could take
away some of those spots.
MR. VOLLARO-Put one in and take one out, is what you’re saying.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I would just like to amend that agreement with that understanding. In other words,
if you are going to show us a survey map with the potential for two or three spots down on Hannaford Road,
that you’ll remove the two or three spots up, that, you don’t need, we’re only saying you need one spot for
both slips, not one and a half parking spots for both slips, okay. So you will show only what you need up on
Hannaford Road. In other words, you won’t show those nine spots. You’ll end up with something less.
MR. FULLER-Do you have a number of how many we need? Leave it at what it is now?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. BROWN-The Park Commission requires one per boat slip. The Town Code requires one per every one
and a half boat slips.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. STROUGH-And you need two per household.
MR. BROWN-And two per household.
MR. STROUGH-You’ll need two, four, plus three. You’ll need seven. So if you can move two or three
down on Pilot Knob Road, that means you’ll only need four up above. Right? Well, whatever Code says that
you need. Go with the minimum of what you need up there on Hannaford Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-That you can sort out with Craig.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think the intent is clear. Not to you? The intent here is clear?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-As with the Smith’s, the project use is not going to get slapped with a violation tomorrow? I
assume the same applies?
MR. STROUGH-What’s that?
MR. FULLER-They use the docks currently.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have that power, to tell you yes or no or whatever.
MR. RINGER-Normally, when an application is pending, the Town doesn’t enforce it, for the application,
normally, but there’s nothing official on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that?
MR. VOLLARO-I seconded it.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-For both the applicants, we appreciate your patience with us. This is new to us, and it’s a
struggle for us, and we want to come to some sort of resolution that’s going to be beneficial to everyone.
Okay.
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MS. RADNER-Did you make a motion to table this first, the?
MR. MAC EWAN-I should have done that, we should do that for the site plan, too, shouldn’t we.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2002 DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Craig
MacEwan who moved for its adoption seconded by John Strough:
Pending additional information.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2002 ANNE MC MAHON PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH & ANNE MC
MAHON ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 28 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS AND THE PLACEMENT OF FILL
ON THE SITE. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2002 APA, CEA
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-6/11-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 0.29
ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
ANNE MC MAHON, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we begin, I wish to apologize. You should have been farther up on the agenda so
you could have been out of here by 8:00 o’clock. I apologize.
MRS. MC MAHON-That’s okay. I was probably the last one to get our information in by the deadline.
MR. RINGER-You know if you want to put in a marina, you’re going to have trouble.
MRS. MC MAHON-I’m going to make him go by a boat right now. We’re not having a marina.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-2002, Anne McMahon, Meeting Date: June 20, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a stone walkway and retaining walls within 50 feet of the shoreline.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Hard Surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Site Plan approval according to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
It is not anticipated that the proposed walkway/hard surfacing will present a significant increase to
the burden on the supporting public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
No public hazards related to traffic or the parking of vehicles are anticipated as a result of this
proposal.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The area of the property where the walkway and retaining walls will be built is currently undeveloped. The
proposed construction will change the existing conditions of the property, however it appears that the
impacts will not be adverse.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed construction appears to be in a compatible location to other buildings on the property.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
No impacts to vehicular circulation are anticipated as a part of this application.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
No parking and loading impacts are anticipated with this proposal
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
Stormwater drainage for this property may be an issue during construction on this site.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The water supply and sewage disposal systems are not at issue with this application.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the
maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased
plants.
This project does not propose the removal of any vegetation.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Not applicable to this project.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV-45-2002 res. 6/13/02 shoreline setback relief.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct retaining walls and a stone walkway within 50 feet of the shoreline. The
site plan has a note pointing to the location of hay bales to be used for erosion control. The Planning Board
may want to review what impacts on stormwater management this proposal will have after construction is
complete. Introducing hard surfacing to a currently vacant lot may have an impact on stormwater, and the
Planning Board may want to discuss future stormwater management measures that could be used after
construction of the walkway/retaining walls.
Lighting is also proposed as a part of this project. It appears that the lights are low-level lighting. However,
the Planning Board may wish to determine whether the lights are down lit, and further discuss lighting levels
in order to minimize impacts to adjacent property owners.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted. A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted.
