2010.11.16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA 1.
FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 300.-1-19
Site Plan No. 28-2010 Leslie Grasso 2.
FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 3.
FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
Site Plan No. 68-2010 Adirondack Retirement Specialists 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.20-1-55
Special Use Permit No. 64-2010 Matthew Sokol 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 301.8-1-17, 18
Site Plan No. 70-2010 9099 Corporation 10.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38
Subdivision No. 14-2010 Michele McKee 14.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 303.20-1-10
Subdivision No. 7-2009 Ernest Burnell 16.
Freshwater Wetlands 4-2010 Tax Map No. 271.-1-21
Site Plan No. 50-2008 French Mt. Forest, LLC 20.
Tax Map No. 265.-1-28
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, November 16, 2010. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes
th
from September 21, 28, and 30. Would anyone like to make a motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 21, 2010
September 28, 2010
September 30, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
STTH
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 28, AND 30, 2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have three items under Administrative Items.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
SUBDIVISION 8-2005: MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA TABLED TO 11/16/10;
APPLICANT REQUESTING TO BE TABLED TO
DECEMBER 2010
MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has asked to be tabled to December.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you have the materials for that?
MR. OBORNE-I have nothing. I would prefer, or advise the Board, to table it to January at this
point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because they missed the deadline. Okay. Let’s see. I don’t have the
January calendar in front of me.
MRS. STEFFAN-I did.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-Either the 18 or the 25 would be the normal meeting dates.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What day do you want?
MR. OBORNE-I have no preference whatsoever.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
West Mountain Road [Tax Map ID 300.-1-19]
Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and
proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to
an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval.
On 7/20/2010 the application was tabled to 9/28/2010; and
On 9/28/2010 the application was tabled to 11/16/2010; and
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Tabled to the January 18 Planning Board meeting. Deadline for any new materials submitted
th
will be December 15.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next one is Site Plan 28-2010.
SITE PLAN 28-2010: LESLIE GRASSO
TABLED TO 11/16/10; NO NEW INFORMATION
SUBMITTED
MR. HUNSINGER-No new information was received, Keith, anything from the applicant?
MR. OBORNE-No, no new information was received, and, as with previous applications, if you
could direct Planning Staff to send a letter to inform the applicant that if materials are not
th
submitted by December 15, that the Board will deny without prejudice.
MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t do that previously?
MR. OBORNE-No, you did not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s a problem with the purchase of the lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I know there’s some issues there. So would anyone like to move
that?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
South end of Forest Road [Tax Map ID 226.19-1-39]
The applicant proposes construction of a 3,085 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling with attached
garage. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland requires both Site Plan Review and
Freshwater Wetlands permit review by the Planning Board; and
On 5/18/2010 the application was tabled to 7/20/2010; and
On 7/20/2010 the application was tabled to 9/28/2010; and
On 9/28/2010 the application was tabled to 11/16/2010; and
To date no new information has been submitted on behalf of the applicant; and
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2010
LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
th
Tabled to the January 18 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials
th
would be December 15. If no new materials are received by that date, the Staff is directed to
send a letter to the applicant letting them know that we will deny without prejudice.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. OBORNE-If I could, just to make sure that the Board is aware, I’m going to send that letter
out tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Not after I receive any materials.
MR. HUNSINGER-Understood.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan 39-2010.
SITE PLAN 39-2010: INWALD ENTERPRISES [P B RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA
ND
FOR 2 VARIANCE REQUEST] TABLED TO 11/16/10;
NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED
MR. HUNSINGER-I see no new information.
MR. OBORNE-No new information. We have been in contact with the applicant and the
applicant’s agent and they are preparing documentation. So I don’t think a letter to the form of
th
what Leslie Grasso’s was is warranted at this point, but a January 18 tabling would be.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
38 Gunn Lane [Tax Map ID 227.17-1-16]
Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap
access ramp above two existing docks. Area Variance: Accessory structure > 100 square feet
within shoreline and sideline setbacks. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
On 6/24/2010 the application was tabled to 8/17/2010; and
On 8/17/2010 the application was tabled to 9/28/2010; and
On 9/30/2010 the applicant was tabled to 11/16/2010; and
To date no new information has been submitted on behalf of the applicant; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
th
Tabled to the January 18 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials is
th
December 15.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next three items are Planning Board recommendations to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 68-2010 SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) JAY K. WASSERMAN
ZONING CI LOCATION 351 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO
FORMER DENTAL OFFICE FOR NEW USE AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. SITE PLAN:
EXPANSION OF OFFICE USE IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, REAR AND
TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 57-10 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 11/10/2010 LOT SIZE 0.19 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-55 SECTION
179-9
JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 68-2010 and Area Variance 57-2010, Adirondack
Retirement Specialists. Requested action is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as potential impacts of this
project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 351 Bay Road, it’s
Commercial Intensive zoning. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes
renovations to former dental office for new use as professional office. Expansion of office use in
the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The site is located
on the corner of Bay Road and Glenwood Avenue west of Lowes. The applicant proposes to
reconfigure traffic flow on site to include dedicated parking for staff accessed off of Bay Road to
with client parking accessed off of Glenwood Avenue. An increase in permeability is proposed
as well as new landscaping. Two entrances are planned and it is these structures that require
setback relief from the Zoning Board of appeals. Further, a wheelchair lift is proposed for the
northern entrance. Nature of the Area Variance is as follows One, travel corridor setback-
Request for 52 feet 9 inches of relief for the proposed southern vestibule and 32 feet 0 inches
relief for the proposed northern entrance. Front setback, same, request for 52 .9 inches of relief
for the proposed southern vestibule and 45 feet 2 inches of relief proposed for the northern
entrance as per Section 179-3-040. Rear setback-request for 2 feet 6 inches of relief for the
proposed northern entrance. Four, Drive Aisle Width-request for 10 feet 6 inches of relief for the
western drive aisle and 9 feet 6 inches of relief for the eastern drive aisle, and finally, relief
requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. I’ll skip over Site Plan Review
because we’ll hit that up on Thursday. Additional Comments: Just for informational purposes,
the parcel is located in excess of 300 feet from Halfway Brook. The applicant has requested
waivers for stormwater management and grading. As a reminder to the applicant, all new
lighting must be downcast and cutoff. Fire Marshal comments attached, and with that I’d turn it
over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper and Ethan Hall. Before we
get started, I understand there is some demolition going on at Exit 19 which we’re all
responsible for, and I know Dan Stec stopped calling me every day asking when it was going to
start. So that was a good sign. It’s all positive. We hope that you see this application tonight as
a simple one, as we do. It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming situation. The entire building is
within the 75 foot Bay Road Travel Corridor setback, which means that you can’t do anything
without a variance. When Dr. Wasserman operated his business here for all this time, it was a
very busy office, with a lot of parking, and this particular use, financial planning, is the opposite,
where there would probably be two clients there at any time, small staff. So really low traffic
generator, kind of the only type of business that you could get onto this site. What we tried to
do, well, Ethan completely re-did the architecture. It’s just a very tired, dated building, but also
removing that old entrance onto Bay Road, which was obviously built when Bay Road was not a
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
five lane thoroughfare on this side, east side facing Lowes, and this whole project is really just to
add this handicap ramp for the entrance from the parking lot for their clients. We tried to look at
the traffic situation and cut off so there’s not a cut through on both sides. We do need to retain
both curb cuts because it’s such a small site, and we’re only, we’re proposing seven spaces, but
right now cars can drive through to cut the intersection and go through the parking lot and that
won’t be possible after the parking lot is cut down. In terms of stormwater, by removing the
entrance on the Lowes side and the stairs on the other side, it’s actually less impermeable than
it is now. So it’s being improved, and also Ethan reduced the size of the curb cut. Right now it’s
wide open onto Bay Road as well. So the design is that the employees only would use the two
spaces on the Bay Road side, and the customer, clients would use the other side, and there is
shared pavement with the mailing center next door onto Glenwood. So that’s really it. We didn’t
have a lot to work with, but we really are just trying to modernize it, upgrade it, and make it work
on this site. Let me hand it over to Ethan to go over some of the details.
MR. HALL-Thanks, Jon. It’s really, as Jon said, it’s a really tight lot. The 75 foot front yard
setback on both Glenwood Avenue and Bay Road pretty much make this an unbuildable lot, as it
stands. The existing building has a set of stairs that come off the back which are 14 foot 11
inches off of the rear yard, and there is an existing front porch which is no longer utilized, and
would not intend to be utilized. The sidewalk doesn’t connect or anything. So it’s our intent to
pull that off and not try and attract any attention to the Bay Road side of the building. That
having been said, the nature of their business, they do have elderly people that come to the
office quite often and they need to have a handicap accessible building. That’s the reason for us
having to put this addition on the back of the building, and we’re pretty much just squaring off the
rear corner to do that. As we do that, we’re going to put the handicap lift in, a set of stairs in,
and an entry way, and currently there’s a shed roof off the back of that building that sheds
towards the Mailings Made Easy building. It’s our intent to put a trussed roof over the top of that
and make it into a hipped peak that’s more in keeping with the hip roof that’s on the main
building and try and keep the architecture matching. At the same time we would take the
building and add some additional siding materials to it, similar to what I’ve got shown here.
There would be an update of horizontal siding on the bottom. We put a freeze board at the story
line which would line up with the new roofline, and then the upper portion of the building would
be shakes of some sort to kind of break that feel up. There’s not a whole lot we can do with the
building but we’re just trying to modernize it a little bit and get rid of the eight inch aluminum
siding and bring it at least somewhat closer to what is exemplary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-What, if any, stormwater management is going on on the site currently?
MR. HALL-Everything right now runs down that front entry, the driveway into Bay Road, and it’s
collected in the Bay Road storm basins. Everything else on the back of the site. It’s just a flat
site, runs off onto the grass on the sides of the drive aisles. By adding this, by taking and
making the curb cut smaller, we reduced the amount that’s going out that way, and we’re cutting
off the overall drive through area. So we’re adding impervious surface in there. So we stop a lot
of that that’s running down through there out onto the Bay Road corridor. Give it a chance to get
into the ground at that area.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a curb that defines the parking areas, then?
