09-18-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
INDEX
Site Plan No. 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols 1.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19
Site Plan No. 54-2012 NSB Hospitality 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288-1-56
Site Plan No. 55-2012 Thomas & Mary Beth Babcock 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12
Site Plan No. 56-2012 Thomas Valentine, John Celeste 5.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.18-1-12
Site Plan No. 57-2012 Ron Miller 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.9-1-5
PZ 1-2012 Queensbury Partners, LLC 9.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35
Special Use Permit No. 9-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 20.
MODIFICATION TO SUP 45-2009 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43
PUD SP 20-2009 Michaels Group 36.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.20-116 through 23
Site Plan No. 47-2012 Gordon & Carol Stockman 41.
Tax Map No. 289.7-1-37
Site Plan No. 48-2012 Steve Kitchen 47.
Freshwater Wetlands 3-2012 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 56.
Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, September 18, 2012. The first order of business is approval of minutes from July 17th
and July 24th, 2012. Would anyone like to move that?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 17, 2012
July 24, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
JULY 17T" AND 24T", 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the audience, welcome. We do have copies of the agendas
on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing protocol. Most of our items do
have public hearings scheduled this evening, and when we get to that I will review the
procedures. Next item is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 42-2012: DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS - SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR
PURPOSES OF SEAR REVIEW
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just a quick synopsis of the project description. The applicant is proposing
a 400 square foot dining room expansion addition to existing 3465 square foot restaurant, as
well as a 2500 square foot expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and bar.
Further, construction of a 4500 square foot retail building and 10,770 square foot banquet facility
with four guest suites on second floor is proposed. The reason that they're here is expansion of
an existing restaurant and a new commercial business in a CI zone require Planning Board
review and approval. There are a few variances with this. Not anything that's overreaching, to
be honest with you. What we're here for tonight is to have the Planning Board consider seeking
Lead Agency Status for SEAR purposes on this, and that is all. There's really not anything
really to discuss at this point. We've got to get the time clock started for SEAR purposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from any Board members? There is a sample resolution in
your package. Would anyone like to move it?
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP 42-12 &AV 33-12 DANIEL &
ELLEN NICHOLS
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Variance & Site Plan application for:
Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. dining room expansion addition to existing 3,465 sq.
ft. restaurant as well as a 2,500 sq. ft. expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
bar. Further, construction of a 4,500 sq. ft. retail building and a 10,770 sq. ft. banquet facility
with 4 guest suites on second floor is proposed. Expansion of existing restaurant and new
commercial businesses in the CI zone require PB review and approval. Variances: Front
setback, Height & Travel Corridor overlay setback relief. Further, relief requested for expansion
of a non-conforming structure. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an
Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617,
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes
and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such
intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]:
Town of Queensbury Town Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board;
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO.
35-2012 AND SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Stephen
Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a somewhat unusual number of items for recommendations to the
Zoning Board this evening. None of these require public hearing. The first one is NSB
Hospitality.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA:
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2012 SEAR TYPE II NSB HOSPITALITY AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES
OWNER(S) AFTAB BHATTI-QUALITY INN ZONING CI LOCATION 1449 ST. RTE. 9-
RODEWAY INN SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 942 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO
EXISTING OFFICE/LOBBY TO INCLUDE A 164 +/- SQ. FT. HANDICAPPED RAMP AND 80 +/-
SQ. FT. CANOPY. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES 2,062 +/- SQ. FT. OF DECKS AND
LANDINGS TO EXISTING MOTEL BUILDING. EXPANSION OF A MOTEL IN THE Cl ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 48-12, SP 33-11, AV 24-11
WARREN CO. REFERRAL LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288-1-56 SECTION 179-
9
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and this is a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning
the relief requested in the variance application. Location is 1446 State Route 149. It's in a CI
zone. This is a Type II SEAR. Warren County did issue a No County Impact back on 5/11. Site
Plan: Applicant proposes a 942 square foot expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164
sq. ft. handicapped ramp and 80 sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 sq. ft. of
decks and landings to existing motel building. Expansion of a Motel in the CI zone requires
Planning Board approval. The nature of the Area Variances for this are front setback request for
54.4 feet of front setback and also 24.4 feet of front setback, and as far as Travel Corridor, they
are the exact requirements for the front setback relief. Side Setback is 7.1 feet of side setback
relief from the 20 foot requirement for the proposed northern deck. Floor Area Ratio Relief,
permeability relief and expansion of a nonconforming structure. You may be familiar with this
application. This has been before you. This is its third time. It's essentially the same
application that you approved the last time. The applicant did come down ill and was not able to
finish the Site Plan Review process back in 2011, and it has timed out as a result. Now it's back
before you. Tonight is the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for those variances
that I just described, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-1 think the only question that I would have is, you know, not having the benefit
of having the prior application in front of me to compare it to, is there any, you say it's essentially
the same.
MR. OBORNE-It is the same application.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought.
MR. OBORNE-The number has changed. That's all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the last two times actually we looked at it we did forward it to ZBA as I
recall.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Yes. In fact, you actually approved the plan back in '09. Again it
timed out. They never pulled a building permit.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they got the variances and then it came back.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, approved it and then it timed out.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the third time's the charm, I guess.
MR. OBORNE-Let's hope.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions comments from the Board? Would anybody like to move this?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#48-12 NSB HOSPITALITY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a
942 +/- sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 +/- sq. ft. handicapped ramp
and 80 +/- sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 +/- sq. ft. of decks and landings to
existing motel building. Expansion of a Motel in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and
expansion of a nonconforming structure. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to
the ZBA.
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. 48-2012 AND SITE PLAN
NO. 54-2012 NSB HOSPITALITY, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK AGENT(S)
ROBERT NAPOLI OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 15
CHESTNUT ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ.
FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. EXPANSION OF A NOW
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: SIDE SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, FAR RELIEF, AS WELL AS
EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE A V 45-2012, AV 73-90, SP 35-
88A, AV 1415; BP 91-379, 88-832 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN
LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION
179-9
ROBERT NAPOLI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes, a Recommendation to the Zoning Board. This is 15 Chestnut Road. This is
Waterfront Residential. SEAR Status is Type 11, and the Project Description is as follows.
Applicant proposes construction of a 168 square foot addition to existing single family home.
Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval.
The nature of the variances are side setback request for 13.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot side
setback requirement. Floor Area Ratio request for an additional 168 square feet for a proposed
total of 2,758 square feet from the maximum allowable FAR of 1615 square feet. Existing Floor
Area Ratio is 35.3%, proposed is 37.5, and again, the expansion of the nonconforming structure
must be approved by the ZBA. I don't have any immediate issues with this. They're putting a
porch over what is currently a patio on Glen Lake, and they're also removing some of the
existing patio to reduce the permeability on site, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Could you come up
to the table, please. If you could just identify yourself for the record.
MR. NAPOLI-My name's Robert Napoli and I'll be constructing the addition if it's approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it's an increase in permeability.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it's actually a decrease in the permeability.
MR. TRAVER-A decrease. I'm sorry, did I say increase? I'm sorry. I meant decrease. So
that's certainly a positive, and the relief would have been less than the original construction
application. So I think it's an improvement.
MR. NAPOLI-I don't know if anyone has been out to the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, everyone should have. Yes.
MR. NAPOLI-But, you know, there's an existing patio there right now. The building is going to
be, you know, constructed pretty much close to the same size except some of that patio will be
removed. Naturally a new foundation has to be put in, but as far as the sidelines where that
patio is right now, it's not going to change. So, you know, whether the room was there or not,
the patio is, you know, less than two feet from that line right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-I'd like to check on the placement of the septic system.
MR. NAPOLI-That has a holding tank.
MR. SIPP-Just a holding tank.
MR. NAPOLI-That was put in years and years ago when they re-built the home, and I believe all
the requirements have been taken care of on that. Whoever has been out to see that and
review it, but that tank has been there for quite a few years.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was approved by the Town Board on 10/18/08. So that's relatively recent.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's pretty new, yes. Any other questions or comments? Would anybody
like to make a recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#45-12 THOMAS & MARY BETH
BABCOCK
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
construction of a 168 sq. ft. addition to existing single family home. Expansion of a non-
conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Side
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
setback, permeability, FAR relief, as well as expansion of non-conforming structure. The
Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA.
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. 45-2012 AND SITE PLAN
NO. 55-2012 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. NAPOLI-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 56-2012 SEAR TYPE II THOMAS VALENTINE; JOHN CELESTE AGENT(S)
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-
WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 83C PILOT KNOB ROAD SITE PLAN:
APPLICANT HAS RENOVATED AND VERTICALLY EXPANDED A +/- 852 SQ. FT. EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A
CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: EXPANSION
OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND SIDE SETBACK RELIEF. THE PLANNING
BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 44-
12, BP 12-279, BP 93-170 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA,
APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-12 SECTION 179-9
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is, again, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 83C Pilot
Knob Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is a Type II SEAR.
Warren County Referral was a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant has renovated
and vertically expanded an 852 square foot existing residential structure. The reason that
they're here is expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review
and approval, and also there's a request for side setback relief as well as the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Staff Comments: There is no change to the footprint of the structure,
and as such the setback relief is tied to the new roof configuration. The applicant has requested
waivers for stormwater, lighting, grading, topography and landscaping. I don't know if there's
any real reason to discuss that right now as this is a recommendation, but the nature of their
Area Variance is side setback request for 12.8 feet from the 15 foot minimum requirement, and
again, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, and with that I'd turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Did
this require a building permit, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 wonder why when they came in for the building permit they didn't realize
that they need to come before the Board?
MR. OBORNE-1 really don't know the nature of why this happened. I know that it was, I don't
think it was complaint driven. I think it was happenstance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-They may have gotten into the reservation and decided to make, you know,
sometimes like trying to cut a paper circle, you know, sometimes you say, well, why don't we do
this.
MR. OBORNE-1 think what happened was they did approach the Building Department and they
wanted to raise the roof a certain amount, but they exceeded that amount, and as such they
exceeded it to the point where Craig thought that it should go before this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-If my memory serves correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no questions or comments from the Board, would anybody
like to make a recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#56-12 THOMAS VALENTINE &
JOHN CELESTE
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant has renovated
and vertically expanded a +/- 852 sq. ft. existing residential structure. Expansion of a non-
conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Expansion of a non-conforming structure and side setback relief. The Planning Board shall
make a recommendation to the ZBA.
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. 44-2012 AND SITE PLAN
NO. 56-2012 THOMAS VALENTINE AND JOHN CELESTE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN 57-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 RON MILLER AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT, P.C.
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 107 ROCKHURST ROAD
SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE A PORTION OF AND INSTALL
TERRACED LANDSCAPING THAT INCLUDES DRY LAID STONE WALLS, CONSTRUCTION
OF A +/- 250 SQ. FT. FLAGSTONE PATIO, AND VEGETATED RETENTION AREAS TO
TREAT STORMWATER. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF SHORELINE
AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: PERMEABILITY AND SHORELINE SETBACK
RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-12, AV 73-96 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA,
OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-5
SECTION 179-9
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-That location is 107 Rockhurst Road. This is Waterfront Residential. This is a
Type 11 SEAR. Warren County Referral was referred. I believe there was No County Impact.
