09-28-2021
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
TH
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
INDEX
Site Plan No. 21-2020 David Hartmann 1.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15
Site Plan No. 49-2021 Lester H. Chase, III 2.
Freshwater Wetlands 2-2021 Tax Map No. 239.19-1-17
Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 4.
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2021 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20
Subdivision No. 8-2021 Harrisena Church 5.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59
Site Plan No. 58-2021 Steve McDevitt 7.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-58
Site Plan No. 51-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 7.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-7
Site Plan No. 52-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 18.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16
Site Plan No. 59-2021 Wm. Max Oswald, Northway Brewing 19.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.9-2
Discussion Item 6-2021 James Brown 24.
Tax Map No. 253.-1-24 (access); 253.-1-23 (main)
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
TH
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JOHN SHAFER
BRAD MAGOWAN
JAMIE WHITE
MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
MICHAEL VALENTINE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
th
meeting for Tuesday, September 28, 2021. This is our second meeting for September of this year and our
th
19 meeting thus far in 2021. If you have an electronic device, cell phone or other device, if you would
either turn it off or at least turn the ringer off so it won’t disrupt our proceedings. Please make note of the
illuminated emergency exit signs. If we have an emergency, that is the way out. We have one
administrative item this evening and that is Site Plan 21-2020 for David Hartmann.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant hasn’t provided any new updated information for review. I did chat with
him and I explained that the Board could deny without prejudice and his thought was he didn’t care either
one. He understood that he would have to come back. His proposal, if we were to table it, was to next
March, and I think that’s, for this particular project, that that’s too long. So I have it on your agenda as a
denial without prejudice.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So just to clarify for the Board and the audience, if we deny this application without
prejudice, as opposed to with prejudice, it means that he can bring the application back before us at some
future date as opposed to tabling until next year some time. So would that be the Board’s preference, to
deny without prejudice?
MS. WHITE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds good.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I believe you have a draft resolution to that effect.
RESOLUTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SP # 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN
Applicant proposes to remove a 1,513.2 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a 1,771.6 sq. ft. (footprint) home
with a floor area of 3,474.5 sq. ft. Project includes site work for stormwater, landscaping and septic.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and
new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought
for setback, height and floor area. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Tabled to the first meeting in May 2021 and further tabled to the first Planning Board meeting
in September 2021.
On May 20, 2021 the Planning Board tabled the application to a September 21, 2021 meeting date.
No new information was submitted by the August 15, 2021 deadline, nor has communication been received
from the applicant or agent.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 21, 2021 DAVID HARTMANN,
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is under Old Business.
The first item under Old Business is Lester H. Chase, III. This is for Site Plan 49-2021 and Freshwater
Wetlands Permit 2-2021.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LESTER H. CHASE III. AGENT(S): MATTHEW
F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 3219
STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. DETACHED
GARAGE AS A REPLACEMENT GARAGE OF 1,596 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582
SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME, AND 378 SQ. FT. SHED AND BOTH ARE TO REMAIN.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 130-2016 ADD., BOTH 384-2015, AV 54-
2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT
SIZE: 2.0 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-060.
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LONNIE CHASE, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant requests to construct a 1,650 square foot detached garage. It falls under, he
has multiple buildings on the property and they fall under garage due to the door width. This one is to
replace an existing garage of 1,596 square feet. The applicant had to go back before the Zoning Board, in
the sense that it was tabled to that Zoning Board meeting of last week in reference to wetland setback as
well as the number of garages, and the applicant received those variances.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell, and we are here with Lonnie
Chase. As Laura noted we were here last week, got the referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA
did grant the variances. So today we’re here for Site Plan following the variances. Not a ton to update
from the project. We are, as noted last week, it’s to replace the garage in 98% of its existing footprint here.
We have included some stormwater off of the eaves. If anybody’s been out there to visit the site, there’s
bedrock slope off to the southwest, southeast side. So in terms of stormwater that way, there’s not a lot
of room to move in there. The driveway is just to the west of the entrance, and it’s on the adjoining parcel.
That was a discussion at one of the meetings last week, too, that there was an access driveway coming up
on the adjoining property which is obviously Thalia’s mom. So we’ve done the best we could to put some
stormwater management. In terms of the actual structure, it’s just going to be a butler steel type structure,
replacing the cinderblocks that are there. Lighting, someone asked about lighting. There is electric service
to the garage so the interior of the garage will still have service. No plans for any large outdoor lighting
that’s going to be cast off to any of the properties.
MR. CHASE-If we did it would be off the southwest face away from the neighbor.
MR. FULLER-I know we talked about it last week but we also did have support from the neighbors,
particularly the one neighbor that’s the closest there to the east, Johnson. They were in favor of the
proposal. So with that if you have questions I’ll be happy to answer them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any changes to the project plan since the ZBA review?
MR. FULLER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-We reviewed it quite well at the time.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. TRAVER-Yes. There is a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that
want to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 49-2021? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written
comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This first one’s addressed to Mr. Brown. “Our property
borders the Chase property. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation. The project will
be visible from our property. It is my understanding that a variance(s) is required for this project. We
support the project as the building is an existing building. Our concern with any project is related to
lighting and minimal tree removal. Based on the plans and our discussion with the Chase’s we support
the variance(s) requested by Mr. and Mrs. Chase. Thank you, Scott C. Johnson 3213 State Route 9L Lake
George, NY 12845” The next one is also addressed to Mr. Brown. “Our property is directly across State
Route 9L from the Chase’s. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation. The project is not
visible from the road or our property. It is our understanding that a variance needs to be requested and
we wanted to go on record saying we support the variance(s) requested by Mr. and Mrs. Chase to
accomplish this renovation. Thank you for your time and service. Daniel Grasmeder and Kathy
Grasmeder 3222 State Route 9L Lake George, NY 12845”
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. If there’s nothing further from the Board, I think we have a draft
resolution.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP # 49-2021 & FWW 2-2021 LESTER H. CHASE III
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650
sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. (footprint)
home, and 378 sq. ft. shed and both are to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-060 & Chapter
94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and work within 100 ft. of
wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 21, 2021; the
ZBA approved the variance requests on September 28, 2021;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on September 28, 2021 and
continued the public hearing to September 28, 2021 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including September 28, 2021;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 49-2021 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2021
LESTER H. CHASE III; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted:
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not
yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Tth
Duly adopted this 28day of September 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MR. CHASE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Antonio & Maria Civitella, Site
Plan 55-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021.
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II.
ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 104 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A
TEAR-DOWN OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT
OF 2,924 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 5,465 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES
INSTALLATION OF A PATIO AREA ON THE LAKE SIDE, NEW DRIVEWAY AREA OF
PERMEABLE PATIO PRODUCT, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUNDECK AND DOCK, RETAINING
WALLS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY, NEW SEPTIC, NEW WELL, NEW SITE PLANTINGS
AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50
FT. OF SHORELINE, SHORELINE VEGETATION REM OVAL, STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT.
AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA,
PERMEABILITY AND INFILTRATION PRACTICE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 62=2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-20. SECTION:
179-3-040, 179-6-065.
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is to be tabled. We had tabled the recommendation at last week’s
meeting, noting that there was an issue with the advertisement and the applicant had indicated that they
would come back to this Board for a Planning Board recommendation. So, yes, the public hearing has been
advertised. It was advertised incorrectly, so there’s actually no reason to open a public hearing because it
will be re-advertised for October.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. So we have a tabling motion.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 55-2021 & FWW 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA
Applicant proposes a tear-down of an existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 sq.
ft. and a floor area of 5,465 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a patio area on the lake side, new
driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sundeck and dock, retaining walls for patio
and driveway, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of
shoreline, shoreline vegetation removal, steep slopes within 50 ft. and work within 100 ft. of wetland shall
be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 55-2021 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021
ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brad Magowan.