MR. HALL-Proposed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HALL-It’s just the edge of the blacktop. It’s not, there won’t be any raised areas. It’s just,
we’re taking away, it’s a straight shot through. We’re going to cut that off, put plantings in the
middle so that there’s no chance of being able to just drive right straight through it anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-This is a positive plan. I like the looks of it. I think it’s a nice improvement for that
site. Good job.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s the best you can do with what you’ve got.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a couple of Site Plan recommendations, but they’ll be Thursday night.
Nothing for the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation?
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2010 FOR ADIRONDACK
RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes renovations to
former dental office for new use as professional office. Site Plan: Expansion of office use in the
CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from
front, rear and Travel Corridor setback requirements. Further, relief requested from drive aisle
width requirements; and
Whereas, 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; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, 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 THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2010 FOR ADIRONDACK
RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Great. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. HALL-See you Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before I introduce the next item, Site Plan 64-2010, the applicant is a
member of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, and as an employee and department head,
I report to the committee that he serves on. So to avoid any appearance of any impropriety, I
will abstain from any discussion on this item, and Brad is going to take my seat on the Board for
the discussion, and I will turn the floor over to Mr. Traver.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 64-2010 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW SOKOL AGENT(S)
MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) DONALD & LUCYNA SOKOL ZONING NC
LOCATION 340 AVIATION RD., SOKOL’S PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOOD
SERVICE USE IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING PLAZA. SITE PLAN: FOOD SERVICE USE IN
THE NC ZONE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING SPACE
AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010-460, AV 58-10 LOT
SIZE 1.3 & 0.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-17, 18 SECTION 179-9, 179-10
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MATT SOKOL, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OBORNE-Acting Chairman, would you like me to read in the notes for the record?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 64-2010 and Area Variance 58-2010. Applicant is Matthew
Sokol. Requested action is the same as before. It’s a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Location is 340 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is NC or Neighborhood Commercial.
It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes Food Service Use in an existing
shopping plaza. Food Service Use in the NC zone requires a Special Use Permit and Planning
Board review and approval. Staff comments: The proposal calls for a 44 seat restaurant/bar
with outside seating. The applicant is requesting waivers from the following: Lighting, location
of utility systems, stormwater plans, topography, landscaping, land use boundaries, perc rates,
waste plans, and snow removal requirements. Nature of Area Variance are as follows:
Permeability-Request for a reduction from an existing permeability of 22.4% down to 20.6% or
an additional 1,782 square feet of impermeable surface. Note: This variance is specifically for
the proposed future parking spaces located to the northeast. Minimum Parking-Request for
parking space amount minimum requirements. The site requires, according to Code, 126
spaces, existing is 97 plus 11 future spaces if needed. Total request is for 18 spaces. What
follows is Site Plan Review, and just pretty much additional issues with comments. I will say, for
clarity purposes, you’re dealing with the applicant proposing 11 additional parking spaces but
not installing them until we can figure out how the site’s going to work. They may not need to
install them, but they may need to install them. So we went ahead and advised them to go
ahead and submit that plan, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald Morris,
and I’m here with Matt Sokol. Keith summarized it, I think, pretty well. The idea here is to use
some currently vacant space, not all the vacant space, but some of the currently vacant space in
the plaza, for a food service establishment. Just a little bit of background. Many of you know
the plaza. The Sokol family has owned and operated that plaza since 1974. I won’t tell you how
that lines up with me being here. About that same year I was born. Don’t use it against me.
From then until now obviously Queensbury has changed and especially that side of Town.
Started out with 4,000 square feet back then and moved it up to 11,000, and then in the early
80’s added the retail space that you see there. Through this time, like a lot of small markets,
they’ve competed with the Wal-Marts, the Price Rites, Price Choppers, Hannafords. Right
across the street Stewarts coming right into their backyard, but I think with this side of Town,
when I look at it, you know, west of the Northway, the majority of the Town’s housing stock is
west of the Northway, but the majority of our food service is east of the Northway. So, you
know, when Matt first approached me with the idea and we got talking about it, I was actually a
little enthusiastic because I think they’re going to do quite well there. That got us into coming
down and meeting with Keith and Craig, and talking about the plaza and the project. Tenants
have come and gone in there for years. They’ve got some good stable tenants, but they’ve had
vacancies like any plaza, and now with the current Code, when you come back for a new tenant
like that, you need Site Plan approval and you’ve got to meet the new zoning, and one of the
things that we got kicked right into was the parking, and Keith summarized that well. The intent
right now is certainly not to add parking. That’s the hope, but I think a good comment that Keith
and Craig had is let’s take a look at it, and if the use of the plaza and the parking use grows, and
you do have an opportunity to add spaces, show them where you could add them. That, of
course, kicked us over into permeability. You add impervious surface, you need a variance for
that. So we were betwixt and between. So what we’ve done is taken the plaza, evaluated the
space that’s there, the Sokols Market, the bank, the pizza plaza, the hair salon, and even the
vacant retail space. We used what would be the most aggressive or the highest requirement for
the parking in that zone, with the retail space, and showed that, and that’s what we did the
calculations on, to deal with the variances, because we don’t want to have to come back, if they
get a new tenant, then we don’t have to come back for variances every time. We may need Site
Plan approval, but we won’t have to deal with variances every time, so that the data that we’ve
presented, and the numbers that Keith gave you, do take that into account, the retail space,
which I think, again, is one of the higher requirements in that zone. So that leaves us with the
parking variances that we need. I think I can flip that over. We also gave you a proposed
layout, for the Special Use Permit, of the actual space itself. This is kind of how it’s going to look
in here, with the dining area, bar seating area, small kitchen to the back here, bathrooms to
Code, and there’s a cement pad that’s out behind it, pad area that could seat outdoor seating in
the summer, in the warm months. Obviously it’s not intended to be year round out there. We’re
not going to try to cover it with anything to make it year round. So that’s the intent out there. We
also did an informal parking study, but actually I think a pretty good one. They asked me what I
they thought we should do. I said, take a look at it for a week, you know, let’s get an idea really
of what the parking is, get somebody out there at different times of day, snap some shots and do
some parking counts, and I think that gives you a pretty realistic, and anybody that’s been in
there during the day knows that your times ebb and flow with spaces in there. So, again, I think
that this use is complimentary, certainly to that side of Town. I think it’s going to be successful.
I’ll probably be there myself, and I think that, overall, parking behind the plaza here along Dixon
and then the parking out front along Aviation should be satisfactory. As far as the variances
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
requested, that’s really because there’s no exterior improvements or changes. We’re not
looking to, they did that a couple of years ago. You may remember when they refreshed and
upgraded the facades out there. The planting areas that are in there now, along Aviation Road
broke that up, so that people weren’t just cutting in and out like they used to. So those
improvements are there, and exterior wise, again, not looking to make any improvements in that
regard, and if I’ve missed anything or you’ve got any questions.
MR. TRAVER-I noticed in your package you talk about the use of the existing parking. Much of
it is daytime, and therefore when this business would be operating, there’d be a lot more
available parking. I think that’s a good point. I also noticed that you’re advocating for a
permanent Special Use Permit, and you should probably be aware that this Board doesn’t often
issue those. Not to say that we wouldn’t, but in the Staff comments, there’s a reference to two
employees associated with the restaurant needing parking. That seems a little small, does it
not?
MR. SOKOL-No, I can probably address that. One of my partners, if you will, has 20 years
experience in the bar/restaurant, and he feels very comfortable with being a cook, if you will.
He’s going to have a little frialator back there, an oven. Nothing fancy like having a chef just yet.
We’re only dealing with a matter of 1100 square feet.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and 44 seats, I think.
MR. SOKOL-And 44 seats. So, our intent is to utilize him in the kitchen area, as well as having
a wait staff.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, I mean, if you have him, you have, say, a bartender and you have
somebody waiting tables, I mean, that’s already up to three.
MR. SOKOL-Tops three. Exactly.
MR. FULLER-And I think the other idea Matt and I talked about, too, is that one of the
employees, at times, is going to come from Sokols. So when the Market’s closed and down for
the night, an employee from there will come down.
MR. TRAVER-So somebody will already be parked there that’s going to be, yes. Okay.
MR. FULLER-But, yes, it’s a fine line.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and sometimes part-time staff gets dropped off and they don’t have a car
in the parking lot.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FULLER-And with that neighborhood, too, but, yes, no, we caught that question.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the Board have anything?
MR. FORD-For the eating area, do you anticipate any noise abatement program? I notice you
have a dinning area.
MR. FULLER-Is there a typo on there? That’s the teacher right there, the educator letting us
know we have a typo.
MR. FORD-I assume it’s probably a dining area as opposed to a dinning area.
MR. SOKOL-Yes, it is.
MR. FULLER-Yes, no dinning areas. No indoor entertainment or anything like that. We had that
discussion with Craig. You’ve crossed the line into other uses when you do that. So that’s, you
know, it’s a simple eating establishment really.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the package that you put together was helpful, because you
even put a menu in there. So, you know, you’ve provided all the big picture information I think
we need to make a decision. Certainly we’re making a recommendation to the Zoning Board
tonight, but, you know, I happen to think that it’s a great use for that site. Since the daycare
center went out, you know, the lot has been pretty empty. Certainly the last week I have been
looking at traffic. I go by there several times a day, and I’m not worried about the parking.
Certainly you’ve got a plan for future parking, if you need it, but I don’t think you’re going to need
it, and even with 40 seats or up to 50 seats, most people will go in a group. A family of four will
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
maybe go together. That’s one car, and so I just don’t think the parking issue is going to be an
issue at all.
MR. OBORNE-Well, do keep in mind that the Code does state it’s one per four chairs. You
brought up about the timing of different uses. You know, certainly the pizza shop will be open
until mid evening, nine or so, and the hair salon, maybe the liquor store closes later hours during
the week, but the bank and the supermarket I think are the big ones that, you know, would tend
to cause the in and out parking, and I think the hours just complement one another with that
plaza. I mean, it’s, instead of having vast amounts of parking, it’s complementary to utilizing the
existing parking, which I think more plazas need to do.
BRAD MAGOWAN, PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATE
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you have all the parking up on Dixon Road, too, and as many times as
I’ve been up and down that road, I’ve never seen that completely full, even when the daycare
was there.
MR. FULLER-Right. I think that’s where you’re going to see the employees, for a lot of the uses
in the plaza. If it does start to fill up, encourage them to use that back parking and then the front
stay open for patrons, of all the businesses, not just the theirs.
MR. FORD-I think you’re going to find that it’ll meet a real need in that area of the community.