Site Statistic Confirmation:
The 12 ft. x 24 ft. deck shown on the site plan was scheduled for review by the ZBA on 6/13/02 in regards
to shoreline setbacks and is not considered part of this application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The applicant is before you with a plan to construct a stone walkway and retaining walls
within 50 feet of the shoreline, which requires site plan approval. The only concerns seem to be stormwater
management, which the applicant has provisions for during construction, but the Board may want to consider
any after construction methods, and also lighting. Low level lighting is proposed. You just may want to
discuss with the applicant some more details on the lighting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tell us about your project.
MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. Let’s see. We just built a house. It’s on a fairly steep lot that goes down to the
water. We just want to make it so you can park the car, walk around the house, come out the front steps and
go down to the lake. We want the sidewalk and steps to have very low lighting, just at night, obviously, for
safety. There has to be fill put in because the house is kind of on a rocky ledge, and so it kind of ended up a
little higher than we wanted it to be. So we have to fill, and then just walls or something, you know, to hold
that dirt in place.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-We noticed when we did site visits the stairs, the steps come off the front porch like that
last step is a real doosy.
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to terrace up to that or something with fill?
MRS. MC MAHON-Right. Yes. It has to be to there to be 28 feet to the peak of the roof, and so there’s got
to be some fill brought around front, and the whole idea, if come down the steps, you know, to have a flat
spot there and so a wall kind of has to hold it there, and, you know, it’s hard to visualize right now, until the
bulldozer man starts moving the dirt around, but the whole idea is to make it look attractive and be safe and
have the dirt stay in place.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So during construction, you’re going to have hay bales in place and a silt fence?
MRS. MC MAHON-There’s already hay bales down there that we put in at the beginning, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I went looking for this place. I didn’t find it, and then along the lake you have
existing rocks and shrubs. What exactly is that?
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. It’s nothing fancy. It’s just what a lot of people have is the lakeshore has got
stones kind of along it and basically that’s what we’re going to just have and add a few, but it would just be
more of a maintenance type thing. We’re not going to build any massive structure or anything like that. It’s
just going to be the stones.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if any runoff from, I assume it runs from the house, the stormwater runs from the house
to the lake, and then is there an open infiltration there, an open strip?
MRS. MC MAHON-Kind of on each side of the lot there’s kind of a natural barrier of trees that’s kind of,
well it’s very narrow because it’s a small lot, but there’s kind of, not woods, but trees and a little bit of
shrubbery there. The contractor had it, or the bulldozer guy had it kind of crowned a little so the runoff goes
over into that natural area. So it’s not like water sheets down, and it goes over into like this little patch of
woods.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my concerns is always people along the lake have these nice lawns that they’re
obviously using fertilizer and it runs right into the lake. I just want to see a little strip or something to.
MRS. MC MAHON-I have no fertilizer in my lawn. My lawn at home, if I applied fertilizer I would have no
grass because everything that is green is really not grass.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then in regards to the lighting, downcast, what type of lighting?
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. Right now there’s a big ugly kind of floodlight thing that was previously there, and
again, it’s just so if you come in in the boat at night, you can walk up from the dock and see the steps and not
trip.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’ll all be downcast lighting?
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. Just something to that effect, because we like to look at the moon and stars. So
we would not light it up.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I honestly have no real comments or questions about the application. I do have a question
about the house. Who did the house for you?
MRS. MC MAHON-Todd Graves. Todd and, I can’t think of his brother’s name, Graves Construction, and
they are Fort Ann.
MR. METIVIER-It’s a very nice house.
MRS. MC MAHON-Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-Lots of charm and character. No, I think the application will be fine. I can see what you
need to do. I have to ask you, though, did you say little bulldozer man?
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-It may be late, but we don’t miss a thing.
MR. METIVIER-Because, that is on the record. No. I think it’s going to be very nice. Good luck with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have something that may help, in looking at the way this is done, from a
stormwater point of view. From the 50 foot mark back from the lake, there’s about a six foot drop at fifty
feet or about a twelve percent slope, and the impervious surfaces are that new deck and the stairs. There’s
about 588 square feet of hard surface within the 50 feet of the shore. I would just recommend that, right up
behind the existing shrubs, at the back end of the deck, all along the property, you put some crushed stone in
there, to act as a catch all for any water coming down, get down into the crushed stone and act as a retention
and would clear the water from any contamination running down into the lake. It would be just a collection
point just before the water gets to the lake. It’ll hit that crushed stone, and that’s just a recommendation I
have. I thought that that would help out the whole stormwater problem. I looked to try to put a drywell in
there, but it’s hard to drive the water to a well. If you had a small, you know what I’m saying, a small
retention, and I’m not talking a lot, maybe a foot wide, a foot deep, and it’ll catch everything going into the
lake.