Tabled until the October 19, 2021 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-So it’ll be the first meeting in October. I apologize. You already had tabled it.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
th
MR. TRAVER-It would be October 19 would be the corrected or amended date.
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll hear them next month. The next item on our agenda is Subdivision Final
Stage, 8-2021 for 1616 Ridge Road, Harrisena Church.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2021 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HARRISENA CHURCH.
AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR.
LOCATION: 1616 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 3.8
ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 TO BE 1.3 ACRE TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING HOME 1,580 SQ. FT. WITH
DECKS (FOOTPRINT); LOT 2 TO BE 2.5 ACRES FOR NEW HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF
LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 37-2003 LOT LINE ADJ., AV 45-2020, SUB 16-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
N/A. LOT SIZE: 3.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59. SECTION: CHAPTER 183.
MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application, again, is for a two lot subdivision. For Lot One, 1.3 acres is to maintain
the existing house on there. Lot Two is to be 2.5 acres for a new home and noted and as discussed was
maybe some consideration to either request site plan review for the application when it moves forward to
actual development of Lot Two, as well as maybe some consideration to the stormwater management when
they develop that lot.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And this is Final Stage. Good evening.
MR. WEBSTER-Good evening. My name is Matthew Webster. I’m with VanDusen & Steves Land
Surveyors, on behalf of the Harrisena Community Church. As Laura just explained, of course we’re here
for Final Subdivision. So if anyone has any questions, we’re right here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. As Laura pointed out, we had discussed earlier to require Site Plan Review when
there’s development on the one parcel, and there was discussion also about the driveway, that both actually
should be noted on the plat. Do you have any concerns about that?
MR. WEBSTER-So my only concern as far as the driveway would be of course a permit would be required
for a curb cut from the State not on Ridge Road. So if there were to be a stipulation that the lot has to be
entered from Ridge Road and the State were to deny said permit, if they determine that Clements Road is
a better access point, then that could put, hold them up.
MR. TRAVER-That could come back for a secondary review and modification to your site plan, if you need
to make that case. That could come back to us and we could then discuss an alternative.
MR. WEBSTER-Yes, and well if there’s going to be a stipulation for site plan review as well, it seems as
though the site plan review would cover that when the time comes anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Good point. Okay. Discussion, comment from members of the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just tend to agree with him. If we’re going to require site plan review, then that
would cover the driveway, the access and stormwater and everything else.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Anything else? There’s no public hearing. This is Final Stage. We have a
draft resolution.
MRS. MOORE-So before you read that, in reference to putting a condition on there, that note should be
added to that plat as part of your condition.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-Just for David’s reference when he does, if he’s going to do that condition.
MR. DEEB-I’ve got it, I think. We’ll see.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 8-2021 HARRISENA CHURCH
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes a two lot subdivision of 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 1.3 acre to maintain an existing home 1,580 sq.
ft. with decks (footprint); Lot 2 to be 2.5 acres for new home and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter
183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board
has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file
of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 8-2021 HARRISENA CHURCH. Introduced
by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; and if the application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
2. Waiver requests granted:
3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not
yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be
installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site
work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel.
9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or
the beginning of any site work.
10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
12. Site Plan Review to occur before development of the parcels, and a note to be added to the
plat stating such.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MR. WEBSTER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Steve McDevitt, Site Plan 58-2021.
SITE PLAN NO. 58-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVE MC DEVITT. AGENT(S): CHRIS KEIL,
EDP. OWNER(S) 32 NORTH LANE, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 32 NORTH LANE.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1 ½ STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION
IS TO BE 320 SQ. FT. BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A 128 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK. THE
ADDITION INCLUDES A 448 SQ. FT. BASEMENT REA AND A 224 SQ. FT. BEDROOM ON THE
SECOND FLOOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,721 SQ. FT. AND THE PROPOSED IS 3,755
SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE 95595-4509 SQ. FT. HOME, 97199-5755 DECK; WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .26 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO. 226.19-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010.
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is being tabled to the second meeting in November because the
application before the Zoning Board of Appeals was tabled to their first meeting in November.
th
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be November 18. We’ve got two meetings that week in November
because of the holiday.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
th
MR. TRAVER-So that would be tabled to November 18, and there will be a public hearing, which we will
th
go ahead and open and we will leave it open until the Site Plan returns on November 18. I think we have
a draft motion.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 58-2021 STEVE MC DEVITT
Applicant proposes a 1½ story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. bedroom on
the first floor with a 128 sq. ft. open deck. The addition includes a 448 sq. ft. basement area and a 224 sq.
ft. bedroom on the second floor. The existing floor area is 2,721 sq. ft. and the proposed is 3755 sq. ft.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance new floor area is a CEA
and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 58-2021 STEVE MCDEVITT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved
for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer.
Tabled until the November 18, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by October 15, 2021.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next part of our agenda is Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, and the first applicant is Brett & Pamela West. This is the first of two reviews. This is
for what they’re referring to as the Main House, Site Plan 51-2021.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE).
AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 106
BAY PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO THE EXISTING HOME AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 5,710 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH PATIO AREA OF 1,800 SQ.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 9,199 SQ. FT. AND A 500 SQ. FT. BARN IS ALSO PROPOSED
ADDING TO THE FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW
LANDSCAPING OF SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, DRIVEWAY AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE MAIN HOME
AND A PROPOSED ON HOME ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A
375 SQ. FT. PORTE-COCHERE AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-
3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT,
PERMEABILITY, SECOND GARAGE AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: 53-2017 SEPTIC
VAR.; AV 47-2007 & SP 39-2007 – BOATHOUSE; SP PZ 89-2016 & SP PZ 210-2016 & AV 95-2016 –
ADDITION; SP 37-2009; AV 57-2021; SP 52-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021.
SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.91 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17.
SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-065.
JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to demo the existing home and to construct a new home of 5,710
square feet footprint with a patio area of 1,800 square feet. The new floor area is 9,199 square feet. The
barn floor area is 500 square feet. The project includes new site work for landscaping, shoreline, and
residential landscaping, installation of new septic, stormwater management, driveway area, covered
walkway between the main house and the proposed home on the adjoining parcel, and the applicant
proposes a 375 square foot porte cochere and a detached garage. The variances being requested are relief
for setbacks, height, permeability, second garage and floor area.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental
Design Partnership. So we have two applications. They’re totally separate, but they’re on adjacent lots,
and I just want to start with a little bit of an explanation for how we got here. A few years ago, which I
would say is probably four, Brett and Pam West on this lot, those of you who are on the Board will recall
that Brett and Pam had an application pending before the Planning Board and Zoning Board to reconstruct
the home on the first lot, the Point at Assembly Point. This was the old Stewart residence, Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stewart, for many generations, and Brett and Pam bought it with the intention to keep it as the log home
which is there now, but it needed, it was a very tired house. It needed a lot of renovation to make it work
for their family. It was approved twice by the Zoning Board and the Planning Board and overturned twice
by the APA on their 30 day review of the variance because based upon the location of the house on the site,
in order to make it work, there were parts of it that had to expand closer to the lake than where the house
is now. So after doing that twice, they understood that that wasn’t going to fly. They bought the lot next
door to the south. They already have demolished that house. We’ve already been to the Board of Health
to get approval for holding tanks for both sites because there’s high groundwater. So they’re trying to
make this work for them for the family compound with the two lots together and to minimize the variances
that are requested. So no part of this new house where the log home will be demolished is closer to the
lake than where it is now. The variance we’re requesting is, I think, 30 feet on this one, on the lakeside,
which is no closer than the house now, and that’s just a portion of the house, but compared to what you’ve
seen on other applications recently the request here is relatively modest. The floor area ratio that’s
requested on this house is 23.3 versus 22. So it’s pretty close, and in terms of that, you know, the difference
is pretty much made up by the barn structure, but the reason why they need the barn is because they can’t
put, the same reason they have to put in the holding tank, the groundwater is high and they can’t put in a
basement. So the barn is for storage, just a practical issue, based upon the site, and of course the site has
water all round it which is a lovely thing but it also is a constraint for development. So that’s really the
floor area ratio and again it’s a modest request. In terms of the setbacks, they want to do this to attach the
two houses with a covered walkway, which is typical of Adirondack great camps, you know, traditional.