MRS. STEFFAN-And there’s plenty of vacant space next door it looks like.
MR. SIPP-Where is the proposed snow removal? Where’s the area for the snow removal that
may or may not be needed?
MR. SOKOL-Well, with last year’s winter obviously we didn’t have to worry about it as much, but
off here is usually where everything gets plowed. I have, in the past, with extreme snowfalls,
especially two years ago, when we had dumped on Valentine’s Day, it was three feet. I actually
had to have some removed. I have a pay loader, a gentleman who works for me, who takes that
away as well. As soon as it becomes an issue, we have it taken away, but this area over here,
pushed out as far, there are some rock barriers in between our place and Dr. Burkich’s. So
once that gets filled up, we usually have it taken away, or they just load it up higher.
MR. SIPP-Are you planning any further landscaping?
MR. SOKOL-Not in that area.
MR. FULLER-Not a lot of exterior changes, again, but the parking is solely so that we can
accommodate additional spaces if we need them.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I certainly think all the façade changes that they made a few years
ago just made the center look great. I mean, it improved that section of Town remarkably.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the only concern was, like I said, you know the feeling is, you know, once
the snow gets so high, you know, having the septic system over there, is where you’d be
pushing the snow, and it looks like you’ve got it right out there at the end, and that comes off of
those three corners or Suzanne’s the proposed and the vacant?
MR. SOKOL-Suzanne is the only one that is on that one.
MR. MAGOWAN-On that one? Okay. And then the other one right behind it, along the
hedgerow. Along the property line, you have another existing septic system.
MR. SOKOL-There are actually two of them over here. One is in the concrete area, and then
there’s another one in the play mulch area. So there are actually two back there. The one back
here is mostly for the daycare center and the restaurant, proposed restaurant if you will, and
then the other one in the mulch area drains actually all of these, and there is no snow that goes
over here, nothing gets piled up over in the back of this area.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. No, I was more worried up there, you know, for the future parking
spaces, you know, because that would just be a little bit more further in, you know, over.
MR. SOKOL-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I don’t think really parking would, I don’t see a huge issue at all.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and those are Site Plan issues as well. We’ll talk about those on
Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-And we’re actually not addressing the Special Use Permit tonight, is that correct?
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. All you’re here for is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone have any other questions or concerns related to the relief that
they’re asking for for our recommendation to the Zoning Board? Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I’m not hearing that there’s any issues related to the ZBA decision.
MR. TRAVER-Nor am I, right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, then I’ll make a recommendation.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2010 FOR MATTHEW SOKOL,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes a Food
Services Use in an existing shopping plaza. Site Plan: Food Service Use in the NC zone
requires a Special Use Permit and Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief
requested from minimum parking space and permeability requirements; and
Whereas, 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; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, 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 THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2010 FOR MATTHEW SOKOL,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll see you Thursday.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you Thursday. Did the Planning Board read the engineering
comments that we got this evening?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s, I do have a few handouts there, obviously, and one is the
engineering comments, which I got late and could not get them out to you. So they’re before
you now, the three projects.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 70-2010 SEQR TYPE II 9099 CORPORATION AGENT(S) MELISSA
LESCAULT OWNER(S) HIP YAU LING & OTHERS ZONING CI LOCATION 909 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE IN USE FROM A RESTAURANT TO A
RETAIL USE. SITE PLAN: RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUIRED FROM NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 59-
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/2010 LOT SIZE 1.41 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-
1-38 SECTION 179-9
MELISSA LESCAULT & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 70-2010, Area Variance 59-2010, 9099 Corporation. Again, this
is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Location 909 State Route 9. Existing
zoning CI or Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant
proposes a change in use from a restaurant to a retail use. Retail Use in a CI zone requires
Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The proposal is located in what was the
Flower Drum Song Restaurant on the corner of the State Route 9 and Weeks Road. The
applicant proposes to modify the building to house a Wine and Liquor store. The applicant
proposes two modifications concerning traffic; one will be to close the northern most curb cut
fronting Route 9 to control site ingress and the other will be a proposed 27 foot wide
interconnect with the Wal-Mart ring road to funnel traffic to the traffic light. This inter-connect
was approved as part of Site Plan 25-2003, the Wal-Mart expansion. I do want to make light of
this following comment. A letter from Wal-Mart indicating their intent to complete or allow the
completion of the portion of the inter-connect on their lands should be submitted prior to
construction. Nature of the Area Variance . We’re looking at two. One is drive aisle width-
Request for 3.1 feet of relief for the northeast parking lot approach, and two is minimum number
of parking spaces-Request for a reduction of 11 spaces; 35 are require, 24 are proposed, as per
179-4-090. Additional comments: New York State Department of Transportation sign-off for
proposed right-of-way work should be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Again, signage should be code compliant. Engineering review is attached, and again, I want to
emphasize, a letter from Wal-Mart indicating their intent to complete or allow the completion of
the portion of the inter-connect on their lands should be submitted prior to construction. With
that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, and I’m
here with Lucas Dobie from Hutchins Engineering. We’re here on behalf of 9099 Corporation,
that is doing business as Monty’s Discount Wine and Liquor, and also present is the property
owner, Monty Liu. As you’re aware that this property was the Flower Drum Song Restaurant,
and the applicant is seeking to change the current use of that property to a wine and liquor
discount store. There are absolutely no structural changes that is being proposed with respect
to this project. We are not planning on proposing any additional impervious surfaces with
respect to this project. Basically as the site exists, the parking area is in non-conformance. It
may actually allot for a grandfathered number of parking lots that would be according to Code.
However, their separation distances do not qualify pursuant to your Code. So we have
proposed a plan that allows for 24 parking spaces, pursuant to the square footage of this
building, we’re supposed to have 35 parking spaces. So we’re here seeking a variance for
those 11 parking spaces. As you know, your Code requires a nine foot wide parking space, as
well as a 20 foot deep parking space. So we have one variance for that 24 parking spaces, and
then the second variance that we’re requesting is for the separation clearance distance when
you back and reverse out of the parking spot to the next distance, which is, in our case, a curb
cut, not, because it’s backing up into a car. So I’m just going to go through our map for you. So,
on our site, we have, this is the structure. This is Route 9. Over here is Wal-Mart. We’re
proposing 15 new spots right here, one parallel space here, three spaces here, and then we’ve
got two handicap spaces right here with basically a loading zone here for the handicap spot, and
then these three spaces right here are new as well. So, when you count all the orange, we’ve
got 24 spots, okay, and we need the 35. What I’ve done is I’ve highlighted in blue the handicap
area. What I would like to do is call your attention to the fact that this is the ramp to the
structure. So it could be possible, I guess if you wanted to move our handicap spaces over
here. However, because of the loading right here, the ramp for the handicap spaces, we’d
prefer to keep it on this side of the building because of the slope of the property. If we were to
move it down here, then you’d have to actually go up slope to have access for handicap
accessibility. So, with that, our separation clearance distance here to this curb is 19.5 feet,
okay, and you need 24 feet. So we’re shy four and a half feet with respect to that one, and then
with respect to this space here, it’s 20.9 feet. So we’re 3.1 feet with respect to that clearance
distance. Again, it’s backing into a curb. It’s not backing into additional parking, which I think is
one of the concerns that you have with respect to your Code and that’s why there’s such a great
distance. That is with respect to just the parking. There are obviously other things that we’re
doing with respect to this site, which we can go into detail with you on, but I didn’t know if that
would, you know, we’d wait until Thursday with respect to that. I’ll briefly mention, we are
closing off an entrance here from Route 9, and then opening an interconnect with Wal-Mart, but
I’ll go into detail with that. If you want us to go into detail tonight we can. I would like to just
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
briefly go over the balancing test with you. The variance will not have a detriment, obviously, to
any of the nearby properties. It does abut Wal-Mart, which is a highly commercial property.
There’s significant parking there. It is along Route 9. So there is heavy traffic. I don’t think that
granting a variance for 24 spots will make a difference with respect to the neighborhood in that
area. The alternatives, we don’t feel it’s going to be necessary to have more than 24 spots with
respect to this site. It would be great for the liquor store if they needed more than 24 spots.
However, we would like to keep the green space that sits behind the structure, so as to not
increase the impervious area of that parcel. With respect to an alternative for the clearance
width, I did go over that with you, as to why we like to keep that handicap accessibility spots to
the, along the Route 9 corridor there, because of the fact that we’d like them to have to go down
slope as opposed to up slope to get to that ramp for the access to the building. Are these
variances substantial? Well, with respect to the demand of more than 24 spots for this particular
use, I don’t believe it’s realistic that we’ll have a demand of more than 24 spaces. I also don’t
believe that a 19% variance with respect to the clearance distance is substantial as well. So I
think that they’re diminimus variance requests. Will the variances have an adverse effect on the
physical or environmental conditions? Actually we believe we’re improving the condition of this
property in order to bring it into more compliance as opposed to the current situation which
actually has a distance of eight feet between each parking space. So, from our opinion, we’re
actually bettering the situation for that project, for that site. Is it self-created? Yes, again, you
could look at this that it is self-created. However, we do feel as though it is an improvement to
the property site, and that it will be more conforming, as opposed to less non-conforming. So
that would complete my presentation with respect to this. Certainly if you have any questions on
the site, feel free to ask myself or Lucas.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I would just make sure that you hear what Keith said about the ring
road. We’ll need to have that in writing. We’re not doing too good with ring roads this year. So
we’d like to get that one down.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you anticipate any problems with Wal-Mart?
MS. LESCAULT-You know what, we haven’t reached out to Wal-Mart, but let me address that. I
do know that a few years back, in their Site Plan Review, and I don’t know if the Board
remembers this. I remember it obviously because we’ve looked at the plans. In their plans, it
says that they are conditioned, upon their approval, to grant this property access. So certainly if
they’d denied it we’d have a very interesting situation with Wal-Mart, but we’re definitely going to
reach out to them and recognize that that would be a condition for our approval.
MR. OBORNE-If I could expand on what Melissa’s saying. She’s 100% correct. It is part of a
condition of the Site Plan, it was on the Site Plan. It wasn’t necessarily a condition of approval,
but it’s on the Site Plan. The only issue that Community Development has is to make sure that
Wal-Mart is on board to allow you to work on their property. That’s really the issue. If they don’t
want that interconnect, they have to come back for Site Plan Review, then. They have to modify
their Site Plan if they’re not going to allow that interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We kind of put Wal-Mart through the ringer on that site, and they made
some major concessions with Ray Supply, and so I would imagine that they would try to avoid
that again.
