2011.06.28
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28, 2011
INDEX
Scheduled Items:
Subdivision 10-2010 Maureen Ireland [308.16-2-4] Page 1
Site Plan 39-2011 Lori Sue Welch [302.6-1-11] Page 8
Site Plan 36-2011 Michael & Gabrielle Shearer [240.5-1-6] Page 12
Site Plan 38-2011 Marybeth & Edward Kelly [289.10-1-10] Page 15
Site Plan 37-2011 David Robertson [297.17-1-26] Page 21
Site Plan 31-2011 Andrew West [239.19-1-9] Page 27
Site Plan 32-2011 Andrew West [239.19-1-8, 9] Page 35
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: June 28, 2011
Queensbury Planning Board
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER, VICE CHARIMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD, MEMBER
DONALD SIPP, MEMBER
DONALD KREBS, MEMBER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, MEMBER
LAND USE PLANNER
-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER
-PAM WHITING
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, June 28, 2011. For those members of the audience that are attending welcome. On the
back table there are copies of the agenda if you did not see it. There is also a handout for the public
hearing, most of our items do have a public hearing scheduled and those will be announced but the
handout is to give you a sense of how the public hearings are handled.
1.0 Scheduled Items: Subdivision 10-2010 Maureen Ireland
APPLICATION: Subdivision 10-2010
APPLICANT: Maureen Ireland
REQUESTED ACTION: Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and
approval
LOCATION: 319 Corinth Road
EXISTING ZONING: CLI-Commercial Light Industrial
SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted
PARCEL HISTORY: SP 7-11: Modification to existing approved site plan. Modifications
include signage at the road, directional signage for wholesale area lease
office space and a new exterior lighting layout 2/15/11
SUB 10-10: 12.95 acres into 4 light industrial lots Approved 9/30/10
AV 49-10: Front, side, and travel corridor setback Approved 9/22/10
SP 56-10: Wholesale and retail electrical sales with associated
warehouse Approved 9/30/10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved subdivision. The
modification is to remove two (2) ingress and egress easements; one (1) utility easement, and
combine Lots 1 & 4 into Lot 1R. Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board
review and approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: The application for subdivision was before this board and approved last year in
September. The applicant wishes to combine the two lots mentioned in the project description in
order to accommodate a potential tenant.
Additional comments:
1. Staff has concerns with the removal of the easement between lots 1 and 2 located to the
southwest of the two parcels. Access in the form of inter-connects for potential emergency
situations strongly encouraged.
2. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain the use proposed for this property prior to
approving any changes to approved subdivision easements. Use of parcel may dictate need
for other easements
1
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Kelley: Mr. Chairman for the purposes of the record my name is Jack Kelly. I am with Coldwell
Banker Commercial Prime Properties and I’m here representing NDC LLC more formerly known as
Northern Distributors property on Corinth Road. It’s good to be back here with you this evening
because we have received a contract for sale of the remaining two vacant buildings that are over
there and with that one of the contingencies in the contract is that the easement for lot 2 which is the
farthest one to the west, that Green Mountain Electric has it was an easement from Corinth Road that
went through the two buildings to the left for ingress and egress to go around to the back. Since I
was here the last time Green Mountain worked with staff and I believe administratively was able to do
an upgrade to their driveway going in and out of their facility so they no longer see a need for that.
The new purchaser for the buildings does not want it. I guess Green Mountain found that there were
maintenance charges, snow removal charges and other things that were not necessary. If I can draw
attention to the packet that I presented originally you were kind enough to provide a four lot
subdivision because we thought that we needed the flexibility to be able to sell the building
separately. That’s not going to be the case so as a result the utility easement that is marked in yellow
on your sheet that came off of Carey Road if we split that property up we would have to subdivide the
electric and put in new electric services as it is right now those wires are in the ground but it’s going to
be owned by the same owner so there is no need for an easement so we’d like to remove that utility
easement from the subdivision map. Also if I can draw your attention to the second sheet that shows
a red and green easement; the red easement is the one we want to take and remove. In the
application that I provided we did ask to have the green 60 foot wide removed working with staff they
made a suggestion that it would be best if we kept that. I want to the all parties involved and they
said yeah let’s keep it there so I have a new map that basically shows that and with permission of the
Chairman I’ll give you the map. Also because there is going to be a single owner for lots 1 and 4 staff
also recommended that the two lots be combined which we have now into lot 1R. Also for purposes
of your records since the easement being removed on lot 1 benefits lot 2 Green Mountain Electric I
have a general release terminating that easement from Green Mountain so that you will know that
they have that permission to <unable to hear>. With that I would be happy to answer any questions
that may relate to staff’s additional comments or any other questions that the board may have.
Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the Board?
Mr. Schonewolf: What’s in the warehouses what kind of materials?
Mr. Kelley: They currently are vacant.
Mr. Schonewolf: I know but what is going in there?
Mr. Kelley: Okay as I had mentioned to staff the new owner has asked to have his sale kept
confidential. I also can tell you before they need to operate that I believe they will need to come back
in before you for a site plan review so there will be full disclosure and understanding as to what goes
on that property and I believe and maybe we can have a discussion on this that staff’s additional
comments are best served at the time of site plan review rather than this subdivision modification.
Mr. Schonewolf: I was just interested are they hazardous materials?
Mr. Kelley: No, not at all they are current existing company in Queensbury that’s just picking up and
moving four or five miles to a new location so we’re not losing a company and we’re not gaining a
company. And I have observed the premises of where this company is currently located and it’s kept
very neat and very nice and people I talk to have not bad comments to talk about them.
Mrs. Steffan: Keith, what is the situation on the lot 2 where the Green Mountain Electric is there, what
is the situation that changed with their driveway access?
Mr. Oborne: There driveway access you can look on the map and see to the west they put in a
driveway with some parking and that’s pretty much the difference. What we did is we had them close
down some of that open area associated with that parcel and basically funnel traffic into a more
what’s the word I’m looking for a more manageable condition.
Mrs. Steffan: So instead of the initial you could go in at any entry point on Corinth Road now there is
a specific entry.
Mr. Oborne: There is a specific entry, the easement for lot 1 is not an issue, coming off Corinth, and
my only issue is in the rear, that’s really my only issue with this proposal. And I’m not quite sure if
you’re proposing to eliminate that easement or not Jack?
2
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Kelley: Which easement is that?
Mr. Oborne: the one in the very rear that attaches the two.
Mr. Kelley: the green one or the red one?
Mr. Oborne: The red one with the hook, the hook portion of.
Mr. Kelley: The red one with the hook is suggested to be removed and that benefits only lot 2 the
Green Mountain lot.
Mr. Oborne: My concern is that access will be limited to the back of that lot, from lot 2.
Mr. Kelley: Well access for public purposes or-
Mr. Oborne: No, for emergency-
Mr. Kelley: Okay I think for emergency purposes you bring up a very good point and we discussed
even if there was a fence put up a Knox box or something and that’s why I’m saying at site plan
review I think those are the appropriate comments and observations to be made. Also from a pure
practical standpoint and having been a volunteer fireman myself I’m sure even if there is a fire in that
big building there are going to go in on that Green Mountain access point, any place they can get a
truck in and around and nobody’s going to cause any hassles or problems with that but if you need to
get into the official I would suggest that it would be included at the time of the site plan process.
Mr. Schonewolf: Did the Fire Marshal take a look at this?
Mr. Oborne: The Fire Marshal’s taken a look at this and as long as that is access is open he is
comfortable with it and I respectfully disagree I think this is the venue to do it on to be honest with you
right now. At the very least to get it in front of the board’s mind and get it on the record for when they
do come in for site plan review also.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes and I had the same concern and its gaining access to the rear of lot 2.
Mr. Oborne: You are still proposing an easement to the south I believe? Is that correct off of Carey?
Mr. Ford: Where the green is?
Mr. Kelley: The 60 foot wide easement for future expansion of if anyone of those parties wish to build
that In there I think that’s only good planning process to have that access through there.
Mr. Hunsinger: So that’s the purpose of the green easement remaining?
Mr. Kelley: The purpose of the green is that if there was future expansion either at lot 2 or the back
of lot 1 that you’re looking ahead to have an access road that runs parallel so you could take that off
from a secondary road being Carey Road to take and do that. I think it’s only good planning process
to do that.
Mr. Hunsinger: Sure.
Mr. Traver: You mentioned that the now empty warehouse is going to be occupied by a client that
wishes to remain anonymous at this point. Can you disclose to us whether or not that building might
contain at some point in the future with this tenant anything that’s of a hazardous or explosive or
otherwise dangerous nature?
Mr. Kelley: To the best of my knowledge they do not handle or deal in any of that kind of material,
they basically deal with this kind of material here.
Mr. Traver: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Ford: Referring back again to that green area if we look on the larger map if I’m looking at it
correctly it appears to be almost a rectangular shape and yet if the Carey Road section it appears to
be 25.06 feet and at the far end it’s 60 feet, am I reading that correctly.
Mr. Oborne: I think the width still stands at 60 feet at Carey I think that’s a survey point.
3
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Kelley: In a second Mr. Ford, no you will see that, you see the 2 and 25 there is a little small plus
mark just to the left of it and if you go down into the left slightly there is a 0 on the thick black line. I
think that that distance is 25.06 but the intention is for that entire width to be 60 foot and actually that
travel distance is slightly more because there is a slight curve to the right after that point. Do you
follow that point or do you want me to point that out to you further?
Mr. Ford: What does the 25.06 refer to?
Mr. Kelley: Do you see the vertical line that is dot and dash and it comes down and meets the border,
the western border of Carey Road and there is a number 385.28, from that point over to the
Mr. Ford: I see a 372.61
Mr. Kelley: May I approach and show you?
Mr. Ford: Yes
Mr. Kelley: From this point here to this point here is 25.06, this distance from here to here is probably
slightly greater well it would be 35.04 plus 25.06 which is slightly greater than 60 feet.
Mr. Ford: Okay but its 60 feet back here.
Mr. Kelley: 60 feet there, 60 feet there, 60 feet here and because this is a straight line to there and
then it’s a curved line to here which adds up to whatever 35.02 and
Mr. Ford: And this line is 372 and change and this line is 370 and change.
Mr. Kelley: That is correct.
Mr. Ford: Thank you.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions or comments?
Mr. Kelley: That particular easement has not changed from what you had previously approved.
Mr. Ford: And it’s the only easement remaining?
Mr. Kelley: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Hunsinger: We often times require our CLUP actually encourages interconnections. If you look
going back to the red and green sheet here the red hook that Keith mentioned. I wouldn’t have a
problem with that easement going away as long as that interconnect remained. I mean so you would
still have the ability to go from lot 1 onto lot 2 I mean there is plenty of ability to get to the west and
south side of the building on lot 2 but the question is getting back turning around and getting back out
as long as that interconnect remains there.
Mr. Kelley: Are you talking about for public use or for emergency use?
Mr. Hunsinger: Emergency.
Mr. Kelley: I don’t think that that would probably be a problem and if that’s something you wish to
stipulate I’ll do my best to be able to sell it but I think that if you are running trucks and heavy
equipment the purchaser and I think and rightfully so doesn’t want to have the general public
necessarily interfering with any of their operation but if Mr. Milner from West Glens Falls wants to
drive his trucks in and put out a fire and etc.; I think they are probably more than welcome to be going
in and that and if you wish memorialize that in some particular way to make sure that it does in fact
occur I don’t have a problem with it and Mrs. Ireland will not have a problem and I think we can get
we can get the purchaser to agree to that concept also.
Mr. Hunsinger: I mean the only I’d see it being a problem is if they want to expand the building and
then you’re going to move into that 60 foot.
Mr. Kelley: Right, well plus we’ve got to come back to you; you’ll get many opportunities to take a bite
at the apple here as we go forward with this particular parcel of property, and rightfully so.
4
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mrs. Steffan: But that 60 foot proposed right of way there is trees there and so it’s there but it’s not
usable
Mr. Hunsinger: Right, exactly.
Mr. Kelley: And I think if they want to use it because we did not show a road cut or etc. that they
need to come back in and you will get another opportunity to review their drainage plans and their
other visual and other things this is merely a reservation that that property is there for future use if the
need should arise.
Mr. Hunsinger: And I can totally understand why the purchaser of lots 1 and 4 doesn’t want to have
an easement running right through the middle of their property. That makes sense. As long as there
is access I think that’s the only issue.
Mr. Kelley: But I think it’s to everybody’s benefit if at the same time arrangements are discussed that
you know as I said if I was driving the fire truck in and I needed to go in through Green Mountain
property to get to the fire I’m sure they’re not going to be out there flagging them down and preventing
them from going across.
Mr. Oborne: Mr. Chairman could I ask a question?
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes.
Mr. Oborne: Jack I see up on lot 2 proposed easement to lot 1 what’s the purpose of that I notice that
it was on your original, that’s the same one I have here anyway.
Mr. Kelley: That was a septic tank drainage deal easement.
Mr. Oborne: Okay.
Mr. Kelley: It’s all grass, we were able to identify where the septic tank was located but it was kind of
difficult to locate exactly where the drainage field was located so the purchaser of lot 2 did accept the
encumbrance of having an easement for drainage purposes on their property.
Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the Board?
Mrs. Steffan: I guess I’m just this exists right now.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes.
Mrs. Steffan: And they want to get rid of it?
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes.
Mrs. Steffan: This stays even though it’s not useful for anything at this point?
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes.
Mr. Ford: On the new map you just handed out could you point out to us where you designated lot 4?
Mr. Kelley: There is no longer a lot 4 at the request of staff they suggested that lots 1 and 4 be
combined together into a new lot which we have designated 1R. And I think that the reasoning
behind that is that if the new purchaser wishes to ever sell those buildings separately they’ll need to
come back in before you and get your permission and they’ll we’ll have to look at those separation of
easement and then you’ve got ingress and egress issues and etc. So I think it gives you more
planning control by having that lot combined together.
Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else 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?
Mr. Kelley: Again Mr. Chairman I want take and say that staff was very helpful going what seems like
a very simple process turned out to be something that was complex and do very much appreciate
working with them.
Mr. Oborne: And I will say that Craig and I agonized a bit over this because potentially this could have
done administratively but we opted to be prudent and send it to you guys so.
5
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t see any members of the audience willing to comment. Is there any written
comments Keith?
Mr. Oborne: No.
Mr. Hunsinger: We’ll open the public hearing and let the record show that there were no comments
received. I will close the public hearing. Additional questions comments from members of the board?
People understand what the request is and comfortable with it?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mrs. Steffan: So what we would be approving is to remove two ingress and egress easements which
are yellow and red on the plan, the utility easement and we’re looking at approving combining two lots
within the old subdivision which would have been 4 and 1 into 1R.
Mr. Ford: I also want to address the reaffirmation of SEQR.
Mrs. Steffan: Correct, does anybody see any issues with the prior SEQR approval?
Mr. Krebs: No
Mr. Kelley: Just to clarify the point there is one ingress and egress easement which is colored red,
there is a utility easement which is colored yellow, and then there is the combination of lots 4 and 1
into a new lot 1R.
Mrs. Steffan: Okay on the staff comments it had two ingress and egress easements.
Mr. Kelley: Originally we were asking for the green easement to be removed but continued
discussions after the deadline to get the application in they convinced us that the green should be
kept in place and that’s the purpose of me handing out new maps to you this evening, we added the
60 foot wide easement back in to the plan.
Mr. Hunsinger: Just if I may make a comment going back to the comment about the interconnect it is
shown on the map, it is shown on the site plan that’s being filed, the one that was received this
evening so I don’t even know if we need to mention it.
Mr. Oborne: I would feel more comfortable if you did if that means anything. We certainly will be
looking at that at site plan you know.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes I mean it’s no longer an easement, but it is there and it’s on the map.
Mr. Ford: Keith that’s one of the reasons we exist to put you at ease.
Mr. Kelley: You guys are earning that big salary you know that you get here.
Mr. Hunsinger: This is the new one.
Mrs. Steffan: Correct. I marked that up already. So do I have to put language in here that will clarify
that or is it implied with acceptance of the new map. Keith pass it by me again because if I would do
the motion I would just approve this based on the map that was submitted today with the revision date
of 6/6/11 but is that sufficient, do you want language in there that would clarify anything for you?
Mr. Oborne: Any and all language that could potentially clarify any issues would be appreciated.
Mr. Hunsinger: I think the map speaks for itself.
Mr. Oborne: And it does, and it’s going to be filed here probably in less than 24 hours. And it’s not a
huge issue at all. This is the same map here that you just handed out, okay?
Mr. Kelley: Except that they are not folded.
Mr. Oborne: Mr. Chairman if I could have a copy of the map that was handed out and the easement
language for the file.
6
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Hunsinger: Oh you didn’t get a copy of the map.
Mr. Oborne: I just need one.
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have a buyer for lot 3?
Mr. Kelley: No we don’t have any, but we do have, we’re beginning to get interest in other parcels on
Carey Road, Carey Industrial Park.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good, that’s encouraging.
Mr. Kelley: We’re beginning to see that there is some dirt and things moving over there and it looks
like quality construction too.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, once you start to see some buildings going in you know.
Mr. Kelley: Now we’ve got to talk about getting sewer extended out there.
Mr. Oborne: They won’t have too far to go.
Mr. Hunsinger: That should be easy.
Mr. Kelley: I don’t know if I was out of order making that little comment or not.
Mr. Hunsinger: I would think that would be fairly easy thing to do.
Mrs. Steffan: And I’m sure the City of Glens Falls would be delighted to have the extra capacity
coming in to their system.
Mr. Hunsinger: And the money.
Mrs. Steffan: If I take this motion and I change this to 1 (one) ingress; if I identify this new plan at the
end of that paragraph that should it and then we’ll revisit the SEQR, hat should be.
Mr. Hunsinger: I think so.
Mrs. Steffan: You closed the public hearing?
Mr. Hunsinger: We did, we closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION-SUBDIVISION 10-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a modification to an approved subdivision. The modification is to remove one
ingress and egress easement; one utility easement, and combine Lots 1 & 4 into Lot 1R.
Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and approval;
The Planning Board tonight has received a revised plan dated 6/6/2011 which includes the added 60
foot wide easement on the new lot 1R;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/28/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION 10-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following modifications;
a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code; and
7
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
b) The Planning Board has also revisited and reaffirmed the previous SEQR 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
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of June 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: So when are you going to submit site plan?
Mr. Kelley: I don’t know if they’re going to ask me to come in before you again. I think also that the
Green Mountain people may have some exciting things to come back and share with you at a future
meeting also.
Mr. Hunsinger: That’d be great. Good luck, you’re all set.
Mrs. Steffan: We’re happy to see growth on that side of town.
Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 39-2011 Lori Sue Welch, Keith whenever
you’re ready.
Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 39-2011
APPLICANT: Lori Sue Welch
REQUESTED ACTION: Personal Service Use requires Planning Board review / approval
LOCATION: 715 Upper Glen Street
EXISTING ZONING: CI-Commercial Intensive
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 6/8/2011- No action taken
PARCEL HISTORY: BP 05-361: Parker Hammond Construction-32 sq. ft. wall sign 6/1/05
BP 05-107: Parker Hammond Commercial interior alteration 10/5/05
BP 02-790: U-Rent All C/O only 9/26/02
SP 3-90: Removal of storage bldgs. & replace w/pole barn 2/20/90
UV 135-89: Removal of storage bldgs. & replace w/pole barn 11/15/89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes 2,040 square foot Hair Salon in a portion of the
former 5,650 square foot Parker Hammond Construction office building behind the existing Dunkin
Donuts on Upper Glen Street. The applicant is requesting waivers for stormwater, landscaping,
grading, and lighting.
Review:
1. For proposed use 7 spaces required.
2. Concerning parking, 18 spaces will be required for the remaining square footage of the
occupied building and 5 spaces for a proposed warehouse use for the 4,800 square foot
building to the rear. Total additional spaces required to be demarcated on site plan is 15; total
spaces for parcel required is 30 to include two (2) handicap spaces. 16 spaces currently exist
with no provision for handicap loading.
3. One handicap space required per 25 spaces. The Planning Board, as a condition of approval,
may require two of the existing spaces to be delegated as handicap space and one for loading.
Loading area should be shared.
8
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
4. Although landscaping is present and a waiver has been requested, additional landscaping
should be discussed.
Additional comments:
?
Signage, as a condition of approval, should be code compliant.
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening, if you could identify yourself for the record.
Ms. Welch: Lori Sue Welch, this is my business partner Angel Spada.
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have anything else that you wanted to add or present?
Ms. Welch: No
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, we’ll open it up for questions comments from members of the board.
Mr. Krebs: Relative to the parking how many clients do you usually have at one time in your facility
or will you have, it looked like there might be 3 or 4?
Ms. Welch: There is going to be four stations but actually only 3 are being used. She and I are the
only full time stylists and usually we split the hours we have a couple of hours each day that overlap,
so at the most there is probably 4. We plan on parking behind the fence, behind the garage so there
should be plenty of parking without a problem.
Mr. Krebs: Okay that’s what I figured.
Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the board.
Mrs. Steffan: Do you have any idea who may be renting the other space?
Ms. Welch: Behind us? I don’t believe there is anybody. I think that the owners are just going to use
it as like a supplement for themselves.
Mrs. Steffan: Okay.
Mr. Sipp: Is this the only signs that you’re going to have, this one picture here?
Ms. Welch: Actually there is two of the same, one is going to be on the wall and we were hoping to
put out on the post on Glen Street but I guess apparently I put my sign permit in apparently there is
only so much square footage that you can use on the main drag so, and it’s 5 ½ x 2 ½
Mr. Oborne: It’s also a sign that is not located on the property that the business on too so that would
require a variance also, is my understanding.
Mr. Hunsinger: I was wondering.
Mr. Oborne: And concerning the parking when I did the calculations I did it based on the most
intensive use of that property. That’s how I came up with those calculations.
Mr. Hunsinger: I remember very well when we did the site plan for Dunkin Donuts and it talked about
snow plowing and how difficult for them to plow their property without dumping snow on this property
or the one to the north.
Mr. Oborne: That is one of the how should I say unique situations in the town as far as traffic goes, it
was quite different.
Mr. Hunsinger: And certainly you know sometimes getting into your building is difficult when Dunkin
Donuts is real busy.
Mr. Krebs: But just think of all the people who are going to drive by their business, they are going
see that they are there because they went to Dunkin Donuts. So there is an advantage to.
Mr. Hunsinger: I didn’t even think of that.
9
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mrs. Steffan: There is always a line there.
Mr. Hunsinger: There is always a line there. Landscaping is there any place where you could put
flowers, plants.
Ms. Welch: There really isn’t I thought if thought to I could put like hanging plants but that would be,
I’m really not, landscaping is not what I do, I mean, a hanging plant would be about the most you’ll
probably see.
Ms. Spada: They have a little bit of landscaping, like right in front of the door, it has like a couple of
bushes, and it’s very small.
Ms. Welch: Is there?
Ms. Spada: Yes
Mr. Krebs: Yes see right there.
Ms. Spada: Right where the garbage can used to be
Ms. Welch: Oh yeah, it’s very plain, well I guess we could put flowers in there
Mr. Hunsinger: Keith was obligated to comment on that, I was obligated to ask.
Mrs. Steffan: You know this is another one of those situations where you know it’s a black top area
and so I think that the hanging basket I’ve recommended that more than once on the board and also
maybe a seasonal planter, it dresses up your building, it makes it pretty, folks want to go in and then it
can disappear in the cold weather when it doesn’t need to be there. Anything that is planted would be
salted so much that I don’t know whether it would survive.
Mr. Oborne: Well if you did plants salt tolerant species it may have a fighting chance but you’re right it
might get buried anyway.
Mr. Krebs: It would be relatively simple in the summertime to get a couple of pots and just put some
flowers and that will also attract peoples’ eyes to your door and to your facility.
Ms. Spada: Yes we have a couple of urns at our place right now that we utilize.
Mrs. Steffan: How do we want proceed on the parking spaces are we okay with what is presented or?
Ms. Welch: There are 16 available spots.
Mr. Oborne: I think what it comes down to what I’m looking for is lines on a map, lines on the site
plan, it’s all gravel to the rear so you can’t paint those spaces but what it does is it demonstrates that
parking can be compliant for future tenants which would help alleviate any potential future tenants in
there having to go through a whole bunch of hoops with site plan. They’d have that plan right there.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well there is a copy of this site plan from file 2005-107 when the construction
company went there. Do you think they need anything more than that?
Mrs. Steffan: But they didn’t paint those lines on, that’s part of the problem right?
Mr. Hunsinger: It shows lines on the map.
Mrs. Steffan: I think the point Keith is trying to make is that there are no lines on the blacktop and
how do you know they are really there just because it’s on a plan.
Mr. Oborne: I honestly have no issue because you have the ability to increase or decrease the
amount of required parking; parking is not an issue on this site, realistically it’s really not. All I’m
looking for are lines on a piece of paper. I’m not going to lose any sleep over this if you approve like
this to be honest with you.
Mr. Hunsinger: How do you anticipate customers parking?
10
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Ms. Welch: We’re thinking in front on the other side in front of the building and then right there along
the front and then on the other side there is telephone pole to the fence that’s where our parking is for
the clients.
Mrs. Spada: And there is like 6 spots there.
Mr. Hunsinger: The only question or concern I would have is if we use the site plan that they filed and
people don’t park that way is that going to cause problems, it would only cause problems if another
tenant wanted to go in there and parking became an issue.
Mr. Oborne: It would cause problems if there was a complaint.
Mr. Hunsinger: But in terms of their use and the amount parking that is available it’s I mean its overkill
Ms. Welch: I really don’t think that there is going to be, I’m pretty reasonable, if somebody has a
problem with the my client parking somewhere I’m probably thinking that we could figure it out without
having to come to the town.
Mr. Hunsinger: Oh you’d be surprised.
Ms. Welch: You might be right; from my end anyways I can assure you we’re not going to be like
Mr. Hunsinger: Well and again there is so much parking that it’s available to you it’s really a non-
issue it’s just a question of how we show it on a map and then how it’s followed. Other thoughts from
the board? 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? I’ll open
the public hearing and let the record show that there were no commenters.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mrs. Steffan: So the board has no issues with the waivers that have asked for-stormwater, grading,
landscaping, or lighting?