I think we sent some photos to Laura with some pictures, the idea of what this is, to link the house and the
guest house. It sounds like it’s a big ask because it’s zero lot line, but it’s only for this very narrow covered
walkway which is really a pretty attractive feature. Do you have that, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I’m trying to get that.
MR. KEIL-It’s that e-mail I sent. It was called West ADK image.
MR. LAPPER-There it is.
MR. KEIL-There you go.
MR. LAPPER-It’s hard to see, but that’s the idea of what they’re proposing here. It’s very traditional,
Adirondack architecture, and again it’s just a very narrow structure. So then there’s a request for a second
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
garage which was also part of the plan last time, which was approved by the Zoning Board last time. It’s
not a second garage, although in Queensbury it counts as a second garage. It’s a porte cochere, which is
also a typical Adirondack camp look. So not intended to park cars under it, just to drive up and drop off
the packages if it’s raining or snowing out, but it counts as a garage so we have to ask for that variance, but
it doesn’t certainly look like a garage, and so I think that’s it on the main residence, and again, you know,
we’re asking for your support because they’re not trying to jam a huge house on the site. It’s only 23.3%
floor area. I didn’t mention permeability. They couldn’t get to 75, but this is 63.1% permeability which is
still relatively close, and there’s all new stormwater management on this site. There are plenty of mature
trees on the lake, surrounding the house on the lake, and we’re augmenting that with a lot of small shrubs.
So the house will be buffered. The stormwater will be well managed and having all these actually helps.
It would be harder to develop if we had to do some sort of raised system which no one would want to see
on this site anyway. So that’s this application for the main house.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. A couple of questions. One is the existing home is going to be demoed. What’s
the size of the existing home compared to this proposed?
MRS. MOORE-I have it as 9.202 square feet.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. What was that, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Sorry. 9,202 square feet.
MR. SHAFER-Nine?
MR. TRAVER-9202. Okay. So almost exactly the same size.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not what’s on the Site Development Data.
MR. LAPPER-Because there’s different parts of it. I think you have to add it all up to get to that number,
you know, for the new.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the old one. I’ve got 7,980 square feet.
MR. KEIL-I think you have to add patios and everything. That’s permeable. I’m sorry, non-permeable.
MR. TRAVER-So what you’re proposing now is actually smaller than what’s there now? If we want to
keep it that simple.
MR. KEIL-Here, the building footprint is 2,450.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but you have to add the upstairs and the other structures.
MR. SHAFER-What’s the number?
MRS. MOORE-So if you want to look at the footprint, the footprint of the main house is 2,450. It had a
detached garage of 800 square feet.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what is being proposed is significantly larger than what is there currently?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it only exceeds the floor area ratio by, you know.
MR. TRAVER-No, I was talking about total site, not the ratio, just the number of square feet.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So the second question is you mentioned that a prior proposal for this site had been
reviewed by this Board and the ZBA and been approved. Can you describe the differences between that
application and what you’re proposing now?
MR. LAPPER-That was very different because, again, that was keeping the log home and adding to it and
doing additions all over it to modernize that, but because of the location of that house in proximity to the
lake, to make it the interior work, we had to push it closer to the lake which we’re not proposing here.
MR. TRAVER-But that proposal was approved.
MR. LAPPER-It was approved by the Town, but overturned by the APA. So we’re staying away from the
lake here because we know that that wasn’t acceptable, and I just wanted to mention, in answer to your
question, Steve, that when we’re talking about the size of the house, the covered porch all counts as floor
area. It’s really an exterior feature, and there’s, I didn’t mention that there’s a well house, an additional
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
accessory structure, which we also have a picture of, which is like the only thing on the site that they’re
going to keep from history, which they’d like to keep it. It’s just the pump house.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Did I see that?
MRS. MOORE-The pump house is approximately 75 square feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s small. That’s also next to the lake, but that’s only because it’s where the pump is
and of course that has to stay there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So getting back, taking a step back, again, for the development history on the
project, nothing has been thus far proposed and approved to replace the existing log home. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Because you mentioned before there was a proposal that was.
MR. LAPPER-It was approved by the Town but overturned by the APA. So it didn’t get final approval.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So now you’re coming back with this proposal.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to say, knowing that Point so well because I used to keep our sailboat right
up the way and we always used to go through that channel, and in looking at the size of the house, they
really did a nice job designing the house.
MR. LAPPER-I should have mentioned this is a John Witt house. So this is a pretty spectacular
architectural. We should probably just throw that up just to show, I think it’s only black and white, but
it’s really done as a very attractive Adirondack.
MR. MAGOWAN-This is going to give Phil Morse’s house some competition there. I think this will look
beautiful out there.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not quite as grand as Phil’s house.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, Phil’s is much larger, but I think this really does fit. I was really impressed and I
like tying the two together. I mean it’s a little excessive for me, but I can see the look, and I can picture it
across on the two lots, because I remember the first application coming in on the addition. So I really like
the, you went with the holding tanks, too. I think that is really a major plus. Unfortunately it’s a tad bit
of an expense, but really great for the lake, especially all the way out there on the Point, but I think it really
will bring back the ambience of that whole Point and I think it kind of follows the modern time of the old
log homes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the truth is the log home that’s there now is old, but it’s not attractive.
MR. TRAVER-So do you have any concerns about the variances? That’s what we’re looking at this
evening.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other comments, questions>
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about the variances, and I’ll ask I guess the same question
that I always ask when there’s a teardown, and that is why would the architect not simply take a clean
slate, which is what it is, and start with the Town Code and then try to meet all of the Town Code
requirements? Nine thousand square feet is a huge amount of construction for that site.
MR. LAPPER-Well that’s a very fair question, but the 9,000 square feet is, you know, 1.3% more than
what’s allowed in the Town, which is, you know, if I remember I think it’s 500 square feet. That might be
on the other one. It’s a very small number, but it’s 500 square feet, which is a very small number, would
be the size of the barn which they need, but the truth here is that in order to do that, if you were going to
build it in the envelope, you wouldn’t have an attractive house because it’s constrained by the lake all
around it. You have a very square box. So because we’re dealing with stormwater, it’s the same square
feet essentially except for another 500, but it’s put into a much more attractive box, and we’re addressing
the stormwater so the lake’s not going to be impacted. If you did it, sometimes if you let zoning dictate
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
architecture you don’t get an attractive house, and here the area within the buildable envelope is very
compact.
MR. SHAFER-I would disagree with that last statement. I think that would make a fine looking house.
Certainly this is, if it were to be moved back a little bit, and you wouldn’t have the setbacks from the lake
issue. If it were to be made a little bit smaller you wouldn’t have the floor area ratio issue, and you would
still have the same architecture.
MR. LAPPER-I would say that, I would agree with you if they were trying to, you know, do something
30%, but that’s not what’s going on here with the floor area ratio. It’s very close to what’s permitted.