MR. OBORNE-I would hope.
MS. LESCAULT-Well, I’m actually hoping that our proposal will entice them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Do you have an anticipated time for reaching out to them as you say?
MS. LESCAULT-Actually, Monty’s going to go tomorrow.
MR. FORD-I was hoping you would say that.
MS. LESCAULT-No, actually we did discuss that and he’s going to reach out to a manager that
he knows there to get me in contact with someone who’s, you know, that I can communicate
with on this.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments?
MR. KREBS-I like the idea of going into the ring road and coming out at the traffic light. I think
that’s important.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think that’ll make it much easier, and it is, you know, it’s going to be
difficult. Unfortunately our cars keep getting bigger. So the, you know, the variance that you
need, it’s difficult. The turning radius is difficult if you’ve got a big truck or if you’ve got big, long
car, but, you know, it is the nature of the situation, and, you know, for smaller cars, no big deal,
but for a bigger car, they may have a little more trouble turning around, but again, it’s not that
they’re going to be backing into another parking space. It’s going to be a curb. So there’s a little
more freedom than you would have if it was another parking space. So I could be okay with it.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact I’ve never gone back by Mohan’s when there’s been more than like
three or four cars.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just holidays.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you haven’t been there on the holidays.
MR. KREBS-On average. That’s what I said, when I go to Price Chopper, I don’t notice.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Well, I think the advantage of this site is, you know, a couple of
years down the road, you’re very successful, you have the ability to add more parking on site
and come back for Site Plan modification if you need to. So there is some back up ability in that
respect.
MR. KREBS-And if you look at Monty’s other projects, I’m sure there’s adequate parking,
because he’s not going to turn a customer away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I do have Site Plan
questions that we can talk about Thursday.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tree plantings especially, but I’m not hearing concerns from the Board about
the number of parking spaces.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I would just like to say, when you come back on Thursday, I would like
to go through the Staff Notes item by item, because there’s a lot of outstanding questions that
we have to answer, so we’ll probably go through those one at a time. So if you’re prepared to
answer all those, we’d be in a much better place.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So as far as the Zoning Board recommendation, I’ll put forth the
recommendation.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2010 FOR 9099 CORPORATION,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
909 State Route 9 [Tax Map ID 296.17-1-38]
Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes a change in use
from a restaurant to a retail use. Site Plan: Retail Use in a CI zone requires Planning Board
review and approval. Area Variance: Relief required from number of parking spaces drive aisle
width requirements; and
Whereas, 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; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
Whereas, 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 THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2010 FOR 9099 CORPORATION,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll see you on Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. Yes.
MONTY LIU
MR. LIU-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW:
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2010 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHELE MC KEE
AGENT(S) DARREN MC KEE OWNER(S) KATHLEEN & TERRY MARCANTONIO ZONING
CM LOCATION 11 HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.63
+/- ACRE INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 +/- ACRES AND 8.63 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE
FOUND LOT SIZE 9.63 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-10 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
DARREN MC KEE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 14-2010 for Michelle McKee, requested action is a Sketch Plan
Review. 11 Highland Avenue is the location. This is in the CM zone, Commercial Moderate.
SEQRA Status is N/A at Sketch. Parcel History: There has been none found. Project
Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 9.89 +/- acre parcel into two residential lots
ranging in size from 1.0 to 8.63, and they’re actually not two residential lots. Staff comments:
The applicant proposes, again, to subdivide. The residential use exists on the parcel with the
proposed one acre lot to be utilized for a car lot with office and resulting 8.89 acre lot to continue
as residential, and here, again, we’re here for Sketch Plan, and I’d turn it over to the Board at
this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. MC KEE-How are you? I’m Darren McKee, agent and husband of Michelle McKee, who’s
the owner of the business, and Tony Marcantonio, the current owner of the property. So we’re
looking to subdivide this property into two parcels, one to be 8.89 acres, the other to be 1, which
would meet the subdivision requirements for lot size. Basically what was stated, we want to put
a car lot there. Currently at 473 Dix Avenue and looking to purchase this property and move the
car lot to that location. At this point, we don’t think there’s any issues as far as subdivision,
problems, as far as we may look at, no need for any variance. I have additional comments here
given to me, or mailed to us recently, which are some, you know, ingress and egress of the
proposed site there at the intersection. As you may have seen before, it’s right at the corner of,
kind of at the corner of Highland and Dix. Speaking with DOT, they’ve recommended moving
the entrance to that property all the way to the, if you’re facing the property to the left side of
that, up Dix Avenue. Actually I have a map done that shows the proposed entrance, but that
moves it to the far left of the property, and allows for a much safer entrance and exit of that
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when you say left, you mean west?
MR. MC KEE-That’s correct.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MC KEE-Yes. I’m sorry. There’s been some, or the necessity of having the wetlands
delineated, we’re in the process of getting that set up through Bill Rourke, who is the surveyor
on the property, and so that will be taken care of here very shortly. Also endangered species
documentation and so forth that needs to be taken care of which will be done as well. So, pretty
basic from my standpoint anyway, subdivision application. So if there’s any other questions or
anything, or if Terry’s got anything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions comments from the Board? I had a very general question. When
we look at the tax map that you submitted, are all of those small lots, individual lots that are
shown? Across Dix Avenue, 117, 116 and 115, are those separate lots?
TERRY MARCANTONIO
MR. MARCANTONIO-Yes, let me introduce myself. Terry Marcantonio. My wife and I,
Kathleen, have just recently purchased this property and I do have the full sized scale survey
here from Mr. Rourke, and it’s 9.4 acres total. I mean, granted they’ve etched in those little lots,
but the 9.4 is the whole, all of it, and there’s a paper, I believe a paper street called Rainville
Road that’s not existing, it’s there but obviously not being paved or anything, but it’s there, and
it’s all one piece, 9.4. Any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-So were those lots previously subdivided?
MR. MARCANTONIO-No, not that I’m aware of. I’ve spoken to Mrs. Powers, Natalie Powers,
they were the prior owner, and she was, no subdivision or anything that I’m aware. I’ll be glad to
speak to her again, and go from there, but I don’t believe so. I believe it’s all one parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, actually that one shows it as one.
MR. MARCANTONIO-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I think those are ghosted in, is what there is. The paper street is obviously to
access those lots, an expansion of that neighborhood, but I’m sure they ran into some issues
there, ledge or something, who knows.
MR. MARCANTONIO-It’s an interesting story, because my wife is good friends with the Powers
family, and they go back to the history of the home and the lot and the usage of many years ago,
and she’s bringing up some history books on the house and it’s interesting, it’s a nice project.
It’s a good piece of property. I think it’s going to be something that’s going to be an eyeful
eventually and I hope you see that. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Questions, concerns? I mean, obviously we’ll have the same concern
that DOT and Staff did about the line of sight and the access, and, you know, ingress and
egress.
MR. OBORNE-And I will say that buffering issues may come into play because you’re dealing
with a retail use, car lot in this case, and the property to the east is a residential use, so that is a
Type C buffer, that’s a 50 foot buffer, and you’re going to have to mull that over, too, as a Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Were you aware of that, the buffer requirement?
MR. MARCANTONIO-Yes. No, I’m aware of the buffer requirement. If anyone on the Board
has gone by the property, I mean, you’ll see it’s pretty well grown up and between that house,
and of course I’ll honor their privacy. I’m sure I would, as if I lived there myself, and I’m very
aware of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just, I’m in agreement with the DOT that the access had to be moved down.
That “Y” intersection is a blind turn, and so it’s, the visibility is very poor there. So, that’s really
the only recommendation. They have to, you know, the Staff Notes are comprehensive in that
there’s some things that we need, certainly to review for Site Plan, but that area is just becoming
very commercial.
MR. MARCANTONIO-If I may make a note, I don’t know if any of the members have been by the
property. We’ve cleaned that up because of that. We’ve gone into the driveway, you know,
cleaned up the house, and if you’ve gone by the property and see the brush has been cleaned
up and removed, that’s for the safety of coming out that driveway. We’ve noticed that, because
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
many people, and a high majority seem to come through that, that stop area. They don’t really
stop where they’re supposed to, and then they’re looking the other way. So we cleaned up that
fence up in front of that home. I’m going to light that home up, too, from the outside, so people
will, that’ll open up that whole corridor, and fortunately, you know, as I talked to Mrs. Power she
unfortunately was telling me all the different accidents down the road and all this, and I said
fortunately we haven’t had any, and we will not have any, because we’ll clean that up, light it and
get some lighting in there, and people will stop where they’re supposed to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? I guess we’re all set for this evening.
MR. MARCANTONIO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll see you when you submit your plans.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 FINAL STAGE FRESHWATER WETLAND 4-2010 SEQR TYPE
UNLISTED ERNEST BURNELL AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 419 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.22 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 4 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM 3.0 TO 21.06 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-10 LOT SIZE 34.22 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 271.-1-21 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Just a note for the Board, Paragon Engineering comments are part of your
handout tonight. Subdivision 7-2009, Ernest Burnell is the applicant. This is Final Stage
Subdivision review. This is an Unlisted. A Neg Dec was approved on 8/24/2010. This is in the
RR-3A zone and the location is 419 State Route 149. Again, Project Description: Applicant
proposes subdivision of a 34.22 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots ranging in size from 3.0
to 21.26 +/- acres. What follows is soils and Staff comments. I believe the Board is pretty much
up to speed on this one, being that we did the Long Form a couple of months ago. The only
issues I believe would be to have a condition of approval stating that Site Plan Review is
required for these lots, and from there any engineering issues certainly can be worked out, and
with that I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Nace Engineering, applicant’s engineer. This is Mr. Ernest Burnell,
the owner of the parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. CENTER-We’ve looked at the Staff comments and the engineer’s letter, his comments, in
particular the two that regard the 25 year design storm stormwater management. I believe
we’ve provided the Stormwater Pollution Prevention control plan for the erosion and sediment
control for the site, and as we talked in previous meetings, and I believe in the, talking with Mr.