Mr. Hunsinger: Any written comments Keith. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 39-2011 LORI SUE WELCH
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes Hair Salon. Personal Service Use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/28/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the
file of record; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 39-2011 LORI SUE WELCH Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by staff:
d) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [the Planning Board has
determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
e) Type II SEQR-no further action required;
f) 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;
g) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
11
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
h) 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;
i) All and any signage should be code compliant.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of June 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck.
Ms. Welch: Thank you.
Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 36-2011 Michael and Gabrielle Shearer.
Keith whenever you’re ready.
APPLICATION: Site Plan 36-2011
APPLICANT: Michael & Gabrielle Shearer
REQUESTED ACTION: Boathouse in a WR zone requires Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 52 Russell Harris Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 6/8/2011-No Action
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 33-2011 Side setback relief Approved 6/21/11
BP 2010-410 Boathouse Pending
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to replace existing 412 +/- sq. ft. dock with covered
boathouse with a 400 +/- sq. ft. dock and a 392 +/- sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires
Planning Board review and approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel has approximately 50 feet of shoreline. Although there is a large
tree centered adjacent to the shoreline, vegetation along shoreline should be considered.
Additional Comments:
1. The boat house as proposed is to be 15’-0” above the mean high water mark and as such
does not exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement per §179-5-060(11).
2. The boathouse, as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary
facilities as per §179-5-060(12).
3. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to enhance shoreline plantings as per
§179-8-040, Landscaping and Buffering standards.
4. Area Variance 33-2011 was approved by the ZBA on June 22, please see attached.
Application Protocol
6/21/2011 PB recommendation to ZBA
6/22/2011 ZBA review
6/28/2011 PB review
Mr. Oborne: With that I’ll turn it over to the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening would you identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Shearer: Michael Shearer.
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have anything else that you wanted to add?
12
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Shearer: No
Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll open it up for questions comments from members of the board.
Mrs. Steffan: I’m assuming you got the staff notes and one of the comments on the staff notes were
that we might want to talk about enhancing your shoreline plantings.
Mr. Shearer: Yes, I don’t have a plan for that per say but when I was up there last weekend I looked
at it and coming back 12 feet from the shoreline I have stone wall which then terraces up 12 feet
down I don’t have problems planting in there. My wife does the planting; I showed her the list of the
plants.
Mr. Sipp: Would you say that again I didn’t get the last part of it.
Mr. Shearer: My wife does the planting.
Mr. Sipp: No.
Mr. Shearer: About the stone wall with the terrace, 12 feet back from the shoreline I have a stone
wall that terraces the land up about 2 feet, and so coming back to that stone wall I have no problems
planting but I don’t I really wouldn’t want to come back up another 3 feet back on to that because I
have a slate patio there.
Mr. Sipp: It calls for a 15 feet wide buffer zone in there.
Mr. Shearer: That’s what I read but based on that then you would want me to take down my stone
wall.
Mr. Sipp: No but just plant around it, 15 feet.
Mr. Shearer: You’re coming back into my, you’re coming three feet back into like a patio.
Mr. Oborne: Let me get the overhead up.
Mr. Schonewolf: How deep are those rocks, I mean they take up about three feet?
Mr. Oborne: I don’t have any photos of it unfortunately. We can’t see through trees.
Mr. Traver: Well there is no buffer there now so if the applicant is willing to address the area
between the wall and the shoreline with a buffer from suggested plantings or at least not invasive
plantings then I think we’re way ahead of the game.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes
Mr. Ford I agree.
Mrs. Steffan: Could the board provide some language on exactly what you want it to be.
Mr. Hunsinger: Code compliant.
Mr. Oborne: We have a list in Chapter 8 of our zoning code that gives you exactly what plants you are
looking for. You have large trees on site I believe
Mr. Sipp: You’ve got two.
Mr. Shearer: I have a beech tree that’s within 12 feet of the shoreline, its 18 inches in diameter and
up back from the shoreline I have 2 ½ foot maple tree.
Mr. Oborne: I think you meet the requirements for the one tree per 50 foots o maybe you’re looking
for groundcover more than anything.
Mr. Sipp: But he needs some smaller items and then some groundcover which is not grass.
Mr. Shearer: Right I have no problem putting in groundcover that’s not a problem at all. We can work
this out, it’s not a problem
13
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Schonewolf: Just take the page out of the codebook and give it to your wife
Mr. Shearer: I already showed it to her; I marked it on her laptop.
Mr. Hunsinger: I think we can all agree though that he has the large trees covered so that makes it a
lot easier because often times we kind of get stuck on that.
Mr. Shearer: I have the trees.
Mr. Hunsinger: Before we go much further we have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the board on this project? Again let the record show
there were no commenters in the audience, is there anything in the file Keith?
Mr. Oborne: There is not.
Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING and I will CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING knowing
that no comments were received. It’s a Type II SEQR.
Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 36-2011 MICHAEL & GABRIELLE SHEARER
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes to replace existing 412 +/- sq. ft. dock with covered boathouse with a 400 +/- sq. ft. dock
and a 392 +/- sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/2011;
The ZBA approved the variance request on 6/22/2011;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/28/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 36-2011 MICHAEL & GABRIELLE SHEARER Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Donald Krebs:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA-no further action needed;
3) 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;
4) 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;
5) 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
6) The applicant will enhance the shoreline planting with shrubs and groundcover between the
shoreline and the stone wall with code recommended species. The applicant will present the plan
to staff for approval.
Mr. Shearer: Can I ask you a question?
Mrs. Steffan: Yes.
14
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Shearer: What does this plan entail?
Mrs. Steffan: You can do it freehand on a piece of paper as long as it’s.
Mr. Shearer: I have to tell you what species I’m putting in?
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes
Mrs. Steffan: Just so that we can make sure they are acceptable and it’s right in our zoning code.
Mr. Oborne: So in other words yes
Mrs. Steffan: And the reason we do that is because there are invasive species and things that are not
native to the area and so our town code has a recommended plant list so that
Mr. Shearer: I understand that, I’m not going to do any planting until after the project is done.
Mrs. Steffan: You just have to have the plan approved.
Mr. Shearer: You want a drawing, just a freehand sketch and do what, send it to Keith?
Mrs. Steffan: So it becomes part of your plan and part of your record so that code enforcement can
just make sure when the whole thing is complete that you did what you said you would do.
Mr. Shearer: Okay
Mr. Hunsinger: We have motion, is there a second, any further discussion? Hearing none please call
the vote please.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck.
Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 38-2011 for Marybeth & Edward Kelly. Keith
whenever you’re ready.
Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 38-2011 / Area Variance 35-2011
APPLICANT: Marybeth & Edward Kelly
REQUESTED ACTION: Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR zone
requires Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 2 Jay Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 6/16/2011
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 35-2011 Side setback relief Approved 6/21/11
BP 2006-536 SFD 9/15/2010
BP 90-494 Dock 7/31/90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,495 +/- sq. ft. residence with
a 270 +/- sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a new 2,800 +/- sq. ft. single family residence
with a 462 +/- sq. ft. attached garage. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR
zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
15
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
STAFF COMMENTS: The project proposes approximately 9,900 square feet of disturbance on a
15,530 square foot lot. Erosion and sediment control should be robust due to the lack of an existing
shoreline buffer and on-site slopes. Slopes exceed 15% within 50 feet of the proposed single family
dwelling; however, these slopes are isolated and not indicative of the overall topography of the parcel
which could be categorized as less than 10%. An increase in impermeability (23.5% overall) is
proposed from existing conditions (17.5% overall) but is within the 75% requirement. Asphalt drive
proposed. The proposal has a stormwater management report submitted with a detailed drainage
and erosion and sediment control plan. Existing mature trees, six (6) in all are proposed for removal
in the vicinity of the leach field, driveway, and single family dwelling. The applicant has not requested
any waivers for this project.
Site Plan Review:
Application:
1. No immediate issues
Site Plan/Page 1:
1. No immediate issues
Site Plan/Page 2:
1. It appears the tree slated for removal to the northeast by the existing garage could be saved.
Minimal disturbance is proposed, with the exception of the detached garage removal, to
necessitate removal.
2. Trees slated for removal should be replaced in kind with new plantings.
Site Plan/Page 3:
1. Rain Garden plant list includes juniper, a species that prefers dry soils. The list should be
updated to include species that can both survive moist and dry conditions. Note: Other
proposed species prefer wet conditions.
2. Double silt fence along shoreline should be considered.
3. Shoreline buffer minimal at best. Additional planting at the Planning Board’s direction should
be considered.
Additional Comments:
1. Area Variance 35-2011 was approved by the ZBA on June 22, please see attached
Application Protocol
6/21/2011 PB recommendation to ZBA - Complete
6/22/2011 ZBA review - Approved
6/28/2011 PB review - Pending
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening, would you please identify yourself for the record?
Mr. Center: Tom Center, Nace Engineering. Good evening, if its’ okay I do have some revisions to
the landscape based on our discussions last meeting if I could hand those out to the board and I’ll go
over them real quickly. You’re okay with that?
Mr. Hunsinger: Sure.
Mr. Oborne: Can I get one for the record?
Mr. Center: Based on our discussions last week and speaking with the clients we’ve added twelve
arborvitae along the north property line as a buffer along that long open stretch of property next to us.
We’ve added a flowering crab tree to the northeast corner just north of the lower rain garden. We’ve
enhanced the plantings around the lower rain garden and a few of the plantings we’ve added to beef
up the upper rain garden. The five trees in question looked at them again we need to remove those
for our issues with digging the foundation of the house and the location they are to some grading.
The one to the north of the house is going to be right in the way of some grading; it has some very
shallow roots that are going to be right along where we need to grade that area to get positive
stormwater drainage down to the lower pond. The two on the south side are right near the rain
garden area that we’re creating on the south side and the other one is right up near the septic
system; that would be an issue with the infiltration area for the system. And we have one at the
driveway that’s currently undermining the driveway, we saved one of the two trees that are next to the
driveway but we also have to meet the existing easement that we have to the neighbor’s property with
the driveway but we have enhanced the plantings. As far as erosion and sediment control we would
have no problem if there was a condition to add second layer of silt fence either directly behind the
16
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
existing, the one we’ve shown on this plan or before the rain garden closer to the house during house
construction we have no problem there. It’s a narrow site, very tight, it doesn’t really make sense to
try to step infiltration fence along the edge of the parcel but we have no problem if the board would
like us to add another layer of silt fence up closer to the existing house. With that I believe as we
address the engineering comments can all be addressed with us and the engineer we don’t find
anything in there that’s a show stopper.
Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the board?
Mr. Sipp: Let’s go a little bit north of where you have your plant list where is says notes. Now, the
third one down it calls for fertilizer use within 50 feet of a borderline which is and especially with your
phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers.
Mr. Center: We certainly strike the fertilizer out. What would you like us to use in that area?
Mr. Schonewolf: Well you’re not supposed to use phosphorus within 60 feet of the water I believe.
Is that right?
Mr. Sipp: No phosphorus with 60 feet.
Mr. Oborne: Yes that’s my understanding you can get no phosphorus no nitrogen, you can no peat
fertilizer.
Mr. Sipp: Oh, within 50 feet.
Mr. Center: We can enhance those notes; that’s fine. We can enhance those notes to exclude any
phosphorus or nitrogen products within 60 feet of the lake.
Mr. Sipp: Now with these trees that you have you are going to take out of there are they going to be
replaced with smaller?
Mr. Center: We are replacing them with the arborvitae, the flowering crab, we can’t replace them
alongside the house there are still many trees throughout, there are none that are in the view scape,
we still have two that right up front of the shoreline, there’s one that is still alongside the house, there
is another one that is still to the northwest of the house, two to the northwest of the house, there is an
additional one northwest of the driveway. We had left; we’ve kept the absorption system in an open
area and touched no trees that are up along the road, there are still at least eight plants, or eight large
trees up to the north. I don’t think we are doing anything that’s going to affect the view scape from
the lake looking up the parcel. These are interior trees on the parcel that we are going to affecting
nothing that’s, by planting the arborvitae we’re replacing the ones that are along that side, on the
other side of the house we’ve got the septic system there, we’ve got the rain garden, there is just not
a lot of area to try, plus you’re creating a tunnel affect between houses that are closer that’s why we
put the arborvitae on the north side, it’s more of an open area to the neighbor’s property on the other
side so I think it kind of buffers it well. There are still quite few trees left when you look at you’re up
from the lake or down from the road in between.
Mr. Sipp: I think there was a comment about the depth of the rain gardens
Mr. Center: There was a comment about the depth of the rain garden and with these types of soils
we’re not going to see deep ponding of the water. We have made them a foot deep to try to provide
some storage during winter frost conditions, it’s nothing that’s going to be met during the growing
season per say except for the 50 and 100 year storm and again like we talked about before the
stormwater design for the ponds we are excluding infiltration and we do have a very fast infiltration
rate.
Mr. Sipp: When I was out there; there was water in what was left of the cellar area. Did anybody
figure out where that came from?