MRS. MC MAHON-I think that the man who did put in the septic tank is very aware of the lake, and, you
know, to get the water to flow right and to catch things. We’re very sensitive to that issue. So, we’ll certainly
work on that as much as we can.
MR. VOLLARO-Putting something like that across the front may be helpful. Now, I’ve just got one
comment on something, and it hit me, and I want to get it, and it hasn’t got anything to do with your house,
but it says the height requirement of 28 foot for the house is not part of this application, and I recognize that.
However, I have a general concern about filling in around the front to achieve a 28 foot requirement. How
did that come about? It says, well, if the house is too high we’ll just keep filling it until the dimension is right.
That doesn’t seem right to me. Somehow or other, and I wanted to just make a point of that.
MR. BROWN-The short answer is that that’s the way it works, but the height is measured from the final
grade. So if your construction process or program involves grading, the height is measured from final grade.
So, sometimes when the house is constructed, it sticks out of the ground until you’re all done, and that’s how
you solve that issue.
MR. VOLLARO-You just grade it up to a point, when you measure from the highest point, it fits the height
requirement.
MR. BROWN-That’s right. There’s no, it has to be at this elevation, 10 feet away from the house, or 50 feet
away from the house. It’s, the way it’s written right now, it says it can slope up to the house and that’s where
you measure from. It’s not ideal, but that’s the way it’s written right now. Just for accuracy, for the
application, it’s mentioned in the notes that the variance application that the applicants had before the Zoning
Board for a deck near the shore was withdrawn, and I’m not sure if, and I apologize for not paying attention,
if they offered an alternative in that area. Is it going to be a patio? Is there not going to be anything down
there where the deck was?
MRS. MC MAHON-Well, yes. The Zoning Board said that we couldn’t have a deck because they didn’t want
a wood structure built close to the lake, but they could do a patio because there’s no rules about patios.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s a deck or patio?
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes, a deck or patio.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There couldn’t be a wood structure? Like, could it have a, but a boathouse is close to
the lake, and that’s wood, and there’s docks.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was their reasoning?
MRS. MC MAHON-I guess there’s a rule that you can’t build a wood structure next to, near, or within 50
feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it the new rule with no pressure treated lumber that’s not allowed?
MR. MAC EWAN-What was their reasoning, Craig?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. BROWN-The structure was to be built within 50 feet of the shoreline, and there’s a 50 foot shoreline
setback for any structures to be built, and they didn’t get the relief for that structure.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it had to be for setback relief that they didn’t get it, not because they didn’t want a
wooden structure near the lake.
MR. BROWN-It was setback relief that they didn’t want to grant.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re counting the deck as a structure?
MR. BROWN-Like a gazebo or a shed or anything that counts as a structure. So, yes, I guess I’m not sure if
I got an answer. Is it going to be like a concrete paver block or poured concrete, or is there going to be some
sort of hard surface there?
MRS. MC MAHON-It won’t be poured concrete, and we’re even tossing around maybe we would just do
lawns or flagstone or the paver blocks like we have here.
MR. BROWN-It all makes a difference with this application. If it’s going to be some sort of hard surface,
then you need to get that as part of the application. If it’s going to be grass, then it doesn’t have to be part of
this applications.
MR. VOLLARO-If you look at the plans, Craig, the plans now show, in the profile of the plan, it shows a
patio in there, as opposed to a deck.
MRS. MC MAHON-I think on one of them I wrote proposed deck or patio.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s on your first drawing, deck or patio, but the next drawing clearly shows it to
have moved into a patio only. There’s no raised deck at all there, in the second drawing.
MR. BROWN-Were there any revised plans submitted after the variance?
MRS. MC MAHON-No.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. MC MAHON-I looked at all three of my drawings. Definitely next to the house it’s a patio. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That I see.
MRS. MC MAHON-And on all three of mine it says that, and on my, they all three say down by the water.
They all three say deck or patio.
MR. VOLLARO-The proposed deck or patio.
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-But that looks like it’s not a deck there to me. It looks like, the visual looks like it’s more
like a patio than a deck, okay.
MRS. MC MAHON-Are you saying that my drawing doesn’t speak to you?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. MC MAHON-The reason it doesn’t look like a deck is because I thought drawing railings on it might
be cumbersome for the drawing. So I do it to look like the patio even though, at the time when I did this, I
didn’t know if the deck would be approved or not. So I didn’t draw the railings on. Kind of on purpose.