Nace, in the preliminary, having each individual lot come back for Site Plan Review, I believe the
best place to address the stormwater management for the driveway portions and the homes is
during the individual lot stormwater development. That way we’re not going through an exercise
for the main driveway of, you know, linear feet of infiltration trench or ponds, and the road may
not go there. If all these lots are coming back, we would have no problem with a condition that
when it comes back for individual lot Site Plan Review. Providing that documentation is very
easy to do. We’ve got good soils. We know we’re away from the, you know, wetlands, any
issues that are there that would preclude us from taking care of the stormwater, and that’s
probably the best place to do it in the individual lots when we know exactly where these houses
and the driveways are going, and we can address the 25 year design storm and do it, you know,
once.
MR. FORD-It makes sense to me.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I was a little surprised with the letter that came back from
Paragon. I mean, my comments, when we were here for Preliminary, is that there were some
minor engineering comments, and they didn’t seem to be real consistent with the August.
MR. CENTER-There’s some new and old Code issues, some multiple layers within the
stormwater, when you get through it, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. When you
get into residential lots only and disturbance less than five acres, you don’t have to get into the
water quality controls and the stormwater. You have to just provide for erosion and sediment
control. So that’s what this SWPPP in particular addresses erosion and sediment control. The
individual lots will address the stormwater issues for the driveways, the houses, and there’s no
Town road also. So there’s not a huge disturbance of land, and stormwater to manage. It’s
more or less a wider residential driveway for emergency access, and that. So there’s some new
Code issues that we’re still working out between everybody.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the Staff comments is regarding the 50 foot radius of slopes
equal to or greater than 15%, and what we had talked about, as a condition of approval, is to
state that, you know, no homes shall be constructed within 50 feet of a 15% or greater slope,
and then of course it would be verified during Site Plan Review.
MR. CENTER-Exactly. Yes, sir.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if I could comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Just to recycle what Tom’s saying about the engineering comments, and I’m
certainly not speaking for Clark. I’m not going to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We won’t let you.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you, but knowing how he ticks, to a certain extent, I think that if any plan is
offering up a stormwater device, in this case an infiltration trench, you’d want to show the
methodology, and I think that’s all he’s looking for is that you come up with the sizing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s all, and I just want to make that clear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that helps make sense of the comments.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. FORD-Thanks, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-I didn’t want to leave him out, hanging out to dry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So individual Site Plan Review, though, for each lot, as it’s developed, will
handle that issue.
MR. OBORNE-If the Planning Board does not have any issue with what Mr. Center is saying,
that’s fine, I don’t, either, to be honest with you, then there’s really no requirement for an
engineering signoff on this, because you’re going to have to have an individual engineer signoff
for each lot. Just keep in mind we’re doing a subdivision here, lines on paper.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Previously, though, we were only talking about Site Plan Review for
Lots Two and Four, not all four of them.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and he wants to see it for all four, at this point, is what his notes say.
MR. CENTER-Two, three and four out of the four. Lot One is an existing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Lot One is existing.
MR. CENTER-Lot One is existing. So it would be two, three, and four, so we’d be including one
additional lot.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think the applicant, you don’t have a problem with that?
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, you said no homes will be constructed on slopes greater than, was it 15
or 20% you said?
MR. HUNSINGER-No homes shall be constructed within 50 feet of 15% or greater slope, and
that’s basically what Keith had said in his comments.
MR. OBORNE-Well, a home can be constructed. They just have to come in for Site Plan
Review. That’s the intent, is to have you all look closer at it, if it’s constructed near slopes of
those magnitudes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CENTER-So if we’re coming back for all of them, does that condition require that, if I’m
reading you right, the Code says that if we construct a house within 50 feet of the 15% slope,
you have to come to Site Plan Review.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-SO I guess what you’re saying is that we don’t really need that condition
because we’re requiring you to come in anyway.
MR. CENTER-Is if we’re bringing all three of these lots back for Site Plan Review, then we can
discuss those issues at the time, and we’ll have a better design of the house. We’ll know exactly
what the folks want to build. We’ll know where it’s going. We’ll know what the stormwater
issues are, and take it from there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Then I guess really the only special condition is Site Plan
Review for each of the three lots.
MR. CENTER-All three lots, Lots Two, Three, and Four.
MRS. STEFFAN-There was a question on, in the Staff Notes, Page S-3, Number Three,
proposed 50 foot wide future access located on Lot Three appears to be located through the
leachfield.
MR. CENTER-Right, and we’ve moved that. That was moved at Preliminary to the, it would be
the south side of that parcel instead of the north side, if you look at, where it says Lot Three and
then you go to the right, that 50 foot, that access is moved to the north side. It was here and it’s
moved. We did that during Preliminary to address that comment, and that’s just interconnecting
and the other projects. It’s really, there’s nothing in mind. That came up during Sketch, I
believe. That was a condition during Sketch, I think, that was brought up. So all we did is we
moved it over to the opposite side of the property line.
MR. OBORNE-I still see it on here, though. I still see it. We’re talking Lot Three?
MR. CENTER-Lot Three. You see the disturbance which is a double dashed line that goes
around the parcel for that proposed house, but the 50 foot wide access, I can show you the final,
these are the final ones.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’m looking at S-2. I see what you did here. I was looking at S-2, it still
shows it.
MR. CENTER-S-2 is on the wrong one? Okay. The surveyor didn’t change it on this drawing.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I didn’t catch that. All right.
MR. CENTER-When they updated the contours, that didn’t get moved over. So we’ll move that
over.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’ll need to correct the drawing on S-2.
MR. CENTER-Yes, to match this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? There’s no public hearing. This is Final. So if there’s no
other comments or concerns, I think the only condition is to update the drawing.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, Site Plan Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2010 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
419 State Route 149 [Tax Map ID 271.-1-21]
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 +/- acre lot into 4 lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.06
+/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/2010 & 9/30/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record; and
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2010 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
c)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)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
e)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; and
f)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
1.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.
2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
g) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
1.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
2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
h) This is approved with the following conditions:
a) That Site Plan Review will be required for each lot as it is developed on Lots Two,
Three and Four.
b) The second condition is that the applicant will modify Drawing S-2 to match S-3
regarding Lot Three and the 50 foot wide future access.
c) It is the opinion of the Planning Board that the outstanding engineering comments
will be addressed during the Site Plan Review of each of the three lots as they’re
developed.
Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2010, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-If you could make it clear on what, how you feel about the engineering
comments. We just had a discussion about the engineering comments, and it seemed that Tom
has a cogent argument that would, you know, preclude a signoff from the engineer. I don’t know
what the Board wants to do with that, because it is part of the approval process that engineer’s
signoff is required.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, our understanding is that the engineering comments will be addressed
when we do Site Plan Review of each of the individual three sites.
MR. OBORNE-If you could add that to your resolution, that would give direction to Clark to not
worry about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And how would you phrase this?
MR. HUNSINGER-The outstanding engineering comments, it is the opinion of the Planning
Board that the outstanding engineering comments will be addressed during the Site Plan
Review of each of the three lots as they’re developed. Thank you, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-You’re welcome.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. CENTER-If I could just address the Board for just a moment in regards to the Poirier
subdivision. We are currently working out some legal issues with the legal easement from the
Twin Channels, that parcel, Big Bay. We’re down to one parcel crossing. Hopefully we’ll have
that finalized in the next week or so. You’ll be receiving a letter basically requesting us to be
th
tabled to the January meeting, so that we could submit December 15 for the January meeting.
So we’re going to ask that it be tabled for another month while we settle any legal issues there
are with the easement access to that parcel.
MR. FORD-Good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks.
MR. CENTER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-We appreciate that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And good luck, Mr. Burnell.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEQR TYPE N/A FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC AGENT(S)
DENNIS PHILLIPS; HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC ZONING LC-
10A LOCATION LAND LOCKED PROPERTY WEST OF FRENCH MOUNTAIN APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVESTING OF TREES 15” AND LARGER ON A MULTIPLE
PARCELS TOTALING +/- 318 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE & QUEENSBURY
ON FRENCH MOUNTAIN. TIMBER HARVESTING IN THE LC-10A ZONE REQUIRES
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO.
PLANNING 12/10/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 167.31 +/- ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 265.-1-28 SECTION 179-6-010C
MELISSA LESCAULT & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-I think the Planning Board remembers this application from two years ago.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 50-2008. It’s French Mountain Forest. It was formerly General Timber.
Site Plan Review for timber harvesting is the requested action. Melissa, ask if they’ll accept
that, first.
MS. LESCAULT-I’m sorry. Will you accept my additional proposed findings of fact? They’ve
just been updated from the last time that we submitted them.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure I understand what it is.
MS. LESCAULT-I’m sorry. Melissa Lescault. I’m the attorney for the applicant, French
Mountain Forest, LLC. What I have done, in preparation for tonight, is my written submission,
it’s basically my narrative, again, basically 95% of this has already been submitted in copies to
our applications from Lake George, but I’ve just updated it to include, more specifically the
things for Queensbury. I just wanted to hand it in to you as basically written comments of what
I’m going to say verbally tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, if it’s a written version of comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-As long as there’s nothing that we have to review, because we’re, our policy is
we’re not accepting things the night of the meeting. We’re obviously not going to read it.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay.
MR. FORD-We’ll listen intently.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we hold the hand out of the materials until
after her presentation, and see if we need it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Keith. Sorry.
MR. OBORNE-I shall continue. Site Plan Review for timber harvesting is the requested action.
The location is landlocked property on the west slope of French Mountain. Existing zoning is LC
or Land Conservation 10 acres. SEQRA Status is Type I. Lead Agent Town of Lake George
Planning Board. Project Description: Applicant proposes to harvest timber 15 inches and
greater in diameter at breast height off of a 168 +/- acre parcel on the west slope of French
Mountain. No clearing cutting proposed. According to the applicant, the initial plan was for the
harvesting of timber of 14 inches and greater DBH, however, concerns with respect to the
steepness of slopes and potential erosion issues as a result has given rise to an increase in the
size of trees to be harvested. Staff Comments: This application was initially submitted for
review on 11/15/08 and has been through several revisions to date. The environmental review,
after a determination ruling concerning the designation lead agency status by DEC, was
conducted by the Town of Lake George Planning Board and a SEQR Negative Declaration was
issued on July 6, 2010. The applicant proposes to harvest approximately 138 acres of the 168.