Project Description: Applicant proposes to eliminate a portion of lawn and install terraced
landscaping that includes dry laid stones, construction of a 250 square foot flagstone patio area
and vegetative retention areas to treat stormwater. Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a
shoreline and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
approval. The Area Variance is for permeability relief, and that is what the nature of the Area
Variance is, and it's a request for an additional 288 square feet of impermeable surfacing for an
overall permeability of 3,186 or a total site permeability of 64.8. What's currently existing is 68%
and Code is 75. Additional comments follow. I do, as Staff, feel that this application could
potentially benefit from permeable pavement or permeable patio pavers and could potentially
avoid any area variances, to be honest with you, but those numbers need to be crunched at this
point in time, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open it up for questions, comments. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening, if you're a duck. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and the Millers
are here with me tonight. Essentially this project involves landscaping the site, re-landscaping
the site and putting a patio in in front of the house on the lake side of the house. The Millers
would rather not put in a patio that meets the definition of permeable pavement or pervious
asphalt. They'd rather put in flagstone with a polymeric in between. So in doing that we've put
stormwater management just to the north and a proposed rain garden north of the patio. This
project also involves removing some of the asphalt pavement up near Rockhurst Road, reducing
that asphalt, and basically capturing all the stormwater off impervious areas on the site. We
think it's a win/win for the neighborhood and the lake. We hope you agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now I'll open it up for questions. Did you see the engineering
comments?
MR. JARRETT-I did. Essentially they're very simple. There is one modification to the detail we
need to make. We didn't show soil up against that retaining wall, and that's what we intended to
do, and it didn't show clearly. Other than that, they're very simple to resolve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the questions that I have is where do you find native soil?
MR. JARRETT-Where do we find native soil?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I'm not sure I follow your question.
MR. HUNSINGER-On the plan, on the terrace, there was a reference to.
MR. JARRETT-It's in the retention device, native fill or equivalent?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, native fill.
MR. JARRETT-Okay, because we're benching some of the site, so if you look at the pictures
that went with the application, we're actually cutting a little bit of the area just below the house
and benching it out, pushing it out a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you think it'll be enough from the cut to?
MR. JARRETT-We think so. It'll be close.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if there isn't then?
MR. JARRETT-We would import just a granular fill for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. A virgin granular fill.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments?
MR. TRAVER-I was just curious about the resistance to using the permeable pavers. Is that for
aesthetic or maintenance reasons or what's the resistance?
MR. JARRETT-Aesthetic at the moment. I disagree with Keith, offhand, that we would avoid the
variance all together. It would be closer because we could count 50% of the patio area as
permeable, but I don't think that tips us, it doesn't get us back to compliant, and I think we would
still have a net loss of permeability.
MR. OBORNE-I don't know if I agree with that statement because you could also use permeable
pavement or porous pavement for the drive area, too.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. JARRETT-We're not re-paving the driveway right now.
MR. OBORNE-But you were tearing it up.
MR. JARRETT-No, actually we're just removing a section on the north edge which becomes rain
garden and all the rest is staying intact for now.
MR. OBORNE-But my understanding is that you were removing it. That's what the plan states.
MR. JARRETT-No, it says when it's removed, when it's re-surfaced then we'll pitch it towards
the rain garden.
MR. OBORNE-My assumption is that when is part of this project.
MR. JARRETT-Well, it's not, I'll put it on the record right now it's not.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-It's, the existing pavement was going to be trimmed back to remove some
asphalt, but the existing asphalt was going to stay in place for now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So sorry if that was unclear. Actually we've talked about, when that pavement is
replaced in future years, that we might go to permeable pavement for that parking area, that
driving area, but that has not been decided as yet.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be beneficial. I mean, Rockhurst is tough. Everybody knows
that.
MR. JARRETT-Very much so.
MR. OBORNE-So any increase in permeability or decrease in permeability is always a concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Would they have to come back for that if they do that?
MR. JARRETT-Likely we would, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make
a recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#50-12 RON MILLER
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to
eliminate a portion of and install terraced landscaping that includes dry laid stone walls,
construction of a +/- 250 sq. ft.. flagstone patio, and vegetated retention areas to treat
stormwater. Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of shoreline and hard surfacing within 50' of
shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Permeability and shoreline
setback relief. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA.
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. 50-2012 AND SITE PLAN
NO. 57-2012 RON MILLER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review,
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Hopefully we'll see you next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD:
PZ 1-2012 SEAR TYPE QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER,
ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION PARCELS
CORNER BAY & BLIND ROCK RIDS. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT OF
THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) IN THE OFFICE
ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 62-11, AV 61-11, FW 6-11 LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23-35 SECTION 179-12-020(B)
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-The applicant has submitted an application requesting an amendment to the
Zoning Code to allow a Planned Unit Development, or PUD in the Office zone. Currently that is
not an allowable use on the Use tables, and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board approval.
Obviously you'll have a general discussion tonight. We discussed on the approach on how
you'll come up with a resolution for this. It will be organic, and with that I'll turn it over to Matt.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. We represent
Queensbury Partners. We did have a joint meeting last week. I think it was good. The Planning
Board got a good flavor of what we were facing coming out of that last zoning meeting in
December, and we're still interested in going back to the Town Board to discuss this because
even with, we've already gone back and started looking at revised sketches, and we are going to
take up the offer to come back to both Boards with a revised sketch for an informal meeting. So
we will be following up with that, but even with that, the reality is is there's going to be a few
variances, and by a few I mean quite a few. Not the big ones. I think we're going to be able to
work within the density, the Bay setbacks, and the height. The height really kind of got
generated here with the pictures of the building. So height is easy, I think, for us to deal with,
and as even some Zoning Board members said, if you scale towards the back, it might look all
right when we start doing elevations and things, so obviously the message was well received on
our end and loud and clear, so we're working with that, but even with that, with the site
constraints that we're going to have to work with, we're going to have a few.
MR. FORD-Wetlands.
MR. FULLER-Yes, wetlands. Blind Rock. There's a setback there that didn't even come up, but
that's the same as the arterial on Bay, 75, and there's no way it can meet that, even where the
buildings are, you know, keeping them away from the wetlands out back to the extent that we
have. So we want to keep that option on there, because I think the reality is, going back to the
discussion we had last week, what we're doing, even with the involvement of the ZBA, is we're
designing a Planned Unit Development. That is exactly what we're doing, you know, and the
one gentleman on the Zoning Board made a good point. When the ZBA is kind of shaping the
zoning for a project, that's a PUD, and he was right. He was spot on with his comment last
week. So, you know, I know it's still controversial. I just think that the Town Board needs to
have the public hearing, hear what the public has to say, discuss how that the whole Town
Board thinks that the meeting went last week, and if it's up or down then not even next week but
at some future point we can deal with that, but I think it's still in, you know, the project's best
interests, even if we can work within those parameters, to keep that option on the table, and
we'll explain it next week when we get there, but there are, you guys have dealt with PUD's.
There are broader based reasons of why they do it. One is that flex space to the south, you
know, if it's part of a PUD, you don't have to come back in for variances, then. The Town Board,
the Planning Board, with the input of the ZBA, say that's what the setback's going to be,
wetlands and everything, that's what you're going to meet. Okay. Fine. When somebody
comes along, we can design that project, kind of like Hiland has gone, and come back in. We
don't have to go for variances and go through the relief process. You have to apply for site plan
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
approval, and, you know, I said it last week at the meeting. When you're doing joint uses like
this, residential, commercial, office, retail space like that, you know, it's not one building on one
lot. We're looking at upwards of a dozen buildings on one lot. So it's just not your traditional
variance process. I said it last week, I think my concern is, we got some good direction, but
even when we come back, it'll come back with variances. Even the best designing we can do,
and I don't want somebody coming in and saying, you told us you were going to do, not from any
of the Boards, but from the opposition that we've seen, because the e-mails are already flying
around, even after last week's meeting. I'm just concerned that that mentality is going to stay
out there, and, you know, I'm not ever going to be able to please everybody. It's not an end run.
Certainly that meeting last week made it very clear that nobody's end running around any
process. We're trying to get to something that is good for the Town and that we can finance and
make work. So we hope that the Planning Board is still in favor of that concept, of allowing us
to go back to the Town Board and visit the PUD discussion. I think the public hearing will be
good, and I know it's probably going to be well attended and there's going to be some strong
comments, but doing it out in the open I think is the way to do it. Let's have the discussion.
Let's have the Town Board have that conversation. That's where we are, you know, coming a
week off that.
MR. SIPP-Are you willing to stay within the restrictions or the plan that they outline, with your
waivers just for setback and building height?
MR. FULLER-Yes, certainly the density has been the strong message, and I think, you know,
what we're running right now, we'd be able to work within that. It certainly makes the numbers a
lot different for a project like that, but we're going to have to scale some other parts of it back,
you know, some of the buildings out front aren't going to.
MR. SIPP-Has there ever been a timetable, I'm getting way ahead of this, but has anybody ever
thought about a timetable, which are you going to do first?
MR. FULLER-We've committed to, and I talked, Bob and Dan both had to be out of town today.
That's why actually they weren't here on the one up higher, too. We've talked about that, and
we're still shooting for Spring, and as far as phasing goes, we're still committed to that phasing,
and we would, they're obviously the guys that make the decision, but they would say it at a
meeting when we get into review, too, that we're going to do that, I call it the corner phase, with
the commercial and the residential at the same time. That has not changed. We're not going to
back end the residential, get, quote unquote, what we want, and then leave the front hanging,
and I think the Planning Board has been pretty clear that that's not going to happen, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of the things that I did, and I think I had mentioned this at one of
the meetings where we talked about the PUD and the Office zone, was to go back and look at
the PORC proceedings, and so I did that, and back on December 6t" of 2006 the Planning
Ordinance Review Committee reviewed the draft revisions to Articles 4, 7, 11, and 12, and 12, of
course, is the Planned Unit Development, and I found it very interesting because there were
some general recommendations. There was some discussion items, and then the draft, actual
draft Ordinance, which by enlarge didn't change from what was actually adopted, but the most
interesting part was the intention and the objectives focused a lot on residential development
and saying that Planned Unit Developments should be allowed in all residential zones, unless
otherwise specified, and there was a discussion about mixed uses and, you know, the
Committee felt very strongly that we should encourage mixed use, but then in the discussion
draft there was a recommendation from the consultants, and I'll just read it, and it says, it is our
recommendation that PUD's should not be allowed in the following districts, and then it lists
several, Light Industry, Heavy Industry, Main Street, Enclosed Shopping Center, Land
Conservation and then Rural Residential. At this point in time, there was no Office zone.
MR. FULLER-That's right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it was never discussed. So I thought that was the most interesting part of
that whole exercise. It wasn't ever discussed by the PORC Committee. Because it was after
the PORC Committee made recommendations that the Office zone was incorporated into the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan by the Town Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm not sure that we have fully exhausted the process that we started on so
long ago. I mean, we looked at it, we made some recommendations at the Planning level
obviously a number of times, and we had some public hearings. They made some changes. I
think one of the things, one of the senses that I got from the meeting last week was that perhaps
there needed to be more discussion with the Zoning Board, and their input into the design, and
we did have an earlier joint meeting with them, and there really wasn't a lot of comment from
them, and my own sense is that some of what happen was that, you know, we're often called
upon, as we see in the agenda tonight, to make recommendations on zoning issues to the
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
Zoning Board, and I almost felt in this design process in a way that's what we were doing, and
so we were able to get the committee together with the weird acronym. I'm sorry, I forget what it
is, but that process seemed to be very helpful. We got some great input. It sounds as though
we're going to be doing that again, so I don't see reason why we can't just continue the process
that we started, without having to go into the PUD. I mean, I understand you're looking for some
assurance that things are going to move forward in a timely fashion, and I obviously can't speak
for the Zoning Board, but based on what I heard, the parameters that you were given, I think if
we look at an amended project to accommodate those conditions, I think the Zoning Board will
look favorably on it, and if you have something like that to present at the next joint meeting, the
Committee meeting, you will know, and you will probably know sooner than you would know
regarding a PUD application. So I would say let's not give up on what we've, I mean, we've
done a lot of work. You've done a lot of work. We've done a little less work, but we've also
spent a lot of time looking at the project, you know, I feel a little bit like we're a swimmer in a 20
mile race that goes 18 miles and decides he's too tired to finish so he turns around and swims
back, you know, start all over again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, and I don't mean to dismiss your comments, but I don't know if
any of it changes if suddenly a PUD isn't an allowed use in that zone, you know, the baseline
work is still there. The concerns are still the same.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, the only thing that has changed is that instead of requiring variance
approvals, they need an approval from the Town Board for a PUD concept. I don't know if
there's an advantage one way or the other.
