09-15-2020
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
INDEX
RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD RE: SOLAR PANELS 1.
(Cont’d Pg. 23)
Site Plan No. 54-2019 The Great Escape Properties 2.
REQUEST FOR ONE YR. EXT. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20
Site Plan No. 59-2019 Mark Posniewski 2.
REQUEST FOR EXT. TO JUNE 2021 Tax Map No. 309.-10-1-32
Site Plan No. 41-2020 William & Kathleen Bosy 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-16
Site Plan Modification 35-2020 Sherwood Acres Construction 8.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27
Site Plan No. 30-2020 Gary Higley 11.
Tax Map No. 289.10-1-14
Subdivision No. 12-2020 Clear Brook, LLC 13.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6 (portion)
Site Plan No. 37-2020 CKT Enterprises, LLC 15.
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-18
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JOHN SHAFER
BRAD MAGOWAN
JAMIE WHITE
MICHAEL VALENTINE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday, September 15, 2020. This is our first meeting for the month of September, Meeting
Number 12 for the Year 2020 this far and our eighth meeting under the COVID Pandemic guidelines. Note
the red exit signs. In the event of an emergency, those are the exits to use. If you have an electronic device,
cell phone or other device, if you could silence the ringer or turn it off so it doesn’t interrupt the proceedings
that would be excellent. We may have members of the public interested in participating by way of the
Town’s YouTube channel this evening, and just to let t hose members of the public know that we do have
a few items that will have public hearings this evening, and if you are observing us remotely and you wish
to make public comment when those applications arise, you’ll be notified when the public hearing is open
on those individual items, but you should make note of the telephone number, 518-761-8225 as that is the
number that you can use to ring into the Planning Board meeting and give us your public comment. And
with that, we have a few administrative items to begin with this evening. The first being approval of
th
minutes for July 21 and July 28 of this year.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 21, 2020
July 28, 2020
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY
stth
21 & JULY 28, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Next under Administrative Items we have several different items. The first being a
recommendation to the Queensbury Town Board for adoption of Local Law to amend Queensbury Town
Code to Establish Renewable Energy Systems and Facilities Regulations.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD FOR ADOPTION OF LOCAL
LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH RENEWABLE ENERGY
SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES REGULATIONS
MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, could I ask you to give us an overview of the material that you’ve distributed
to us tonight?
MRS. MOORE-So the Town Board is ready to adopt local legislation into effect. Right now it’s in reference
to solar, specific to freestanding, ground mounted items that require Site Plan Review, and so that’s why I
put together those notes in reference to, there’s maybe 10 items, and so if you’re in agreement with some of
those items that the Board should take an additional look at them, then you can include that in your
recommendation back to them, or if you have additional questions, please include them. I don’t know if
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
you have any questions of me going through those materials or if you want to hold this to the end of the
meeting to go over some of these documents.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’ll leave it to the Board. Do you want to discuss this now or should we wait until
after the regular agenda and discuss it later?
MR. DEEB-I’d rather wait until the end.
MR. TRAVER-Wait until the end?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s reasonable.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will do that. We’ll hold this in abeyance until we’ve concluded our regular
agenda items this evening. We do have two other Administrative items, and thank you, Laura. We do
have two other Administrative Items. The first is Site Plan 54-2019. The Great Escape is requesting a one
year extension.
SITE PLAN 54-2019 GREAT ESCAPE REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION
MR. TRAVER-And I think this was the approval for the, was this the digital signs, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No. For Great Escape it’s in reference to the Swan ride area that they were going to re-do
the bank and items like that. So we identified as Staff that their approvals were going to expire so they
quickly put together a quick note saying they’d like to be tabled or requested an extension for another year.
They haven’t started that project as of yet and so this would at least give them another year, specifically
due to COVID.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-And you’ll see, in the next month or so, an extension request probably for their ride.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, and I saw in the media recently that they’re not opening this year.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So there’s not a lot of activity. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and we have a draft. Does anyone have any questions or comments on that before
we go to a motion? Okay. We have a draft motion, I believe, for that.
RESOLUTION EXTENDING SP # 54-2019 GREAT ESCAPE PROPERTIES FOR ONE YEAR
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes stream bank stabilization for the Swan
Boat Ride on Glen Lake Brook. The project is to occur in three phases over 1,100 ft. of the brook. Phase I
is to include about 80 ft. of the brook with new plantings, grading stabilization methods for the bank.
Phase II will be similar to Phase I and will complete the remaining portion of the brook on both the north
and south sides. Phase III includes the dredging of the brook for the Swan Boat ride. Only Phase I to be
completed for this site plan. . Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, shoreline work shall
be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant is requesting a one year extension
The Planning Board approved Site Plan 54-2020 on September 24, 2020.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 54-2019 THE GREAT
ESCAPE PROPERTIES. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we have Site Plan 59-2019 for Mark Posniewski requesting a six month extension
or June 2021.
SITE PLAN 59-2019 MARK POSNIEWSKI REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO JUNE 2021
MRS. MOORE-They’ve actually changed that specifically to June of 2021, and what happened is that they
did clean up the site and now the discussion revolves around the fence that was a condition of approval
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
and he’d like to evaluate if there’s another alternative besides a fence or he may put up a fence, but he wants
to evaluate that, and obviously with the season coming upon us of winter he’s not going to be able to install
his fence at this time. So at least to June of 2021 to make sure that he can decide what he’s going to do or
whether he’s going to come back to this Board for a modification to that.
MR. TRAVER-If he’s not going to follow the approved plan.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Everybody understand that? All right. Any other questions on that motion? If
not, we’ll entertain the draft motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION TO JUNE 2021 FOR SP # 59-2019 MARK POSNIEWSKI
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to maintain cleared trees and to bring in
fill, level land and plant grass. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance site preparation
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant is requesting an extension to June 2021.
The Planning Board approved Site Plan 59-2019 on September 25, 2019.
MOTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION TO JUNE 2021 FOR SITE PLAN 59-2019 MARK
POSNIEWSKI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and then we move to our regular agenda. The first section of the agenda is
Planning Board recommendations. The first item is William & Kathleen Bosy, Site Plan 41-202.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY. AGENT(S):
JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 53
ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME OF 2,537.3 SQ.
FT. FAR AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 3,065.3 SQ. FT. FAR. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 384 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF
NEW LAWN AREA, PATIO AREAS AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,
179-6-065, 179-6-050, & 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A
CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SHORELINE BUFFERS SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS
SOUGHT FOR FAR, SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC
ALTERATION 2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION:
APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-16.
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WILLIAM BOSY, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This is an application for a demo of an existing home to construct a new home. The floor
area to be 3,065.3 square feet. The project includes construction of a 384 square foot detached garage and
installation of a new lawn area, patio area, driveway and stormwater management. The relief sought for
this project is in reference to floor area ratio, setbacks and permeability .
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Bill and Kathy Bosy are with us
tonight. Essentially what this is is a 1957 camp that badly needs to be replaced. Their goal is to make it
their year round retirement home. It’s built basically on the footprint of what’s there now. So it matches
up with the other homes on either side. The neighbors are both supportive of this. The additional square
footage that’s being requested, admittedly the floor area ratio that’s being requested is 32%, but it’s just
that it’s a small lot. It’s certainly not a grand house. The basement, right now it’s on a crawl space.
They’re only putting in a five foot basement for mechanical storage. So what’s new is at the rear of the
house on the roadside is a master bedroom and a handicap bathroom which they need and the garage which
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
would make it a year round house. So with all that it’s less than 500 square feet of additional square
footage from what’s there now, and the permeability has actually increased over what’s there now. And
they’re including stormwater controls, none of which exists from an old house. So there’s a new septic
system, new stormwater controls and a very modest expansion of what’s there. So the reason why the
floor area seems like a lot is just because it’s a small piece of property. It’s certainly not a grand house.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can I ask about the buffer area, the shoreline buffer? If I understood the material
correctly, it’s currently at 15 feet?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And the minimum width is 35?