I do go on to state what was previously submitted, and in bold I’m going to read what I have
written down. These calculations will need to be updated to reflect the increase in the diameter
of trees to be taken on the land in the Town of Queensbury. Additionally, the existing and
residual basal areas of the stand should be submitted for review in order to gauge the impact
this will have on the parcel; percentages submitted is not an accurate representation of the
harvesting operation. What I did receive today from counsel from the applicant, or was that from
Kurt or was that from you?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MS. LESCAULT-It was just my cover letter, Keith, but it was Kurt’s estimates.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Right, is before you also, and it talks about the DBH. I haven’t had any
time to review that, just to let you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-To continue. The project also includes 150 acres on adjacent property in the
Town of Lake George. Access to this parcel is from Bloody Pond Road, in the Town of Lake
George, through other lands, and again, the proposal calls for harvested trees to be skidded to a
landing in Lake George on upgraded old harvesting/skid trails as well as new trails. Soils
follows. I think we’re pretty familiar with the soils here. I do want to bring to the attention, Page
S-5, One, Two, and Three, if you haven’t read that already, it is concerned with post season
wrap up, seasonal wrap up, and post harvest wrap up. We feel, as Staff, that those are
important conditions that should be placed on this, if you deem this application worthy of
approval. I will go to additional comments. The applicant may require a DEC Stream Crossing
Permit. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain of the applicant if in fact this is a
requirement. A DEC letter has been submitted for endangered species. You should have that
attached. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain whether the applicant proposes to harvest
the area on the southeastern most portion of the parcel south of the denoted no-cut zone. Best
Management Practices for water quality should be incorporated, which I think the forester is
incorporating that, and, again, timber harvest should be accomplished during winter and or dry
periods to mitigate ground disturbance, and again, existing basal area and residual has been
submitted. It was submitted this morning, and just a little background on the Town of Lake
George. They have used and utilized the services of Dick Sipperly on this plan. He’s very
familiar with this site. I think he was the driving force on increasing that size of residual basal
area from 14 to 15, not residual basal area, but the size of the harvest, and I think that had to do
with the slopes, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault from McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum, and
I’m here on behalf of French Mountain Forest, LLC, the property owner of this timber harvest
project that’s proposed before you tonight. Also with me is Tom Hutchins, our engineer, and
Kurt Kostinan is here. He is our forester for this project, and Bernice McPhillips who is the
property owner is also present with us tonight. As you know, this project for Timber Harvest has
evolved over the course of two years. We have received a Site Plan Review approval in the
Town of Lake George. We’ve also received an environmental SEQRA Negative Declaration, as
you know, in July of this past summer. Tonight we’re before you to receive an approval for the
Site Plan Review with respect to the property that’s under your jurisdiction in the Town of
Queensbury. The property, as you know, straddles both the municipalities of the Town of
Queensbury as well as Lake George. It consists of 318.57 acres. It is also Bloody Pond Road,
about 1,515 feet of the property are actually on Bloody Pond Road, and that how you’d gain
access to this parcels, I say parcels because it’s multiple tax map parcels. The property, for the
most part, is bounded on the north, the east, as well as the south by forest land property. The
McPhillips family has owned this property since 1937. So, for 73 years, they have owned and
maintained this property as forest land for almost a century, at least three quarters of which.
With DEC approval, in 1974, as you’re aware, the property received a Certificate of Eligibility for
forest land. That certification states, if you can bear with me for a second, that an applicant
believes that these forest lands will produce a crop of marketable timber or pulp wood within 30
years, and to that end agrees to prevent grazing of the area by domestic animals, and by all
reasonable means to protect the trees from damage by fire, insects and disease and to devote
said lands primarily to the growth of forest products. Also the applicant agrees that in
accordance with Section 480, they will notify the assessors no less than 30 days prior to any
proposed harvest cutting of timber on this tract. So, as such, this property has been devoted to
forest management with the State backed incentive to harvest the property after 30 years. This
application started a few years back when the property was in this certification program for at
least 34 years. So that’s why we are here tonight. As you know, or I’m going to remind you, that
the APA has issued a letter of non-jurisdiction with respect to this harvest plan. So we did not
need to get a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency because it does not meet their threshold
for a clear cut. So I wanted to basically go over with you what the timber harvest plan is with
respect to this property. Tom, can you flip to the Queensbury, the section that goes to the
zoning. I think it’s S-3. Okay. Tom, can you just highlight where the Queensbury portion of the
property is to the Board?
MR. HUTCHINS-The Queensbury parcel is this almost triangular shape.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay. That consists, that tax lot in the Town of Queensbury consists of 168
acres. Okay. As you can see in the cross section area, that is what we have as a no cut zone,
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
and that’s because of the slopes on the property. So we have a no cut zone. The Staff Notes
had asked that we come up with a calculation with respect to how much acreage that actually is
for our tax parcel in Queensbury, Queensbury alone, and it’s 30 acres, okay. So we have 168
acres in Queensbury, of which 30 acres is a no cut zone. So we’re now down to 138 acres with
respect to what our timber harvest management plan consists of. What we’re actually cutting is
9.3% of the trees that are in that zone, in that 138 acres. Now, I know you didn’t get a chance
to receive this. I don’t know if Keith made copies. That’s part of what my submission was, was
the estimates because we revised them.
MR. OBORNE-You made copies in there.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay, and they have them?
MR. OBORNE-They have them.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay, good. So basically our original figures had a cut at 14 inches DBH.
When we went through the Lake George planning process, we actually conceded to a higher cut
for aesthetic purposes. So we increased the DBH to 15 inches DBH, which changed our
calculations. So now when you look at what the total trees are, from six inches or higher, with
respect to the 138 acres that remain, we have 26,358 estimated trees, okay. We are only
cutting from 15 inches above 9.3%. Your actual Code defines an extensive clearing in
Queensbury at 50%, 15 inch DBH, as six inch. So we’re talking, we have 9.3, less than 10%.
Whereas your Code actually talks about a 50% threshold. The residual basal area results in
approximately 70 square feet per acre on average. The residual basal area is more than two
times that what is required by the APA for a clear cut. They actually require that you have to
have a residual basal area of 30 square feet, and we’re going to have 70. So we have more
than two times that, and in your Code, I believe it is also 30 square feet from what I looked up
today. So again we’re two times the amount, the residual basal area that’s required pursuant to
the Code. I wanted to basically go over those with you because I know that the figures were
incorrect when we originally submitted the application. So at this point, if you have any
questions with respect to that, we can go over it, but what I actually would like right now is Tom
to go through the sheets with respect to our harvest plan on the engineering, if that’s okay with
you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to walk through the
information you have in front of you, and the first sheet, S-1, is simply the layout of the parcel,
the location relative to the Village of Lake George, the Northway. This is Bloody Pond Road,
and again, this is, this portion and this portion of the parcel are in the Town of Lake George, and
this portion is in Queensbury. Presently, there is access to the site off Bloody Pond Road right
here. This is an abandoned, well, not abandoned. It’s an existing logging road that’s been there
for years, and years and years, and that will be our primary up the hill access, and this map is
similar, although it just has zoning classifications within the Town. Here we’re in LC-10A, in the
Queensbury portion, and this defines, again, the area we’re going to hit, topography, the no cut
zones. Again, it’s, the no cut zone total is 39 acres, 30 of that is in the Town of Queensbury,
which is this area here, and that’s on the northerly most slopes facing Lake George, and it’s
relatively steep. This is a rough layout of how we propose to access the site with equipment.
Again, the primary up and down access will be the existing logging path or logging road that’s
there. We’ve got temporary skid trails that are primarily across the slope, running across the
contours, again, the up and down would be this, and across slope on the skid trails. Now, there
are some exceptions to that. To get to certain areas, there’s a couple of sections that our skid
trails get a little steep. In here it’s upwards of 20%, and there was another area, short section in
here, I believe it’s upwards of 20%. The State Forestry guidelines recommends keeping them
under 25%, which, in general we have. We’ve shown, we went through with Lake George and
their Town Engineer, we went through a multi phase review on how we’re going to control
erosion on these skid paths, and it’s fundamentally simple. You need to get the water off the
skid path as quickly as you can, and that sounds simple, but it doesn’t. Depending on the field
conditions, it can be difficult because the water likes to run down the road, and the longer the
water runs down the road, the more damage it does. So, in forestry vernacular, they use water
bars, they use diversion dips. All of these have come out of New York State’s Best
Management Practices for Forestry Guide, and we’ve been through it with, both with Lake
George’s engineer and their consulting forester. We’ve scheduled, based upon the average
slope of each particular skid path, how many of these should be in, and how far apart they
should be placed on an average basis, again, to be clarified in the field. These are a small
classified stream that runs through this portion of the parcel. We do intend to cross it in this
area, in the Town of Lake George. Yes, it will require a stream crossing permit from DEC, and
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
we do not know, at this point, if we’re going to cross it in this portion. If we do, it depends on
what’s in this little area. It looks like a little area, but it may be a two or three or four acres, and if
there’s timber on it, we will likely apply for a stream crossing permit and harvest it. Again, these
are just erosion control practices, layout schedules and notes. This is a detailed erosion control
plan that it’s totally within the Town of Lake George, but it’s actually the reason I became
involved in this project was to pull this together. It’s erosion controls around the header area.
We went through a considerable process in Lake George with where we were going to locate
the header, being where they skid the logs down to and the logs are cut up and loaded on trucks
and then the trucks access out here. Log trucks would come as far as here, and the rest of it
would be skidders, and we went through numerous iterations. Initially the project started with a
header that was three acres in size. Now it’s just about a half an acre. The amount of
equipment on the project has been scaled down. What did we start with?
KURT KOSTINAN
MR. KOSTINAN-We had like five or six skidders, now we’re like two or three.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So the amount of equipment o the project has been scaled down, and
the header has been, we’ve been there in the field. We’ve been there with their engineer, with
Board members. This has been surveyed, and it’s actually a permanent erosion control plan.