MR. SHAFER-But it results in seven different variances that we have to make a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. LAPPER-Well I think as Brad said it’s a special lot because of the visibility and it deserves a really
attractive home and replacing a non-attractive home. I don’t think they’re asking excessive. Obviously
everybody can disagree on that.
MS. WHITE-I don’t think that Mr. Shafer’s asking you to create an ugly home. He’s saying that you could
create a very nice looking home within the parameters provided.
MR. DEEB-I’m not sure you could let the lot dictate what the home is going to look like. Yes, it’s a beautiful
lot, but we still have regulations and rules in place. Just because the lot looks good doesn’t mean we can
alter that.
MR. LAPPER-Well we’re not asking for a whole lot of relief here.
MR. DEEB-I understand that, Jon, but you’re still asking for relief, and that connect way adds another
variance, which could easily be taken care of without the connect way, or partial of it.
MR. LAPPER-I mean that would sort of make a lot of things go away if they got rid of that, but it’s really a
lovely feature, and if you want to have the house and the guest house function together, you know, with
the weather, it’s just really nice to have a covered walkway, and it looks kind of traditional and historical
for the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that I have is related to the variance requests and the size is the
area of disturbance, over a half acre of disturbance right on the lake in a CEA, and that is related to the size
of the project.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think that a lot of the variances, you know, we focus on a lot of them because it is in
a CEA. I mean clearly if it were in another location it would be, the variances would still be, many of them
would still be an issue, but not as alarming as in a Critical Environmental Area so close to the lake.
MR. SHAFER-Was there any consideration given to building a single house on the two lots, since it’s the
same owner?
MR. LAPPER-Just for their lifestyle they’d like to have, you know, the main house has only one bedroom
and that’s for mom and dad, and then for the kids to come back is the guesthouse for visitors, and it is, it’s
set up so that when they pass it could be sold as separate lots, you know, and we’re prepared to offer to
the Zoning Board as a condition that if they were ever in separate ownership the covered walkway would
be cut back so there wouldn’t be a reason for them to be zero lot line. That would make most of these
issues go away, but for now they’d like to have this with a condition that if it were ever separate that would
be removed.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean personally I don’t have a problem with the covered walkway. I think it’s kind
of cool, too, but it’s the other variances requests and the other impacts that I have concerns with.
MR. KEIL-To your question, too, I think one thing, again, just to re-iterate, like most of the construction
happens within the envelope or in board inland of that existing house, you know, so I think there’s really
good strategies that came forward during construction to kind of keep it limited. All of the trees, the
mature trees, on the shoreline will remain, and this won’t impact it.
MR. LAPPER-I should also mention, although we’ll talk about the next one next, that the plan here is to
build the guest house first. Brett and Pam would move into the guest house. Then the main house would
be demolished and constructed separately so there would never be, the whole site would never be
disturbed and, you know, separate projects.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. DIXON-May I ask a question? You may have discussed it in the past, but how come the two lots are
not being merged into one, which would take care of your west setback, and if the property was ever sold
now we’re not worrying about two properties being sold and the walkway that exists. It eliminates.
MR. LAPPER-Because it’s a guesthouse and a house it’s two principle residences. So we need two lots to
each have their own principle residence. Otherwise that would be a variance for two residences on one
lot.
MR. DIXON-I’m just wondering which is less detrimental, that variance or several others. Because if you
combine the two lots, then you can move the guesthouse closer to the primary residence as well to get rid
of some of the setback. I just think you might a have a little bit more wiggle room to fit it into the property.
MR. LAPPER-As an alternative, that’s something we can go back to Brett and Pam to talk about, but we
kind of viewed it as that would be a harder variance to get because it’s two residences on one site, but that’s
certainly something that we could consider.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any other of the variances that you can offer any potential reduction or solution
or anything you can offer other than what we have before us?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. In going over everything and preparing for tonight, we realized that we can completely
eliminate the permeability variance by the driveway is, it’s a heated driveway for winter and so the way it’s
proposed now it’s 100% impermeable because it’s built on to concrete, but we realize that could be built
onto stone instead, stones, so that could be done as getting a 50% credit, a different design, here’s
permeable pavers, and that would completely eliminate, on both projects and that would eliminate the
permeability variance. So that would comply, but we just realized that in going through and asking our
own questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other comments, questions?
MR. SHAFER-A comment on the Chazen letter. There was one issue in there about a variance because of
the proximity to the lake of a stormwater facility. It was Item Number Eight.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. There was a test pit issue. There was a proximity issue for one of the stormwater
features I think. That goes to Site Plan, but it’s a good point none the less. It would have to be addressed.
MR. DIXON-I’m just curious. This point here that you’re referring to as the barn.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. DIXON-Is that the additional garage with the game room?
MR. LAPPER-No. The garage is attached to the house and the barn is separate. So when you come in the
driveway, the barn is the first structure on the right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that’s the garage and the game room.
MR. DIXON-The two car garage.
MR. MAGOWAN-It would be this here. Right? Garage and game room.
MR. LAPPER-I think Mike’s asking about, the barn is detached. That’s first.
MR. KEIL-Yes, and that’s just storage.
MR. DIXON-I don’t see it on the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t, either.
MR. LAPPER-Do you want to stand up with that, or show them that page. So the first thing on the right,
at the bottom next to the road is the barn. If we eliminated the barn there wouldn’t be any floor area ratio,
but they like to ask for that because it’s important for storage for a year round house.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the site plan we have shows plantings and a raingarden in that location where you
have the barn.
MR. MAGOWAN-We don’t have the barn.
MR. KEIL-That might be outdated.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. SHAFER-The plans don’t have a barn.
MRS. MOORE-You should have received a whole new set of plans showing the barn.
MR. MAGOWAN-Today?
MRS. MOORE-No, it should have been sent out with your Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. MOORE-There was. The applicant had submitted the barn plans for your review.
MR. DEEB-Jon, if the barn is eliminated, it eliminates your floor area ratio. I mean the house is fairly big.
It can’t be just tweaked a little bit for more storage?
MR. LAPPER-Because it doesn’t have a basement, it’s tough. I mean I guess, you know, we understand
that we have to present this to the Zoning Board and there could be some compromises, but it’s important.
They want to ask for it because they really do need the storage, you know, kayaks and stuff like that. So
that they can really use the garage for a car.
MR. DEEB-It’s a pretty big ask I think, right now.
MR. LAPPER-Well, you know, my position is always that everything’s negotiable, but I think that because
we’re starting at 23.3, we didn’t feel like this was way out there, but they’re certainly reasonable people.
They’ve lived here a long time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well in terms of our referral to the ZBA, what do we want to include in that referral?
There is, there was a discussion about addressing the permeability by, well, I won’t go into detail, but we
certainly had discussions regarding the permeability variance with the applicant. There maybe some relief
there.
MR. DEEB-We could just say number of variances.
MR. SHAFER-I still have a concern about the location of the house and the size. I think it should be made
slightly smaller and moved back.
MR. TRAVER-When you say location, you mean setbacks? We’re talking about specific variances.
MR. SHAFER-That would change the setbacks. Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you have a concern with setbacks.
MR. SHAFER-Correct, and FAR.
MR. TRAVER-And floor area ratio. Chris, did you say you had the same?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I just wanted to point out, the northern most patio is closest to, at least
looking at the plans, it looks closer to the lake than the existing patio is. We’re talking about design and
the variance requests.
MR. TRAVER-Can you just confirm that what’s proposed, there’s no part of that proposal that encroaches
closer to the lake than what’s there now?
MR. KEIL-From foundation walls, there’s nothing that encroaches beyond that.
MR. LAPPER-The house.
MR. HUNSINGER-The patio does, though.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the variance request is increased as far as setback to the lake.
MR. LAPPER-But not for the house.