Mr. Center: The cellar area
Mr. Sipp: Was that rainfall and it ponded in there or was it
Mr. Center: I was out there today and I didn’t see any ponded water but
17
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Sipp: Well that’s what I wondered. Because when I went back it was pretty much gone. You do
have a lot of sand there.
Mr. Center: It’s the typical Glen Lake sand and cobbles.
Mr. Hunsinger: Between the eastern rain garden and the lake there is a plant labeled M
Mr. Center: Between the
Mr. Hunsinger: All along the front
Mr. Center: There is a plant labeled
Mrs. Steffan: Those are MG
Mr. Center: Yes six MG’s, there is just an M in the center of the symbol, those are six MG’s, two ivy,
six junipers, which are on the back side and those are also at the top of the ponds. I know there was
an engineering comment in regard to the juniper’s not liking wet feed, but again there are at the on
the upper level of the ponds and predominantly most of the time there areas are going to be dry so
those juniper will only under extreme cases see water which won’t last very long because of the
infiltration rate in the mulch.
Mr. Hunsinger: I was looking in the plant list for an M.
Mr. Center: It’s gotten a little crowded in there.
Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the board?
Mr. Ford: I’d like to take him up on the recommendation for the second silt fence between the
sediment basin which will become the rain garden and the house site.
Mr. Sipp: Has the well been moved, or are you still planning on the same place?
Mr. Center: The well will be located in the same place. I had a discussion with Mike Shaw at the
Department of Health, this is a replacement of an existing nonconforming lot, the 5B statute will be
waived with DOH for the separation to the lake we meet all of the sanitary sewer criteria, the well
criteria meeting the 25 feet to the lake. They recognized that they look for enhanced treatment which
more than likely on this will be drilled encased and grounded well that will be a deep well so he said
it’s a paperwork issue between the applicant which we will fill out and work with DOH to get the
appropriate approvals to allow the well to be sited there, but it does meet the 200 foot setback, it does
meet the setbacks for neighboring septic systems and are system also, the one to the south is lake
water and we’re more than 200 feet from the one to the north.
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 wishes to address the board on this
project? I’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Let the record show no one in the audience wanted to
address the board. Keith are there written comments?
Mr. Oborne: Yes I do, I have a public comment from Richard and Susan Rourke, live next to Kelly’s
and we do not object. That’s it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay.
Mrs. Steffan: What about the engineering comments which seem to be substantial or at least there
are a lot of them.
Mr. Center: There are a lot of them but I don’t feel that there is some note changes there are some
requests questions in regard to design issues which we believe we can handle with him, there is
nothing in there that we you know a lot of nine through 14 are all some note issues in erosion and
sediment control stormwater report. And then 15 we’ll address, we’ve increased it to 2” of asphalt top
course.
Mrs. Steffan: I’m not sure if you have the same one I have, there are only nine comments.
Mr. Center: From Chazen?
18
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Oborne: I’ll pull out the file here
Mr. Schonewolf: He’s got the one from May
th
Mr. Center: I’ve got the June 16, 2011 with 16 comments.
th
Mrs. Steffan: June 16, Kelly site plan and with those two, we’re missing a page, we have 2 and 4
Mr. Hunsinger: We got it with the June 21 staff notes.
Mrs. Steffan: I have these notes, okay
Mr. Oborne: He double sided it that’s why.
Mr. Schonewolf: It’s double sided.
Mr. Oborne: Do you want me to fill in the board on 10 through 16 real quick or?
Mr. Hunsinger: It came with last week’s staff comments.
Mrs. Steffan: The concern, as long as the planning board doesn’t have a problem with those we could
do a conditional approval, that’s what we’re trying to find out, but they seemed substantial.
Mr. Hunsinger: There are a lot of them yes.
Mr. Center: There are but none that we can’t address with the engineer, they all seem to be
engineering issues that
Mr. Hunsinger: How do we deal with item 2 though where they said the rain garden shall be located a
minimum of 10 feet from the basement foundation.
Mr. Center: This is a cross base, there is no basement and that is a slab on grade to the north of the
rain garden and the grading is such that it has to go directly downhill before it can go towards the
house so it’s directed by a swale to the lower rain garden.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, any other questions comments from the board?
Mr. Ford: I just feel that this has been a particularly or is a particularly challenging site and I for one
appreciate the efforts that you have made to become code compliant and responsive to our concerns
and engineering concerns and I think you’ve done about as much as you can do with that site.
Mr. Center: We tried to take what we’ve learned from each project and apply them and speak with
the applicants about where the direction of the boards is heading on these projects. There seem to
be no easy lots left in this town.
Mr. Hunsinger: I want to kind of reiterate Tom’s comments when I read the staff notes and saw the
size of the house I immediately had concerns but then when I saw the design and the plan I think you
really addressed the issues.
Mr. Center: I think Curt did a good job in regards to the layout of the house. Sometimes numbers are
deceiving until you look at the layout, the way they layout the garages you know with the garages
included in there. The original basement so there is a loft area for storage you know everybody
knows we need storage in those areas since there is no basement those areas are going to be used
as storage typical to a basement and trying to incorporate the rain gardens with the topography of the
site I think that’s a big thing, it’s very difficult to try with all the rules and regulations. We have to
sprinkle in common sense to get the water where it’s going try to get it back in the ground as close to
where its created and treat it and keep it away from the lake and in the end there is no currently there
is no stormwater controls and that means there is more driveway, there is more house that’s going
directly into the lake right now and we’re going to maintain it and we’re going to maintain it and we do
maintain the 50 year storm with these conditions so we’ve exceeded the 25 and actually maintained
the 50 with this design.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay I didn’t close the public hearing, I will CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, and if
there are no additional comments or questions from the board I’ll entertain a motion for approval.
19
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mrs. Steffan: I have three conditions, one is the engineering sign-off, the second is adding the second
silt fence between the rain garden and the lake, and then the other one is the fertilizer notation
Mr. Ford: Between the rain garden and the house location.
Mrs. Steffan: Between the rain garden and the house location?
Mr. Ford: There is already one between the rain garden and the lake I believe in the original design.
Mrs. Steffan: Okay, so those are the three things? Okay, I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 38-2011 MARYBETH & EDWARD KELLY
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes demolition of existing 1,495 +/- sq. ft. residence with a 270 +/- sq. ft. detached garage and
construction of a new 2,800 +/- sq. ft. single family residence with a 462 +/- sq. ft. attached garage.
Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR zone requires Planning Board review
and approval;
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/2011;
The ZBA approved the variance request on 6/22/2011;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/28/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 38-2011 MARYBETH & EDWARD KELLY, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by staff
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA-no further action needed;
3) 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;
4) 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;
5) 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;
6) On Sheet 3 of 3 dated 5/2011 and submitted on 6/28/2011 that will be modified specifically notes
on number 3 and number 4 to eliminate the references to fertilizers. The applicant will add a note
6 saying no fertilizer within 60 feet of the lake;
7) The applicant will add a second silt fence between the rain garden and the house location. The
applicant will also add a silt fence between the existing fence and shoreline;
8) The applicant will obtain an engineering sign-off.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
20
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
NOES: None
Mr. Oborne: No, I’m sorry, that wasn’t the intent of the second one, it should be between the existing
silt fence and the shoreline, and I apologize
Mr. Center: You’re looking for a double layer silt fence
Mr. Oborne: You’re dropping the well right there aren’t you?
Mr. Center: Yes, which will require its own for the time they do that well yes there is protection when
they do
Mr. Oborne: That’s kind of what I was looking for an extra barrier.
Mr. Center: Okay, you just want an extra barrier around the well. Okay
Mr. Oborne: If that’s okay with the board.
Mr. Center: And we’ll bring it.
Mr. Ford I still would like to see one closer to the foundation location.
Mr. Center: Okay, we’ll add it in both spots.
Mr. Ford: Up slope from where the sediment and so forth will be caught prior to the installation of the
rain garden.
Mrs. Steffan: I love this job.
Mr. Oborne: I know you were on a roll Gretchen, I’m sorry.
Mr. Hunsinger: If you want to continue Gretchen.
Mr. Ford: Please feel free.
Mr. Center: I know what you’re talking about I’ll show it.
Mr. Hunsinger: We have a motion and a second any discussion?
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 37-2011 and
Freshwater Wetlands 3-2011 for David Robertson. Keith whenever you’re ready.
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 37-2011 / Freshwater Wetlands 3-2011
APPLICANT: David Robertson
REQUESTED ACTION: Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater and Disturbance
within 100 feet of wetland requires Planning Board Review / Approval
LOCATION: 27 Meadow Drive
EXISTING ZONING: MDR-Moderate Density Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 32-2011 Shoreline setback Approved 6/22/11
BP 2011-125 SFD Pending
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,560 +/- sq. ft. single
family dwelling with a 400 +/- sq. ft. deck. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in the
MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within
100 feet of a regulated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval.
21
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to build on a 0.69 acre parcel within 75 feet of a
wetland located to the west; wetland size is approximately 0.12 acres. The proposal calls for a single
family dwelling with deck and compliant wastewater system. The applicant intends to clear the parcel
to within twelve feet of the delineated shoreline; total clearance approaches 0.42 acres or 18,300
square feet. The applicant is requesting waivers for storm water, grading, lighting, and landscaping.
Additional Comments:
1. Due to the proximity of wetlands, the amount of clearing relative to lot size, and the presence
of slopes in excess of 15%, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to follow the
New York State Standards for Erosion Control by utilizing Appendix E Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan for Small Home site Construction. In particular, silt fencing, vegetative
stabilization, and construction entrances should be considered as per referenced document.
2. Fence encroachment located to the north should be resolved prior to clearing.
3. As stated above the applicant is requesting waivers for storm water, grading, lighting, and
landscaping.
Application Protocol
6/21/2011 PB recommendation to ZBA
6/22/2011 ZBA review
6/28/2011 PB review
Mr. Oborne: My only focus on my comments relate to E & S and stormwater, there are some
concerns due to the slope of this property and the hard surfacing that’s going to be installed,
particularly if we are dealing with stormwater you’re going to want some type of trench at the toe or
the bottom where the driveway is to collect some of the water and store some of that water and
obviously E & S is paramount on this site due to the wetlands and the slopes that are present. And
with that I’ll turn it over to the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening, do you have anything you wanted to add?
Mr. Robertson: I’m David Robertson, this is my wife Jessica. As for the drainage we’re putting a
French water drain at the end of the driveway against the foundation of the house for future just
because of the fact that we don’t want water and ice build-up coming down everywhere. So there will
be a pretty good drainage system according to the guy doing the excavation and the foundation.
Other than that
Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the board?
Mr. Traver: I think we talked about this quite a bit last week.
Mr. Ford: Yes.
Mr. Hunsinger: So is there any drainage plan for the north or west side of the house?
Mr. Robertson: As of this point not that I’m aware of. When I was talking with him during excavation
I told him that I do want a pretty good drainage system around there obviously because of water
runoff purposes. So he was incorporating putting like you said a nice heavy duty French drain with a
steel grate on top of it on the driveway side, on the opposite side
Mr. Hunsinger: So between the driveway and the house.
Mr. Robertson: Yes, the way the driveway is going to come down in we’re going to be about 10 to 11
% grade only and everything else like you said is pretty much existing; topography the way the land
sits right now so the only thing we’re actually adding is a flat surface which at that point all that water
that’s coming down the driveway is sitting on the flats are going to go into the French drain.
Mr. Ford: What’s the width of that?
Mr. Robertson: The width of the driveway?
Mr. Ford: No of the drain?
Mr. Robertson: We had talked about putting in at least an eight inch to twelve inch drain there, that
will be determined on the engineer and himself once they get in there and see. When they actually
did a perc test the water never sat there for them to worry about so they really didn’t have any
22
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
problems with drainage in this so they didn’t see the need to put something major in there, anything
over eight to twelve inches.
Mr. Oborne: What would the depth be?
Mr. Robertson: Whatever is standard, I don’t know what the standard French drain is.
Mr. Hunsinger: I just wonder if there should be drains under the eaves to collect water as well
because otherwise I think it’s going to run downhill towards the neighbor.
Ms. Jack: Thank you.
Mr. Ford: Clearing it.
Mr. Schonewolf: Oh they are going to clear it all.
Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments.
Mr. Robertson: I have no problem telling the guy doing the drainage to put one on the back side of
the house for purposes of the back. The front, the way it’s going to run off is the front is going to run
towards the driveway towards the French drain so he will have a slight slope that way because it
already slopes that way slightly as it is so putting a down pipe getting some gutters or something to
put up is on the agenda to do but he is going to have a fairly good drainage system in there already.
Mr. Oborne: Does he have any plans to you along those regards, because there certain standards
you want to follow.
Mr. Robertson: As of this point I don’t have anything in hand yet because in order for us to get
anything else like that we need to have a closing and in order to get a building permit.
Mr. Oborne: Get through this meeting too, yes.
Mr. Robertson: Yes in order for us to have that to get our closing they are not going to able to start
and get us those finalized plans until then. They want money in hand first.
Mr. Oborne: Imagine that.