It’s not sticks and straw. It’s rocks and walls, or rocks and culverts. So, it’s, there’s a fair
amount of detail to it, and we’re, and again, it would be permanent. The header would be
stabilized with vegetation, sediment trenches and ditches and rock check dams and all will
remain permanently. The road would be re-stabilized, and the roads and all the skid trails will
be re-stabilized after the harvest. There are provisions on here for seasonal wrap up. There are
periods of the year where we will not be operating, mud season being the predominant one, and
there is a seasonal wrap up schedule there, and there are permanent erosion control provisions
for post harvest, which include inspection by our forester and the forester that is retained to
oversee the project on behalf of Lake George. This is a 50 foot no cut area around both Bloody
Pond Road and the residential. Actually when we get back here there are some residences, not
that we’re in Lake. There are a number of residents here. We’ve got a 50 foot no cut buffer
area around those area, those residents. Finally, this is just where we started with on the
original landing and this is, again, in Lake George. This was the original landing area, then it
was proposed to something like this, and then it was brought down to a half an acre, and that is
the information you have in front of you, in drawing form anyway, and we’ll do our best to answer
questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? It’s certainly a lot more detailed than
what we had a year ago, the last time you were here.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. LESCAULT-It’s certainly evolved, I mean, since then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-A lot’s gone into it.
MR. SIPP-Would there be any winter operations?
MS. LESCAULT-It will be, the harvest will actually take place non mud season. So it’ll be in the
dry season as well as in the winter season.
MR. SIPP-Yes, when the ground’s froze.
MS. LESCAULT-Exactly.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Is there a plan for the cleanup of the landing and the header?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there’s a plan for re-stabilization of the header with vegetation, and we
decided, between Lake George’s engineer and I, that the actual stormwater controls that are
there are permanent of nature and they can just remain, but the landing itself will be re-
vegetated.
MR. OBORNE-If I could interject. I mean, we’re here just for the lands in Queensbury, not
anything to do with Lake George. It’s already been approved there, and some of the
engineering comments did speak to the lands of Lake George which, for lack of a better term,
are kind of off bounds, because they’ve already been approved. So if you could just look at it
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
from the point of view of the 138 acres they’re proposing on timbering in Queensbury, and I think
that would be wise.
MR. TRAVER-Just to clarify the, I’m sorry, Keith, are you through?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if Don was through. I’m sorry.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’m concerned about the runoff down to, what is that road, Bloody Pond, which
goes by an intermittent stream, which ends up in Lake George, and I want to make sure that we
don’t get any oil, kerosene, anything like that. This is both hardwood and softwood you’re going
to be cutting?
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MR. SIPP-At 25 inches DBH.
MR. HUTCHINS-Fifteen.
MR. SIPP-Fifteen.
MR. FORD-Fifteen.
MR. SIPP-All right. That’s all.
MR. FORD-I’ve got a concern. I thought that perhaps the change from 14 to 15 DBH was as a
result of how long it’s taken the application to gain approval. I mean, we’re talking about the
same trees.
MR. HUTCHINS-The same trees.
MS. LESCAULT-I was thinking about that as I was reviewing this as well, Tom. Over the course
of two years it’s certainly gone two inches.
MR. FORD-In terms of actual anticipated harvest of trees, how many are we talking about?
MR. HUTCHINS-How many trees?
MS. LESCAULT-Well, if you look at the schedule that was submitted to you, we are talking
2,457 trees, which, again, is 9.3% of the total trees that are above six inches DBH in that 138
acres.
MR. OBORNE-What’s the basal area?
MS. LESCAULT-The original basal area is 106 square feet per acre, and the residual post
harvest will be 70 square feet per acre.
MR. FORD-That’s where I was going with it. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-And just to address the harvesting operations again, this is going to be only in the
winter time, is that correct?
MS. LESCAULT-And the dry season.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’re proposing summer, working on this in the summer as well?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes. Right, Kurt?
MR. KOSTINAN-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. OBORNE-Is that typically August?
MR. KOSTINAN-Usually June, July, August.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. KOSTINAN-And then early September. Quite often it’s 90 degrees in early September.
MR. OBORNE-And I think, and not to, if I may interject, is that when a forester sees weather
patterns coming, they’re going to stop, ostensibly. So, typically that’s what a forester would do.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions from the engineer was what will happen with the tree
debris?
MS. LESCAULT-And actually I’m going to leave that to Kurt to talk about, because it actually
helps out our erosion control, the way that we’re going to handle the, go ahead, Kurt.
MR. KOSTINAN-I’m Kurt Kostinan, the forester.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on Queensbury land as well as Lake George.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes. It is. No, you’re absolutely correct. It is on both.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KOSTINAN-Yes. The debris is called slash, and it’s the top of the tree that is non
merchantable, what you cannot haul to the landing, and basically it’ll be cut down to knee level
or lower, and essentially it helps distribute rainfall. When you have storms come in, rain will hit
the branches. The velocity and the rate, the speed and the rate of rain coming down is what you
want to slow down. The high speed of rain, you want to slow that down, so as it hits branches
and whatever close to the ground it disperses, and you have like tens of thousands of little
branches all through the woods which will divert water, it will slow water down. That type of
thing, and it’s good for the forest. It’s good for nutrients in the future. Thirty years from now (lost
words) or forty years, whatever it is, there’ll be more nutrients there and the trees grow faster.
MR. SIPP-It’s also good for fire protection when you cut it closer to the ground.
MR. KOSTINAN-Exactly.
MR. SIPP-The snow gets wetter sooner and it breaks down quicker.
MR. KOSTINAN-Exactly, and the State top lopping is, you know, three inches on softwood. So
you have to do that, but all of it will be knee height and lower, and it helps the forest.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other issues under the engineering comments that you feel
that you can’t address? I assume that you had reviewed those?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, we did. Tom, do you want to talk about it more? It’s more engineering
comments from.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think we have no issue with involving Queensbury’s Zoning Administrator or
his designee in our start up and shut down meetings. I don’t think we have an issue with that.
MS. LESCAULT-The one thing, I just want to comment on. Certainly this applicant has gone
through a rigorous process with respect to this application, and we have absolutely no problem
with the Town of Queensbury coming to review things, but can we just condition it so that it’s
staff? So that we’re not paying for an outside, you know, forester. We have two foresters that
are now on the property that are going to be overseeing everything, and we’re paying for our
one that we are, we’ve hired, but we’re also paying for the one through the Town of Lake
George. So we certainly do not object to Queensbury staff being on site and making that a
condition of this. We would just like it that we don’t have to go out of pocket again and pay for
someone else to also. That’s really our only concern. Otherwise, yes, we’re in agreement. Go
ahead, Tom. I’m sorry.
MR. HUTCHINS-Other comments. Kurt just hit Number Four. Number Five, and again, before,
I will comment on them, but I think Five, Six and Seven are all on the erosion plan that we went
through extensively with Lake George and their engineer, but as to, it’s not clear what’s
permanent and what’s temporary, well, the thing that’s permanent is the sediment basin, and it’s
indicated as being permanent and the rest of it will be stabilized. The diversion ditching, and I
didn’t grade out the diversion ditch, but we stood there in the field and looked at it, and t he
diversion ditch will function in that manner, and likewise with Seven, that’s, again, on the
diversion ditch in Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board on this project? Were there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing.
KIMBERLY FEENEY
MS. FEENEY-I have one comment.
MR. OBORNE-If you could come on up and state your name for the record, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if you could state your name for the record.
MS. FEENEY-Sure. My name is Kimberly Feeney, and I’m from Queensbury, the property that
borders this property, and how long are you talking about harvesting it for? Is it just for like how
many period, one year period and then waiting the 30 years, or is it going to be over?
MR. KOSTINAN-Yes. We’re looking at up to, approximately three years on this.
MS. FEENEY-Okay.
MR. KOSTINAN-But we want to get it done as fast as we can. We don’t want to be there for
three years.
MS. FEENEY-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I know when you were here in the earlier meetings there
was a lot of concern mentioned about the loss of income, you know, the longer reviews and the
longer that the harvesting took place.
MS. FEENEY-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-But we also agreed, in Lake George, to scale down the amount of equipment
and the amount of trucks that we had going in and out of there on a daily basis.
MR. OBORNE-I believe you also were given a Use Variance, also, to harvest the lands that
were not allowed to be harvested in the Town of Lake George.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, for a small portion of the property.
MR. OBORNE-It is a small portion, absolutely.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Gretchen. Did you have a comment you wanted to make?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the comment that I have is there’s a couple of outstanding things. We
just received the statistics from Kurt, and our Land Use Planner has not had the time to review
those yet, and so, you know, based on how long we’ve waited for this process, I just, I don’t think
I’d feel right approving it tonight. However, I know that your season is coming, and you probably
need to get started in January, and so I was wondering if the Board might consider tabling this,
so that they can come back at a December Planning Board meeting. That means we would
push the window a little bit. Instead of submission deadline, which was two days ago, we could
th
give them until the 30. Well, next week’s Thanksgiving week. So if we gave them until the
Tuesday after that to submit, they’ve got most of the materials here. There’s a few things that
they I think will have to address based on Staff Notes, but then if they came back in the
December meeting, we would have the Land Use Planner who had reviewed the statistics to
make sure that they were okay, and we could satisfy the Paragon comments that were there,
and then we could go forward, you know, knowing that all of the materials are in the package
and it is complete. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. Keith, does that sound
reasonable to you?
MR. OBORNE-I think it’s reasonable. I think the engineering comments are easily taken care of,
and from what I’ve seen so far, there hasn’t been really any glaring klaxons with what was
submitted today, and with which I’ve only really given a cursory review at this point. I’m actually
ambivalent either way, to be honest with you. If you want to table it, I have no problem, and if
you want to approve it I really have no problem, to be honest with you.
MR. KREBS-Rather than wait, I’d rather approve it with the condition that they comply to the,
you know, get engineering signoff.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So would, I.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-And we’d prefer that.
MR. FORD-I’m for approval with condition.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So am, I.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now what about all of the conditions, Keith, in your Staff Notes. You’ve got,
you know, Page S-5 all those comments that, you know, should be on the drawings. Then the
timber harvesting, you know, there should be notations. We can put conditions on those. We
can define winter and we can define the dry seasons if we want to. It’s going to be restrictive for
the applicant, though, and the other things, about the stream crossing permits. Obviously Mr.
Hutchins addressed that, but do we want that on a drawing? I guess, I need to know what’s
going to make the plan complete, so that when we give an approval, they’re ready to go and
there are no questions.
MR. OBORNE-From my point of view, S-5 is extremely important, from Staff’s point of view.
That just gives us some compliance teeth, so to speak, and I don’t think the applicant has any
issues with that, to be honest with you.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we don’t have any problems with that. We don’t have a problem with.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think the applicant addressed one of my concerns, and that was on that
upper reach, or lower reach, in this case, the southwestern portion on the other side of the
stream, if that’s going to be harvested. It looks like it’s all softwood there, but.