MR. LAPPER-There are a couple of big trees and there are a lot of small plants but they’re willing to give
whatever the Board would like to augment that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. VALENTINE-I have to say, I don’t usually look at floor plans when I review site plans, and I had to
get a chuckle on this one when I started looking at the floor plan and I said, doing a comparative analysis
of walk in closets and the master bath nomenclature, one says Kathy’s Closet and one says Bill’s Closet,
and Kathy’s Closet is double the size of Bill’s. I just wanted to say it doesn’t seem fair.
MR. SHAFER-A follow up on your question, Mr. Chairman. How does the current buffer compare to
Code?
MRS. MOORE-So right now it’s 15 feet and we’re to maintain a 35 foot according to Code. So again that’s
guidance. You have the discretion to review what’s there now and potentially whatever is going to be put
in place, but the guidance says 35 feet.
MR. SHAFER-At Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that was the only thing that caught my eye is that we are increasingly concerned
about the environment of the lake and it would be nice, and the applicant has offered to discuss increasing
that buffer, which I think would be important.
MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the, there was an inconsistency in the application. On the drawings it shows
a 28 foot building height but in your site development data it says 30 foot.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sure that’s 28 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or concerns? This is a referral for the variance.
MR. MAGOWAN-I like the idea of the front yard drywells there, you know, Proposals One and Two, the
proposed drywells on either corner. I’m sure that’s a lot for stormwater and the gutters, and you have a
third one in the back. So you really are trying to control the water. I like the idea with the new upgraded
septic. Overall I think the project will fit nice on that property.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, this is another example of a pre-existing sort of non-conforming structure that’s being
renovated and I think in a more environmentally friendly way.
MS. WHITE-However it’s still further non-conforming. So you could still do it on the same footprint and
make it the same non-conforming instead of more non-conforming.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other questions I had is on your application for the new septic system. It
talks about a fence to keep people from driving onto the new leach field, onto the new tile fields, but I
didn’t see that in the new drawings.
MR. LAPPER-Bill, do you want to address that>
MR. BOSY-Yes. There’ll be a complete fence around the whole property between the road and the septic
that can’t be driven on. That whole property, there will be an enclosure with a fence, and the septic field
will be in the fenced area. So it wouldn’t be driven on.
MR. TRAVER-Jon, could you either have that gentleman come up or could you repeat that so that it’s in
the minutes?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. LAPPER-Bill said that the whole site will be fenced on the roadside so that there won’t be an issue
with anybody driving on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-But what would stop the owners from inadvertently driving onto the top of the tile
field?
MR. LAPPER-Grass and they’ve got a pretty good sized parking area.
MR. BOSY-It’ll be fenced in so you won’t be able to enter that area. The leach field area will be behind the
fence so you couldn’t get to the leach field from the driving area.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe you should come up and get on the mic if you would, just so we get it all on the
record, and introduce yourself if you would, please.
MR. BOSY-My name’s William Bosy. You see where the fence line is there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it says it’s going to be removed, though.
MR. BOSY-Well, for a new fence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BOSY-There’ll be a gated new fence there. We have dogs, to keep the dogs in there. The whole
property would be gated. So there would be no way cars could drive on to the leach field.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s really what caught my eye when I saw remove existing fence and I saw on the
prior plans that that was, I don’t know if it was a condition, but it was suggested that it was put there so
that somebody couldn’t.
MR. BOSY-Yes, they were concerned about compaction with driving on the leach field when we came to
the meeting for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure.
MR. BOSY-But the fence will be there so that there cannot be anything driven on top of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BOSY-It will be all grassed area.
MR. LAPPER-And we can make that a condition as well.
MR. BOSY-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So as far as our referral to the ZBA, the only thing I wanted to really pass along is draw
attention to the buffer which the applicant has agreed to address in some manner in Site Plan. As far as
the variances, the referral is for the FAR, setbacks and permeability. Do we have any specific comments
related to those?
MS. WHITE-Just that I see this as an opportunity to bring it more into compliance, instead of further
away. If you’re going to re-build, why not re-build within the setbacks.
MR. TRAVER-More permeability?
MS. WHITE-No.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time hearing you because you’re so far away from the mic.
MS. WHITE-The floor area ratio and the setbacks are being asked to be further non-compliant, and I guess
I see this as an opportunity, why not bring it into compliance with the Code.
MR. DEEB-You said you needed a handicap, that’s one of the reasons you needed to go out a little bit.
MR. BOSY-Yes. My wife developed a condition and we’re trying to work around what’s going to be in the
near future here. So we’re trying to work on it. The master bath is where the extra area is that we have
for handicap accessibility.
MR. DEEB-And that’s what necessitates the increase of the 500 square feet.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. BOSY-Yes. That was our thought in designing this, yes.
MR. LAPPER-And in terms of the setbacks, it’s 49 feet from the lake rather than 50, only because that’s
exactly where it is now and that meets up with what the neighbors are, and the side, it’s just that it’s a
narrow lot. So they did what they could.
MR. DEEB-The side setbacks are about the same, right?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean really you’re talking 8.3 inches to 8 foot. You lost three inches.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then really, I kind of got a chuckle, the 49 foot plus minus. When you’re going
with the existing. I mean I did, I looked over that and like I said, I really think you fit this pretty well on
the property. You gained that much more footage. So I’m happy with it.
MR. DEEB-And, Jon, as far as the plantings and shoreline buffer, you didn’t put anything on the submission
to the Zoning Board. You can come back next week with something to address that.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back.
MR. DEEB-So we’ll just send the variance through for the three items. Okay.
MR. VALENTINE-I sort of, I feel kind of like Jamie. You’re picking up 937 square feet on that floor area,
greater than the maximum, and then you’ve got an eight percent increase in permeability, and we’ve looked
at large houses before and we’ve made comments about very large houses on small lots where we’ve had
the same thing, the demolition and reconstruction.
MS. WHITE-We approve one a little bit bigger and then the next one comes in a little bit bigger. This is
a very small lot.
MR. VALENTINE-And I would have liked to have seen something either more substantial or documented
here to say what’s going to be in that buffer area.
MR. TRAVER-On the shoreline buffer?
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. DEEB-He’s going to come back with something next week.
MR. VALENTINE-Well they are, but it would have been nice to come in with it now, to say, okay we’re
giving a recommendation to the Zoning Board, and what’s that based on.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the variances that we’re.
MR. VALENTINE-I was going to follow through on that. There were calculations laid out for us here as
far as that, and Laura’s gone through it, but I’m just saying, in the material here, counsel for the applicant
has stated we will do something next time we come back for Site Plan. I’d have liked to have seen
something in writing, if that’s recognized now that that was something, I’d have liked to have seen
something in the material here, a note on the plan, that we recognize now, before, when we come to you
now, we recognize that it’s insufficient. And that’s just a comment.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I don’t think the increase in FAR is that exorbitant at this point. It is a small lot and it’s a
modest house. So we have to, it’s difficult for everybody involved . So, I mean, I don’t have a problem with
it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, why don’t we note just that we discussed the FAR and that part of the explanation
given was to make the house more accessible.
MRS. MOORE-You could express that he was there were concerns from some, but not all. It wasn’t
unanimous.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-You could mention it that way.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Some concern voiced about the increase in FAR and part of the discussion revolved
around the accessibility issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-I stated, I mean, knowing building, I mean you’re staying pretty much on the same
footprint, and you know, they’re asking for three inches. You’re increasing the permeability by two
percent, 2.4%. I mean it’s a give and take for the three inches and the 2.4% on the permeability. I’m
sticking with my guns here. I think it would be a good project.
MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the things I was thinking about, since we’re talking about this, and I even
wrote it down, and it’s not just this application tonight, but we have a couple of others that are similar, is
it would be interesting to see some data, some like real data, because I saw the lot size of .22 acres. That’s
a really small lot.
MR. TRAVER-It sure is.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be interesting to see, because one of the things that the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan talks about with lakefront properties is consolidating lots so that there’s fewer lots and
lower the FAR, and we don’t really see a lot of examples of that, and when we do they tend to be really big
houses that buy up like three lots and then put up like a 6,000 square foot house or an 8,000 square foot
house. So it would be interesting to see some real data, and I don’t know the ability of Staff or the
technology in the Town Hall to pull up some information so that we could begin to like really analyze that.