Mr. Robertson: Yes, imagine that.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening did you want to address the board? If you could come up the table please, If
you could just identify yourself for the record please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Ms. Jack: Yes my name is Angela Jack and I live at 35 Meadow Drive which is right next door to
them. Clute Enterprises built my house two years ago and its 15 feet below street level; it’s like in a
little gulley. My concern is I don’t I’m not looking forward to any adverse effects if there would be any
with a house being built next door to me on my property.
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have any issues with storm water or drainage currently?
Ms. Jack: I don’t because I invested a lot of money in stone and everything and DEC came and
approved everything. That’s the reason why I don’t have any issues, but I don’t want what I’m saying
is hopefully they the way they build their house I won’t have a problem on my property from water
running into my land. That’s a big issue for me.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay thank you.
Ms. Jack: Thank you.
Mr. Hunsinger: Anyone else, any written comments Keith?
Mr. Oborne: No.
23
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Hunsinger: You can come back to the table. So the ad joiner’s house would be roughly on the
same elevation as yours, yours would be higher?
Mr. Robertson: Ours is road level, ours is actually going to be 18 inches above that road level as it
exists now, and we are going to have the driveway the complete opposite of her lot. So it’s already in
the slope that its already at right now and the topography so like you said our house is going to be I
don’t know how many feet above hers but we are road level which is the highest point in the
subdivision as it is anyways, so when it comes to her lot we’re not disturbing any of the stone that’s
already out there obviously for gas and water purposes and electrical and that there are only
disturbing part of the edge of the road supposedly so I don’t believe we’re going to make any
drainage problems into her lot. When it comes to excavating we’re going to try to have him flatten it
out anyways towards her property so for future we’re going to be planting some possible cedar
bushes which are grow up nice and tall and a decent barrier between us which is obviously good too
for purposes of water.
Mr. Hunsinger: Did you investigate at all hooking into the sewer system? I don’t know how close it
comes.
Mr. Robertson: It’s too far down the road and they would have to blast the road so that’s why we had
to put the septic where we did, actually the septic stops south one property south which is the people
we bought it from but in order to do it would cost way too much and supposedly they would have to
blast the road to get the septic up that far.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, I didn’t know how far up it went, I knew it was close
Mr. Robertson: It’s only like a property away
Mr. Krebs: Well the road goes down right after your property too
Mr. Robertson: Right and then her drywell goes right down into her garage and everything else. Go
back one more Keith, that one right there. That right there is the edge of the property, she actually I
believe just moved her fence before that picture was taken and actually as you can see pretty much
right where Keith was taking that picture down in between those trees that last tall pine tree just off to
the left probably 20 or 30 feet from her fence, that really is the property line right there and we don’t
really don’t intend to harm her property there at all or ours if she already has stuff there. The only
thing I am doing is taking down some of those pine trees just because of the fact that they are 60 feet
tall and all they do is sway in the wind and you take the ones out in front of it and all they are going to
do is crack over. The neighbor that we actually bought the property from had two or three fall during
the winter which obviously is a huge issue so other than that I plan on leaving small maples or oak
trees that are already there and possibly planting some good shrubbery down the road.
Mr. Ford: Keith do you or anyone else know what the standard would be for that type of drain at the
foot of the driveway? I’m concerned with that that there is sufficient width and depth
Mr. Oborne: And storage, yes. There are certainly standards that Dec uses and I might have to lean
on an engineer on this, typically its 24inches in width and 4 feet in depth, is that about right Dennis?
For a standard drain just a stone trench, stone filled trench the standard is two foot by four foot
typically a lot of times you’d put a geo textile on top of it and peat gravel for maintenance so it doesn’t
clog up over time. That‘s the typical standard for an infiltration drain.
Mr. Hunsinger: And we certainly see my memory fails me the size of them but the eave trenches
around the perimeter of a house they are usually two by two, one by two.
Mr. Oborne: If it’s a trench drain that’s a different design, it usually has an outlet somewhere also. It
has an infiltration down below; it has a stone on the bottom infiltration pipe stone on top. I think my
concern is that water ripping down that driveway and not having any place to stop and infiltrate and
you’re just going to lose your driveway over time, I’ve seen it so many times. It’s on my driveway right
now. So if you could somehow mitigate that you’re not really going to be able to stop the water from
ripping down the driveway but you certainly can stop it from ponding on the bottom and have it
infiltrate in. That’s really my concern with that.
Mr. Ford: That’s my concern that’s why I raised it again.
Mr. Oborne: I think as far as the eave trenches that’s’ standard with building and codes you have to
have foundation drainage obviously. I hear you.
24
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Ford: Let’s go with that standard if that’s code or DEC or however
Mr. Oborne: For the driveway water, that would more than take care of that.
Mr. Schonewolf: Do you have catch basins in the street?
Mr. Oborne: I don’t think so.
Mr. Robertson: I don’t believe so no. The people that live across the street inside the center of the
subdivision not the outskirts if you drive through there after a couple of rainy days their yards are filled
with some waters of some areas of water and I don’t really believe there is any catch basins
anywhere, I said there is sewer down the road.
Mr. Schonewolf: There is no storm system in the development. I didn’t see any
Mr. Oborne: I don’t think there are to be honest with you.
Mr. Ford: Your investment in a wide and deep trench there is going to be a good investment. It’s
going to take water where it will not do damage.
Mr. Schonewolf: The water will go where it wants to go.
Mr. Hunsinger: How would we word the resolution?
Mr. Oborne: For a trench or for what?
Mrs. Steffan: Well one of the things Keith is that as far as eave trenches that’ll probably be required
by the building and codes so that doesn’t have to be part of our resolution.
Mr. Oborne: Well it wouldn’t be necessarily an eave trench required by building and codes, there is
certainly a foundation drainage system that has to be installed and eave trenches that would be at the
applicant’s discretion, if he wanted to take a pipe and pipe it out to the back yard that’s fine too that’s
giving doing the job right there pipe it into the rain gardens. Whatever you want to do with that. The
eave trench I’m not overly concerned with that because you do have the foundation drainage but it is
certainly the driveway water coming off the driveway not having a place to stop. That’d be my
concern. And E & S. So how would I word? I don’t like to do that I’ll put it to you that way.
Mrs. Steffan: Right I understand.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well there is also the language that the zoning board put in that they had to follow the
NYS standards for erosion control by utilizing appendix E Erosion and Sediment Control for small
home site construction
Mr. Oborne: I believe you all got a copy of that with your notes, so it’s standard to use, it’s basic, it’s
what most home sites should have
Mr. Hunsinger: And of course all of those address the concerns that the neighbor has expressed as
well.
Mr. Oborne: And I’m glad to hear that the fence encroachment was taken of, get off to a bad start. I
certainly can work with the applicant in regards to a stone trench I can get the standard to you I don’t
think that’s an issue it’s just a standard.
Mr. Robertson: The excavator plans on putting stone pretty much along the face of the driveway
facing the road so where it drops straight off we are going to have stone all there so the water is not
going to running off into the driveway from there, it’s really just coming down the driveway that’s all
we have to worry about mainly because I did talk to him and tell him I want big stones and stuff put in
for kind of like a retaining wall purpose.
Mr. Ford: And the length and width of your driveway again please?
Mr. Robertson: It’s about 65 feet from the house roughly and whatever the normal standard width,
width, and a half I guess of a driveway again this is just proposed it might even be a little bit smaller
than that. It’s actually not 65, its actually going to be a little less than that.
Mr. Magowan: Its 51 ½ feet long.
25
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Robertson: He’s got his scale with him.
Mr. Magowan: To the front of the house.
Mr. Krebs: To the front but 65 goes to the edge of the property so you’re looking at probably less 10
feet
Mr. Hunsinger: So it’s not a huge driveway by any means
Mr. Robertson: No not at all. And that for the most part as you can where the driveway faces the
southeast there that’s pretty much going to be a retaining wall of stone from there is a lot of stone
already in the property bit giant stones and it’ll be bringing in a lot more bigger stones for us as well,
it’s really just that whatever the width of the driveway is going to be at the time coming down in.
Mrs. Steffan: If I this just advice. If you’re going to have somebody take stones out and put in a
retaining wall for you you want to make sure that there is landscape cloth behind between the soil and
the rocks that they put in otherwise you’ll have dirt coming out
Mr. Robertson: You know like weeding
Mrs. Steffan: Well it’s not even the weeding it’s when you have these downpours and the water finds
its way behind the rocks so that you end up with all that stuff in your yard. I had that happen to me
and we had the whole rock wall pulled out and redone and so it was a very costly lesson so I’m just
passing that on.
Ms. Robertson: Thank you.
Mrs. Steffan: I’m just sure how to word the addition.
Mr. Hunsinger: That’s the struggle.
Mrs. Steffan: I understand that it’s already in the zoning board motion so there is some language
actually there are some compliance issues with the zoning board language
Mr. Oborne: If you could piggyback that language on this it we could just focus on the site plan when
it comes to code compliance if you understand what I’m saying as far as the Appendix E yeah
Mr. Hunsinger: Just direct the homeowner to comply with Appendix E.
Mr. Oborne: It could just be piggybacked with the area variance which he has gotten approval for.
Mr. Hunsinger: Right but is that enough to give direction to the discussion about stormwater capacity
for the driveway
Mr. Oborne: Well the Appendix E is E & S only so Small Home Site Construction, no that would not,
so what you’d want do is maybe preface your conditional approval upon utilizing DEC standards for
infiltration trenches. With that what I’d be looking from the board would be what location would you
like that trench installed downslope side of the driveway along the lane. That might be the way to go
you capture all that water have a dry lawn.
Mr. Robertson: The excavator that was planning on doing that because of the way the land sits right
now you can see that that shed is actually 15.39 feet away, that shed is actually in a higher area but
that little valley actually goes in between and even the neighbor we’re buying the property from said if
we have problem we can bring them in and run that drain down through there with no problem.
Because they don’t utilize any of the property behind their house or where that shed is just because
of the fact that where their house sits up high the back yard just drops off and full of woods and they
don’t have little kids running around either.
Mrs. Steffan: But wouldn’t need a drainage easement for that if you were to use somebody else’s
property for drainage.
Mr. Oborne: Well I don’t think that he’s planning on encroaching on the other property for drainage.
Mr. Robertson: No
26
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mrs. Steffan: So from what I’ve just heard I’ve got we’re going to direct the homeowner to comply with
the zoning board recommendations regarding appendix e erosion and sediment control and then we
also are in our conditions we’re asking the applicant to follow DEC guidelines for infiltration trenches
to deal with roof and driveway runoff. Is that the right language?
Mr. Oborne: Not necessarily roof runoff but driveway runoff, I want to try to make this as easy for
Bruce as possible. I’m here to make things easy for Bruce, spell it out so we use the stone trench for
DEC specs along the length of the downslope portion of the driveway does that make sense?
Mr. Hunsinger: I think we’ve got it. I didn’t close the public hearing yet I will CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING, this is a Type II SEQR
Mrs. Steffan: So the applicant has asked for waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping, and
lighting, yes based on the recommendations that have been put in place. Do we have to them
separately or can we do them together, the freshwater wetlands and site plan they go together?
Mr. Oborne: Do them together.
Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to approve-see below
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 37-2011/FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2011 DAVID ROBERTSON
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,560 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 400 +/- sq. ft. deck.
Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a MDR zone requires Planning Board review
and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100 feet of a regulated wetland requires
Planning Board review and approval;
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/2011;
The ZBA approved the variance request on 6/22/2011;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/28/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2011/FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2011 DAVID
ROBERTSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQR-no further review is necessary;
3) 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;
4) 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;
5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
6) 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;
27
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
7) 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;
8) We will direct the applicant to comply with the Zoning Board recommendations regarding
compliance with Appendix E Erosion and Sediment Control in their motion of last week;
9) We would direct the applicant to comply with DEC standards for infiltration standards on the down
slope side of the driveway.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2011, by the following vote:
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. The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 31-2011 Andrew
West. Keith whenever you’re ready.
APPLICATION: Site Plan 31-2011
APPLICANT: Andrew West
REQUESTED ACTION: Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan
Review
LOCATION: 12 Joshua’s Rock Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/11-No County Impact
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 6/16/2011
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 23-2011 Side setback relief and exp. of n/c structure Approved
6/22/11
SP 32-2011 Boathouse Pending
BOH 2011 Absorption field setback Approved 5/16/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes alteration/renovation and a 441 +/- sq. ft.
expansion of an existing single family residence including a replacement wastewater system for a
four bedroom house. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board
review and approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: The application was tabled at the May 17, 2011 Planning Board meeting
pending submittal of revisions concerning the National Historic Landmark designation. Attached are
copies from the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as
the applicant describing the status of the historic designation.
The proposal calls for the expansion of an existing 2,242 sq. ft. single family dwelling to 2,683
sq. ft. A new general purpose area to be constructed on the lower level with an eastern access from
the outside as drawn, new kitchen and dining above the general purpose area, and new master
bedroom with bath proposed for the top floor. Additionally, new decking is proposed for the southern
portion of the home as well as a new front entrance to the west. The resulting boundary currently
abuts the home on the northern portion of the parcel and it is noted that the bay window of the
adjoining dwelling to the north is within the northern boundary of this parcel. Further, the existing
boathouse straddles both the project property as well as the property to the south. It is understood
that the resulting setback issues are the result of the family trust associated with the lands subdividing
this property in the past. Please refer to Variance Request heading on Sheet V-1 for additional
clarification of ownership and history.