MR. KEIL-Not for the house.
MR. TRAVER-Not for the house, but the site plan does require an increase in the variance for lake setback.
Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-Hard surfacing. That’s a site plan.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. LAPPER-That’s not a variance issue.
MRS. MOORE-That’s not a variance issue.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a Planning Board issue.
MRS. MOORE-That’s a site plan issue, new hard surfacing, which is, you’ve already talked about
permeability. So they’ve addressed that, they’ve increased their permeability on the site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. DEEB-Size of the house, location of the house.
MR. TRAVER-Floor area, let’s see, discussed by members of the Board, and, Jamie, what were your
concerns?
MS. WHITE-The number of variances, but we have not even spoken about height. So height is also an
issue. They’re looking for a variance on height.
MR. KEIL-I think that was an error.
MR. LAPPER-There’s not a height variance.
MR. TRAVER-We apparently don’t have the latest plans.
MS. WHITE-I’d just stick to the number of variances.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So general concern about floor area ratio and overall size.
MR. SHAFER-And the setbacks.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Overall size is not a variance. So setbacks.
MR. DEEB-So we’ll just put setbacks.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? Okay. Do you want to run that motion by us?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demo the existing
home and construct a new home of 5,722 sq. ft. footprint with patio area of 1,800 sq. ft. The new floor area
is 9,199 sq. ft. and a 500 sq. ft. barn is also proposed adding to the floor area. The project includes site work
for new landscaping of shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a
covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. The applicant
proposes a 375 sq. ft. porte-cochere and an attached garage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065
of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief is sought for setbacks, height,
permeability, second garage and floor area.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST
(MAIN HOUSE), Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
1) Size of the house, FAR;
2) Number of variances;
3) Setbacks;
th
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-All right. So that takes care of the main house. So now we’re looking at the guesthouse
on the adjacent lot, which is similar in terms of the variances. This is also for referral to the ZBA, and this
is Site Plan 52-2021.
SITE PLAN NO. 52-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE).
AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 108 BAY
PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH A 3,741 SQ.
FT. OF FLOOR AREA AND 2,990 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME IS TWO STORY WITH AN
ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM THE HOME
TO THE PROPOSED ADJOINING HOME. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC AND NEW
LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50
FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA AND
ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT. CROSS REFERENCE: DEMO 803-2019; AV 52-2009 & SP 54-
2009; PT 802-2019 SEPTIC; 2010-184 ADDITION; SEPT 343-2021 SEPTIC ALT.; AST 433-2020
BOATHOUSE; SP 51-2021, AV 58-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE
INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LG P C. LOT SIZE: .34 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16.
SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065
JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application to construct a new home with a 3,741 square foot floor area and 2,990
square feet. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway
from the home to the proposed adjoining lot. Site work includes stormwater management with
raingardens, new site plantings, new septic and new line for drinking water. Relief is sought for setbacks,
permeability, floor area and access from an adjoining lot.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Proposal Number Two.
MR. LAPPER-So for the record, again, Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental Design Partnership.
I guess just to start out for the record the same discussion we had on the last application that this was their
reaction to getting it overturned by the APA that they required this lot to spread out what they were
proposing to do onto two parcels. They’ve already demolished the house on this parcel and they’ve already
received a Board of Health variance to put in a holding tank instead of a septic system which is certainly
good for the lake and expensive for the applicant. So on this application the house meets the setbacks
from the lake. There are a couple of interesting variances here. In Queensbury every house has to use its
frontage for access. Here the proposal is to eliminate one curb cut and to have these use one curb cut, one
driveway, one shared driveway which is certainly better for the neighbors than to have a second driveway
on a busy road, but that requires a variance, again, because they’re not using their access, although they
have plenty of frontage here, but it’s just a nicer way to do it, to eliminate. I don’t expect anyone to have a
problem with that, to eliminate a curb cut. That does have an impact on permeability, but you know that
we already discussed, we can make both of these sites conform to permeability. We’ll talk to the Zoning
Board about that, by making it all permeable pavers. In terms of the side setback, it’s the covered porch,
again, because it’s zero, because it goes right to the property line and then the building itself was pushed
away from the neighbor and towards the main house, just to make them more easily attached to function
together. So I think that that’s good for the neighbors also. So what’s proposed is a 10 foot setback instead
of a 20 foot setback on the north side, but that only affects the main house. Again, if it was farther south
it would be closer to the neighbor’s property. So I think all those are positive and here they’ve requested,
the floor area relief is 25.6% versus 22, which, you know, we can argue about it, but I think that’s still
modest compared to what other lake lots have had to ask for because of the size of the lots.
MR. TRAVER-500 square feet?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, 500 square feet, and this is a 2,000 square foot footprint. So this isn’t, you know, a
monster house. It’s a guesthouse.
MR. TRAVER-So the house that was there, that has already been knocked down, what was the size of the
at house?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if we have that with us.
MR. TRAVER-I just ask, without specifics, is what’s proposed larger than what’s there?
MR. KEIL-I mean based on a quick look at the aerial, I think they’re comparable.
MR. TRAVER-Similar?
MR. KEIL=Yes.
MR. LAPPER-The existing was larger because that was a full house and this is a guesthouse. So Chris
believes that the house that was removed was larger, but we’ll get that information for you.
MS. WHITE-Laura, do you have that?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have access. There’s some updates that are happening. I don’t have access to the
regular system.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board regarding the variances?
MR. DEEB-Well, I’m looking at it. It’s .34 acres, the size of the lot, and the footprint’s, like, what’s it,
2900?
MR. LAPPER-2,090.
MS. WHITE-The footprint.
MR. LAPPER-The footprint is 2,090.
MR. DEEB-2,990 square feet.
MR. LAPPER-You may have the last application.
MR. DEEB-Do we have a new one?
MR. LAPPER-Mine says 2,090.
MS. WHITE-We have 2,900.
MR. SHAFER-Actually the Staff Notes have both numbers.
MR. DEEB-And, Laura, can you clarify?
MRS. MOORE-I can take a look.
MR. DEEB-It’s 1,000 square feet, big difference.
MR. LAPPER-The application is 2,090. I think the Staff Notes are incorrect.
MR. TRAVER-Not 2,990.
MRS. MOORE-So, yes, I swapped the 90’s.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I’ll withdraw my question.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DEEB-But it’s still a number of variances.
MR. LAPPER-And again, we can eliminate the permeability.
MS. WHITE-It’s still a 3,700 square foot home on a third of an acre. It’s still substantial. Call it a
guesthouse or not, it’s still a very large house.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. How many bedrooms are there going to be?
MR. LAPPER-I think it’s four, and also this is pretty small compared to the neighboring homes right there.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. DEEB-What about lot sizes of the neighbors?
MR. TRAVER-Well one of the things that might be discussed is combining the lots. Right?
MR. LAPPER-We’ll have that discussion, yes.
MR. TRAVER-So then the variance would be essentially for two homes instead of?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. If we did that, they could be moved a little closer together probably and would
minimize variances, but we’ve got to talk to our clients about that.
MR. SHAFER-There are three bedrooms, an exercise room, and an office.
MR. LAPPER-Three bedrooms and an office. That’s right.
MR. TRAVER-So that explains the size.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it was interesting on your presentation the comment about the shared driveway.
Because you’re absolutely right. Normally we say shared driveways are a good thing, but in this case when
I looked at the site plan I’m like, why would you propose a shared driveway when the southeast corner of
your driveway is five feet off the Parkway? Why wouldn’t you just make that the access?