MR. SIPP-1 wonder if we shouldn't somehow get the public involved, because through all of this
year and a half or almost two years of discussion, the public has never had a chance to
comment.
MR. TRAVER-Well, actually they did have, the applicant had a public meeting. I mean, it was
obviously unofficial, but there was a lot of feedback, and I believe there's feedback coming in as
we speak.
MR. FULLER-And certainly the December ZBA meeting last year was very well attended.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, and all of our meetings as well.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, you laid them out in your letter, you know, April, August, October,
December.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just don't know, I mean, which route you take, you know, if I were sitting
in your shoes, I would probably go down the route you described, because I think it's the
expedient route. I think if you go back to the Town Board with a PUD, you know, yes it does
have the public hearing and everything else, but the Town Board is frozen in place because of
politics. I mean, let's face it, okay, and you're not going to get an open answer at least until after
the election, and then you might not get another one for a year after that.
MR. FULLER-You bring up a very good point, Paul, and I'll tell you, honestly, that's my client's
exact fear, is the not the last four years of politics, but the last eight years.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that's right.
MR. FULLER-It was a prior developer, and it was owned by some well-known people. They're
not involved. They don't own it. It's, you know, the crew that I've got, Bob Manz and those guys
that own it now, and honestly, to be frank with you, they are concerned about the politics.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they should be, because you've still got the Town Board, and they're
people that have been there for a long time, and, you know, that's going to change probably
some of it.
MR. FULLER-Because if you really take a step back and look at it from a purely planning
perspective, what we're doing is planning a PUD. That's exactly what we're doing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's exactly right.
MR. FULLER-However we get there, that's exactly what we're doing.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I think we should move on, because I think if you want to step aside
and go through the sideshow with the Town Board, it's just going to cost you time.
MR. FULLER-Yes. Somebody made a comment last week too about it. It doesn't solve all
problems, no question, the PUD. There is no, you know, it's something that gives the applicant
everything it wants.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not a panacea for anything.
MR. FULLER-Absolutely. There's no free pass on it, and that's, I think from what I've seen, from
the comments that are getting out there, that's exactly what people think a PUD is. Those are
the comments that are going around, that I'm getting back to me. It's not an end run. You've got
open space concerns. You've got other things that you have to take into account in a PUD. So
it kind of came across last week as a threat to us, you know, watch what you're doing, but I
know, I've looked that over. I know some of the things we've got to deal with if we go PUD. It's
very real.
MR. OBORNE-If I could comment. I would like to have the Board focus more on the issue at
hand and not necessarily Queensbury Partners. The issue at hand is allowing a PUD in the O
zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Thank you, Keith.
MR. FULLER-Good point. You've got the minimums of 30 acres. In my letter, I told the Town
Board stick to that. Stick to the 30 acres, that was done intentionally. It was so you didn't have
a two, three acre PUD that would be an end run around the zoning, stick to that number, and
only the Town Board's got the ability to vary from that. Stick hard to it.
MR. FORD-It purely is in the realm of the Town Board for that designation of a PUD. The
applicant is requesting that opportunity, I see no reason for the Planning Board to not agree to
let them proceed and take it to the Town Board and see how they flesh it out. I see no reason
for, I like what the process that we've gone through, but the applicant obviously is in a position to
weigh the various possibilities. What they're requesting from us is to make a recommendation
that it be taken to the Town Board. I think that's where it should be.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I just want to caution us on one thing. I think this is what Keith
alluded to. What we're being asked is to make a recommendation for all properties within the
Office zone, not just this piece of property.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. FULLER-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the recommendation is, you know, whether or not we think a Planned Unit
Development is a good idea for any property that's in an Office zone.
MR. TRAVER-I think that's pre-mature. I think that's not, with respect to Staff, I think we do
need to focus on this applicant. I don't think it's appropriate for us to make a blanket
recommendation on a zone when, in fact, we're really in the context of a particular project and
we just finished developing a, creating a novel way of addressing the concerns of this unique
project by having us combine meetings, and I think it's pre-mature. I mean, we may reach a
point where this is appropriate, but I think at this point it's just, it's pre-mature.
MR. FORD-Steve, all we're recommending, we're not recommending approval of that. We're
recommending that they have the opportunity to go before the Town Board for the discussion
and for that determination. It's the Town Board's decision, not ours.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand.
MR. FORD-And I think they should make that decision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I tend to agree with what you're saying. It's really almost impossible for
us to divorce the concept from the project at this point in time, because we're so deep into the
project.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? We do have a sample
resolution, but Keith left it blank for us to kind of fill out.
MR. OBORNE-And that was by design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right.
MR. FORD-We got that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't know where we want to go with this. I mean, you know, our
recommendation could be that there is no recommendation, you know, one way or another.
MR. TRAVER-Well, one thing that we could do is sort of poll the Board on, you know, do people
want to recommend that the Town take this up as PUD, or do we want to continue the process
that we started last week. 1, for one, am in favor of finishing the process that we started last
week with having the applicant come back with revised plans according to the feedback and
having the meeting that we discussed, and I think agreed to hold, next week, or not next week,
but last week we talked about having a follow up committee meeting with both zoning and
planning, and I think once we have an actual plan to look at that has those three
accommodations included, and then see where we and the zoning, I think I know how we feel
because we talked about it a great deal last time, but let's see how zoning responds to it, and
rather than start this process all over again.
MR. FORD-I have no objection to proceeding with the course that we've been on for the last
couple of years.
MR. FULLER-And we're going to. I can tell you that, we are going to do that.
MR. FORD-What I'm trying to do is be responsive to the applicant, through their agent, making a
request that it be our recommendation on their behalf that it go to the Town Board. I think they
have every reason to, having weighed the consequences of both courses for themselves, I think
they have every reason to proceed that way. If they would like to do that, I see no reason that
we should stand in their way.
MR. FULLER-And that's not to say that the Town Board will vote up or down on whether or not
PUD's should be allowed on Monday night. They could say, no, we want to table this right now.
MR. FORD-It's their call.
MR. FULLER-I don't have that crystal ball. It's just whether or not they should be, a PUD in
concept should be allowed in the Office zone. That's really what we want to get that public
hearing on, let the Town Board hear that comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would have to say, as the only member of this Board that was on the
Planning Ordinance Review Committee way back when, a lot of what we talked about in
concepts was flexibility, and to that end, I think it's a good idea, you know, I think because of the
way the Office zone was designed and inserted into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I think it
was an oversight that this discussion was never held before, but, you know, if the sort of
overriding concept was to be flexibility, I think a PUD provides more flexibility than, you know,
having to go get variances. I almost wish we didn't have a project right now, so that we could
have a real conceptual discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the Planned Unit
Development district within a zone, and be able to divorce everyone's thoughts and comments
and feelings about the existing project, and/or, as Paul was saying, you know, not see a project,
you know, possibly be delayed while this discussion occurs. So, you know, maybe Steve has
the right approach is to say, hey, let's finish this project and then have that discussion after.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I hope it's the right approach, but I guess what I'm saying is we won't know
it's the right approach unless we carry it out. I mean, we just talked about doing it last week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. TRAVER-So I'm just saying let's give it a chance before we say, well, I guess we're going to
throw it in somebody else's hands to deal with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. DEEB-I tend to agree with Steve, that it's a bit pre-mature. When we get the next (lost
words) some resolution, it still leaves the option, after that, to go through.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any follow up as to a meeting date?
MR. FULLER-No, it's on us to get the plans.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it's on the applicant to submit revised plans.
MR. FULLER-We're working on it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we need to have a plan.
MR. OBORNE-For what it's worth, my only comment is Steve is saying it is a little bit pre-mature
to do a yea or nay on this, because you don't know what this next plan looks like at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So I think that puts you in a difficult position, but you have to somehow work
through that and get them some type of recommendation, because they have requested it.
MR. FORD-I think we have to be responsive to the request of the applicant.
MR. FULLER-And we will come back for that joint meeting.
MR. FORD-The applicant is making a request.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we can recommend that the Board be aware that this possibility is out
there, but we still have a couple of meetings to go before we think it's needed. I mean, that's a
recommendation, that we're aware that it's a concern on the part of the applicant, and it's a
potential method going forward, but we just met last week with a new committee formed by the
Board to address this not with a PUD, and I think it's, you know, let's deal with one Board
decision at a time. They set up the PZIRC.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, Planning Zoning Issue Resolution Committee.
MR. TRAVER-And that would be one of the things I would add to the resolution is they should
not be allowed to make a committee that has an acronym that's not pronounceable, but anyway,
it was the Town Board that generated that committee.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So let's. I mean, the Town, through their prior action, was indicated the way they
would like this to go forward. Let's finish the process. If their original idea doesn't work, then
we'll go back to the Town Board and say, okay, Town Board, nice try. Maybe you should
consider a PUD. I just don't think we're at that point, yet. I'm not saying it's not a bad idea or
whatever. I'm just saying let's, one step at a time is my feeling.
MR. FORD-The applicant must feel it's a good idea or they wouldn't be before us.
MR. FULLER-We want to have the public hearing. We do, to discuss those issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's already been scheduled so you will have the public hearing.
MR. FULLER-Yes, exactly.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, there'll be plenty of input, I'm sure, and one of the options, I don't
know if it would be possible with, I know there'd have to be notice, but at the next joint
committee could there be public input? I don't know if it would be useful at that point because
we're primarily getting input from the two Boards.
MR. OBORNE-I'd have to research that, and get back to you on that.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-I don't know that there could be a public hearing, per se, but I think both Boards
would have the legal ability to give privilege of the floor.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, certainly public comment would be allowed.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, or we could maybe accept written comment or something.
MR. OBORNE-And obviously we'll talk to Mark about that. We can certainly talk to Mark about
that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and, you know, and again, you know, we have had public hearings on
their plan at these meetings. We've had multiple ones. There's been public hearings at the
Zoning Board, too.
MR. TRAVER-Although they've received feedback and the applicant has indicated they are
receptive to making some modifications to the plan, which might require different public
comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes there would be different comments than what was received before,
absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-But I think, you know the Board has already made a decision to create this
committee and handle it in a particular way, and I don't think that we have concluded that
process yet. So I just believe that it's pre-mature and what I would suggest we make as a
recommendation to the Town Board is that we follow their first suggestion to resolve this, and
failing that, we'll visit PUD or something else or maybe create a new committee.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, the interesting thing is the committee, as well as the
setting of the public hearing and the request for the recommendation were made by the Town
Board on the same evening. I don't know which order if it matters but, I mean, for all intents and
purposes they were made at the same time. It's just that the committee meeting happened
before this discussion. So, I don't know if that changes your thought process at all, but I'd just
point that out for the record.
MR. OBORNE-Well, obviously this Board's recommendation will be received prior to the
applicant sitting down with PZIRC and the Planning and Zoning Committee, or Planning and
Zoning Boards. So they'll have that taken care of.
MR. FULLER-And we're not looking to push you one way or the other. Somebody said we may
not have a recommendation at this point, and that may be fine, too. I'm imagining they're going
to get copies of the minutes, and the Town Board will know what happened here.
MR. OBORNE-They will get copies of the minutes.
MR. FULLER-So one way or another we'll get back to them Monday.
MR. OBORNE-They will get copies of the minutes.
MR. FORD-But it's the applicant's desire to go to the Town Board.
MR. FULLER-We still think it's a good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is scheduled for Monday evening, right?