I mean the FAR by itself kind of does that , but it would be interesting to see. So, yes, the FAR is 66%.
We ask for 75, but in the past this is what we’ve approved, or this has been the norm and this has been the
average. It would be interesting to see some real data so when we have these projects we can say, hey,
look you’re exceeding the FAR, but not only that you’re more than average for what we’ve seen, or maybe
even set a limit and say, hey, if you’re this big on this size lot we’re not going to approve it, and it gives
guidance to the applicant, too, so that it has, you know, some, not flexibility, so they know coming in, well
this is likely to be approved or not likely to be approved, and so it’s like these discussions become a give
and take and the applicant says, well we’ll do stormwater controls. We’ll do a new septic, but in return
we’re going to ask for relief on FAR, and we do the balancing act and we say, hey, that makes sense. We’re
okay with it. It would be nice to take it away from an art and put it more into a data science, if that’s
possible.
MRS. MOORE-I can try, but I’m thinking the 22%, that’s what your guidance is, that’s the law.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know. I realize that.
MRS. MOORE-So if someone comes in above that.
MR. VALENTINE-Well this one comes in 10% over.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So it’s over, and both Boards sometimes question that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how many do we see a year, probably two, three dozen. I mean it’s almost more
common than not common.
MR. TRAVER-Especially on these tiny lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-That’s the key. It’s only a two acre lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s like the FAR is really not doing us what it needs to do.
MS. WHITE-But the lot was purchased at this size.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VALENTINE-And there’s not a chance for consolidation here with structures on both sides .
MR. HUNSINGER-No, there isn’t. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the consolidation issue, I mean, who are you going to get to sell their lakefront lot.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the other thing, too, is when we came up with the original number, all right, that
was based on the information that we had and the septic systems that we’re using. Now that we’ve got
the shoreline buffer, they’re working on the stormwater and with the newer septic systems that we have,
you know, not to defend, I agree with what you’re saying . It would be nice to see some data on that, and
it might also prove that with these new improvements that have come with the newer age of things that
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
we’re using are actually an improvement to that ratio where we could have that little bit more of a buffer,
but without it we can’t tell.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. We sit here every month doing the same exercise when maybe data would
suggest something different that would be more appropriate. That’s all I’m saying, and we don’t have the
data to know. I mean maybe the FAR should be 70% instead of 75. I don’t know.
MRS. MOORE-That’s permeability.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, yes, permeability. Maybe it should be 70%.
MR. TRAVER-Well why don’t you think about it, Laura, what, if anything, could be done to give us some
hard data and then we can discuss it on Tuesday when we come back.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So any other discussion the referral? We talked about I guess mainly the FAR,
right? That was discussed and there was some concern about that. We wanted to bring that to their
attention. I guess I’m not hearing anything else. So we’re ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 30-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demo existing home
of 2,537.3 sq. ft. FAR and to construct a new home of 3,065.3 sq. ft. FAR. The project includes construction
of a 384 sq. ft. detached garage, installation of new lawn area, patio areas and driveway. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA,
hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and shoreline buffers shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for FAR, setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide
a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN
BOSY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern:
1) The increased FAR request which was explained by the client’s need for handicap
accessibility.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White
MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. The next section of our agenda is Unapproved Development, and
under Unapproved Development we have Sherwood Acres Construction, Site Plan Modification 35-2020.
UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT:
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 35-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. SHERWOOD ACRES
CONSTRUCTION. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 GLEN HALL ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN
617 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA. IN ADDITION, THERE IS 107 SQ.
FT. OF NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH RETAINING WALL FOR THE PARKING AREA OF
THE HOME. THE PARCEL WAS PART OF PREVIOUS APPROVALS FOR A NEW HOME
CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR AREA VARIANCE AN SITE PLAN (1,019
SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 2,035 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040
AND 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-
2018, AV 8-2018 SF HOME. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN
LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-27. SECTION: 179-3-040.
MICHAEL O’/CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So in this case the applicant had received approval back in 2019 to construct a home. Also
included additional site work on the site, installation of stormwater and landscaping for the new home.
In the meantime what had happened was an additional 617 square feet of hard surfacing has been added
for the permeable pavement area, retaining wall and an asphalt driveway area, and the applicant has
explained that it is to assist some of the neighborhood issues that are going on with accessibility to
driveways for some neighbors.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little, O’Connor
and Borie. I represent Sherwood Acres Corporation, Dan Barber is the principal of Sherwood Acres
Corporation. He is here. I have a letter that was addressed to the Zoning Board that might be helpful
just for background. This is from an adjoining neighbor, Ron Mackowiak who lives next to the property
that we’re talking about. “Below are my comments in support of the subject application. I am one of the 3
property owners that share use of the private road/ Glen Hall Drive right of way in the vicinity of 3 Glen
Hall Drive. 1.The additional hard surfacing in the parking area is providing access to the new parking spot
at 5 Glen Drive (i.e., adjacent Gansle property).”, which would be the Gansle property, you’ve got
Sherwood Acres, Gansle, and then Mackowiak. “If grass was used in this location, there would eventually
be only dirt remaining from driving and turning on the grass strip while parking at the new spot at 5 Glen
Hall Drive. 2. The decrease of site permeability will easily be mitigated by the new drywells previously
installed under this project. This drywell was a condition for approval of the Site Plan for 3 Glen Hall Drive.
The drywell was located on my property, “ on Mackowiak’s property, “as recommended by the Engineer of
Record, in order to maximize the amount of water collected. In the past this storm water eventually found
its way into Glen Lake during heavy rain falls.”, and I will submit that to Laura. You can put it in your
Zoning Board file I think you wanted it. And that’s signed by Ron Mackowiak.
MR. TRAVER-So thank you for that. I guess the obvious question is when you decided to change from
what was approved, why not come in at that point?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think he necessarily knew that he wasn’t going to get 100% credit for the pavers
that he put in, that he could only get 50% credit for that, and also the pavement made sense when they
were laying it out, so that Gansle would have a space to get to his property through this property without
going on grass or something of that nature. Those were accommodations. There are things that you might
not see in this plan, but in addition to using pavers that were permeable, the applicant also put infiltrators
that took the stormwater from the roof and moved it to the back of the property. He also bought an
easement from the adjoining property owner and moved the septic system probably 250 back from the lake
as opposed to 100 feet from the lake and installed his septic system on the back property where it would
be economically, not economically but environmentally friendly. He maintained the buffer that was along
the lake. He didn’t disturb that. There’s a number of other things. The sidewalks that we were charged
with being permeable all have gravel on each side of them so that they drained into his buried well. He’s
done what he can on this site to make it work and make it work for him and for the neighbors. The other
neighbors also have no objection to what’s been done. If you’ve been to the site I think you’ll see that
there’s a pretty good effort that’s been done to make it a good project. Before it was kind of rough shod,
gully type driveway going up to this property. Tom Center is the engineer, and he can probably tell you
more about the stormwater capacity. The infiltrators are greater than what was required. The dry well
is greater than what is, the flow to it is significantly greater than what would flow to it. We think that
we’ve done a good job as far as mitigating the lack of permeability that we’re offering on this particular
site. Tom, do you want to speak?
MR. CENTER-Tom Center, for your record. I’ll kind of go through a little bit of the project here and
explain a few things that were done additionally. If you look down along the shoreline, something that
wasn’t in our original plan that has been left in there is about a three to four foot vegetated buffer. It’s a
natural buffer that’s there, the lawn wasn’t taken right up to the lake. So there’s a natural grown buffer.
It’s thick. It filtrates anything going towards the lake. The planting bed is in there. More plants than
we had initially. On either side of the house the initial plan had eaves trenches that came down towards
the lake to an infiltration trench that kind of connected to the permeable patio that was in this area right
here. We’ve taken those and instead guttered the roof and taken them back away from the lake and now
the stormwater goes towards the back., To give you a little history on the project, if you remember Mr.