MR. LAPPER-Again, everything’s subject to negotiation and that could change, but it’s a buffer issue. It
just allows plantings and it’s a privacy issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-My thought was if you extended the driveway out to the Parkway, it would eliminate
a lot of the permeability issue.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. KEIL-Also it screens the driveway.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, for the neighbors to have it screened is probably beneficial, too. I mean a lot of these
things, you know, we’re always willing to negotiate and to make changes.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments regarding the variances? So I mean preparing a referral, again,
to the ZBA, we want to be specific with any concerns we have. It sounds as though, again, we’ve discussed
permeability with the agent and there’s discussion about addressing that through changing the driveway
design. Floor area, there is more concern about the overall floor area ratio due to the size. That might be
addressed maybe by moving, you said the main house only has one bedroom?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-In that large house? Maybe would there be consideration of maybe reducing the
guesthouse size by moving a couple of bedrooms and making the main larger house at least a three
bedroom?
MR. LAPPER-We’ll go back and talk to our client about all these options.
MR. DIXON-Even on the main house there’s fewer bedrooms. The garage has bedrooms on the ground
floor as well as above.
MR. TRAVER-So, okay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, so I was only answering about the main house. So there are bedrooms over the garage.
MR. KEIL-Four total.
MR. TRAVER-Four total associated with the main house?
MR. LAPPER-But they’re also attached with a covered walkway.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, plus three with the guesthouse.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. KEIL-Yes, exactly.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. LAPPER-But for two lots, seven bedrooms, that’s not.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, in terms of our, it sounds like this is going to be similar and I’m looking for
input from Board members, but it sounds as though our concerns that we want to mention to the ZBA are
floor area ratio, permeability. We mentioned setback. That could possibly be alleviated by the combining
of the lots. Correct? So we mentioned floor area, setback, and permeability. Does anyone have any issue
with that, or wish to add any others? Okay.
MR. DEEB-Which house had the loft?
MR. TRAVER-Over the main house.
MR. LAPPER-Over the garage. Is that what you mean?
MR. DEEB-I guess I didn’t write my notes down right. There’s quite a few bathrooms in that main house,
and the loft is not listed as a bedroom, but it’s just listed as a loft. I guess it’s too late now to ask for a
resolution.
MR. LAPPER-That’s in the garage. That is a bedroom.
MR. DEEB-All right.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a new
home with a 3,741 sq. ft. of floor area and 2,990 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached
garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home. Site work
includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic and new line for
drinking water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a
CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability, floor area and access from adjoining lot.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST
(GUEST HOUSE), Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
1) Permeability;
2) Floor Area Ratio;
3) Setbacks;
th
Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021 by the following vote:
MR. SHAFER-Is there any intent to use the guesthouse as a rental?
MR. LAPPER-No. Absolutely not.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll go deal with the ZBA and we’ll see if it’s a little bit different when we come back to
see you for Site Plan. Thanks, everybody.
MR. TRAVER-Good luck. The next section of our agenda is under New Business, and the first item is
William Max Oswald of Northway Brewing. Site Plan Modification 59-2021.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 59-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WM. MAX OSWALD,
NORTHWAY BREWING. OWNER(S): TRIBALS, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1043
STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 1,500 SQ. FT. TENT FOR
OUTDOOR SEATING. THE SITE CURRENTLY OPERATES IN THE BUILDING AS A BREWERY.
THE SITE PLAN OF 2018 (SP 61-2018) IS BEING MODIFIED TO CONTINUE THE FOOD TRUCK
USE AND NOW ADDING THE TENT USE FOR CUSTOMERS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-
9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 57-
RD
2014 1,125 ADDITION, SP 36-2003 (+M) CHG. OF USE & 24,000 ADDITION, SP 16-2012 3
TENANT, SP 15-2013, CHG. OF USE, AV 51-2013 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; SP 61-2018 FOOD
TRUCK USE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL
CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 3.73 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-2. SECTION: 179-9-120.
WILLIAM MAX OSWALD, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to maintain a 1,500 square foot tent for outdoor seating. The
site currently operates in the building as a brewery. Site Plan 61-2018 is being modified to continue the
food truck use and add a tent use for customers for outside usage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. OSWALD-William Max Oswald.
MR. TRAVER-It’s interesting, you know, we had established sort of a new category if you will of
applications that we call unapproved development where somebody does something without getting
specific permission from the Town to do so. When I saw this maintain using this tent, I thought, wait a
minute, that’s unapproved development, but it appears that we have our first COVID created unapproved
development because you put this tent up in order to accommodate your guests due to the Pandemic.
Correct?
MR. OSWALD-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it’s not really unapproved development. It’s kind of a COVID development, if
you will. Okay. So it sounds as though you put this up during the Pandemic to accommodate outdoor
seating and you wish to continue to use it.
MR. OSWALD-Exactly. Yes.
MS. WHITE-People like it.
MR. OSWALD-People like it, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It goes well with the food truck there.
MR. DEEB-Year round, right? It’s going to be year round?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was my question.
MR. OSWALD-No, the plan was.
MR. TRAVER-Snow loading in the winter.
MR. DEEB-I thought about that, but I wasn’t sure.
st
MR. OSWALD-And I think there’s a fire thing of 270 days, too. The plan was we put it up June 1, was to
run it through November. Take it down at that point.
MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, to clarify, I mean this almost sounds like the business that sells shoes during the
summer season out of the plaza up there. Do we have some parameters, since it’s a tent, are there
parameters on this thing, or how does that work?
MRS. MOORE-So it’s not a special sales event.
MR. TRAVER-Right, not a special use permit.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MRS. MOORE-No, it doesn’t fall into that either. It’s a modification. It’s truly not any more than that. I
would think that if it’s a continuance you could do a seasonal operation between Memorial Day until
November or possibly from March to November depending on what’s going on weather wise.
MR. TRAVER-There’s seasonality to it.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, you could put some seasonality to it, and I would think that’s somewhat, I would say
maybe the first of March. I don’t know if February would be plausible.
MR. TRAVER-We’ve had some of our biggest snowstorms in March, but we can put that parameter in
there, and then it would be up to Northway Brewing to decide when they actually could put it up. So that
st
would be, your lease would be March 1, for example and you could decide to put it up April 1 or May 1 or
whatever, and then we’d have an end of season November 1 or something like that, maybe.
stst
MS. WHITE-He mentioned November 1, the client mentioned November 1.
st
MR. TRAVER-November 1 is when you’re thinking of?
stth
MR. OSWALD-November 1, November 30, if it were to be a parameter we would probably hope for an
extended month because it’ll be weather.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, November 30.
MR. DEEB-When would you put it up?
MR. OSWALD-Again, I would probably ask for a March 1. I doubt that we would put it up that early,
but.
MR. TRAVER-I wouldn’t recommend it. We had a snowstorm so big I had to have back surgery when I
dealt with the snow in my driveway, years ago.
MRS. MOORE-So the other thing that would, I know the applicant had indicated potentially 100 seats.
That was a concern of the Fire Marshal and he’ll eventually address that with the applicant, but at the
moment, and I apologize, I can’t open any information on the website, so I’m limited only to the site has
152 parking spaces, but I don’t know if the tent’s going to be able to accommodate the 100 plus folks.
MR. TRAVER-So we’d put a condition on Fire Marshal review and approval.
MRS. MOORE-That would be fine.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman and Laura, regarding this request, would we want to put a three year limit on
it? I know it’s not a Special Use Permit, but.
MRS. MOORE-I mean you could if the Board wished to do that they could. There’s nothing stopping you
from making that type of condition.
MR. TRAVER-Why would you suggest we do that?