Plan Review:
1. E&S control should be offered for the home expansion in addition to the wastewater proposal.
2. Shoreline planting should be considered as per §179-8-040B.
28
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Additional Comments:
1. BOH resolution dated 5/16/2011 previously attached.
2. Water supplied from lake.
3. OPRHP encourages the applicant to keep the proposed ridge line at or below what currently
exists.
Application Protocol:
6/21/11: Provide written recommendation to ZBA
6/22/11: Zoning Board of Appeals review
6/28/11: PB review TBD
Mr. Oborne: I guess the long and short of it that may be a misnomer misstating that, we were here
last week for the recommendation, they have gotten their variances from the ZBA all the SHPO
issues have been taken of, ownership issues has been vetted by counsel and they are comfortable
with that there are some issues in regards to E & S and shoreline plantings. And basically with that
I’m going to turn it over to the board. I’m confident you’re all up to speed on everything.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening.
Mr. MacElroy: Yes, I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing the applicant for
this site plan review for Andrew West. Andrew is not able to be here this evening, Sharon Davies
who is a representative of the ownership, current ownership of the property is here for any questions
that might require more local or historic knowledge of the property. As Keith indicated we were here
last week for the recommendation, I will just recap again what this is is a proposed renovation of an
existing single family residence that exists on an individual lot about 1/3 of an acre that lies within the
family compound of Joshua’s Rock. The property to the north is also one of the individual lots the
property to the south is part of the common lands that are owned by the Joshua’s Rock Corp. The
subject parcel is currently in an estate, Sharon is the executrix of that estate, it has been unused let’s
say, Keith said something about currently not residential but it just hasn’t been used for about 13
years I believe because of since the death of Sharon’s uncle and it’s been in that estate status since
but again it does exist as an individual lot, I think that was verified by town counsel in the name of the
estate, the actual improvements have involved some variances, it’s a preexisting nonconforming
structure. As Keith indicated again we have acquired the variances necessary, we have gained an
approval from the Board of Health regarding the wastewater system, that’s an upgrade of what
certainly currently exists for that property, it’s a modern system meeting today’s standards we’re
confident and happy that that new wastewater system is part of the plan. The improvements to the
home actually decrease the footprint of the house area while there is an increase in floor area
because part of the addition is the second story addition so there is an increase in floor area but a
decrease in the overall footprint. As a result it really in terms of stormwater becomes an exempt
project, stormwater is determined or dictated by Chapter 147 of the town’s ordinance at three
classifications-exempt, minor and major. This would fall under the exempt category because it
doesn’t result in an increase of impervious area of 1,000 ft. and it doesn’t involve the 5,000 feet or
more of disturbance. We have provided some provisions for stormwater management in the form of a
couple of rain gardens on the lake side that would capture runoff from the roof and to the back side or
the road side driveway side a infiltration trench which would be more or less a drip edge infiltration for
that area so there’s been in the spirit of the ordinance there is some effort made to provide
stormwater management. Keith mentioned vegetation or vegetation buffer I think that’s a question,
I’m not sure if you’d like to I should go through engineering comments or actually comments didn’t
include anything on that but I would just note that we’ve that we feel that there is an existing
vegetative buffer along that shoreline there is quite a stand of existing mature trees 60 70 80 feet tall
white pines and the like through that area. There are some small trees; there is groundcover so I
think in this situation it meets the requirements of the regulation. And I’ve had discussions further
with staff just to it’s not a point of being argumentative or it’s just as I review the the language of the
ordinance I believe the site complies. The very first line of the buffer it says where no vegetative
buffer exists the applicant should create something. Well I think that right from the get go there is an
existing situation that the project itself doesn’t require disturbance in that area so regarding that
question and I’m sure you’ll have other questions about that but that would be our initial thought about
that. I don’t know if it’s appropriate to talk about the engineering comments.
Mr. Hunsinger: Sure if you want to address them yes.
Mr. MacElroy: We did receive them certainly in a timely fashion, I didn’t provide written comments to
that not knowing exactly how the board would want to address those but and I’m sure you have those
in your packet. The first thing I just want to point out is the paragraph following the bullet points on
29
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
the first page. It indicates that your office has requested that we limit our review to the design of
stormwater management and erosion and sediment control items. I just make that observation.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well that’s part of the reason you don’t see comments from the engineer about lake
shore landscaping because
Mr. Oborne: He has a point.
Mr. Hunsinger: They limit their comments to not include those.
Mr. MacElroy: I’ll make a point further I just wanted to call that to your attention that struck me as I
read this letter. The first comment is again commenting on the fact that it doesn’t disturb an acre of
land, it doesn’t involve DEC’s phase II stormwater regulations, refers to chapter 179 article 6 about a
20 year return, furthermore the project into the Lake George watershed chapter 147. As I previously
stated chapter 147 the definitions of different projects falls under an exempt project so really 147
doesn’t apply therefore 179 in that requirement for the 25 year interval doesn’t wouldn’t apply either
because you’re not providing stormwater management to any particular regulation. Again I’ll point out
that we have provided some effort to provide some stormwater management. Comment 2, thoughts
about infiltration devices located down gradient from the wastewater system again we have provided
some devices in this case rain gardens that as the comments notes they are up gradient of the
wastewater system and further on the detail on sheet 2 of the of our plans and that’s a detail that is
taken directly from a Waterkeeper fact sheet, a suggested detail for the construction of rain gardens.
So that’s on our plan, within that is a note that says rain gardens should be 100 feet from a septic
system. While that’s a recommendation that’s not a regulatory statement that this isn’t a regulatory
detail it’s a recommendation that we’ve used from others so I would simply propose that we delete
that, we’ll delete that note from the I don’t feel that where we’ve placed the rain gardens will be a
threat to the absorption field system. Particularly as the lay of that land I looked at it again this
evening before I came to the meeting and the way the lay of the land is and I think we’re not in a
situation that would impact the absorption field. Point 3 and this is where I call back to my
observation about limiting comments to stomrwater and erosion control. This is a comment about
wastewater so and in our case it’s an easy answer, they talk about the separation distances and what
not., we have a variance from the board of health which satisfied that boundary line setback the 10
foot setback the property line you typically have we received a variance from the but Chazen
obviously wouldn’t be party to that so they weren’t aware, they made the comment but still the
comment is a wastewater comment which I didn’t think they were commenting on. Point 4 talks about
our notes, we put on some standard notes for erosion and sediment control there were there is
language in there that doesn’t specifically pertain to this situation, like there is more notes than are
necessary that is the comment he’s making so he wants us to delete some of those references and
whatnot. So certainly we can do that. Item 5 talks about a detail, a DEC detail talks about a rain
garden having a bowl depth of six inches, the Waterkeeper detail shows it as twelve inches, this isn’t
necessarily a request to change anything just recognize that and be aware that the plantings should
be tolerant of more water, more moist condition so understood. Comment 6 talks about notes
regarding maintenance and there is certainly there are not specific maintenance notes for a rain
garden on these plans that could be added so we don’t have an issue with that. Miscellaneous Item 7
this again is related to a septic system a wastewater system setback oh this is the one that had to do
with the 10 foot setback, number 3 had to do with the neighboring wells, excuse me for that
confusion. We’ve shown the one well that exists in the area; we’ve shown that on the plan the point
of that question aren’t there others? But no the other nearby house homestead draws their water
from the lake. So back to 7 that’s the 10 foot property line setback, that’s something again that was
issued by the board of health and number 8 this has to do with a well again and assuming that the
well shown on the plan would be the water supply for the subject house and it’s not so that was an
assumption perhaps but it’s not correct. So if you follow all that those are basically the responses if
there is need to clarify on the plans whatever we’ll be glad to get those cleared up and resubmit and
then revisit or whatever the preference of the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any questions comments from the board?
Mr. Krebs: I’ll make one comment I happen to agree with him looking at the pictures and after having
visited the site there is certainly a lot of vegetation along the waterline and those big trees absorb a
huge amount of water so I don’t’ think there is a need for a rain garden along there.
Mrs. Steffan: I certainly think that the applicant’s agent could work with the engineer and obtain a
sign-off. You know since he walked all through the comments, they seemed reasonable to get the
sign-off; I’m not worried about that.
30
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments, I guess I’m not sure that I agree with Mr. Krebs comments
about the plantings though, you certainly have the large trees more than what normal sites have but
the only ground cover really is grass.
Mr. MacElroy : Well there is a viney groundcover, I don’t know where it falls in in terms of there is
grass certainly, An assortment of other vegetation that intertwines within around the base of those
trees and whatnot and again I’m not here to be argumentative about something but I think if you look
closely at what’s required and if you can humor me for a minutes from the regulation buffer
composition and density for every 50 linear feet of shoreline in this particular it’s a 50 foot lot so we
have a perfect example here what should it consist of-one large tree, minimum 3 inch diameter okay I
think we covered that.
Mr. Hunsinger: I prefaced it by saying you easily cover the large trees but it’s the rest.
Mr. MacElroy: I understand one smaller tree or large shrub. There is smaller trees and shrub in that
area along the shoreline or where?
Mr. Sipp: Where?
Mr. MacElroy: Where? Well what constitutes a smaller tree?
Mr. Sipp: Well anything three inches or
Mr. Hunsinger: That one picture you had that showed there you go.
Mr. MacElroy: There are smaller trees in that area.
Mr. Sipp: Where’s the shrubs?
Mr. MacElroy: One smaller tree or large shrub, there are smaller trees or in some form a shrub along
the shoreline. Again I don’t want to be argumentative or whatever but if you this idea of the
vegetative buffer is a good thing I don’t disagree with that I think if you understand truly what’s being
asked for you know a large tree, a small tree or shrub and some groundcover, I think we’ve got a
pretty good situation along there, we’ve got mature established trees with root systems that provide
that erosion protection and whatnot along there now if it was appropriate to add a shrub or if that’s
what is a good idea perhaps I’ll confer with him and we can make those adjustments. We want to be
compliant with the regulations; we feel we are in compliance with what exists.
Mr. Sipp: If you are reading that go down to c, under buffer and composition intensity, c every 100
square feet of groundcover,
Mr. MacElroy: Yes 10 herbaceous plants, well I guess I would question whether that does not exist?
There is viney groundcover situation, it’s not just grass that exists down in that area and I don’t want
to split hairs over you know 10 plants or where in the case of as Keith and I went through it today well
if you have to have 10 plants for every 100 square feet and you’ve got a certain width and there is a
certain area of the shoreline that gets credited for having dock access or whatever.
Mr. Sipp: I don’t that’s splitting hairs; I think that’s what the regulation says.
Mr. MacElroy: And I would say that the regulations are met by what’s there. And that’s not splitting
hairs.
Mr. Sipp: But I don’t see any evidence of any groundcover.
Mr. MacElroy: Well I’d be glad to review the site, go to the site and we can count herbaceous
groundcover. I’m not trying to be flip; I just think to a point we’re meeting that regulation and I’ve
been here before to on a couple of situations where this seems like it’s asked for because it’s on this
paper but to understand what’s there and what’s being asked for I think we’re compliant and I think
we’ve been compliant in other situations as well. In a project like this the cost of a few shrubs or
whatever no big deal but I also there is compliance.
Mr. Sipp: I’ve been there.
Mrs. Steffan: We’ve heard from two board members how does the rest of the board feel?
31
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Traver: Is this area mowed regularly. I know when we walked around
Mr. MacElroy: Right along the shoreline, I don’t think mowed regularly but there is grass there in
places certainly.
Mr. Traver: I know when we were there and walked around it appeared to me that it was in its
natural state
Mr. MacElroy: It’s certainly not a manicured area, even further upslope where there is more than
open area and grassed area I think this perception that grass is bad and grass always relates to
pristine lawns that are manicured and fertilized is not always the case so
Mr. Traver: I mention that in the context of this being an historic site and I imagine from my brief
review of the history of this site this is essentially as it has appeared for almost 100 years. You know
one of the concerns when we started this project was significantly altering the historic site and if we
go in and alter the landscaping if you will we’re making a change to the site. I do agree with the
applicant I think that for the density of the usage of this piece of property at least from what I saw
walking around on it I think that the groundcover is adequate.
Mr. Krebs: So do I.
Mrs. Steffan: I certainly remember when I walked on it obviously there is established grass there
because of the old pine trees the soil is kind of acid under there I do remember little wild flowers that
were there and had obviously been there a long time. Digging that up to add more to it I don’t know
whether that’s the intent of the code or what we’re trying to accomplish so I’d be okay with leaving it
the way it is.
Mr. Krebs: And I can’t find it in the code right now but there is also a paragraph that says that if you
can you leave it as natural as possible.
Mr. MacElroy: Yes you’re right, further on
Mr. Sipp: When you had that over story those trees those twelve tall pines you don’t get much
sunlight in there you’re not going to get much growth so you need a specialized plant to go into a
certain situation.
Mrs. Steffan: Okay but what’s going to say that
Mr. MacElroy: Kind of what’s growing there now, the native plants that
Mr. Sipp: I don’t think there is enough of it.