Seavey originally was the owner, Mr. Barber wasn’t involved at the time. We came up with the three tiered
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
retaining wall and kind of left the plan, showing a couple of planting areas, but Mr. Barber who purchased
the lot from Mr. Seavey came in with his knowledge of the lake and re-using some of the things, instead of
doing the concrete retaining walls, used some of the rock from the excavation to build boulder retaining
walls which provided plenty of infiltration underneath it but that’s in the area of a two tiered step, which
allowed more plantings. There’s a larger planting area right on the second step. Mr. O’Connor talked
about the septic system. We now have a septic system that pumps across over on an adjacent parcel. The
parking area was upgraded to a, as opposed to permeable pavers, these are open source pavers that have
stone in them so it actually provides an additional infiltration volume between the paver, the top of paver
and the bottom of the paver on top of the stone well that’s underneath. As you remember there was some
contention with the neighbors, the Gansle’s, tight property, the Burkes next door. Mr. Barber coming in,
having done a lot of projects on the lake, worked with his neighbors around this and was actually able to
do a project that wasn’t in the system. It was a minor project for Mr. Gansle where they were able to shore
up this back earth wall here and then re-did the parking area, and ended up butting up the pavement a
little thicker to allow everybody to have access and be able to turn and come in and come out. The paving
area now for that entire area right in front, he goes from Mr. Gansle’s property right here, that’s permeable
paver, all the way across. So we have a very large volume. We actually upgraded the neighbor’s property
which ties in together and meets with the same. I would take responsibility a little bit for the sidewalks.
My original plan, we talked about mulch paths. I didn’t show it clearly. We had the retaining walls with
steps coming down. Mr. Barber, having done this work before, put in sidewalks, and he put in a little bit
too much, but the rest of it, as far as the paving, we have that additional drywell that was required by the
plan which if you look at the 391 square feet of asphalt at 125 gallons per square feet, requires 80 gallons of
storage. The drywell we put in has 130. So there’s 50 cubic feet actually of stormwater to maintain some
of the stuff coming down from Mr. Mackowiak’s property. So there’s a few tradeoffs that we did here, and
I’ll take any questions that you may have
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. VALENTINE-I have a stormwater question based on what’s provide in the project narrative, and in
our own Staff Notes. It may sound silly, but I just want to, in the project narrative it says the new
landscape rock slopes will allow infiltration of stormwater. Then the Staff Notes says the same thing.
The applicant indicated that the new landscape rock will assist the existing parcel and neighboring parcels
with stormwater runoff. And my question was how does rock absorb?
MR. CENTER-Well underneath all those rocks are, it’s a boulder wall, and it’s all lined with stone
underneath. So as opposed to lawn where it would runoff on the slope, any water coming down on it,
there’s a stone reservoir underneath all of those rock walls that are allowing it to get into the soil and these
soils are fairly permeable. There’s large open voids in between the stones where the rock base, whether
it’s on the slope or it’s on the flat areas.
MR. VALENTINE-So the rocks are not absorbing. That’s an obvious answer. So it’s almost like a French
drain created alongside.
MR. CENTER-Correct, up underneath the rock wall or along that slope, and the sidewalks also.
MR. VALENTINE-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I have to say I took a peek, and once again Mr. Barber it’s amazing what you do
with rock, and I hope you’re finally using a machine, because all the other ones you used to do back in the
day I think you used to carry yourself there, young man, but it’s really, what you did, it’s like you said, you
drive up and down, I mean your neighborhood, he built all that. You see it on Bay, all those rocks right
past Tee Hill going north, all those rock tiers were all built by Mr. Barber. We go back years of watching
him build rock walls. I’m just amazed, and you went a little overboard but you have for as long as I’ve
known you, but really I think you did a tasteful job with the extra stormwater retaining and that, I have to
say I’m happy with the project, and like you said I really think it came out spectacular and helping out the
neighbors and I know those rocks aren’t going to go anywhere.
MR. CENTER-And some of it we probably couldn’t have presented the first time we were through without
having neighbors on board, and with the project coming in, we kind of timed the two of them together. So
this is a little bit here a little bit there that added up to look like a lot, but it’s really kind of two small
things that came together to be a larger issue. In the end, if we had actually been able to put this on paper
the way it is now, I think it would be a very approvable project in that world, the imperfect world.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? Our referral is
regarding permeability. I guess we’re ready for a draft motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 28-2020 SHERWOOD ACRES
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant requests to maintain 617 sp. Ft.
of hard surface in the driveway area. In addition, there is 107 sq. ft. of new concrete sidewalk with retaining
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
wall for the parking area of the home. The parcel was part of previous approvals for a new home
construction and associated site work for area variance and site plan (1,019 sq. ft. footprint and 2,035 sq.
ft. floor area). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan
Modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Relief is sought for permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2020 SHERWOOD ACRES
CONSTRUCTION. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is under Old Business, and the first item under Old Business is Gary
Higley, Site Plan 30-2020.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GARY HIGLEY. AGENT(S): CIFONE
CONSTRUCTION. OWNER(S): HIGLEY LAKE PROPERTIES. ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
23 JAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 590 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION
TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH 3,026 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,189 SQ. FT. –
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA 4,306 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 473 SQ. FT.
METAL BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 77-2019, AV 57-2019, AV 1422-21421, RC-
0147-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE, CEA, FLOOD
ZONE. LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-14. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065.
GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant is requesting to construct a 590 square foot garage and the Zoning Board
granted the relief for setbacks and permeability . As you recall last meeting we worked with Nick Rowell
from Soil and Water in regards to raingardens and things like that on the property, and I understand that
Mr. Higley talked to Dave Hatin today and resolved a flood zone issue.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. HIGLEY-Good evening, Board members. Good evening. My name is Gary Higley. I’m asking to
remove an existing garage that is 14 feet from the lake with blacktop underneath it, and removing that and
building a new garage that’s 65 feet from the lake, and on the plans where the existing garage is now we
would be putting in a raingarden designed by Mr. Rowell.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you did receive your variance approvals from the ZBA.
MR. HIGLEY-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-And in that process were there any changes made to your project>
MR. HIGLEY-No. It was a unanimous decision. They actually liked the project a lot.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. HIGLEY-No.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SHAFER-Good job. Good project.
MR. MAGOWAN-Gary, I think it’s a really great project. I know you were in here before for one thing
and you changed up, and it’s going to look great, and the improvement with the water. I appreciate your
efforts.
MR. HIGLEY-This is a really good project. We’ve got a problem with water coming down Jay Road and
going into the lake, and this is going to solve most of that issue. Our neighbor was putting a drywell in.
It helped some of it, but not all of it, and this is going to solve the problem.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Under SEQR this is a SEQR Type II. Is the Board comfortable moving forward on
this?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You need to open your public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. My apologies. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there
anyone in the audience, first, that wanted to address the Planning Board I’m not seeing anyone in the
audience. I will remind the public that if you would like to make comment, as I explained before, if you
could call us at 518-761-8225. And, Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So there’s two neighbors on Jay Road that signed the same letter. “As adjoining
neighbors of the Higleys we approve the plan to remove an existing garage away from the lake and build a
new garage that will improve drainage.” This is Tracy Taylor at 21 Jay Road and Vic Celadon on 29 Jay
Road.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I’m not receiving any calls from the public. So we’ll go ahead and close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And now we’re ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 30-2020 GARY HIGLEY
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct a 590 sq. ft. garage addition
to an existing home with 3,026 sq. ft. footprint including decks with a floor area of 4,189 sq. ft. – proposed
floor area 4,306 sq. ft. Project includes removal of a 473 sq. ft. metal building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-
040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 08/25/2020; the ZBA
approve the variance requests on 08/26/2020;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/15/2020 and continued the
public hearing to 09/15/2020, when it was closed,
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 09/15/2020;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 30-2020 GARY HIGLEY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved
for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/
construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal.
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting
an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied
for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
th
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. HIGLEY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Clear Brook, LLC, Subdivision
Final Stage 12-2020.
SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 12-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CLEAR BROOK, LLC.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EXCESS LAND, LLC. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE THE CLEAR BROOK
12 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 83.62 ACRE LOT INTO LOT 13 TO
BE 5.02 ACRE FOR RESIDENTIAL HOME AND LOT 14 TO BE 78.6 ACRES TO REMAIN
UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. SITE WORK TO INCLUDE CONNECTION TO TOWN
WATER FOR LOT 13. ASSOCIATED SITE WORK INCLUDES CLEARING FOR DRIVEWAY,
HOME AND SEPTIC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH PLAN 4-2018; AV 54-2018, SUB (P) 13-2018,
FWW 6-2018, SUB (F) 4-2019, SUB (S) 1-2020; SUB (P) 7-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A.
LOT SIZE: 83.62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6 (PORTION). SECTION: CHAPTER 183.
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant received approval at Preliminary Stage to subdivide this lot into two lots
and at the time of Preliminary Stage you discussed what would happen with the larger lot, Lot 14, and it
was agreed upon that that would remain undeveloped at this time. That’s the proposal they’re presenting
in Final Stage. Lot 15 would be 5.02 acres for one residential home and Lot 14 would be noted as
undeveloped at this time.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with Dave Lipinski, George Story, principal of
Clear Brook. We were here a couple of months ago with this Preliminary Stage, and the changes we have
made reflect the changes we made that evening, which was Lot 14 will be a vacant parcel. We’re working
with the Town on the water district and that still seems to be an ongoing issue. However, those were
shown for Lot 13 to be one additional building lot. We got confirmation from the Water Department that
we can get water, and this is a high and dry site. This lot itself is essentially unchanged from what you
saw the last time, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board .
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-I just want to say, and I said it before the last time, I’ve driven down by the lots and
what a vision to see, you know, such dense woods, and really it’s been a long process and a long haul to get
this far and it sounds like we have maybe one more time we’re going to get to see you.
MR. DEEB-Tom, a lot of engineering comments.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. DEEB-How are you doing with those?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I took a little different approach in that I amended the SWPPP for the entire site
and this and we didn’t quite communicate all that well with the engineer apparently based on the number
of comments they have. I mean we’ll address them. This is a very, very simple site, as far as the technical
are concerned, and I keep those things relatively simple in this case because when we sell a lot the owners
rarely want to do what we’ve shown on these original subdivision plans, and a lot of times it gets
reconfigured anyway. So I try to keep it relatively simple and they want us to expand a little bit on that
and I have no issue with that.
MR. DEEB-You know you’ve got that engineering signoff.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll have to get that.
MR. DEEB-But when I see that many comments.
MR. HUTCHINS-And for what it’s worth this lot presently is under contract to the owner of Lot 12. So
it probably won’t be built upon for some time, but we’re going to get it to be a building lot, and it will be a
building lot, and we’ll certainly get to it if there’s time. I didn’t do anything differently than we did with
all the other lots, and I think they may have raised the bar on their review a little bit, but that’s fine. I’m
okay with that.
MR. VALENTINE-Their first comment they made in their letter from Thursday says because there was no
response to comments.
MR. HUTCHINS-They had comments when we had Lot 14 shown, when we were here for Preliminary. I
didn’t respond to that, because we changed it. What we will do is file for coverage individually for this
lot. It will be done by a new owner at the time they wish to institute construction.
MR. VALENTINE-As part of the general permit? Is that what you’re saying coverage?
MR. HUTCHINS-As coverage under the general SPDES stormwater permit, yes.
MR. TRAVER-And this is Unlisted under SEQR.
MRS. MOORE-It’s already been completed at Preliminary.
MR. TRAVER-I thought at Preliminary we did.
MRS. MOORE-Dave and I already had a discussion about that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. He’s way ahead of it. All right. Any other questions, comments? All right. I guess
we’re ready to entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 12-2020 CLEAR BROOK, LLC
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes to complete the Clear Brook 12 lot subdivision with a two lot subdivision of 83.62 acre lot into
Lot 13 to be 5.02 acre for residential home and Lot 14 to be 78.6 acres to remain undeveloped at this time.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
Site work to include connection to Town water for Lot 13. Associated site work includes clearing for
driveway, home and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board
has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file
of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 12-2020 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced
by David Deeb who moved its adoption.
1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the 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;
2. Waiver requests granted: no waivers were requested.
3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting
an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied
for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be
installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site
work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel.
9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or
the beginning of any site work.
10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-The next item is also under Old Business, CKT Enterprises, LLC, Site Plan 37-2020.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC. AGENT(S):
RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 11 LAFAYETTE STREET.
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE THE EXISTING 2,627 SQ. FT. POLE BARN BUILDING
WITH A 436 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR OVERHEAD DOORS FOR A STORAGE BUILDING. THE
PROJECT ALSO REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A BUFFER OF AN OPEN FENCE AND LAWN AREA
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USE AND RESIDENTIAL USE WHERE A 50 FT. BUFFER IS
REQUIRED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION AN MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
SP 36-99, 99582-7952 BUILDING, CC-0356-2020 ALTERATIONS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
SEPTEMBER 2020. LOT SIZE: 1.78 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040,
179-9-120.
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STARR BAKER, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant is for approval. There’s a project in play for enclosure of a pole barn which
is currently 2,627 square feet with a 436 square foot addition which allows for the overhead doors for a
storage building. In addition the applicant has previously removed a fencing area that was part of the
conditional approval of the funeral home and since then has installed an open fence and lawn area, and if
you need additional detail I can go through that, but the idea is to review both projects for the buffer, as
well as the enclosure of the storage area.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m the principal at Rucinski Hall
Architecture. With me tonight is Starr Mowry who is the owner of the property CKT Enterprises. Laura
described the project to you. It’s an existing pole barn. It was actually part of the Woodbury’s lumber
yard when that was there. The property was built up. Laura’s got the pictures of the pole barn up now.
The actual roof overhang overhangs the front of the building six feet and we are adding four and a half feet
to the front of the building to enclose that. So we’re staying underneath the existing roofline and just
adding some overhead doors so that, and it covers up. Right now it’s a wide open pole barn. It faces the
parking lot so that when people come to the funeral home they’re looking right into it. So we’re trying to
get that closed up, make it a little less unsightly.
MR. MAGOWAN-You’re not going to pile up caskets in there, are you?
MR. HALL-No. The overhead doors I believe are shown on the front elevation of the building. There is
one larger overhead door on the, it would be the north end of the building. The rest of the overhead doors
are going to be normal overhead doors. It’s for the storage of the vehicles at the funeral home.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HALL-As to Laura’s other point, the portion at the back of the lot, do you have the pictures that I sent
from the original, Laura? There was an original chain link fence that ran along the back part of the
property. That was also part of the Woodbury’s lumber yard.
MR. VALENTINE-Ethan, what’s the back part, north, south, east, west?
MR. HALL-It would be the south.
MR. MAGOWAN-South.
MR. HALL-Right here.
MR. VALENTINE-With all the trees behind it?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, right there. It was all overgrown and a lot of undergrowth and a lot of, it was, a
lot of sumac and things like that. The overhead picture you can see from there. That was all taken down.
All of the old shingling fence was taken out. Starr also owns the building that’s at 4 Glendale, which is
the building at the back part of the property right here, a year or so ago for the additions and the fencing
or the decks and stuff that we put on the back of that building. She’s got all planted. It’s all lawn in the
back of that building now, and the new fence that’s there is actually going to that property now, the funeral
home property. She put up a split rail fence, feeling it was more of a residential feel. Since she does own
both properties, she just thought that would be a better solution for her. There was some mention of cross
lot. At one point there was a driveway that went between the two. That’s been taken away by putting
this fence up. So there is no cross lot communication.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Before I open it up for questions and comments from the Board, I’m going to go
ahead and let the public know, if they’re viewing this, that if they wish to make public comment when we
open the public hearing they should call 518-761-8225, and questions, comments from members of the
Board?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. DEEB-What’s stored in the pole barn now?
MR. HALL-All kinds of stuff. It’s stuff that they’re not as concerned about for security purposes.
MR. TRAVER-Because it’s open.
MR. HALL-Because it’s wide open and there’s no way to secure anything. So they don’t have a whole lot
of stuff in there. It’s miscellaneous equipment and things that they’ve had that are around. Starr’s got
some, I think there’s a tamper in there.