MR. HUTCHINS-And until we get there and inspect it and see what’s over there, we don’t know.
If we have to, if we choose to go there, we will need to get a stream crossing permit, and every
logger is aware that when he crosses a stream he needs to get a stream crossing permit. That’s
our obligation with DEC, and we’re all aware of that. If we go there, we have to get a stream
crossing permit.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, those four acres there, I’m assuming it’s about four acres, somewhere
around there, I mean, what does that, how does that skew your basal area? Does it? Probably
not too much. I think the only concern I have is are you crossing that stream?
MR. HUTCHINS-And the answer is we don’t know yet, but if we do, we have to, we are crossing
that stream, further downstream.
MR. OBORNE-I know you are.
MR. HUTCHINS-We know that.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the Lake George property.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-If we cross that stream, we need to get a stream crossing permit and we’re
aware of that.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s fine. I don’t have much of an issue with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s really their obligation. We don’t have to govern that or we don’t have to
oversee that.
MS. LESCAULT-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-They know they have to do that. Okay.
MR. KREBS-Right. That’s DEC.
MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I have is you had prepared those documents to pass out to
the Board. Is there anything in there that we have not already discussed?
MS. LESCAULT-No. Absolutely everything that is in here right now is, you’ve already actually
received the bulk of it. It’s the property history. The narrative with respect to the 480 Application
Certification which is already in your file. The only thing that has changed on here are the
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
calculations. I extrapolated the 14 inch DBH, and put in the calculations for the 15 DBH, which I
went over with you in detail. That’s the only difference.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the same information that’s on this November 16?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. LESCAULT-I attached those same calculations to the back here as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about the DEC Best Management Practice for Water Quality
should be incorporated and followed during the harvest. Is that a given or does that have to be
a condition?
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s on our plans that’s submitted, and we’ve committed within the application.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, that we would comply with those Best Management Practices.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MS. LESCAULT-And that’s both for Queensbury as well as Lake George. That was part of the
application process with them, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now, do we have to limit the, it’s dry season, dry period and winter. Are we
going to allow the applicant that discretion, do we regulate it? How does the Board feel?
MR. KREBS-Well, I think you have to let them have their discretion because there are going to
be years that you’re going to have more snow and more runoff in the Spring. So it’s going to be
a later time, and other times you don’t have any snow and you don’t have any runoff. So it’s
going to be an earlier time.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, unless you know what the weather’s going to be.
MR. KREBS-Yes, unless you can predict the weather, which I can’t.
MR. HUTCHINS-And there are times during July that it may be wet.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I agree. I think it’s variable, and I do think that the post season harvest
wrap up is the key. I really do. That those are stabilized and correctly installed.
MR. FORD-Good point.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course we do have it in the plan that Staff and the engineer will be
(lost word). One of the questions that I had, and we had had some discussion in the past about,
you know, the Town engaging an engineer or an expert or a specialist when we needed one.
Now if Dick Sipperly is representing the Town of Lake George, what’s the comfort level for the
Town of Queensbury? I mean, if we were to say, I mean, is there a way for us to more formalize
our interests with him as well, is I guess what would be my question.
MR. OBORNE-I think that that’s something that it would be logical to pursue. I can’t answer that
at this point. I would have to talk to Tom Jarrett, and I would have to talk to Dick Sipperly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, he’s going to be there representing the Town of Lake
George.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think it’s conceivable that there may be an instance where maybe the
Town of Queensbury’s isn’t being represented.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because it’s different from Lake George’s?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know. I want to have the discussion. That’s why I wanted to
bring it up.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. OBORNE-I was under the impression that he was funded by Lake George. I did not know
he was funded by the applicant. So that’s another. I was totally under the impression that Lake
George was picking up the tab on that.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-They’re not. You are.
MS. LESCAULT-We are. Yes, no, no, no, believe me.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and it’s on the lands in Lake George only that we’re talking about that he’s
being paid for, and I don’t really have, I don’t know what their agreement is.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know what their agreement is.
MS. LESCAULT-You know, I’m going to be honest with you. It would be my understanding, with
respect to this project, considering that Queensbury is upslope, he’s going to be reviewing
what’s going on upslope as well, because anything that happens upslope it going to affect down
slope, down gradient on this project. So if there’s any concern that something has gone wrong
or astray upslope, he’s going to have to actually review it and comment, because it’s going to
affect the down slope portion of Lake George. That certainly would be, I mean, tell me if I’m
wrong, Bernice.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s very logical.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s really no way to separate.
MS. LESCAULT-I don’t know that you necessarily, I mean, I’m not going to say that you
shouldn’t also consult with him. However, I think that part of his project, in reviewing this entire
timber harvest management project, is going to also entail seeing what’s going on, because it’s
interconnected. It’s not as if you have, I mean, your skid trails are crossing all over. I don’t see
how he can just review Lake George property and not also look at Queensbury.
MR. FORD-I see the logic in that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-I just want to make sure Queensbury interests are served.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think to a certain extent Queensbury’s interested are tied to the Code
Compliance department, staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-We do have a Staff member who is quite knowledgeable on the forestry issues,
that would be Bruce Frank, and that’s one of the reasons why I wanted those S-5 comments on
there, because I know that, I consult with him.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course if he’s not comfortable with something that’s going on, he’s
going to alert enforcement.
MR. OBORNE-He’ll let everybody know, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I think we’re being protected by that way.
MR. OBORNE-I think to a certain extent. I mean, I do like the fact that you do have a forester,
you know, going up and down the slopes. I think that that’s, but that’s an assumption. That’s an
assumption, that’s not a given.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, like I said, I wanted to have that discussion to make sure that we
all understood, you know, exactly how this was going to play out.
MR. FORD-Good. Helpful.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I don’t know if we heard from a majority of the Board that they
were comfortable moving forward.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think so, with those conditions.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you said there were no written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, no written comments, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA was conducted by the Town of Lake George. So there’s no SEQRA
considerations for us. The only thing left is a motion, and, I mean, there are obviously a number
of conditions, Staff comments, and of course engineering comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any waivers that they asked for?
MR. OBORNE-Lighting, landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the only Staff comments to satisfy are the ones on Page S-5. Is
that fair?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-And also that the timber harvest should be accomplished during winter or dry
periods to mitigate the disturbance. That’s very broad and general, to satisfy the Staff concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then engineering signoff.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I can just ditch the waiver?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t think you need, I think we can handle it internally.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Land locked property west of French Mountain [Tax Map ID 265.-1-28]
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a timber harvesting of trees 15” and larger on a multiple parcels totaling +/-
318 acres in the Town of Lake George & Queensbury on French Mountain. Timber Harvesting
in the LC-10 zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/16/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. The waiver requests do
not apply.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with
the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)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. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
c)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; and
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
d)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
e)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; and
f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
g)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to
the Planning Office; and
h)This is approved with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will obtain an engineering signoff.
2. That the timber harvest will be accomplished during winter and/or dry periods
to mitigate ground disturbance.
3. The applicant will also incorporate the notes that are on Staff comments Page
Two, under Page S-5, Items One, Two and Three regarding temporary erosion
control, seasonal wrap up, temporary erosion control seasonal wrap up and
then permanent erosion control post harvest, and will include the language
denoted in bold.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MS. LESCAULT-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider adjournment, Mr. Sipp has an item to bring up, that he’s
passing out. Wow, look at this.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re in color, too.
MR. KREBS-I have mine, Don, thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-More details. More information. Wow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is good, Don.
MR. FORD-Well done.
MR. TRAVER-Terrific.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add with this, Don? It looks pretty
thorough.
MR. SIPP-I think we went through the handwritten one last time, last meeting. Mr. Krebs took it
upon himself to do a little typing and a little e-mailing back and forth, and we got to a point where
it’s pretty easy to read and I hope understandable. What I’m intending to do is by the second
page here, is when an applicant comes in, being new, it is a little bit different operation and try to
simplify it by giving him some lists which will give him a quick summary of why buffers are
beneficial and then on the next page, three different types of plant combinations for three
different types of soil and water conditions, and then you go into what we had in the hand drawn
one, and as I said, Mr. Krebs did a wonderful job in putting this together in much more readable
form.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
MR. FORD-Good teamwork.
MR. SIPP-Now hopefully, if I go to Florida, I’m going to produce a booklet which will take every
one of the plants in that, there’s 60 some odd plants, I think, that I label there, and give it a
picture and a run down as to soil type, soil drainage, so forth. The problem arises is that you
can’t get the same size picture off the Internet for each plant. So at one forest supply, or supply
house you’ll get a picture like this and then on some of them you get a picture like that. So it’s
difficult, but we’ll work through it as best we can.
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
MR. MAGOWAN-Photo Shop, Don, Photo Shop.
MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got to cut them out and print it out.
MR. MAGOWAN-Only teasing you though.
MR. SIPP-Hopefully this will make this shoreline buffer a little more attractive and explain it
somewhat in a simpler way, so people know what’s going to happen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great work. Now, I think the intent is to hand these out. Is there any review
or approval or anything that we should do before?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I talked to Craig about it. He is the Zoning Administrator, and he has to
sign off on this, absolutely, and it looks like a good tool to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too. I just want to make sure, because there’s always liability
issues and other concerns.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll discuss this with him. When the time comes, you’ll probably need to make a
formal resolution to adopt that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So that’s where we’re at at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-There are some other regulations that could be applied to this, and one of them is a
diagonal cut through the buffer zone where you have a lot of water, and if you put it straight
through, you’re going to have water running through it. If you put it through on a 45 degree
angle, you’ll get much more water stoppage. If you slow water down, it can’t carry as much
material with it. The old adage is if you increase the speed of the water, you’ll increase its
carrying capacity by the increase of speed. So if you go from two miles an hour to four, you’ll
also, you square the increase.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It’s a geometric progress.
MR. SIPP-Four times as much. So the idea is to slow water down.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks great. Thanks for all the work, Don.
MR. KREBS-Don, by the way, too, I took all those feet off of there. So I’ll send you that.
MR. SIPP-I could not open that e-mail.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I’ll send you another one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business this evening? Would anyone like to make a
motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER
16, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010)
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a reminder, we’re here Thursday night.
MR. FORD-Thursday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-But not next week.
MR. OBORNE-We will have two Board meetings next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was going to ask you what the agendas looked like for December.
MR. OBORNE-It’s full.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Both of them, certainly six and six.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
34