MR. DIXON-Well, I guess I’m just looking, let’s hope that COVID is going to be over and done with here
in the future, do we want to allow the structure continued use unregulated?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that’s why we’re looking at the application. It was originally put up to
address the COVID issue, and although we have seen somewhat of a resurgence of the virus, by the time
this application got to us this evening, I think it was probably thought at that time that the application
was made that perhaps the Pandemic was easing a bit and yet the popularity of the outside venue was such
that he wanted to make it official, if you will. So I wouldn’t accuse him of unapproved development.
MR. DIXON-No, no, that’s not where I’m going.
MRS. MOORE-Maybe I can offer this, is that in the future maybe the tent becomes the idea that he would
come back for modification because he wants to put up an outdoor pavilion.
MR. MAGOWAN-I was just going to say that.
MS. WHITE-Isn’t that what the Docksider has? That’s a tent, isn’t it?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MRS. MOORE-I can’t recall that. I’m just saying that this applicant is in front of us now. So why don’t
we deal with the one that’s in front of us.
MR. TRAVER-We’re just dealing with the one that’s before us, which would be with the tent.
MS. WHITE-But that’s a similar, I guess. Not necessarily?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s the way I was looking at it. I think after three years, if it’s such a great
success, I foresee you putting up a permanent pavilion there.
MR. TRAVER-But that’s certainly something that we would want to look at again because that would
involve I’m sure electrical wiring. So you would come back for another modification in that instance. So
to be clear what we’re looking at tonight, and all the applicant is proposing, is continue the use of the tent
structure that we see before us. He’s not proposing a solid structure, although hopefully this will be
something they will go to. This material, the tent material, won’t last too long, and then they’ll have to do
something, and I think if this remains popular enough to wear out this material, you probably would think
about putting up maybe a wooden structure or something. Yes. So I think the material that he’s
requesting us to approve is time limited by its very nature.
MR. DIXON-I’m comfortable with that. As a businessperson out there, I think whatever we can do to
help within reason, because these are very unusual times and it’s a struggle for some businesses, and I
certainly don’t object to it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So I think I understand where Jamie’s question was coming from, in reference to, it was
the Docksider. Okay. So the Docksider is a restaurant. This isn’t classified as a restaurant. The primary
function of this is a brewery.
MS. WHITE-Okay. Now that makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-So to be clear this is going to be a permanent approval.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, for what we have before us, which is the tent, which is probably only going to last
maybe a few years. Right? So then.
MR. DEEB-I don’t think we can predict how long it’s going to last. I don’t know. If you’re okay with
having a tent there forever, that’s fine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m not hearing any objections to what’s being proposed tonight.
MS. WHITE-I’m comfortable with it.
MR. DEEB-All right.
MRS. MOORE-I mean just for his point, a tent is a temporary structure in a sense, but do you want that
up 24/7? Do you want that up 365 days a year? I think this particular location you’re looking at, it’s
unique, that the tent is not sitting on top of the road.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-I think there’s some uniqueness to it due specifically to the site plan, but I think I
understand what you’re asking or pointing out, is that I wouldn’t see this Board necessarily approving
every application that wishes to do a tent.
MR. TRAVER-We’re not considering every application. We’re only considering what’s before us.
MRS. MOORE-And I don’t know if that was David’s sort of point.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well we did talk about putting a timeframe on allowing the use of the tent at this
site from March 1 through November 30. Correct?
thst
MR. DEEB-Yes. I’d rather see March 15 than March 1. Just in case of weather.
MS. WHITE-Well we’re leaving him leeway.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. DIXON-Mr. Deeb’s point is, again, if we don’t set a deadline to it, then we’ve approved a tent
indefinitely. It might as well be considered a permanent structure.
MR. MAGOWAN-So why not just put down there this is approved until the tent is no longer able to be
used.
MR. TRAVER-Well we already discussed that with the applicant. I think the applicant understands that
when the tent disappears, he’s not going to buy a new tent. He’s going to buy something more substantial
if it’s still popular.
MR. DEEB-I don’t think we can predict that. We don’t know what he’s going to do in the future. I’m all
for it, okay, but I just think.
MR. TRAVER-Well let’s deal with what we have, not what we might have.
MR. DEEB-That’s what I was saying.
MR. MAGOWAN-What do you think, Tom?
TOM JARRETT
MR. JARRETT-I’m way out of bounds here. Can I ask a question?
MR. TRAVER-This is a good time for me to point out that we do have a public hearing on this application,
if there’s anyone that wants to address the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JARRETT-For the record, Tom Jarrett, private citizen. You put the tent up because of COVID, right?
Did you operate during cold weather?
MR. OSWALD-In the tent, no?
MR. JARRETT-You did not, but if we have another shutdown, would you allow him to operate it beyond
those dates that you’re talking about, if we have another COVID shutdown?
MR. TRAVER-A shutdown, that would be up to the Board of Health I would think.
MR. JARRETT-Okay, but would your approval supersede that? I’m just trying to be more flexible for him.
MR. TRAVER-We’re approving the structure. We’re approving the existence of the structure.
MR. JARRETT-I’ll get out of it. I just wanted to give him some flexibility in case we have another COVID
shutdown.
MR. HUNSINGER-Different community, different setup, same concept. Village of Greenwich, the Argyle
Brewery has a little patio with a tent, and they left it out, they had it out too early last spring and the 30
inch snowfall, and it just totally got torn down.
MR. JARRETT-That’s a business decision he’d have to make. I shouldn’t have jumped in. Sorry.
MR. TRAVER-No, that’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it was a great question, Tom.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments, Laura?
MR. SHAFER-Will you take the tent down during the months you’re not using it?
MR. OSWALD-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-So there’s no written comment.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are we ready for a motion?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. DEEB-I still would like an approval time on that, a three year limit, and look at it again in three years,
but nobody agrees with me. I’m outnumbered. Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 59-2021 WM. MAX OSWALD – NORTHWAY BREWING
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,500
sq. ft. tent for outdoor seating. The site currently operates in the building as a brewery. The site plan of
2018 (SP 61-2018) is being modified to continue the food truck use and now adding the tent use for
customers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance modification of an approved site plan
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on September 28, 2021 and
continued the public hearing to September 28, 2021 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including September 28, 2021;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN (M) 59-2021 WM. MAX OSWALD, NORTHWAY
BREWING; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n
traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition
disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable as these items due to the nature of
the project with only a tent being added to the site – the business operations as a brewery and
tasting is to remain. The applicant supplied p floor plans of the tent layout and existing building
layout.
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not
yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
thth
h) The tent to be seasonal from March 15 to November 30.
i) Fire Marshal approval is required.
th
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. OSWALD-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is a Discussion Item for James Brown, Discussion Item 6-2021.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
DISCUSSION ITEM 6-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JAMES BROWN. AGENT(S): JARRETT
ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: LC-10A. LOCATION: 1918
RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH ACCESS FROM
AN ADJOINING PARCEL ON SHOP ROAD. THE PROJECT INCLUDES USING FORMER SKID
TRAILS FOR A DRIVEWAY. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME WOULD INCLUDE
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WELL AND SEPTIC. THE
PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE FUTURE HOME AND CONNECTION ON OWNER’S ADJOINING
LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A
DISCUSSION/SKETCH PROJECT CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 32-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: LG P C.
LOT SIZE: 45 ACRES (TOTAL). TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-24 (ACCESS) & 253.-1-23 (MAIN).
SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-040.