MR. FULLER-Monday, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I've tossed and turned since our last meeting, and trying to figure out,
and reading, and, you know, based on our Codes, and the size of this project, I have to agree
with Chris and Matt that, you know, a PUD might be the better approach right now, due to the
amount of variances that are going to be needed. The 75 foot setback on this particular, I think
it would be defeating what we've recommended that we'd like to see. I wanted to bring it closer,
to give it more warmth and not so much depth, where, you know, you had to get your binoculars,
you know. So, I've really been back and forth on which way to go. I agree with Steve, but I have
to lean with Chris and Tom on this one here.
MR. FULLER-And the other thing I've talked about, too, is it's not an either or.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. FULLER-It's an option. It's the flexibility. If it gets to the point where the Town says, you
know what, the PUD is the right option for this property based on feedback we start getting from
occupancy of the property and things like that, then it's an option, and for us to shift gears and
file a PUD versus variance and things like that, that's not a huge lift. It's application materials.
It's not that you'd have to stop and go all the way back to Square One. The project would still be
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
in design and working through, and just shift those gears. So it's not a, you know, I kind of, even
as these discussions are going on, we're still moving to get the concept.
MR. FORD-The momentum is still (lost words) the breaks are not on.
MR. FULLER-Yes, absolutely. We're going forward. We're going to come back with something
that we think is going to work, and the question is, at the end of the day, is it on the ZBA to grant
variances or does the Town say, you know what, no, the way to do this is a PUD to give
flexibility to the southern space so that you don't have to come back in for variances and not
know what that next ZBA is going to be comprised of as far as membership or things like that,
you know, those are unknowns. So that's really what it is, it's a flexibility thing to say, okay,
when we get down into this, eventually you'll get past sketch review, and say, okay, now's the
time to apply, what's the better route. Legally, for the Town, is it PUD or variances? Variances
are based on hardship. PUD is based on a plan. That's a distinct difference from a project
standpoint. So that's really, and those are all the things I'll discuss with the Town Board on
Monday night. I'll be prepared to say, hey, this is what it's about, not about end run because the
Town, we were at the meeting. They said 75 feet's a big issue for them. Okay. That's a loud
signal that even if you went for a PUD, 75's going to be that number from Bay. So it's no
different than the zoning now. It's not an end run. In the units, we're not going to allow you a
higher residential density than is allowed in the zone. That could very easily be built into the
PUD. That's a strong signal. So, you know, it's not an end run. It's, at the end of the day,
question of are you going to need variances and if so is the ZBA going to be the one to grant
them or are you going to build a PUD and say it's going to be 70 foot setback from these parts of
the wetland and 50 over here based on topography and things. That's what the flexibility that a
PUD gives you that traditional zoning doesn't. That's why they were originally developed.
MR. OBORNE-But again, to reel in, to focus on what we're here for tonight is specifically to what
the Zoning Code states.
MR. FULLER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I know it's hard for you to divorce that.
MR. FULLER-Yes, I keep making that mistake myself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, yes, again, just to reiterate, this would be, the recommendation or the
discussion is whether or not PUD's are allowed in the Office zone, and it's not just this property.
Any other questions comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-Well, I still may be a voice in the wilderness here, but I still think they need public
input. I don't think the public knows what a PUD is, and what it entails, how it's different from
what the Planning Board will make a decision on, the Town Board made a decision without it.
You're losing a big factor here in finding out what the people want or don't want.
MR. FULLER-And that's the goal of the public hearing Monday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that will be fleshed out Monday night.
MR. FULLER-Yes, this is just what, your ideas of what you think is a good idea or not.
MR. OBORNE-There will be public hearings, absolutely. We need to get a plan in so we can
present the public.
MR. FULLER-Well, before we even get to that point, the public hearing on Monday is just on a
change to the zoning, whether or not the Town Board yea or nay, and if they even get to that
folks. It's the public hearing that you're talking about, Don, to allow people to voice whether they
support it or not, and I'll have a full discussion of what a PUD is or isn't, you know, from my
standpoint.
MR. HUNSINGER-And again, you know, even if the zone was, the Code was changed so that
PUD's are allowable in the Office zone, it's still done on a case by case basis, you know, the
developer would have to petition to the Town Board.
MR. OBORN E-Negotiate.
MR. HUNSINGER-To have a PUD approved. So, it doesn't automatically open up, you know, a
Pandora's Box for every project in the Office zone.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. FULLER-That 30 acre minimum alone is a big threshold.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, the 30 acre requirement alone.
MR. TRAVER-I just think if we're going to have that discussion, it should be independent of a
project. I mean, I have no problem discussing that. I don't think it should be in relationship, in
this context, especially after the Town Board just created this committee with two members on it.
So I'm prepared to make a motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE TOWN BOARD FOR PZ 1-2012 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Stephen
Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb:
Acknowledging the recent creation of the Planning and Zoning Board special committee to work
on this project, including the membership of two Town Board members, that before we consider
any change in the office zone relating to PUD's, that the committee complete its work regarding
the Queensbury Partners project.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf
NOES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. OBORNE-Let's try again.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll try again. So what was it, five two or four three?
MR. OBORNE-It was three four.
MR. HUNSINGER-Three four.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Same as four three.
MR. OBORNE-The four of you get together.
MR. TRAVER-So, I mean, it sounds as though the majority are in favor of having the, making a
recommendation to the Town Board with regards to PUD's in the Office zone. So if someone
wants to make that recommendation, then we'll vote on that. It's not going to be me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make that motion?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the timing of that is critical. If you want to do that before election,
you're wasting your time.
MR. FULLER-To do what, I'm sorry?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That motion before election, you're wasting your time because you're
going to get the same answer we got from the two members of the Town Board.
MR. FULLER-We're not there asking for a PUD approval.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, but he just made the comment that if we made that motion, and I'm
saying we're all wasting our time because we just heard what they think of that.
MR. FULLER-I won't, I don't know that I'll have revised plans in before then.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, you probably won't.
MR. FULLER-Not for you guys to be able to have them and read them. Yes, it's going to be
after the election.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just wouldn't do anything until after the six weeks. You go ahead and
have your public hearing, that's fine.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. FULLER-Yes, it's going to take us a month at least to get, there's a lot of work in those
plans.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, right, but don't hang around bang heads over the PUD because it's
going to go no place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone else like to make a motion?
MR. TRAVER-And I think the Chair cannot make motions, so you've got to get somebody to do
it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know that you need one. I'd just let things lie the way they are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable with that?
MR. TRAVER-Not making a recommendation?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not making a recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-There's certainly plenty of discussion on the minutes. I don't know how.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, they've asked for one. That doesn't mean we need to give them one.
MR. TRAVER-No. That's true.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, it would be nice to give them a recommendation saying we're not
providing a recommendation for or against because.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, because we just started a process that's not finished yet. That's what it boils
down to.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's exactly what it is. That's where we are, I mean, in a nutshell.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and that, and where did that process originate? The Town Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town Board.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, they came up with a very creative way.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They put their members on it.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and we've had a total of, how many meetings have we had on this project?
Nine or ten? How many meetings have we had since this Town Board created this special
committee? I think one. Right? Let's give it a chance.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it might succeed.
MR. FORD-Steve, do you have the recommendation in writing, your motion in writing?
MR. TRAVER-I do not. Do you want me to make the same motion again?
MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the minutes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is in the minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought maybe you were asking him to make a revised motion that's similar
but different.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the way I understood that. That's what I was asking.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, I suppose we could just, as Matt pointed out, I mean, obviously the
minutes are going to be available to the Town Board, and they will be paying a great deal of
attention to this because they've already paid a great deal of attention to it. So we could
perhaps say that we are not as one, not in total agreement as to how to proceed, and in the
absence of an agreement as an alternative means to proceed, we're going to continue with the
plan as they suggested all along, which was creating the special committee with two Board
members on it.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 like that one.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-I believe I already made a motion to that effect, and you voted against it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think I'm going to have to swing your way, you know, but, you're right,
we're at a standstill. We've got to do something.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we're not actually, that's not true, because the majority is, the majority of
members were not in favor of not doing something. So all we're really lacking is a motion from
those who disagree with my position that we need to continue with the recommendation the
Town Board has already made which is this specific committee. So if somebody wants to make
that motion, then it'll be presumably four three. Maybe not, if somebody changes their vote. I
mean, I can make another similar motion if you'd like, but I think, I mean, I guess that's what I'd
have to do for people to reconsider it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Will this give them the opportunity to move forward with a PUD, but also give
us the control also, or not control, but also keep us involved in the project?
MR. OBORNE-Could I make a suggestion? What if you put forth some type language that
states, you know, let's go forward with the planning aspect of it without the PUD, but potentially
the option for a PUD would be supported by this Board.
MR. TRAVER-Second.
MR. DEEB-I like that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Second.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but let's go forward with the direction that they asked us to take.
MR. OBORNE-Right, but the recommendation that you're asking us is a potential for that to
actually come to fruition.
MR. DEEB-You're leaving the option on the table.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but the option's always there. I mean, you can't say there's no potential.
MR. OBORNE-It is, but it does get you through a recommendation. It does get you a
recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 like that one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to put that in the form of a motion?
MR. TRAVER-I will try.
RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION PZ 1-2012 QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant is requesting an
amendment of the Zoning Code to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Office zone.
The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Town Board;
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 TOWN BOARD FOR PZ 1-2012 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Stephen
Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb:
That, One, the Town Board formed a special committee to address the Queensbury Partners
application that has had one meeting, and though we recognize that at some point consideration
of amendments to the Office zone to accommodate PUD'S may be warranted, we feel that the
special committee already recently created by the Town Board has not finished its work. So at
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
this time we're not recommending PUD's in the Office zone, but the option to consider the issue
of the PUD in the Office zone exists.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-But.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I need the but part, thing, but the option.
MR. FORD-The option, speak to the option.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We'd like the option to be available.
MR. TRAVER-The option to consider the issue of the PUD in the Office zone exists.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It always exists.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, I mean, it's essentially the same motion I made earlier, is my feel.
Maybe Mark would disagree with me. Anyway, the motion is made.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We have a motion. Is there a second?
MR. DEEB-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion? We could always amend the motion, though, to make it. Okay.
All right.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp
NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everyone.
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
TABLED ITEM:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 MODIFICATION TO SUP 45-2009 SEAR TYPE
UNLISTED SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART &
RHODES; NACE ENGINEERING LOCATION 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO MODIFY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF
VEGETATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF "PERMEABLE" PAVERS ON EXISTING GRAVEL
PARKING SPACES. FURTHER, APPLICANT SEEKS AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF A +/- 665 SQUARE FOOT PATIO WITH ACCESS DECK AND
STAIRS TO ACCOMMODATE FOUR TABLES AS WELL AS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 6
FOOT TALL, 112 FOOT LONG STOCKADE FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY.
MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-12, SUP 45-09, AV 39-09, BOH 14-09 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL 5/2012 - NCI APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-9, 179-10
TOM CENTER & LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. If the Board recalls from the last meeting, the reason for the request, I don't
know if I need to go through all the issues on this application. What I have done different is I did
put what the applicant has verbally provided as far as a timeline goes, and I think that was
obviously the crux of issue last time, and if you'd like me to read this in, that's fine. I don't know
what the pleasure of the Board is at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's here in black and white.
MR. OBORNE-You're good to go?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. CENTER-Tom Center of Nace Engineering, and Larry Clute, the owner of the parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any new information, anything to present?
MR. CENTER-I believe the only issue that we've come to, that we have left on the table is the
holding tank issue. I believe at the last meeting Keith brought up an issue that Dave Hatin had
been out to the site for a septic issue. I did speak with Dave Hatin. That issue was during
construction of the patio they came across an area that had a septic smell. It was not the
existing system. It was not a functioning system. It was an area that we believe was an older
system at some point in time. It was not active. It was remediated and the patio was worked on.