Mr. Ford: What evidence that there isn’t enough of it Don?
Mr. Sipp: Some of those pictures and I walked right through there a month ago
Mrs. Steffan: You know the other thing is when we look at rebuilding that dock which of course is the
other site plan most of it is on an adjoining property, it’s only a small portion that’s on the property in
questions so.
Mr. MacElroy: Yes, you’re correct.
Mrs. Steffan: So we would be disturbing a whole section that wouldn’t have been disturbed at all to
build a boathouse. In my mind I think we should leave well enough alone, that’s my opinion.
Mr. Ford: For reasons that were stated earlier by Stephan and by you Gretchen the historical
significance of this site I see no reason to impose further more modern restrictions when it appears to
me that was has occurred over the last 100 years that hasn’t added substantially to the degradation
of the lake. I say leave it the way it is.
Mr. Schonewolf: I agree, it is what it is. And it fits in with that piece of property we’re supposed to
put common sense into our judgment I say common sense says leave it alone.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the board.
32
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mrs. Steffan: I think if they get a sign-off from the engineer
Mr. Schonewolf: That’s almost standard
Mr. Hunsinger: Absolutely, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, is there anyone in
the audience that wishes to address the board, Mr. Salvador? And of course if you could identify
yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mr. Salvador. John Salvador. I’m a property owner bordering the lands of Joshua Rock Corp. I have
commented on their application before the town board of health as well as the ZBA. And I have
raised in both instances the issue of their standing to bring these applications forth as owners of the
property. Mr. MacElroy mentioned earlier in the meeting that Ms. Davies is the executrix of an estate.
Estates have names, the best that I can determine the last estate associated with this property was
that of Edwin E. Seeley. Be very careful, there are many Edwin Seeley’s, Edwin E. Seeley’s and
Edward Seeley down through the ages. But in any case this Edward E. Seeley died in 1959, and
there is a deed on record at the county that was filed in 1982. In 1982 the surviving executors of the
last will and testament of Edwin E. Seeley conveyed land in 1982. And there is no record of any
other executors conveying anything that was in the estate of Edwin E. Seeley since then. Just to
make that point clear. I notice on the agenda tonight that the owners are now listed as Sharon
Davies et al; Joshuas Rock Corp. Who is Joshua’s Rock Corp., who is the owner? Previously it has
been Sharon Davies, et al. and the Joshua’s Rock Corp. has never been before the public board of
health and the ZBA. One small point I’d like to bring out as I look at this agenda here it says that the
location of the property is 12 Joshua’s Rock Road. The county maintains a 911 emergency response
system and in general if more than two dwellings are located off an easement then the easement has
to have a name. Now there are at least ½ dozen dwellings in this compound as they refer to it that do
not border their land, does not border on Joshua’s Rock Road. What they have to do with all these
easements that are running around is give them names. And then corresponding addresses can be
assigned and of course street names put up so emergency services can find the buildings. That’s
how they locate them. It’s not to be accepted and expected that the people are on the emergency
services at this time and are very familiar with the property and the owners are going to be here
forever. So a system has to be put in place that’s going to survive. In any case one of the long
standing established requirements underlining the criteria for having a complete application move
from the planning staff’s review to the town’s various land use permitting boards is proof of the
ownership of the lands to which the permits will eventually attach. You don’t have standing if you
don’t own the land. Where area variances may be required the applicant is required to supply
certified survey of the parcel of land to which the variances will eventually attach. In the case of this
application the applications before the Town Board of Health and the ZBA sponsored by Ms. Sharon
Davies and others what has been furnished and accepted by the planning staff is a map of a survey
of the lands of Sharon Davies and six other named persons has been furnished as evidence of
ownership in only tax parcel 213.19-1-9. As of January 3, 2003 and I refer to this map and it should
be part of your packet I’m referring to this map, you have it in your packet? Nowhere in the real
property records maintained in the Warren County Clerk’s office can a record be found supporting
that this group of people as individuals, map of a survey of lands Sharon Davies, Katherine Seelye,
Ann Campanella, Thomas S. West, Liz (unable to hear), James E. West and Elizabeth S. Williams
can be found that this group of people as individuals hold any interest in the tax parcel at issue there
is No. 9, the county records do show that 239.19-1-9 is currently titled in only the Joshua Rock Corp.,
this map of a survey of lands of Sharon Davies and others carries a January 3, 2003 date. Now a
map of a survey and I don’t have to explain this to Mr. MacElroy he is very familiar with the this, a
map of a survey is just exactly what it says a survey has to have been performed and this is the
results of it, a picture is worth a thousand words so to speak. Now this is purported to have been
done by the firm of Coulter & McCormack licenses land surveyor. It’s not sealed, it’s not signed. I
maintain this is a fraud. I knew Tom McCormack, Tom McCormack did a lot of work for us and he
wasn’t conducting land surveys in 2003, he was an elderly man, he was a sickly man and his stamp is
not even on here. The so called map of a survey does not exhibit other various essential elements
required to qualify of evidence supporting a claim of ownership by Ms. Davies and six others. In
addition to the date of the survey or survey not having been noted, that’s another point, if this a map
of a survey the date of the survey has to be noted on the map. Now these surveyors all maintain field
rd
notes, and what we should find are the field notes done by Tom McCormack prior to January 3 to
support a survey of a map, a map of a survey excuse me. This map does not have a reference to
true north, magnetic north or true north you don’t know it has this map has azimuths on it but you
don’t know what they mean. What could probably be the source of the data on this January 3, 2003
map, where did it come from? There are two deeds recorded in Warren County Clerk’s office, one in
book 645 at page 1093 dated April 28, 1982, one in book 645 page 1096 April 17, 1982. The deed I
33
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
referred you to here earlier is the one in 645 page 1096, this deed talks about that the parcel being
conveyed is shown on a map of the lands of the estate of Ernest Roy Strempel situated on Dunham’s
Bay Lake George, Town of Queensbury, Warren County dated March 5 and filed in the office of the
Warren County Clerk’s office simultaneously herewith, guess what? There is nothing herewith. They
th
also refer to this being a portion of the premises of Elwyn E. Seelye deed dated September 10, etc.,
etc. and filed in the Warren County Clerk’s office. Searching back to 645 1093 of April 28, 1982 the
following paragraph is included in the deed and by the way the deed has a description of the parcel,
Metes and bounds description and this note says the above descriptions were taken from a map
entitled maps of the lands of the estate of Ernest Roy Strempel dated March 5, 1982 made by Coulter
& McCormack, licensed land surveyor Glens Falls NY who coincidentally the metes and bounds
noted on this map are the same as the ones in that deed, and the map, the location of the map has
not been cited and that’s a requirement of the law. If you put in a deed that a map exists you’ve got
to tell people where it’s located. And it hasn’t been noted here. So this is very poor work and should
not be accepted by this town. This isn’t even sixth grade work.
Mr. Hunsinger: Is there anything else Mr. Salvador?
Mr. Salvador? Yes, there is on file at the county this snippet of a map and I mentioned this to the
town board, this snippet of a map it looks very much like where this came from. It has a 1982 date on
the side here, but who did it for who it was done is not here. Somehow, someway we’ve got to come
to grips with this situation, if these people are going to get a permit to do what they want to do then
they should have standing to number one apply for the permit, number two to receive the permit. I’ll
save my other comments for the next.
Mr. Hunsinger: Did you have any comments based on
Mr. MacElroy: Just two points I guess I would make is that this issue did come up at the Board of
Health, the Town Board acting as the board of health requested that the town attorney look into the
issue, we provided some property history information to the attorney’s office, he responded with a
letter that I would assume is in the file, it’s indicates that he was satisfied with the ownership issue.
So and that’s one issue and the second was whether there might be some confusion about the
ownership, there has been no change in application ownership, this application for the house the
applicant is Andrew West the owner is Sharon Davies et. al. that group of six or seven others owners.
For the next application the dock because the dock straddles the property line as a co-owner listed on
the application is the Joshua’s Rock Corp. because they are in fact are the owners of the property to
the south that shares the frontage of this dock so that’s the explanation, unless in publication of the
agenda or whatever may be I don’t know I didn’t even look whether there was a typo or something.
One application the house the ownership is Sharon Davies et al. is the way I listed it. For the boat
dock improvement there are two owners listed
Mr. Schonewolf: That why it’s listed in the 911 reference too just to clarify that. Sharon’s son and
myself know we’ve both been down there on many calls and they use the number first they use the
location which they just come out and say Joshua’s Rock and then if they have it they use the name,
we have no difficulty finding anything down there.
Mr. MacElroy: If there is any further information that this board feels is necessary you know the
applicant is more than willing to provide whatever clarification I ‘m not sure who would make that
judgment, I believe the Town attorney already has so but if this board feels like it’s necessary to
reconfirm that or to address it certainly we don’t have a problem with doing that, and I apologize if
there was any confusion.
Ms. Davies: 1982 survey map was done for my Ernest Strempel my great uncle, the Owl’s Nest he
owned.
Mr. MacElroy: There may have been some confusion I ‘m not totally versed on that but the Strempel
is associated with Owl’s Nest so maybe there was some confusion on that by Mr. Salvador.
Mr. Oborne: Please keep in mind that a survey is not required for site plan review, a site plan is
required for site plan review.
Mr. Hunsinger: Right. Okay any additional questions comments from the board? Is the board
comfortable moving forward. Were there any written comments Keith?
Mr. Oborne: I don’t see any; I’m surprised there are not any from the Waterkeeper
34
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
th
Mr. Hunsinger: We did receive the written comment from Mr. Salvador dated June 20 regarding his
letter sewage disposal variance to the board of health on this project. He passed that out to us last
week, or last month, yes it had to be last week at the meeting and its related to this property, this
project, but we all have copies of that
Mr. Traver: Yes we have the report from the Town attorney investigating the ownership issue.
Mr. Hunsinger: I was just checking to see if there were any other written comments other than that
letter that was received by the board. Okay I will CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING and we’ll entertain
a motion.
Mrs. Steffan: So it appears that the only condition here is to obtain engineering sign-off, correct?
Mr. Schonewolf: That’s what we said.
Mrs. Steffan: Okay then I’ll put forth a motion-see below
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 31-2011 ANDREW WEST
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan:
Applicant proposes alteration/renovation and a 441 +/- sq. ft. expansion of an existing single family
residence including a replacement wastewater system for a four bedroom house. Expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval.
Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/11; and the ZBA approved the
variance request on 6/22/11;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/28/11;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code; and
2) Type II, no further action is necessary; and
3) 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
4) 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
5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its
review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6) 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
7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
8) 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
9) The applicant will obtain an engineering sign-off.
35
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay are next item on the agenda is Site Plan 32-2011 also for Andrew West
Mr. Oborne: Real quickly-staff notes see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 32-2011
APPLICANT: Andrew West
REQUESTED ACTION: Boathouse in a WR zone requires Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 12 Joshua’s Rock Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/11-No county impact
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 22-11 SFD setback relief Approved 6/22/11
SP 31-2011 Exp. N/C in CEA Pending
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes reconstruction of an existing 484 +/- sq. ft.
covered boathouse to include a 527 +/- sq. ft. new boathouse with a 53 +/- sq. ft. reduction of existing
537 +/- sq. ft. dock. Project located along the shoreline of two separate parcels of land. Boathouse in
a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: The application was tabled at the May 17, 2011 Planning Board meeting
pending submittal of revisions concerning the National Historic Landmark designation. Attached are
copies from the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as
the applicant describing the status of the historic designation.
Plan Review:
1. Additional shoreline planting as per §179-8-040B may be considered.
Additional comments
1. The agent for the project has communicated that the existing piers for the boathouse will be
reused for this project.
2. This application to be reviewed in conjunction with S.P. 31-2011 which concerns to the home
renovation and expansion on parcel.
Application Protocol:
5/17/116/21/11 Provide written recommendation to ZBA Pending
5/18/11/6/22/11 Zoning Board of Appeals review Decision Pending
6/28/11: PB review TBD
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay thank you. I think we mentioned last week that we were pretty much ready to
move the boathouse back in May but since it was really tied to the other application we kept them
together so I’ll guess I’ll just ask the board if there are any further questions or comments? There is a
public hearing scheduled Mr. Salvador did you want to address the board on the boathouse?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mr. Salvador: Please.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, if you could give up the table please. I would ask if you could limit your
comments to the boathouse project.
36
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Salvador: Once again I am resident of North Queensbury and a property owner bordering the
lands of the Joshua Rock Corp. I mentioned this to the ZBA, I had a map here done by the New York
State Conservation Department before it was the DEC, they mapped the total shoreline of Lake
George okay it took them six years to do it, all the structures everything including the mean low
watermark. These maps are on file with the Lake George Park Commission, it’s about six file
drawers and anyone can go take a look at them, this is a section of one of those of maps and it
shows clearly that the land we’re talking about is titled in the Joshua Rock Corp. That what’s the
state of New York determined in 1958. That snippet of a map that I mentioned to you has a note on it
here; it says outline of dock as shown on NYS Conservation Dept. Shoreline map dated 1956. And it
shows that the dock was at one time on the property, on that parcel we’re talking about, it was there,
it got moved, now did it have a permit to be moved? Certainly they didn’t get an easement to locate it
half on somebody else’s property, why didn’t they need an easement? Why was there was no
discussion because the same people own the land, the Joshua Rock Corp. own the land, the Joshua
Rock Corp. owned both parcels, there was no need for permission or easements or anything other
than a state permit to install that so sometime since 1956 that got moved, was there a permit for it?