MS. BAKER-Well, actually we have our hearse out there. We have a big vehicle, a Lincoln. I’m going to
take $8,000 times two , really nice vehicles. We only have the two attached to the Funeral Home and
we’ve outgrown that.
MR. HALL-Outside of that, there’s not a whole lot in there.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think it’s going to look nice closed in. I mean it’s really a beautiful funeral home. I
like what you did in the back, the split rail. I kind of like that and cleaning up and it’s more open. It looks,
it kind of fits in, but looking at that open garage and I know, you know, from the Woodbury days. You
know how many times going to the racks over there. So I think it would really be a nice addition and
especially for the business and to protect, because those pole barns, that wind whips and the leaves and
the dirt and the snow, and I forgot how much of an overhang it was until I looked at the prints. I see how
they’re going to close that off. Good idea.
MS. BAKER-The squirrels are the biggest issue. I’m afraid I’m going to go to a funeral in the morning and
get my purse out of there and I’ve got a squirrel inside of the engine or something. I want to get it closed
in. I think it will be a good asset. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-We’ll go ahead and officially open a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in
the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, ma’am.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
EVELYN SHEERER
MS. SHEERER-Hi, my name’s Evelyn Sheerer. We, myself and Mark Schneider, own that house that you
see in the picture, and when we first moved in, they had just taken the fence down, chain link fence, and
we told them we wanted the chain link fence up there. That’s what we’d like when we bought the house
from them as the business but it never got put back up. Our only problem is we really have no privacy
back there. When they have funerals people go out and they smoke, which is fine. I’m not complaining
about that, but, you know, they end up in our backyard almost, you know, and we’d like a fence to continue
on, a privacy fence, just so we can enjoy our backyard. The business has grown a lot. They’re doing very
good. Cars never used to park in the back. Now there’s cars parked there all the time. I think it’s mainly
the employees. I’m not sure. Like I said, I’m not complaining about that. This is a business, you know,
residential business area. It’s just that I would like the fence to continue and I’d like a privacy fence so
that I can sit in my backyard, when their business is going on and anything else is happening, , and still feel
like I have a residential private home. Do you know what I mean? We’d like that, since we’ve been there,
you know, the business has grown and I don’t know how to say it.
MR. TRAVER-Well I think you’ve explained it well and we can discuss that with the applicant. Anything
else?
MS. SHEERER-No. They’ve done improvements to the house next door to us. I think we’ve done
improvements since we’ve moved in there. I’d just like to feel some privacy in my own backyard.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MARK SCHNEIDER
MR. SCHNEIDER-I just want to reiterate that they’ve done a wonderful job of what they’re doing. We’re
very happy with this neighbor.
MS. SHEERER-Yes. When they wanted to do something with the white building we came and said
whatever they want to do was fine, but now that it’s, it’s just right in our backyard.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood.
MRS. MOORE-Could you give us the name of the gentleman in the back?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MS. SHEERER-Mark Schneider.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We only had one phone call with no real public comment. So we’re going to go
ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-If the applicant could return to the podium. So the one comment, I know you heard the
discussion about the concern about the fence being removed and I understand you have plans to replace it
with a split rail fence.
MR. HALL-It’s there.
MR. TRAVER-It’s already, I’m sorry, I didn’t see that picture. Okay.
MS. SHEERER-It’s from that fence on to the back of their property, to the back part of it.
MR. HALL-According to Starr, that chain link was not, can you go back to the overhead?
MR. VALENTINE-Are you looking at that one?
MR. HALL-No, the overhead picture. This picture that Mike wants.
MR. VALENTINE-There it is. Yes, that’s it.
MR. HALL-That chain link had already been gone.
MS. BAKER-Let me clarify that. There was never a fence between.
MR. TRAVER-Could you get on the mic and just state your name for the record, please.
MS. BAKER-Yes. Starr Baker. I believe she’s talking about between the Funeral Home and her house,
where she’s got storage buildings, the one on the left is actually on my property. The other three are on
the lot line and they are supposed to be set back 15 feet. I said I’m not going to argue. Let her put them
there, but there was never a fence between us, and they bought the property with no fence at all between
us and the one she’s referring to that my brother Clyde took down was parallel with the right side of her
house, and 4 Glendale, he took that down before they closed on the property. It was gone before that. I’ve
got pictures of it. The reason there was no fencing between the blacktop at the end of the parking lot and
their house was the fence went all the way over where Noon Whistle Deli is, all the way straight back,
came across by the water side, the furthest part of their house, came up the right side of their house and
then continued over where I have this split rail now.
MR. TRAVER-And where is the split rail now on this picture?
MS. BAKER-The split rail now is where the parking lot is, halfway, at the end of my right building, shoots
straight back, right there. So now come over about two parking lots, no, to the right. From there over,
yes, about where the blacktop is, from there all the way to the left, to the end of the pole barn. That was
the last of the split rail fencing that finally I had a chance to take down that was literally tipped over.
We’ve got pictures of this. It will show there were no trees. There as one, a white birch tree, and he
noticed it was dead. I didn’t even notice. The only one that we could salvage. The rest is all George
Pfeiffer’s grapevines and the Woodbury fencing and it was a jungle. It was a mess. It was getting garbage
trapped in there. It was debris from the old Pfeiffer place. There’s some really good pictures to show, and
I sent them to him. All we did was remove that garage and the junk and really cleaned up the property.
MR. VALENTINE-How long has that fence been up?
MS. BAKER-That fence has been up since spring. I did it in April, and I planted six fruit trees. Once we
get the pole barn taken care of, then the rest of the blacktop will be a defined straight line coming down to
meet the pole barn. So it will clean up, see how the grass is growing into the crushed stone. It’s going to
continue the blacktop straight down and give that nice barrier with, or buffer with the barrier. That’s the
plan. Yes, the fence was never there when they bought the property, and I do have pictures of that, and
I’m not required, I know, to put up something that didn’t exist between us.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? This is SEQR Type II.
Are there any written comments, Laura? Since I already closed the public hearing.
MRS. MOORE-No, I don’t have any written comments.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do members of the Board feel comfortable moving forward?
MRS. MOORE-I just want to clarify. You’re accepting the buffer that’s in place. You can do a fence or
you can do the 50 foot green.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’re talking about what they’ve already done. Okay. Were there other questions or
comments?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I just made a comment to Dave. I don’t see how you could possibly put in a 50
foot buffer, given what’s already there. There’s just not enough room.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-Right, but is what they’ve provided sufficient? So you’re supposed to have at least a 50
foot buffer between, on both sides. I’m just trying to point out that a buffer could contain a fence. It
could contain multiple plantings. It could contain other things. Right now it’s a spilt rail fence with fruit
trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-Is that sufficient between a commercial use and a residential use?
MR. TRAVER-I think in this case.
MS. BAKER-Can I use an example of O’Reilly’s? I own the ranch, the ranch straight ahead. Okay. The
while behind the trees. I own that ranch. O’Reilly’s just put in their place that was the old George Pfeiffer,
old wooden fence from the 80’s, and when they did the construction they dilapidated it. They were
required to put it back. They did not put back any of their ugly big buffer of junk and garbage and anything.
They just put in the barrier.
MRS. MOORE-But that’s an exception. So they put up a privacy fence instead of a 50 foot buffer.
MS. BAKER-Well they replaced my fence that was on my property that already existed. So I don’t know.
MRS. MOORE-It was a complicated case. What I’m trying to say is in your case you had a privacy fence.
In this case you’re doing a split rail fence with lawn and a few trees.
MS. BAKER-There was a privacy fence there.
MR. HALL-That’s what you’re putting up is just a split rail fence.
MRS. MOORE-And I’m just asking the Board, is that sufficient between a residential use and a commercial
use? The same as yours between O’Reilly’s and your residential use. You now have a privacy fence.
MS. BAKER-There was a privacy fence there before, but to me there’s the barrier and the buffer. They had
a barrier and a buffer. Now they just have a barrier, no buffer. It’s just grass with a fence.
MRS. MOORE-But that is what I’m asking the Board is if they are approving that as the buffer.