It was nothing that had to do with the existing working system which is in the front corner on the
Mason Road side in the parking area. I also, at that time, asked Dave, in regards to the system
failure and if he had any documented failures. He said he didn't. It is his wishes to see the
holding tank system installed. I asked him if he would be adverse to a series of inspections
during the season more frequently and less frequently during the off season until the system is
installed, if that was something that he would do in order to facilitate the timeframe that Mr. Clute
is looking to do. It would allow us the opportunity to have the Town up there, invited on site to
ensure the system is still functioning, that there's no, that there's not a failure, an immediate
failure that would, you know, of course, as we've stated before, would require immediate
replacement, removal and replacement and installation of the holding tanks. Dave said he didn't
have an issue with doing inspections on a periodic basis during the season and less frequently
out of season when it's not used as much. He just asked that if there was a condition that we do
it in writing and have an agreement written out between us and the Town for him to come up and
do those inspections. The third item, I'd just like to read, I know there was also some question in
regard to the Zoning Board of Appeals record of resolution. In the very bottom, the very end of
their motion, they do state in their approval that the applicant has outlined a timetable for
replacement of the septic system, and he will also monitor said septic system for failure in the
meantime. If it does fail, I believe he agreed to replace it. As Mr. Clute has stated, the
timeframes that we have proposed to the Planning Board, we're willing to put those in black and
white as conditions with the dates that we had put forth at the last meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-So was that consistent with the dates that the Staff had offered?
MR. CENTER-That is consistent with the dates that the Zoning Board, that the Staff has.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-Yes, those are the same dates that were offered to the Zoning Board and that are
within their resolution. So there is some mention in the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution in
regards to those dates.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. CENTER-That's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Does this proposal, or how does it impact the concerns that have been raised
relative to the ownership on the north side of the property?
MR. CENTER-I'm not sure, the ownership on the north side of the property? Which?
MR. CLUTE-What parcel, the Chalet?
MR. FORD-The 10 feet on the north side of the property.
MR. CENTER-The 10 feet on the north side, that would be where the parking is occurring?
MR. FORD-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. CENTER-I believe one of the other comments was a, I believe you talked with Stefanie, an
agreement between the Chalet owner.
MR. CLUTE-I own the Chalet as well. So I've got to do an agreement from the Chalet, DKC
Holding, to San Souci, allowing the use of part of the Chalet's property as parking for the San
Souci. Is that what you're referring to, Tom?
MR. FORD-It relates to 10 feet of property that is owned by Berger.
MR. CLUTE-He owns the corner. He actually owns the corner that's made by the Chalet as well
as the San Souci's end parking. He owns the corner. We're not using any of Mr. Berger's
property.
MR. FORD-You're not?
MR. CLUTE-No, sir. No, what you see drafted is my property. It's been surveyed. He doubted
it, to be honest with you, Mr. Berger, and he asked Mr. Steves to come up and re-survey, but it
was the same corners. He was in dispute thinking I was using part of his property. I don't know
if that's what you were referring to or not.
MR. FORD-That's been conveyed to you, has it been? You would have no way of knowing
whether or not that's been conveyed to the Berger family?
MR. CLUTE-The Bergers own the corner, Tom, they do own the corner of Mason Road.
MR. FORD-Isn't there 10 feet in dispute?
MR. CLUTE-No, sir. No. Matt Steves is here. I mean, the survey is accurate, as well as Mr.
Berger obtained a survey as well. He was under the impression his line was larger than it was,
but there's no official dispute, if that makes sense. 1, at the time of purchase.
MR. FORD-Perhaps yet.
MR. CLUTE-Maybe, that I'm aware of. There we go, at this point.
MR. FORD-You entered into an agreement, however, with Mr. Berger?
MR. CLUTE-No, sir.
MR. FORD-You didn't?
MR. CLUTE-No. No, I've never had reason to. I've never had reason to, when I bought this, I
had Van Dusen and Steves do a survey, clearly staked out, and to be honest with you, we
stayed 20 feet away from those stakes until most recently when we came in and cleaned up
where the (lost word) going to be to the north side. We stayed away from those stakes, but the
minute those stakes were in, Mr. Berger came over and introduced himself and made it clear
that he was under the impression they were. I didn't argue with him. The surveyor, this is a
surveyor's mark, but it's never been brought any further than that, and there's nothing in writing,
me I'm not, I didn't ask for.
MR. FORD-You didn't enter into a verbal agreement with Mr. Berger?
MR. CLUTE-No, sir.
MR. FORD-That was later rescinded by a letter?
MR. CLUTE-No, I did get a letter. That's at the time that he asked Matt Steves, got a letter
which, to be honest with you, I didn't understand, because I never had a verbal agreement with
Mr. Berger. I didn't understand it. I called Matt to verify that indeed he was hired by Mr. Berger
to re-survey, but the reality is is obviously if we've got a line between he and 1, Matt did my
survey, going to do his, it's the same line, and Matt made him aware of that. Now I don't know if
he intends on going any further. I haven't heard anything beyond that. Does that help?
MR. FORD-It's a different perspective.
MR. CLUTE-I don't know.
MR. OBORNE-Does that actually have bearing on the site plan?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. FORD-That's what I wanted to know.
MR. CLUTE-I'm sure it would affect some calculations. If I were to have 10 feet less than what
we're showing here? Yes, I'm sure that would affect some calculations, because it shows the,
he's talking about this grassed area right here, Tom,
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I was going to say.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, I'm sure it would affect the calculations, but I haven't heard anything.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Matt's right here.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, Van Dusen and Steves. Yes, I just completed a survey for the
Bergers, and the line is one and the same. I told Mr. Berger when he hired me that, he asked
me, said I have done the survey work for the restaurant, I said yes I have. I said, but my answer
has to be the same, no matter who I'm working for, and the line is the exact line that is shown on
Mr. Clute's survey. Backing up a little bit, that matches Mr. Berger's deed exactly with the
distances around his lot. There was a map out there from, I think, in the 60's that showed 10
additional feet on that parcel to the north of Larry's piece that does not exist. His deed only
gives him the, I think it's 56 by the 46 basically, and somehow there was a map out there that
gave you 66 feet along the road. You can't create 10 feet of land that was never there, and I
guarantee that. That line is the exact line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. One of the things we discussed was on your timeline. The work criteria,
and you weren't here, Larry, so nobody could speak for you, but was flip flopping it around and
maybe addressing the septic now and the other things, you know, since you're going to be
creating an atmosphere to be able to handle more people.
MR. CLUTE-Hindsight being 20/20. I've already created this scheduled before I even brought it
to the Boards, and I've allocated funds for X work. I've actually already spent the funds.
Hindsight being 20/20, I'd love to offer exactly that. Unfortunately I'm already spent for the work
that I'm projected to do. Essentially I'm shutting down the month of January, and all those funds
are already spent in preparation of that January. So, again, hindsight being 20/20, I'd love to
actually offer that. Had I been aware that it would have been a push to vice versa, I probably
would have vice versa that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would echo those comments. I mean, a major concern of this Board the
last time we saw this application, was the fact that it was going to be more than two years until
the improved septic was installed.
MR. CLUTE-Right, yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-And there were a number of members, I forget how many, who specifically asked
that those dates be re-considered, that we felt very strongly that we wanted to see those dates
moved up, and is it my understanding that they have not?
MR. CLUTE-I'm going to ask you, is 2013, if I change the 2014 to 2013, is that in satisfaction of
your request? One year?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I can't speak for the whole Board, but I can tell you that my feeling is that
the first priority should be the septic, the improvement of the septic.
MR. CLUTE-I'm very conscious of it. The first thing I did when I bought this building was I
addressed my water and I addressed my drainage. That was the first thing I did when I bought
this parcel, and so I'm also very conscious of my location, very conscious of the environmental
situation that may be up there. I'm all over the septic system. We've now invited Dave, and
Dave Hatin, actually, has been coming out sporadically, not for any particular reason. I keep
him hand in hand with everything I do, whether it's restaurant or housing. We've invited him to
come even further, you know, every two weeks, because I don't have a septic problem. I really
don't. If I did, I'd address it.
MR. TRAVER-If I could ask you a couple of questions.
MR. CLUTE-Sure.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-A moment ago you talked about your finances and how you allocated money for
this project.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And we've also had a discussion that should there be a problem with the existing
system, that the new system would be put in immediately.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-And you earlier indicated that, because of your financial situation, it would not be
possible to re-order the installation order of the project.
MR. CLUTE-No, that's not exactly it.
MR. TRAVER-So you could put in the septic system first?
MR. CLUTE-No, I could not.
MR. TRAVER-So if there was a failure tomorrow.
MR. CLUTE-Then I would be putting a burden on another company of mine, JLJ Excavation,
and forcing them to.
MR. TRAVER-I understand you'd be putting a burden on. My question is, could you do the
septic system first?
MR. CLUTE-The septic system should be done in November. It should be done end of season.
I know I can't do it in 2012. The best I'm going to be able to do is 2013.
MR. OBORNE-Just for clarification, these are holding tanks.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I'm sorry.
MR. CENTER-Yes, that's not in dispute.
MR. TRAVER-By saying that, I think what we need to consider is the fact that we know there's a
potential problem there, and you're basically telling us that the safety in place, that if there's a
problem that these tanks will be installed immediately, we can't consider that valid, because you
just said you wouldn't be able to install the system in 2012. So if there's a problem in 2012,
you're not going to be able to put in the new holding tanks.
MR. CLUTE-No, I'm assuring you, in an emergency situation, I would make it happen, or I'd shut
my store down.
MR. HUNSINGER-You'd have no choice.
MR. CLUTE-So I guess we can play the semantics of it, yes, if push came to shove, if I
absolutely have to get in there, I can probably figure out a way to do that. Would it be a massive
burden on me? Yes, it would. The way I have it laid out right now? No, I can financial support
this, and I'm all over this septic system, I really am.
MR. FORD-In the voice of the Board last meeting, that was top priority.
MR. CLUTE-So if we push it into 2013, as a replacement.
MR. FORD-That doesn't make it top priority.
MR. CLUTE-It really does. Because I'm coming into winter months, and you really shouldn't do
a system of this magnitude until the end of season, and I know I'm not geared for it right now.
I'm not. November is right now. November is coming right now and I'm not geared for it, and I
know I'm not going to have a system failure. My store, business drops right off at the end of the
season. So I have no burden right now, but I'm definitely not situated to do a system
replacement right now, which is what we're talking about. I shouldn't do it in the dead of winter,
and I shouldn't do it in the high water season. It should be done at end of season. It should be
done in the Fall.
MR. FORD-So what we've got to hope for is that you make it through the high season, the
summer.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. CLUTE-Right, which is holiday to holiday, Memorial Day to Labor Day.
MR. FORD-So you can do it in November of 2013?
MR. CLUTE-I will commit to that, 2013. I'll commit to the November of 2013, which I'm already
committed to the Zoning Board 2014. I'll move that up, not that it's any business. I know it's a
priority, but even that commitment, it's a Mohammad shuffle for me financially, it really is. I will
make that Mohammad shuffle. I'll make it happen in 2013.
MR. TRAVER-The other issue is, the larger context of this whole discussion, is the problem that
has existed with this project in terms of complying with previous plans.
MR. CLUTE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-This is a very serious issue. This is a Critical Environmental Area, and I can
appreciate your financial concerns, certainly. I mean, I understand you're a businessman. We
were relieved, to some degree, I think, when we were told if there was an emergency that they
would immediately be installed, but I'm hearing tonight that there's a financial limitation on when
you would be able to do that, and that makes me very uncomfortable.
MR. CLUTE-It's two choices. I either shut down my store, if there's an emergency, and I dig up
the parking lot, and that I can do tomorrow. I can do that tomorrow. I can shut down the store.