MR. VOLLARO-In the things I told you before, I used the patio as an impervious surface and that’s how it
got 288 square feet, plus 300 square feet on the hard surface of the walkway, but if that’s going to be a deck,
then it’s got some permeability in that the water goes through the opening to the deck. I looked at this as a
hard surface.
MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. We really thought it would be much better for the lake, environmentally friendly to
have a deck, and that was the opinion that we told the Zoning Board, and two of the members, one man
really agreed. One man kind of agreed, but the other ones all said, well, the rule is you can’t have a structure
within 50 feet of the lake. So even though it seemed to be more practical, they voted it down, and then they
were very surprised that there were no rules about patios next to the lake, but, if we want a flat spot down
there, that would be what we would do.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I echo Catherine’s remark that there’s no, I can’t understand the Code, then.
MR. BROWN-Well, there are rules about patios near the lake. It’s the hard surfacing within 50 feet of the
shore, that’s why they’re before the Board tonight, for the filling or hard surfacing. I’m just trying to get a
handle on what I’m supposed to find when I go out there and inspect this when it’s all said and done. It’s
either going to be grass, or it’s going to be a patio.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to say, for this application, that it’s going to be a grass area. Should she want
to put some sort of patio in, then maybe she can come back and ask for this to be modified.
MR. BROWN-That doesn’t matter to me. I just want to know what I’m going to look for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because it’s going to change your.
MRS. MC MAHON-My husband’s telling me not to argue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? I’ve got to open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION NO. 29-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ANNE MCMAHON
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll make the motion.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2002 ANNE MC MAHON, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 29-2002 Applicant: Anne McMahon
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Joseph & Anne McMahon
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 28 Russell Harris Road
Applicant proposes construction of retaining walls and the placement of fill on the site. Filling within 50 feet
of the shoreline requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 45-2002
APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02
Tax Map No. 239.08-1-6 / 11-1-19.2
Lot size: 0.29 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: June 20, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/02; and
6/20 Staff Notes
6/13 Notice of Public Hearing
6/13 ZBA resolution
6/12 Warren Co. Planning
6/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9, Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing
was advertised and was held on June 20, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements
of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. With the addition of adding a retention drain along the perimeter of the lake, behind the
existing rock and shrubs, to act as a retention drain, and
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/20/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-And I want to see whether the Board agrees with an addition to the resolution, to put some
sort of a retention drain at the very end of the, at the lake side of the property, just behind the existing rock
and shrubs, to act as a retention drain. Does everybody agree with that?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think, the retention drain is going to follow the shore.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And the intent is, not with your regular rain, but if you got a hard rain, and you got sheet
flow that when you use pesticides and herbicides and whatever on your property, it washes into the lake.
Well, this increases by putting crushed stone there, and you can even put lawn on top of it, or your patio on
top of it, but it increases the permeability of that border near the shore. So it’s less likely for the water to just
flow right into the lake. That’s the purpose of it.
MRS. MC MAHON-We understand that, and that’s fine with us.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Patio areas to remain grassed?
MR. VOLLARO-Have we decided that?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we decided, because if you go with something else, then you’re going to have
to change your permeability to determine it, and I don’t think you want to go through that tonight, do we?
MR. VOLLARO-No, probably not. That’s the area now delineated as a deck or patio would remain as grass
area.
MRS. MC MAHON-On my site plan review, I think I did add all that in there, the permeable.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it would change if you put hard surfacing down there. It would cause us to table the
application.
MRS. MC MAHON-No, if I did it to the max here, unless I made a mathematical error, but I don’t think I
did.
MR. STROUGH-Well, unless she kept the hard surface away from the drainage basin that we just made, you
know, if you kept it a foot away and the drainage area would be, let’s say, one foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-If everybody feels comfortable, take it out, don’t leave it in there.
MR. VOLLARO-She has a permeability number already in her site development data that says 24%, which is
fine.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, the applicant is willing to build this drain, which takes care of, as long as they keep
the impermeable surface away from it, so that the water has time, a chance to drain before it goes to the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MRS. MC MAHON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take it out.
MR. VOLLARO-But the patio would remain. Okay?
MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. All right.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize for the late hour.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/02)
MRS. MC MAHON-That’s okay. It’s a good experience to learn all about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? Good night. We’re done.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
69