MS. BAKER-Okay. Gotcha. I thought the fence was the barrier and the buffer was like your landscaping.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments?
MR. DEEB-So that split rail fence between your property and your other house.
MS. BAKER-That is my property on both sides of that fencing, correct.
MR. DEEB-I’d probably rather see plantings, myself.
MR. TRAVER-She’s planted some fruit trees back there.
MS. BAKER-There is. If you see I just planted those.
MR. DEEB-How may trees>
MS. BAKER-They’re six foot fruit trees. They’re going to get big, hopefully someday.
MS. SHEERER-Excuse me. We have no problem with the railing. I think that’s in front of what they did.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma’am, the public hearing is closed for this evening. I think we have a draft
resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 37-2020 CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to enclose the existing 2,627 sq. ft. pole
barn building with a 436 sq. ft. addition for overhead doors for a storage building. The project also requests
to maintain a buffer of an open fence and lawn area between the commercial use and residential use where
a 50 ft. buffer is required. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance new
commercial construction and modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/15/2020 and continued the
public hearing to 09/15/2020, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 09/15/2020;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 37-2020 CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb
who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, q. soil logs, s. snow removal.
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting
an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied
for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
h) Applicant to discuss future fence expansion with the neighbor and final decision to be placed on
the final plans.
i) If negotiations for the fence boundary fail, then the original Site Plan is approved as presented.
th
Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 15 day of September 2020 by the following
vote:
MR. TRAVER-Any discussion?
MS. WHITE-Laura mentioned that, are we accepting the six fruit trees. Can we request maybe some
other shrubs or something maybe more of a screening nature than fruit trees? I don’t know. I just kind of
heard that in the last second, and I apologize if I was a little slow on the uptake there, and is that something
we can just talk about before we move on? Does anybody else think that maybe we could ask for a little
bit more plantings along there? To provide a little privacy?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m not sure what parliamentary procedure is. I guess we just withdraw the motion?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MRS. MOORE-You can amend your motion, and you can ask your questions during the discussion. What
she’s saying is that split rail fence doesn’t extend the entire length of the buffer. It only extends to the
length where she removed the fence, and there are two residential properties there. There’s one where
this corner, who spoke, and then one where Starr owns.
MS. WHITE-Right.
MRS. MOORE-So she removed the fence where she owns, and there was nothing where the previous
owner was.
MR. TRAVER-And there was nothing there to begin with. Right?
MRS. MOORE-There was nothing there to begin with.
MS. BAKER-Right. No offense to the neighbor, but they want me to put up a fence that was never existing
and I’m not required to do that.
MR. VALENTINE-But the question does come about.
MRS. MOORE-Hold on. So you have a project in front of you. So the project in front of you is what’s
being requested, that you include the buffer for the entire length. You don’t have to. They’re just
presenting information to the Board that, yes, I’ve taken that down. I’ve installed this fence and some fruit
trees for the length that I removed it.
MS. WHITE-I’d like to hear what Laura is trying to explain to me.
MRS. MOORE-So it only goes to the length of where the original fence was.
MS. WHITE-Okay. So there’s a portion that’s unfenced, un buffered.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we’re looking at this map that’s here now, could somebody show us about where
the fence line is?
MR. TRAVER-I thought it went all the way across the.
MR. DEEB-No.
MS. BAKER-It never did.
MRS. MOORE-Right about there. So this is this neighbor that’s asking maybe if there’s something
additional that could be placed here, but again, it’s up to the Board.
MRS. MOORE-This is where, just about here is where that gravel.
MR. MAGOWAN-It goes up to the shed, yes. You see the shed on the second page picture, Chris?
MS. WHITE-How much is not fenced?
MRS. MOORE-Maybe 200.
MR. DEEB-Laura, what’s Code on the buffer for the commercial?
MRS. MOORE-It’s 50 feet. So 50 feet in width.
MR. DEEB-For the whole property
MRS. MOORE-For the whole property.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean there’s not room for that.
MS. BAKER-We used to own that property. That’s why there’s no fencing there.
MR. VALENTINE-You’re confusing two things as far as I’m seeing. We’re not talking about what was
there. We’re talking about what’s required.
MR. TRAVER-What’s required.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. DEEB-What’s required, not what was there.
MR. VALENTINE-So now we sit here and discuss, we’ve had a motion and there’s not a problem with the
application, but the point’s brought up. We’ve residential and commercial. There’s a requirement for a
buffer on either side of that property line where those two uses come together. That’s our discussion now.
Right?
MR. DEEB-We’re saying that the requirement says that it has to cover your whole property line.
MS. BAKER-Even though it was never there before.
MR. DEEB-Even though it was never there before. The requirement says that it has to cover.
MS. BAKER-I can’t even put a fence up there because there’s stuff on the property line.
MR. VALENTINE-But that’s part of what we’re going to talk about as a requirement. Knowing that you
can’t meet it. Okay if you don’t do 50 foot, do you 12 foot? Do you do 20 foot? What do you do?
MRS. MOORE-Where do you install the fence.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, would it be possible, Starr, for you to install the fence all the way across.
MS. BAKER-I can do the split rail fencing across, but they have to first move their one building in the back
upper corner there that’s on our property, and then the other ones they don’t have permits to even have
there. They’re right on our property line, and that was brought up in the past, and I’m trying to do the
right neighborly thing to say I’m just going to be quiet and not say anything, but they’d have to remove
those two buildings that they didn’t have permission to put there. Dave Hatin was there and actually cited
them for a junkyard and too many storage buildings on a piece of property. So how do I get around that?
MR. DEEB-Well that’s Code Enforcement.
MS. BAKER-All right. We’ll have to enforce that if you guys are enforcing me to put the fence.
MR. DEEB-Well we’re not forcing you. We’re doing what’s written in our Code.
MS. BAKER-Gotcha.
MRS. MOORE-What I’m saying is she’s presented a plan that only covers a portion of it. You can accept
that, knowing that there’s issues on the remaining fence line. So whether that property owner puts up
their own fence, there’s no requirement.
MR. DEEB-They can put their own fence up.
MS. BAKER-They bought the property without a fence, nowhere on the property.
MR. TRAVER-We understand that. You’ve said that many times. Okay. So we have the neighbor during
the public hearing indicated they would like some buffering or at least a fence. You’ve indicated that you
would be willing to do that but they would have to accommodate moving their buildings away from your
property line. Would it be amenable, Laura, if we were to suggest that the applicant discuss with the
neighbor whether they wanted to do that and if so the owner would extend the fence and if not they would
not extend the fence?
MRS. MOORE-If the owner of that property cannot re-locate those buildings, then Starr can’t put up the
fence.
MR. TRAVER-Well that’s what I’m saying, I mean they could theoretically move them away. The
question is is doing that desirable enough to warrant getting the additional fence or would they rather not
have the fence and not have to move their buildings? I’m just saying why don’t we suggest that they have
that discussion and reach an accommodation of some kind. How would that work for you, Starr?
MS. BAKER-Is it something formally discussed, or just as a neighbor discuss where do we want to go from
here? Is that what you’re saying?
MRS. MOORE-What you can do prior to your final plan is indicate I discussed with my neighbor. They’re
not willing to do this. I’ll go forward.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-That would be on the final plan that would be submitted to Laura.
MS. BAKER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-You follow me. Right? Okay. Is that all right with members of the Board? Okay. The
applicant to discuss potential expansion of the fence between their property and the neighbor and if that’s
agreed to it will be revised on the final plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan, I hope you mediate this well.
MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended motion to offer.
MR. DEEB-So I have to amend this motion.
MRS. MOORE-And you can just say you’re amending the motion with a condition. You don’t have to read
the whole motion.
MR. DEEB-Okay. Motion to amend original motion to read applicant to discuss future fence expansion
with the neighbor and final decision to be placed on the final plans.
MR. TRAVER-That works for me.
MR. VALENTINE-I would make a note that if this contingent discussion between owners fails, that the
Site Plan still goes on as an approval. In other words Site Plan doesn’t fall apart or fail.
MS. BAKER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s not part of the condition.
MRS. MOORE-I think that’s a good point. I think you should add that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what language would you suggest?