I'd prefer not to do that. The other one is financial, and I'm much more prepared next, this
conversation, I wasn't prepared for a this Fall front parking lot, and I'm not. So in an emergency
situation either I scramble to come up with that money very quickly or I shut down my store, and
both serve the same purpose, environmental problem gone. That the store is no longer
operating and no environmental concern. So either way, if an emergency happens, problem will
be stopped immediately, either by a fix or me shutting the store down.
MR. FORD-I guess in our previous meeting what we were trying to do is intercept that pass
before it got thrown.
MR. CLUTE-I understand. I understand.
MR. FORD-We don't want to wait for an emergency, for a reaction.
MR. CLUTE-I know, how do I want to say it, it's an environmentally sensitive area. The septic
system is not going to fail. I'll be honest with you. I know I can babysit this thing forever. I
honestly can make this work forever. We've taken a lot of measures already within the store
that's putting very little demand on this system, and I monitor it very, very closely. So honestly I
do know that it's just not going to fail. I know it's not going to fail. We babysit it too close for it to
fail.
MR. DEEB-So you don't think there's a sense of urgency with the present septic system?
MR. CLUTE-I don't. That's correct, but I'm not lessening what everybody's feeling here. I'm not
trying to lessen that feeling in any way shape or form, but I am saying that this system is
functioning just fine, and I watch it very closely because we've had, even before I came to the
Board meeting, the whole neighborhood is very conscious of where we are, and, that being said,
it makes me that much more conscious as well, as a steward of this property. So I'm very
confident in this system the way we've been maintaining it.
MR. FORD-I can acknowledge and recognize that November may be the outer limit of
replacement. My concern, personally, is not necessarily November, December, January,
February, March, but kicking into gear in April and the usage that it's going to get between April
of 2013 and November of 2013, that is my concern.
MR. CLUTE-Right, and it is a burden. The system does.
MR. FORD-And I don't want to see a failure next, in the Summer of 2013.
MR. CLUTE-Nor do 1.
MR. FORD-And the way to prevent that is to address it in November of 2012.
MR. TRAVER-Or alternatively, could you do it in April?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. CLUTE-No. I can, but the water table is so significant up in Cleverdale, really a serious
problem. First off I've got an existing septic system in there. The same situation when I disturb
soils on one side. I really am stirring the soup without being too graphic here. The water table is
extremely high in Cleverdale in April. The lowest point is October/November. That water table
is right up there, right where I'm going to be. I'm going to be disturbing an existing septic system
that I'm operating in now, and trying to install tanks, essentially in a pond. It would be a mess.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you'd probably end up shutting it down anyway to re-do it.
MR. CLUTE-Not in October/November. That water table is dropped significantly.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going to be able to use the existing system and put in the tanks?
MR. CLUTE-Absolutely, yes. Absolutely. That's why we chose October. I wasn't trying to push
it to the end of October. That wasn't the intent. It just, no matter where we're located, whether
it's up on Lake George or here in Queensbury, your best season for this type of work is
October/November. That's why it was chosen. It wasn't because it was the end of 2013. It was
chosen because it's really the best time to do this type of work. Especially, to be honest with
you, especially with everybody being so environmentally conscious. It's extremely wet up there
in April. The water table is not far down at all. Hopefully that helps.
MR. DEEB-Do you close down?
MR. CLUTE-I'm sorry?
MR. DEEB-Do you shut down for the winter?
MR. CLUTE-I do not. I am this year. I'm already scheduled to shut down in January. That's
where I lean to. I've been trying to get my interior work done, to be honest with you.
MR. CENTER-Your hours of operation do change, though.
MR. CLUTE-My hours of operation change. I shut down on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
MR. DEEB-Okay. So you don't have much traffic in the winter, and obviously.
MR. CLUTE-No, we have locals. It's all locals.
MR. DEEB-Let me ask you this, these five items there, what is the most, what would be the most
costly of those items to do, of the five of them?
MR. CLUTE-The work to be done? The most costly work is what I've already scheduled in
January. I've already spent that money. The January is the most expensive work that I've got to
do on this building. The holding tanks fall second. Does that help? And I've actually already
spent most of the money for the January, I've already, product has already been bought for this
January work. It's all the interior. It's all the stuff that was allowed because of the addition. It's
all the interior work. In construction we try to do building first, outside last. The last thing you do
is, I call it do the birthday cake. You put the frosting on the birthday cake and then you're done
with the construction project. Hence the excavation work last, and then on top of that, the best
time of season to do that excavation work is October/November. Hopefully that helped.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions comments from the Board?
MR. DEEB-I know it's priority, but if you're, there's a contingency of something happens, and I
think that's important to keep in mind, and I'm fairly comfortable as long as you go to 2013
instead of 2014. 1 mean, we're talking a year.
MR. CLUTE-One year, yes, sir, and we, as Tom has stated, we already do, it's very thorough
maintenance. We watch this system closely, and my water, both. They're my number one
factors in this property. We watch this thoroughly. We've now invited Dave to watch it with us.
If he sees anything out of the ordinary, I'm sure he's going to say.
MR. DEEB-Did he say he would monitor it?
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. CENTER-Yes, I did speak with him. He said as long as there was an agreement in writing,
if it's a condition of approval that he would, whatever terms, we kind of talked about, you know,
every other week, in season maybe once a month out of season, since there's less demand on
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
the system, they're up and around. That would be something they'd schedule with Dave, San
Souci and Dave. They would involve the Building Department to come up, check.
MR. CLUTE-We'll keep Dave satisfied.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure that we can make a resolution that requires Staff to do work, can we?
Can we direct?
MR. OBORNE-You can't direct, Dave, no, and I've had no conversations with Dave on this
issue, either. It would be nice to have something in writing from his Department.
MR. CENTER-I mean, I had the conversation with him, and the only thing he asked is that we
have an agreement in writing, which we are saying that we don't mind drafting an agreement in
writing to present to him to do.
MR. CLUTE-I have an open building permit for this project.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. CLUTE-And I can call Dave once a day, to be honest with you, just myself, and have him
come on up and inspect.
MR. TRAVER-Understand the difficult for us is that we can think that we have a plan in place
that this is going to be monitored and it doesn't work because we don't, we can't compel an
employee of the Town to do a particular work when they already have a full-time job.
MR. CLUTE-I understand.
MR. TRAVER-Between other things and not working for you. So the easiest thing would be for
us to have you simply put in the septic, I'm sorry the holding tanks, and then those visits
wouldn't be necessary.
MR. CLUTE-Dave Hatin, as you said, I have a building permit, and I can call him once a day,
and he is obligated to come an inspect, irrelevant of the Planning Board recommending or telling
him to do so because that is his job. I have an open building permit, and I can ask him to come
and visit once a day. I can ask him to come and visit once a week. I can ask him to come and
visit once a week. I can ask him to come and visit once every two weeks, and he will do so.
He's already been doing that. Essentially he hand holds me through this project. I have a pretty
tight relationship with Dave where he's been helping me through this, and so it's very easy to
have Dave come up and inspect. I have a building permit. I can simply call for an inspection,
and the Building Department has to comply.
MR. TRAVER-Part of the difficulty I have is in the Staff comments, if you look at the Staff
comments for tonight's meeting, and I'm quoting now, prior to the tabling, the applicant has
roughed in the approved kitchen and operated the restaurant without completing the
requirements of the previously approved site plan. So, again, it's beyond a leap of faith for us to
ask you to monitor the Critical Environmental Area for an anticipated failure of your septic
system. That's why the holding tanks are being designed and installed. Correct? To mitigate
the risk of a septic problem.
MR. CLUTE-They were offered up as, in my original approvals they were offered up.
MR. TRAVER-That's right.
MR. CLUTE-And I think in part of the approvals it's even, to be honest with you, it's not even
mandatory to put in the holding tanks. It's if my system fails. The way that the thing reads, it's
actually if my system fails. So the holding tanks, at this point, are now going to be given a
guarantee, not an if failure. You're going to be given a guarantee that it's going to be
accomplished, whereas previous it was only at system failure, which I'm telling you I can keep
the system running.
MR. TRAVER-Again, the difficulty is the point of having them is to not have a failure to begin
with. We don't want to expose that Critical Environmental Area.
MR. CLUTE-I understand completely.
MR. TRAVER-We're setting ourselves up but we're acknowledging that we're going to allow a
failure in a Critical Environmental Area, and that, to me, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
We need to install the holding tanks.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. CLUTE-I don't understand your wording. I understand your concerns, but you're telling me
that you know this system is going to fail. I'm telling you I know this system can be made to last.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that's your position.
MR. CLUTE-And so it's not going to fail, nor can you determine that it is going to fail.
MR. TRAVER-That's right.
MR. CLUTE-But I can say that if it does fail, I can shut down the store, and there's no more
emergency. If there's a failure, I shut down the store, so all concerns, environmental and all,
are stopped by the store being shut down. So, that can be said. Irrelevant of holding tanks, if
there is a failure, shut down the store, we shut down the store, and then the failure is mitigated.
MR. TRAVER-But with respect, if there is a septic failure, simply turning off the power to the
store doesn't clean up that failure. You still have a mess on our hands.
MR. CLUTE-That failure exists every day. The way a septic system is is essentially it's a
holding tank. A septic system allows it to leach. So really this mess that we're describing is in
existence 365 days a year. A failure is constituted by it rising to the surface.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. CLUTE-Which it will not do. That's the only failure that can happen in the septic system is if
it rises to the surface.
MR. TRAVER-And the only way we can end the mess, as you say, every day, is by putting in
holding tanks.
MR. CLUTE-No, we're still storing what we're talking about.
MR. TRAVER-Until it's pumped out and carried away, not until it leaches out into the ground.
Right?
MR. CLUTE-Right. If the holding tank, it's the same situation. If the holding tanks aren't
pumped, it rises to the top. If a septic system fails, it rises to the top. So a failure of a septic
system is the same thing as a holding tank not being pumped out. I'm not going to allow a
failure is what I'm saying, and if it fails, I'll shut down the store. It can't rise to the surface. So no
emergency would be in place, is what I'm trying to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you had the tank pumped out recently?
MR. CLUTE-We do. I have it pumped out at beginning of season and at end of the season.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CLUTE-Which it should be done anyway. This is, it's a store. It's not a residence. I do that
as just a common practice as an excavator. I know how systems tend to function and the
demands that's put on them. So we do automatic, beginning of season and end of season.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why beginning of season?
MR. CLUTE-April, water, any kind of infiltration.
MR. HUNSINGER-Infiltration.
MR. CLUTE-But we try and bring down any, because as I was telling you, the water table's high.
So hopefully we draw down.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand now.
MR. CLUTE-But, like I said, I know it's my word, but we are all over this system, and if there is a
failure, I shut down my store. That's the last thing I want to do, but the worst thing I do is shut
down my store.
MR. FORD-Remind us of the size of the present facility.
MR. CLUTE-The septic system?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. FORD-Septic.
MR. CLUTE-I honestly don't know what it is. I'm going to assume. I think it's a 1250 tank with
200 foot with the leach, but it's a guess, and we can't find any record.
MR. MAGOWAN-So just one tank.
MR. CLUTE-It's a 1250 thousand gallon.
MR. FORD-But on a pump. That can be determined. That hasn't been determined at any time
you've pumped it?
MR. CLUTE-No, capacity. Yes. The 1250 tank has been determined, but you only pump down,
it's still less than 1,000. When you bring in a pump, it doesn't draw the whole, it doesn't draw it
all the way down. So you're still kind of a guessing game with your capacity, but it's so close to
1,000, 1 think I'm actually larger than a 1,000 tank. Because when you do residential, 1,000
gallon tanks typically you're coming in at about 750. I'm closer to the 1,000 mark up at the store,
so I'm assuming I'm at 1250 with the tank.