State permit, town permit, we’ve always needed permits to do these things. Thank you.
Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you.
Mr. Ford: We’ll see what the Park Commission says about it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any additional questions comments from the board? Did you have any comment?
Mr. Traver: If I remember from again when we did site visits that boathouse, the dock not the
boathouse obviously but the dock as I recall is the a rock filled crib style construction and I think that
Mr. West when he was here was talking about swimming off that dock as a young child so is it likely
that that dock has been moved since it was constructed in the 1800’s? That wasn’t my impression,
thank you.
Mr. Hunsinger: Are there written comments Keith? Okay.
Mr. Oborne: But let me check for sure. We’ve already read in the Waterkeeper’s comments so.
Mr. Hunsinger: Since there are no further comments I will CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING and
entertain a motion from the board.
Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to approve-see below
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 32-2011 ANDREW WEST
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes reconstruction of an existing 484 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse to include a 527 +/- sq. ft.
new boathouse with a 53 +/- sq. ft. reduction of existing 537 +/- sq. ft. dock. Project located along the
shoreline of two separate parcels of land. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review
and approval;
Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/11;
ZBA approved the variance request on 6/22/11;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/28/11;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code; and
2) Type II, no further action is necessary;
37
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
3) 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;
4) 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;
5) 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;
Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Sipp: The approval by the Zoning Board, in light of when they moved to approve this was
establishment of an appropriate shoreline buffer to include plants, shrubs, and trees per section 179-8
with additional guidance from the Lake George Waterkeeper. Mr. Chairman I ask that this be added
to the motion.
Mr. Hunsinger: We have an amendment to the original motion, would anyone like to second that
amendment?
Mrs. Steffan: It’s just when we had the discussion a little bit earlier there were only 2 out of 7
members who were in favor of the buffering and five were not so I didn’t include it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Right, but this was a condition from the Zoning Board?
Mr. Oborne: It was a condition from the Zoning Board it’s considered a reasonable condition
Mr. Hunsinger: The applicant is bound by that condition so even if we don’t include it in our resolution
the applicant is still bound by that condition from the Zoning Board.
Mrs. Steffan: Correct.
Mr. Sipp: I withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Traver: They are bound to satisfy the requirements of the ZBA but they may be able to satisfy
that requirement by making an argument to them that conditions; existing conditions, meet that
requirement could they not?
Mr. Oborne: They discussed it at the ZBA last week. Mr. West did not seem to have any issues with
that, in fact, he sits I believe on the board of the LGA.
Mr. MacElroy: The Fund, and in fact they’ve had consultation with Kathy Bozony on site.
Mr. Traver: Oh, okay
Mr. MacElroy: It’s a very willing applicant again I wasn’t here to be confrontational I was trying to
make a point of what the regulations require and what exists on the site. Don’t be surprised if there is
additional vegetation but I would also point out that that resolution by the ZBA makes reference to
compliance with the regulations. My argument is the same; I believe the site already complies with
those regulations. Now it does further comment about consultation with the Waterkeeper and that’s
in fact already been done.
Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to say, that the problem I have with that condition is that they make the
Waterkeeper to be a regulatory agent which they are not and I have consistently mentioned that
concern to this board, but, be that as it may it is in the Zoning Board of Appeals
38
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mrs. Steffan: The applicant’s obviously working through this and trying to meet everybody’s needs so
I did not want to amend the motion.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well Mr. Sipp withdrew his amendment anyway so we have a motion and a second,
is there any further discussion?
Mr. Traver: Just to clarify the motion that we’re voting on is the one with Mr. Sipp’s amendment?
Mr. Hunsinger: No, Mr. Sipp withdrew his amendment. Everyone clear on what we’re voting on? Call
the vote please.
Mr. MacElroy: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re welcome. Good luck. Is there any further business to be brought before the
Board?
Mr. Oborne: Yes I’d like to discuss the VMJR application with the board. I don’t know if you’ve time to
digest what I put in front of you. It’s only been a couple of days since we’ve had that obviously.
Mr. Hunsinger: If I could just summarize for the board the letter was probably prompted by some
discussion but I had a conference with Keith and Craig yesterday, right? In our tabling motion we had
requested that the applicant present certain information. The applicant essentially has responded to
most of the engineering comments by saying we will, kind of thing which clearly doesn’t satisfy what
we’re looking for. What the applicant now has further stated is that they would like the Planning
Board to address the waiver request and you know the discussion we had last week is if they are
going to meet the conditions of our tabling resolution we’ll just put in on as an administrative item.
And my comments to Keith and Craig were that I have no problem with putting them, I mean, it will be
on the agenda because we tabled it to that meeting date. But I have no problem having a five or ten
minute discussion with the applicant about just the waiver request if that’s all that they want. Because
we’re really not going to spend any more time on it doing that than we would as an administrative
item and just table it again.
Mr. Traver: My concern is that the applicant is not taking full advantage of the planning department.
And it’s unnecessarily delaying our being able to process this application and my concern is further
that they will be appear before us in July with an incomplete application and essentially filibuster for
an hour or so and we won’t be any further ahead than then we are today.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well that was my point to staff. I said as long as it’s very clear to the applicant that
that’s the only item we’re going to consider and we’re only going to spend you know five or ten
minutes on that item and then we’re going to further table them.
Mr. Ford: I consider this a piece meal approach to this project and I’m opposed to it.
Mr. Schonewolf: Why is he doing that, because he is stalling on the road?
Mr. Oborne: I cannot speak for Mr. Macri as to why he’s asking his agents to do this. But I will say for
the record that the planning department is a facilitation department not an obstructionist department.
Whenever I hear the word, the “o” word, that we’re being obstructionists I to a certain extent take it
personally, because I go out of my way not to do that. So I would just like to get that on the record.
And to follow-up to what Chris was saying is once we get through this discussion however it goes
we’re going to issue them a formal letter stating what the position of this board is in regard to their
th
placement on the 26, how long are they going to be, are they going to be or however we
Mr. Traver: Is it the position of the planning department that at this point we have a completed
application? I thought we did not.
Mr. Oborne: We do not have a completed application based upon your tabling resolution.
Mr. Traver: And I, my recollection, and perhaps that’s not clear that last week we decided we would
not address this application until we had a completed application so why is this application on the
agenda, I mean, I understand the reason initially it was put on because we were in anticipation of the
applicant wanting to move this project forward
Mr. Hunsinger: We tabled it to a date specific so it is on the agenda it will either be on the agenda as
an administrative item for further tabling or as an agenda item and what has happened is, you know,
39
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
the applicant has heard back from Craig regarding the length of the road so there response is to say
well we want a waiver. So and what they’re further said is you know we can’t really address the
engineering until we know if the planning board is going to grant that waiver or not. So, I don’t agree
with the applicant’s tactics and strategy but I can understand why they are begging that question. I
mean, I know the feeling of the board I think they should know the feeling of the board based on our
conversation but if we need a five minute discussion to say we stand firm in that we want to see it
Mr. Traver: It’s my feeling that even if we grant a five minute discussion, number 1 it’s not likely to be
and with all due respect to the Chairman I understand that you will make a sincere effort to keep the
applicant to the five minutes but based on my experience on the planning board that never happens,
it just, once you give the floor to the applicant they are going to take it and run with it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well we won’t give them the floor then. I mean we’ve, we won’t give them the
opportunity to present anything. We have their letter we know what the request is.
Mr. Traver: I mean I’m just concerned about the precedent we’re setting that if we do not afford that
opportunity to other applicants who also have an incomplete application and want to have a warned
discussion at a time series of meetings with us then we’re being unfair. And I feel that this item will
be removed from the agenda for July until.
Mr. Hunsinger: We can’t remove it from the agenda; it’s on the agenda because we tabled it to that
date
Mr. Oborne: Yes, there is a public hearing associated with this also so the general public understands
th
that this application has been tabled to July 26, 2011. You can’t move it from the agenda, it’s what
type of item is it on the agenda.
Mr. Traver: I see, okay. Well it’s my feeling that the applicant based on my and obviously I have not
been party to all of these conversations but it would appear to me that the applicant is in effect
delaying our processing of this application by failing to take advantage of the resources available to
them in the Town of Queensbury Planning Department and I’m concerned about in any way
supporting anything other than them moving forward in a normal process of filling a application
submitting a completed application and going through the normal review process. I think that this, the
way they’re doing this will only result in further delay of our making a decision on this project and I
don’t support anything we or anyone is going to do that enables that behavior. I think that we’re not
doing anyone a favor and we may be possibly setting dangerous precedent.
Mr. Krebs: Yes.
Mr. Schonewolf: But, he’s caught between a rock and a hard spot. He can’t make an application
because he wants to settle if he puts it through us without that he know what’s going to happen. So
he’s we’ve just got to stay from it until he’s done.
Mr. Traver: To finish my comment my preference for the July meeting would be not to have, not to
hear the applicant or their representatives and simply to make an announcement that this application
is incomplete and awaiting further information as in the tabling motion of the planning board and we
move on to those applicants who have done that.
Mr. Schonewolf: Do we have to have a public hearing?
th
Mr. Oborne: On the 26?
Mr. Schonewolf: Yes
Mr. Oborne: I believe that the public hearing was left open; if it’s on there as an administrative item I
believe that public hearing correct me if I’m wrong, would still be open and it would be.
Mr. Hunsinger: It would just be continued, we wouldn’t hear comment.
Mr. Schonewolf: I think that’s a way to go, we’re just not going to hear it until it’s complete. That’s
what you’re saying
Mr. Ford: Administratively.
40
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
Mr. Traver: Well again I think if and I’m glad to get the clarification on the fact that it’s an agenda
item and it cannot be removed. I’m concerned about the precedent of hearing even the five minutes I
think is a dangerous precedent, I think if we simply make an announcement that we’re awaiting more
information or something, I mean whatever the board feels and that they’re methodology is not
enabled as opposed to following the recommended and taking advantage of the supports that are
available to them in the town. I think that’s a better precedent to set.
Mr. Krebs: So we make it an administrative item, and the item is going to be that we’re going to
Mr. Traver: Well just make an announcement.
Mr. Schonewolf: And we’re going to tabled it
Mr. Ford: We’ll keep the public hearing open.
Ms. Whiting: Well you’ll have to put it on as an administrative item, you’ll have to do a further tabling
request, continue the public hearing kept open and then add whatever conditions that you want add
to it.
Mr. Hunsinger: The only question will be when we table it to, or if it’s indefinite then we have to re
warn it. That’s the only issue.
Mr. Oborne: Well I think that would be up to the applicant is going to sort of dictate when they want to
be heard by submitting an application so you might want to say pending a completed application.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, table it indefinitely until they’ve met the conditions of the tabling resolution.
Mr. Traver: And we had offered them as I recall I think we offered to have a special meeting. So we
could possibly have the tabling the following submission of a completed application we would re-
evaluate the need for a special meeting or something like that.
Mr. Oborne: And I think that is the farthest from being an obstructionist board is by offering a special
meeting so.
Mr. Hunsinger: I told Keith and Craig on the phone I said you know if we need to talk about it in public
well I guess I’m going to do it anyway, I said if we need to back staff up in public we’re happy to do
that whenever we can.
Mr. Traver: I think the record speaks for itself as far as you know our planning department. We had
an applicant earlier tonight who was very grateful for having the resources in the town that we have
and certainly on a project of this magnitude and importance I think anything that delays it is just is a
waste of time on the part of the applicant and the town. I think we should keep them focused them on
finishing that application so we can move forward. This is just a delaying tactic.
Mr. Oborne: Well at the very least satisfy the conditions of your tabling resolution.
Mr. Traver: Right, and why they would want to hold this up is just I don’t understand
Mr. Hunsinger: Well they’re hoping that we would grant the waiver and then they don’t need to do the
extra work.
Mr. Traver: But even if we give them well I understand what you’re saying.
Mr. Hunsinger: The board is pretty clear.
Mr. Ford: We had a tabling resolution we stick with it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other business?
Mr. Oborne: We’re looking for a third meeting to clear our board, our chalkboard so to speak
Mr. Hunsinger: And we need a motion to do that
Mr. Oborne: Yes we would need a resolution if the board is willing to do that. You don’t have to.
41
Queensbury Planning Board: June 28, 2011
nd
Mr. Hunsinger: What day is August 2?
Mr. Oborne: It’s a Tuesday.
Mrs. Steffan: I would not be available for that meeting; I have another board meeting on the first
Tuesday of every month.
Mr. Traver: So we’ll keep the motion simple.
Mr. Oborne: So I would request that the third meeting be in resolution form and be approved by the
board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes we need to according to our policies and procedures.
Mr. Schonewolf: I’ll make a motion-see below
MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON AUGUST 2, 2011,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf
who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: And I believe we had motion to adjourn-see below
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE PLANNNIG BOARD MEETING OFJUNE 28, 2011
Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Meeting adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
42