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to construct a new single family home on a 15.75 acre parcel in
the Land Conservation 10 acre zone. The project proposes using an access from Shop Road off of Route
9L through an adjoining parcel. The parcel used for access is 253.-.1-22, which is at 104 Shop Road. The
plan shows from Shop Road a turnaround and turnaround area for the access drive. The drive will follow
existing logging roads where possible. The USGS information indicates steep slopes in some areas, but
the access drive appears to follow the contours of the land and then in the future id to include access to
adjoining land for a proposed house that the applicant also owns, and noted that there’s certain Code
sections that I took for the Board to take a look that during the review so that when the applicant comes
back that there’s area variances and different site plans that are needed to be reviewed.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett, Jarrett Engineers, not private resident this time. I’m here for a permanent
structure, not a tent. Jim Brown owns two parcels on Ridge Road, about a half a mile south of Dunham’s
Bay Fish and Game, and the parcels are a little bit south of Shop Road, which is an existing driveway,
which you may see when you drive north on Ridge Road. His parcels are here, but we discussed him
gaining access via the homeowner that owns Shop Road to his parcels, and he would help maintain Shop
Road with that existing owner. That’s about a 20% driveway. It’s a very steep driveway, but it’s there.
Jim Brown would help maintain that. I think it would help everybody, and then we would build a new
access road along an existing logging road, as narrow a driveway as practical and is what the Fire Marshal
would recommend. Two, there’s an existing log landing right there where his primary residence would be
built, and then he also owns this parcel here which is a 30 acre parcel. Eventually he probably would put
another house right here across the property line extending this log road to the south. We’ve already had
extensive discussions with the Fire Marshal. I think we’re pretty close to understanding exactly what
they’ll require and what we have to do for design. We have done site investigations, test pits, perc tests.
We have good soil there, not a lot of it. There’s shallow rock, as you can well surmise, but we have good
soil when we do have soil. Just below the house site is a plateau we can use for wastewater management
which is shown on the second drawing in the package that I gave you. This is a 1500 square foot house
with about 500 feet of decking around it. So it’s about a 2,000 square foot footprint. He would ask for a
garage and a workshop at the same time. Wastewater would be here, and we’ve earmarked some areas
here for stormwater management on the periphery. You’ll notice in the third drawing I gave you, let me
back up. We would design these driveways, by the way, for turnaround for fire trucks and emergency
vehicles. We’ve already discussed that with the Fire Marshal. The third drawing shows you photos of
the site. The top two photos are looking out towards Bay Road from the house site. One is in the fall and
one is in the spring/summer, and you can see there is vegetation that we can maintain. We can provide a
filtered view so that it will not be obnoxious, obtrusive to the public. He will still get a filtered view out.
This third picture on the bottom is the view back into the mountains. So you can see we’re not going to
silhouette the house against the mountain. It will be back dropped by vegetation and he plans on a fairly
dark siding, and I’m going to pass renderings of what he’s thinking about right now. This is what he’s
envisioning right now. He hasn’t fine-tuned it, but this is what he’s hoping for in the front and back there.
So this is a difficult site. It is in an LC-10. I thought it wise to come to you and see if there are specific
concerns or suggestions you have before we get into final design. Our next step is to go to survey, get a
detailed topographic survey and then start our design. Backtracking all the way to the beginning, the
access road along the ridgeline, there is one spot that is close to 15% slope. We think we can get around
it and soften that grade even further. Everything else is flatter.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
MR. TRAVER-So at this stage the variances that we can assume would be required are the access on a
public road.
MR. JARRETT-We believe, Laura and I talked about it. I think the only variance we would need so far is
not having access to our own frontage, which I hope you would support that variance.
MR. SHAFER-It’s too steep down by Ridge Road to get out?
MR. JARRETT-Very much too steep.
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant had come in on his own previously to do a, he started the site plan review
process, and sort of stumbled into the point of doing engineering. So this was quite a while ago. So I’m
glad that he’s working with Tom Jarrett to come up with the engineering piece. His original plan was
something similar. He was going to come off 9L and use some of the existing logging roads and to that
point, I think the Board pointed out that there’s some engineering that needed to be done to evaluate the
stormwater, to address the stormwater as you’re creating that driveway.
MR. JARRETT-It’s hard to see it in this light, but there’s a, right there there’s a scar just above 9L.
Somebody cut in a logging road right there, and he was going to use that, but it was very, very steep and
would have been very, very difficult to do it, and I think he would have paid the price forever driving up
and down that road.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think many years ago I tried to go up it with my Subaru Brat.
MR. TRAVER-Shop Road you said is quite steep. Right?
MR. JARRETT-It’s 20% right now.
MR. SHAFER-Is Shop Road used in the winter?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-I see cars parked down by 9L.
MR. JARRETT-There’s a reason. They use four-wheelers and snowmobiles during storm events. They
don’t even try and drive it. So this is not a flat driveway, but it is already there. It is maintained. It is
negotiable with the right plan.
MR. SHAFER-Does the fire department have a problem with access during snow storms?
MR. JARRETT-Do they have problems during snow storms? Yes, they do, but they’ve acknowledged Shop
Road and they’re willing to work with this owner to do that. Now Shop Road has several residences at
the top already. Very close to the County line, but the Fire Marshal is willing to work with us and they
acknowledge that Shop Road exists and it has residences at the top and they need access. They agree that
we’re going to build a turnaround pull off area right here when we start this new road. We will be helping
them. They’ll have a staging area there. It’s going to actually improve the fire access for everybody along
that road. So it’s not ideal, but I think it’s improving a tough situation.
MR. TRAVER-And there aren’t any ponds or anything up there, are there?
MR. JARRETT-Ponds?
MR. TRAVER-Ponds. Again I’m thinking of the Fire Marshal, I mean they’re going to have to drive a water
truck up to a portable pond or something up there. Right?
MR. JARRETT-That’s part of the discussion is we have this parking area at the bottom, which I gave you
this picture right here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We’re going to stage tankers there and maybe at the top and have to shuttle water up that
way, and this road would be very, that would be negotiable for fire trucks.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the driveway?
MR. JARRETT-This is a little over 500 feet and this is not quite 1,000 but close to it, in that region, and
they’re going to require turnarounds here. By the way, these houses will be sprinklered. That goes a long
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
way towards satisfying the Fire Marshal. Access is not quite as critical as long as we’ve got a reasonable
response period for the sprinklers.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s a good idea.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Sprinklers are on the table for both houses. Jim has already agreed to that.
MR. TRAVER-How deep do they have to go for a well up there?
MR. JARRETT-Possibly deeper than he’d like. We don’t know.
MR. DIXON-I think ultimately you understand the risks of building in a more remote area.
MR. JARRETT-Unfortunately I’ve had a lot of experience with it and it’s not easy, and what I don’t want
is the owner to be very, very dissatisfied once they get it because it’s a tough spot.
MR. DIXON-But also understanding not just our Fire Marshal, but emergency vehicles.
MR. JARRETT-Right. Emergency vehicles have got to get in there. This is a potentially year round
residence. We are taking it step by step.
MR. TRAVER-So other questions, comments from members of the Board to give them some feedback?
MR. DEEB-It sounds pretty well thought out.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, agreed.
MR. JARRETT-It sounds like your concerns are the same as ours.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’m sure glad you’re on it, Tom. Well, I did want to approach the Board conceptually
before we did the hard design.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds like you know what the issues are. So it will be interesting to see what you
come up with.
MR. JARRETT-We will not be back for several months. It’ll probably be some time this winter. We’ve
got to do the survey and we’ve got some design work to do. So it’ll be a while.
MR. TRAVER-Well t hat’s different. Most applications we see are emergencies.
MR. JARRETT-My client would probably tell you that it’s an emergency, but I’m telling you that it’s going
to take a while.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-You better get up there before that snow gets deep.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we’ve done our investigations. There are a lot of them already. We’ve got to do
some more for the road once we get that survey, but we’ve got the house site pretty well investigated, which
is good.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting. Wow. All right. Thanks very much.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your time.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not, we’ll entertain a motion
to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER
TH
28, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer:
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/2021)
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll see you next month.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
28