MR. TRAVER-I had one last question. Looking at the notes here, it appears that the three 2,000
gallon in line holding tanks were approved in July of 2009. Is that correct?
MR. CLUTE-I honestly don't know the approval date.
MR. TRAVER-That's what my notes show.
MR. CLUTE-I'm going to go with that, because it was a couple of years ago. I'm assuming it is.
MR. CENTER-The first thing that was gone for was the, before we could get approval for the
variances or anything else, we got approval of the septic variance for the holding tanks and then
went through the variance process and the Planning Board process was the next step, which
was rather, for the expansion of the building, which was rather lengthy, and then the permit
that's now in place was for all the work total, and the reason that we are here for this part was
because of the patio construction, the hard surface, but there was a permit for the entire group
of work that was on the previously approved drawing.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the plan to install the holding tanks has been in place for three and a
half years. That's when they were proposed.
MR. CENTER-Since it was approved in 2009, yes.
MR. TRAVER-So now we want to wait, the idea is we want to wait another year or two, or at
least what you're proposing tonight is two more years.
MR. CLUTE-The 2009 plan, as I previously stated, is if my system fails.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that's not what it says here. It says three, 2,000 gallon in line holding tanks
approved.
MR. FORD-Approved by the Board of Health.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, Board of Health approval July 22, 2009. That's three and a half years ago.
MR. CLUTE-Right, but the passage of the thing was if my system failed we'd be putting in these
storage tanks, but irrelevant of these dates, I'm committing to putting the storage tanks in. I am
committing to the storage tanks.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that. I think the only quibble is on the date. That's the issue. My
feeling is that it needs to be the first thing that's done. It needs to be done immediately, not, it's
already been three and a half years since this was acknowledged as something that was
needed to be done. It needs to be done right away.
MR. CLUTE-The timeframes are misleading. We do minimal construction through the year. I try
and leave the store open. So I've done minimal disturbance to the store for that reason. So
bringing up the point of 2009, it may bring home the fact that it seems aged, but it's a very
misleading statement. It's not aged. I haven't worked on this place hardly at all, simply because
I've been trying to creep through and allow this store to continue to operate.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-No, I understand. I can appreciate that, sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
Board on this project?
MR. CENTER-Wasn't the public hearing closed at the last meeting? Because it was a? I just
wanted to check. I wasn't sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's on the agenda for a public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-My agenda says public hearing 9/18/2012.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of a public hearing is for members of the audience and
interested parties to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone wishing to address the
Board to state your name for the record, please use the microphone. We do tape the meeting
and the tape is then used to transcribe the minutes. I would ask that you direct any of your
comments or questions to the Board. If you do have a question, we will direct the applicant later
to answer the question. With that, sir, if you want to come on up. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JAMES MILLER
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is James Miller. I'm son-in-law of Jonathan Berger, and
I'm here to voice some of our concerns. I guess the first thing is that we were never notified of
either the ZBA proceedings or the proceedings of the Zoning Ordinance, the public hearing this
evening. I don't know why that was, but a kind friend notified us about an hour before this
meeting. So I'm somewhat unprepared but I'd like to wing it anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. MILLER-The first thing I'd like to address is this property line issue. Jonathan Berger
purchased this property in 1974. It was a subdivision of the Pinerest property that was on
Cleverdale, and at that time Jon's property consisted of a lakefront parcel and a back parcel.
The back parcel is the one that's adjacent to the San Souci. Jonathan has a deed and he has a
description of his property, and that has only been disputed once in 37 years. At that time, the
owner of the San Souci at that time, a Walter Evans, passed away, and someone else bought
the property, and his name was Gary Servillio. At that time, Bob Morris, who was the original
owner of the property before it was subdivided, and a lawyer, spoke with this Mr. Servillio and
the dispute was dropped. For 37 years, Mr. Berger has paid taxes on this piece of property
because he thought he owned it. It says in his deed he owns it. This past winter my father-in-
law had a very massive heart problem and he had an operation and he was living at our home in
Diamond Point through most of the winter and into the spring. During that period of time, the
folks from the San Souci came and took down a fence that had been there for a number of
years, took down vegetation, much of it was of an emotional nature, trees that were planted in
remembrance of family members and things like that. They just came through, took it all down,
and paved onto this 10 foot property. When Jonathan came back, we weren't notified of this,
and when he came back to his property in the springtime, it was obvious what had happened.
At that time I believe he had a conversation with the folks from the San Souci and they indicated
that their survey indicated otherwise. We looked into this, and seemingly, from what I
understand, there are two control points for surveys on the point of Cleverdale. One originates
at the point, and the other originates inboard towards the juncture of Rockhurst. When you take
your measurements from either part, that's where the dispute comes to be. So this is an
ongoing thing. We haven't rolled over in saying that, you know, he doesn't own it. This summer
Jonathan's daughter sent a letter to the San Souci asking them to please take no further action
until this was legally decided, you know, who the ownership actually involved. So it's still up in
the air. So that's pretty much our position on the property line issue.
MR. TRAVER-Sir, I have a question. When you say take no action until it's legally resolved I
think you said?
MR. MILLER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Is there pending legal action on this issue?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. MILLER-Not officially. I mean, there hasn't been anything, court proceedings started, but
we have two folks with two different pieces of paper all saying they own a piece of property. So
that constitutes a dispute.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you hire Mr. Steves?
MR. MILLER-No, and I don't understand that, and perhaps Matt can speak to it. I didn't know
that Jonathan had contacted Matt, and perhaps.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I meant, did Jonathan hire Mr. Steves.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Matt can educate me. The way I understand it, he asked Matt when he was
out there setting some pins what was going on, and I believe at that time he was told the
position of the San Souci, but, you know, perhaps Matt could speak to that. The other thing that
I was hearing this evening, I'm also an architect. The other thing I'm hearing this evening is the
design of the septic system, and the talk of setting this into the high water mark. I don't
understand how that can happen. It's my understanding that a septic system has to be two feet
removed from any high water mark, and in the case of a failure, that high water mark would be
the medium for this sewage to dissipate. So, you know, you can't float a vessel in sewage and
then put holes in it and expect it not to go off the property. So that is of a concern. I would ask
that he has a New York State licensed engineer review and do an analysis of the present
system and to determine whether it's capable of satisfying the needs of the property and then
also to make recommendations going forward on what really should be done, you know,
bringing this septic system up to current Code. So, that's what I have to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury. I take
exception to the comment that there's evidence of failure only when you get water on the
surface. That's not true. You can have a subsurface failure, as the gentleman just spoke. If
you're not getting proper treatment of the effluent in the subsurface soils, it constitutes a failure.
There's no question that the soils in this area, not only on this site, but all sites there, due to the
density of the development, are spent. That's why we're having algae growth in the lake right
now. Every place you go you read about the presence of algae, and they're tagging it to septics,
septic systems, and it's not just one particular system. It's the whole area. It's overdeveloped.
The density is greater than was ever foreseen for onsite wastewater and that's why they're going
to the holding tank. They can't meet the Code for regular subsurface infiltration. The other thing
I hear about Board of Health, Board of Health. I think they're referring to our local Board of
Health, the Town Board. I don't think they have any jurisdiction here. This is a commercial
property. It probably has an average daily flow of greater than 1,000 gallons, maximum daily
flow, and that requires a SPDES permit. Now we have a Code for the design of wastewater
treatment works in the Lake George basin. I don't think that allows for holding tanks, and it also,
if you use, if a system greater than 1,000 gallons discharge a day is discharging to groundwater,
they've got to have, depending on the level, some kind of enhanced treatment. This is in, as you
mentioned before, it's in a Critical Environmental Area, and I think we need a Type I SEAR
review. I mean, this is serious what we have there, and to delay, to delay this is foolhardy.
Once you have a failure, it's too late. What are you going to do? What if the failure occurs in
May of next year when the groundwater is relatively high? You're going to shut down in the
peak of the season to do this? That's not, that's never going to work. In any case, I think you've
got to bite the bullet and something's got to be done soon. There's no reason why it can't be
done within the next two months, put those holding tanks in. It's the best time, and it will protect
the environment. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We have
submitted comments supporting the replacement of the existing septic system with the system
that was approved by the Board of Health. We appreciate the monitoring that's been ongoing,
but again, a properly functioning septic system does not need to be monitored. So this system
is not operating as it should. It's not operating optimally, and that's been admitted in hearings
going back to 2009. So we appreciate the Board's deliberation on this, and we would
recommend that the system be replaced. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
ROSEMARY PUSATERI
MRS. PUSATERI-Rosemary Pusateri, 75 Mason Road, four doors from the San Souci. I would
recommend that the septic be addressed, as soon as possible. I'm very concerned with what I
hear tonight. If I was hearing the description correctly, my husband and 1, who live alone, have
twice the septic system as the San Souci? That's a little scary, and we don't know about
subsurface failure. I want the San Souci to thrive and prosper, of course, but I think the septic
needs to be addressed for the good of the environment for the lake. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Going once, going twice? We will conclude the
public hearing for this evening. No written comments, Keith? Okay. I don't know if you have
any comments as a result of the public hearings, particularly the property line dispute.
MR. CLUTE-As I was speaking with Tom, there's really not much I can say about the property
line. I tend to stand behind the research that's been done with my purchase. We've got a copy
of Mr. Berger's deed. I have a survey. The survey's in line with Mr. Berger's deed. If indeed
there's some sort of issue, I'm sure I'm going to hear from him, but until I do, it's just verbiage. I
hate to put it that way, but honestly I can't address something that I really, all I'm doing, I'm just
hearing about it. Tom was, I'm just hearing about this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-But to reiterate, this has not been a point of discussion with Mr. Berger?
MR. CLUTE-No. I got that letter from his daughter, and they had mentioned work being done
last winter. 1, personally did the work myself this summer, based on this Board. I put in those
(lost words) plants and stuff, and that's when I cleaned that side area myself. That was done
this summer, and Mr. Berger was right there with his two dogs. So, I'm at a loss, to be honest
with you.
MR. FORD-The letter you were (lost words) what?
MR. CLUTE-It said that our agreement is no longer, I had no idea what they were meaning. My
daughters had come home, and have asked me to cease the agreement that I have with you,
and I don't know what he's even referring to, what agreement. I have no idea what he's referring
to. We've never been, even if the 10 foot were his, we've never even been that far over, and
even now, what we cleared, he already had it already had it all cleared. It was a temporary
parking space, and the survey line goes right in the middle of his driveway. It's on the map, and
so it was already cleared. So we never cleared anything that he's saying was his. If it's proven
it's his, we still didn't clear that, we only cleared what was on the San Souci, but the day I
personally did the clearing, Mr. Berger was right there in my upper parking lot with me, with his
two dogs, and I was talking with him.
MR. FORD-Did he, at that time, give you verbal permission to do that?
MR. CLUTE-No. We never even talked about it. He asked me what I was doing. I said I've got
to abide by some things Queensbury wants us to do, and I was planting on the Mason Road
side, and we were cleaning up around the dumpster. Never even mentioned anything about a
property thing, and then it might have been maybe a month later that I got this letter referring to
his daughters, and at that time I called Matt, because it said in the letter that they were going to
hire Van Dusen and Steves to do a survey. I called Matt and Matt said, yes, I've been called to
do a survey, but I've explained to him that obviously the line's still going to be the same, whether
I'm surveying that side or surveying this side, as Matt explained when he came up here. I wish I
had more details. I'm at a loss. I apologize.
MR. DEEB-So you don't know what the verbal agreement is?