MR. HUNSINGER-Doesn’t that take away the applicant’s initiative, though, to satisfy the neighbor?
MR. VALENTINE-Why? That covers us later so that they don’t come back to us saying, hey, they didn’t
do what they were supposed to do. That’s in their hands. We’re looking at an approval. We said a Site
Plan’s got to have a buffer. The contingency is discussion between the owners.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see what you’re saying. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So I guess we could just say if the fence isn’t extended the Site Plan is still approved.
MR. DEEB-All right. I’ll amend the motion a second time. If negotiations for the fence boundary fail, then
the original Site Plan is approved.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have an amended motion. Do we have a second?
MR. VALENTINE-Second.
MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the amended motion? Maria, can you call the vote for us, please.
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much for your time.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. So that concludes our regular agenda. We need to return to an Administrative
Item that we moved to the end of the meeting, and that is the discussion with regard to establishing
renewable energy systems and facilities regulations.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD FOR ADOPTION OF LOCAL
LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH RENEWABLE ENERGY
SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES REGULATIONS
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. TRAVER-And Laura provided us with some comments on this, including some things that we should
consider in our referral.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to just quickly run through them?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, please.
MRS. MOORE-So on Page Six and Page Seven they talk about rooftop and building mounted solar
collectors.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-In other portions of the document we talk about the maximum panel height as 12 feet.
They don’t note that there.
MR. TRAVER-So it should be consistent throughout. Right?
MRS. MOORE-It should be consistent throughout. I’m concerned when they say that, some of the
language says you can’t be any higher than the maximum height in that zone, and all of a sudden they learn
of a stacking method for solar panels and we now have one that’s 60 feet high.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-So I don’t think that’ll happen, but I don’t know that for sure, and I just want to make sure
that we’re prepared for that.
MR. TRAVER-Right. That makes sense. Sure.
MR. VALENTINE-Can I ask a question on that? Because my first comment, when you distributed this
months ago and stuff, my first comment is that there was nothing in there on rooftop, but now we have
rooftop, but all I keep hearing is this is a ground mounted solar.
MRS. MOORE-So right now rooftop and building mounted solar panels do not go through Site Plan
Review.
MR. VALENTINE-I think Laura was answering that point about the ground mounted solar does not
require, I’m sorry rooftop.
MR. DEEB-Rooftop.
MRS. MOORE-Rooftop does not. It’s not triggering review.
MR. DEEB-So you don’t like the maximum height restriction?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t know what it is.
MR. TRAVER-She wants it to be consistent.
MR. DEEB-So you want a number.
MRS. MOORE-I want it to be consistent, and that’s what I’ve noted in my notes that they should address
that. The idea of me listing these items is that if you repeat them as part of your recommendation back to
the Town Board, then they will potentially look at them. If there’s any one of those comments that I’ve
made that you disagree with or that you want amended, then you should do that.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DEEB-What was the other comment? You had two. You had Page 6 and?
MRS. MOORE-So do you see I have my notes that it’s right in, it’s listed as A., rooftop and building
mounted solar collectors.
MR. DEEB-I didn’t get the notes.
MR. SHAFER-We just got them.
MR. MAGOWAN-I just got them, and are these your notes?
MRS. MOORE-No, that’s the legislation.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. DEEB-I don’t remember getting the notes.
MR. SHAFER-A through K.
MRS. MOORE-A through K.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they were part of the packet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a possibility that we have a little more time to look at it? I mean, we just got
it in our package.
MRS. MOORE-Actually I believe it was e-mailed to everyone prior to this.
MR. SHAFER-They were in the Staff Notes, Brad.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they were part of the Staff Notes that were e-mailed and also mailed.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the comment about the bond requirement. I mean, that’s in the Code anyway.
Right?
MRS. MOORE-It’s in the Code anyway, but it’s not labeled in this section of Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-But if it’s in the Code, wouldn’t it still apply as part of Site Plan Review?
MRS. MOORE-It should. Just clarification, and maybe that’s more to find out when they were adopted.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I sort of agree. I mean, you know, any solar panels should not exceed the
maximum height restriction.
MR. TRAVER-Well, just from the engineering standpoint, they’re not going to make them 50 foot high,
but I agree with Laura, there should be some consistent language.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MRS. MOORE-Actually, I apologize. Brad, you had asked if you could take some time to look at it. It’s
th
not going before the Town Board until Monday, September 28.
MR. TRAVER-So why don’t we finalize this next week, next Tuesday.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I’d appreciate that. It’s just a lot and like I said, I could just picture someone
building a pole from the basement all the way up through the house and then mounting their sun twisting
solar panel 100 feet in the air.
MS. WHITE-And you mentioned that they’re e-mailed and I understand that, but right now I’m only
getting e-mails on here.
MR. TRAVER-It was also in the hardcopies that were mailed.
MR. VALENTINE-Hardcopies didn’t get to the house until yesterday.
MS. WHITE-Yesterday.
MR. DEEB-We didn’t get the hardcopies until yesterday.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’re delaying it a week.
MS. WHITE-I’m just putting my two cents in that I appreciate that greatly.
MR. TRAVER-So we don’t need to table this because it’s just an Administrative Item. So we can move it.
MR. VALENTINE-Can I ask some questions, though?
MR. TRAVER-Sure, yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Is there anything in here for visual analysis, you know, SEQR?
MRS. MOORE-CEA, the way DEC used to have a little checklist?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
MR. VALENTINE-The only reason I ask, Saratoga County, coming across our desk to review, we had a lot
of solar arrays, so much that the dairy farm community does not want to call them solar farms, but they’re
coming in, and we’ve got loads of them. One I have to review Thursday at our meeting is on a 90 acre
parcel subdividing two parcels, and Wilton has a nice, and they’ve adopted it and I think I had provided it
before, Wilton has a nice one, but one of the things that came up that I just didn’t catch, I’m looking at and
saying, okay, it’s on a county road and it’s got houses, some houses. They’re sparsely populated out on this
road, but the solar arrays are behind the houses and through wooded area, but one of the guys that I sent
it to look at said, hey, when all that tree coverage is gone and you see clear through, that’s why I‘m looking,
and we’ve talked about that under SEQR, the visual analysis.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s some really big ones in like Schoharie County, and there’s that big one outside
of Whitehall, too.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s huge.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, I understand the farmers that are land rich, it’s real attractive.
MR. VALENTINE-Or those that don’t have a good functional operation on their farm anymore say I’ve got
to make some money and I don’t want to sell the land yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-One of my concerns is the decommissioning of them, because there’s a lot of toxins in those
things, and so, you know, we don’t have anything on the rooftop, but these ground based arrays are going
to be a lot bigger and whoever puts them in, they should have a, I don’t know if it’s a bond or, something.
There should be something that takes care of processing these things when they come up, because they
don’t last forever. Some of them don’t last long at all.
MR. VALENTINE-That’s part of the stuff that’s a sample legislation that comes through NYSERTA. They
do have that, that is a big clause in the end there about that because somebody says okay, yes, well I’m
going to put this up for 20 years. Well the whole technology changes in eight to ten years.
MRS. MOORE-In the Code it does talk about a decommissioning, but I’d also like to see something that
talks about, not only decommissioning, but completing the project. So they’ve started their project.
Technology changed. so they’re not going to complete their project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. TRAVER-So there should be maybe a performance bond or something, so if it’s not completed. Could
you share that proposed legislation with Laura and maybe Laura could distribute it to us, that part about
the decommissioning.
MRS. MOORE-That’s a complete detail.
MR. TRAVER-It’s in there. I didn’t see that. All right. So think about it. If you didn’t receive it in the
snail mail, let Laura know or let me know and we’ll make sure that you get a hardcopy and we’ll plan on
discussing this in detail on Tuesday. So if you have some notes as you’re working or you could work off
Laura’s recommendations. I thought hers were very good. One of the concerns was the setback which
she caught. So let’s talk about it on Tuesday, then. All right?
MR. VALENTINE-Good.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? All right. Can we entertain a
motion to adjourn?
MR. HUNSINGER-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15,
2020, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/15/2020)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
28