MR. CLUTE-There is no verbal agreement. There's only me, and there is no verbal agreement,
and I don't even know a verbal agreement for what. If we were using it, say there was cars over
there or something like that. There's not. He's got a lot of stored goods, and, well, I don't know
if you'd call it goods but he's got stuff stored over on his property. So there was no, there's been
no usage of this property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Just, there's been a lot of discussion about the septic system and the dates and
so on, and I guess I would just like to ask the applicant one final time, because I know we're
going to be voting on this application this evening, the date by which you plan to install the
septic system, I'm sorry, the holding tanks.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. CLUTE-I would commit to the 2013, a year sooner than I've already committed to the
Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-That would be November 2013?
MR. CLUTE-October/November, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what's the feeling of the Board? Are there still concerns?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or is the Board comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-There are still concerns. I have heard nothing to change my mind from the last time
it was in front of us, and that was that we were going to recommend and require that there be a
modification in the scheduling of the work to be done, put the septic system at the top of the list,
highest priority.
MR. TRAVER-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think the boundary issue is a non-entity. I mean, we've got the surveyor
right here. You've got the deed, so I think we can just forget that, but I think the septic is the
thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we do SEAR last meeting, Keith?
MR. CENTER-Yes, you affirmed SEAR.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought we were prepared to make a resolution and then the applicant
asked for us to table it. So I'm just wondering if we completed.
MR. CENTER-I did have a chance to look at the meeting minutes and SEAR was approved at
the last meeting. I don't have a copy of the minutes. I looked at them on line.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the attorney asked us to postpone it because she couldn't speak.
MR. CENTER-Right, because we couldn't speak to the dates in the resolution, the resolution
that was before you, you moved forward after SEAR.
MR. HUNSINGER-So unless there's some new information, we have concluded SEAR. I
guess, then, I'll look for a motion.
MR. OBORNE-1 would ask the Board to re-affirm just one more time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You don't have to go through the whole,just re-affirm would be sufficient.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make a motion to re-affirm the SEAR finding?
MR. TRAVER-I think our review was based on the plan as submitted in its completed state, in
other words the implementation of the plan, of the site plan.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SEAR FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI
The applicant has submitted applications for the following: Special Use Permit: Applicant
proposes to modify approved site plan to include the removal of vegetation and the installation
of "permeable" pavers on existing gravel parking spaces. Further, applicant seeks after the fact
approval for the installation of a +/- 665 square foot patio with access deck and stairs to
accommodate four tables as well as for the installation of a 6 foot tall, 112 foot long stockade
fence along the south boundary. Modification to approved site plan and expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances:
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
Relief from side setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and fencing requirements.
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION TO REAFFIRM OUR EARLIER SEAR REVIEW AND THAT WE HAVE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Is there not a possibility that the discussion of tonight would impact the outcome of
that SEAR determination?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that's why Steve clarified his.
MR. TRAVER-The only potential change we would be discussing tonight would be dates that the
various stages would be implemented. The environmental impact is considering the plan as
approved. So if, for example, the holding tanks were installed earlier, that would not make a
positive SEAR declaration. I mean, it would only improve the environmental, it would lessen the
impact, not increase it, which is the whole reason that we want it done that way.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So I would say SEAR would still be solid. Unless someone disagrees.
MR. OBORNE-I agree.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, that's right. SEQR's on the plan.
MR. FORD-On the plan, not the SEAR.
MR. TRAVER-That's right, regardless of SEAR.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion on the project?
MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI
The applicant has submitted applications for the following: Special Use Permit: Applicant
proposes to modify approved site plan to include the removal of vegetation and the installation
of "permeable" pavers on existing gravel parking spaces. Further, applicant seeks after the fact
approval for the installation of a +/- 665 square foot patio with access deck and stairs to
accommodate four tables as well as for the installation of a 6 foot tall, 112 foot long stockade
fence along the south boundary. Modification to approved site plan and expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances:
Relief from side setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and fencing requirements.
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 5/15/2012; the ZBA approved the variance
requests on 5/16/12;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/17/2012, tabled to 7/24/2012, tabled to
8/21/2012, tabled to 9/25/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI OF
CLEVERDALE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to give a reason to disapprove?
MR. OBORNE-1 think it's pretty plain in the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp
NOES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. HUNSINGER-Four three?
MR. OBORNE-You disapprove the Special Use Permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So then what do we do?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the applicant's going to have to come back to the Board with a
revised plan that's amenable to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-At this point in time, it is my understanding that the zoning issues are fine,
because you got approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the specific Special Use
Permit was not approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's why I asked what we do next. We've never disapproved a
Special Use Permit that I've been on the Board. I mean, we've disapproved site plans, but not
Special Use Permits.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, it still would be the same scenario.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You've disapproved the site plan. Okay. Now the applicant can turn around,
now and potentially offer some type of mitigation to change that. That's up to the applicant at
this point in time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Did you want time to think about it?
MR. CLUTE-What mitigation are we looking for?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you heard pretty clearly from the Board.
MR. CLUTE-I know I can't commit to October/November. I try to commit to what I know I can
do, and I know I cannot do October/November of 2012. 1 can't.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CLUTE-I can do my best, if we have a soft winter, to get it done before April, but I don't
know what this winter brings. I can only offer what I know I can offer, and I know I cannot offer
October/November of this year.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that. I hope you can understand that we can't approve your best
effort, we have to have, again, if you review the history.
MR. CLUTE-I appreciate the dialogue, but this all being said, I'm looking at the commonsense of
it. I re-submit, I'm still not done in October/November. I don't know what this is doing to benefit
you or 1, if that makes sense. I'm going to re-submit. I'm going to be a month or two. I'm back
in front of you again, and now I'm into the dead of winter of the months.
MR. OBORNE-Now this is specific to the Special Use Permit. It's not specific to your holding
tanks being installed. So, the Special Use Permit is associated and in lock step with the
expansion that you did. That expansion was not approved by this Board. So now what is the
next step. That is the question.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. CLUTE-Well, that's what I'm asking.
MR. OBORNE-Concerning the Special Use Permit itself. That would be potentially to return the
site to its original condition prior to this application. That would be something that the Zoning
Administrator would have to make a determination on. That would be the safest path I would go
down.
MR. CLUTE-So again, I still pose, the real issue is the septic system. We're not addressing any
septic system, all we're doing is posing.
MR. TRAVER-Right. If I might suggest, you might want to consider our discussions this evening
and perhaps speak with the Town about the various options that you have and try to come up
with a solution. I mean, with all of the back and forth and the different dates and everything that
we talked about tonight, I don't know as it would be reasonable to expect you to come up with a
solution this evening, but perhaps if you think about everything that was said, the public hearing,
our comments, and then call the Town and come up with a plan, you should definitely be able to
figure out some way to move forward.
MR. OBORNE-We'll have to sit down with Craig.
MR. CLUTE-So we're back in front of the Board again?
MR. OBORNE-With another application, yes.
MR. CLUTE-Back in front of the Planning Board?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. CLUTE-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That's my understanding. We need to get guidance from the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. CLUTE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS 1-14-1987
MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING HILAND PARK PUD LOCATION MEADOWBROOK ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION BY REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF OVERALL DWELLING UNITS FROM 34 TO 33 UNITS BY MAKING 4 DUPLEX
LOTS INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PUD 44-
2000 LOT SIZE 11.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-16 THROUGH 23
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a modification from an existing subdivision, and it's to reduce the
number of overall dwelling units from 34 to 33 by making existing four duplex lots into seven
single family lots. Obviously modification of an approved subdivision requires Planning Board
review and approval. I'm looking for a grading plan update, which shouldn't be a big deal,
because it's probably a one four contour line that needs to be removed and maybe moved a little
bit, and any update to the erosion and sediment control plan would need to be forthcoming.
Again, any revisions would need to be submitted to Warren County Real Property, and the
Planning Board may wish to inquire about elevation drawings for the proposed single family
dwellings because all you saw were the duplexes and the fourplexes I believe. With that, I'd turn
it over to the Board. It's pretty straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing The Michaels Group on this application.
Again, we've been here twice before on it. Last time we talked about whether we wanted to
update all eight or nine sheets of the plan and we had discussed with this Board that give us an
existing and a proposed condition, submit the two sheets instead of the, I think there were nine
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
or ten with the original application, because when you file a modification, all they file is the
modified lot lines with the Clerk's Office. So we gave you the existing conditions and the
proposed. Again, they're looking to take the duplexes and convert them into single family
homes on a few of the units, which would have a net reduction of one unit on the entire
subdivision. I gave Keith a copy of the existing grading plan, and working with Tom Nace, we
laid out all these buildings that they fall within the existing grading plan. That whole hill, bank
was graded at the time the subdivision was created, and there's only one lot, I believe it's Lot
Four, that one of the contours cuts through the house and it's about an eight inch adjustment to
the grade when the house is built, but you look at that amount of an adjustment compared to the
excavation for a larger building, what I'm saying is we're less than a foot of the existing grading
plan with the new layout. So I don't see any significance there. We did look at all the sewer and
water taps. They all line up with the lot lines. That's why we kept them the way we did as I
explained before. So we think it's pretty straightforward and simple.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, I like the reduction and the lines, I mean, it looks all right to me.
MR. TRAVER-It would have to be a PUD.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about elevations? Because we did see elevations for the duplexes and
the triplexes. Are these story and a half?
MR. STEVES-Yes, they're going to be similar to the size or the style of the existing duplexes
and triplexes that are there, just brought over to a single family, and if you look at the existing
duplex that is built around the corner, it's basically half of that building with the porch centered
on the building and then wrapped around so they'd look just like those buildings that are
currently there. They didn't want to upset the architectural flow of the property. Obviously they
have to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that's why we asked the question.
MR. STEVES-That's their market as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. STEVES-And they will not do that. They're going to stay consistent with the architectural
look of the entire subdivision.
MR. FORD-What's the comparative setback from Haviland Road?
MR. STEVES-You mean as far as the duplexes compared to the single family?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Same distance.
MR. FORD-Exactly the same on each of the lots?
MR. STEVES-Yes. The buildings are set the exact, the front setback on the proposed single
family is set at the exact location of the duplex, and if you look at the single family, the duplex,
it's just the duplex.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did notice you did modify the one lot line on the corner.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-But otherwise there's really no.
MR. STEVES-And that was to better accommodate the duplex in the corner because it's a wider
lot but it's shallower in the back. It just made more sense to do it while we're doing it at the time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Did this need to go before the Town Board, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No. We did not need to have this go for consistency.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Yes, that was a question asked last time. We did look at that.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MR. OBORNE-Now if there was an increase in units, most likely, but it's a decrease.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Actually, the landscape, I know there was a question brought up on that. You're
really going to end up with more, because now instead of having it wrapped around a larger
building, they have, even though you have one less unit, their landscape plan wraps around the
smaller building. So as you drive down the road it's going to look like a lot more landscaping
around. They did a beautiful job just installing the streetscape stuff there, and if you look at what
they put around each house, now take that same amount and put it around a smaller building,
basically.
MR. FORD-And that's the plan?
MR. STEVES-That's the plan. Like I said, they don't want to change the architectural feel or
flavor of the subdivision, or the look of the subdivision at all. They just want to be able to open
their avenues because of the fact that the market has changed over the last three or four years
and they're getting a huge influx of people saying they want single family style homes but in the
maintenance free community. So they didn't want to just re-vamp the entirety because they had
already built on the southerly side of the parcel. So take the lots up against Haviland Road
where really nothing has been built on that end, and kind of as you come in you go single family,
then you come around to duplexes and then you come around to, I think it's two triplexes that
are left except for the one that was originally built which was the model.
MR. FORD-These are going to be two, four, three bedrooms?
MR. STEVES-Yes, just like the duplexes, or triplexes. They're all two or three bedroom.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project? We have at least one person. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVID SEYMOUR
MR. SEYMOUR-Hi. David Seymour from Waverly Place. I just, I didn't get a chance to review
the plans. The only question I have that I wasn't sure about is are we making some changes to
the zoning size of single family lots to accommodate this change?
MR. HUNSINGER-No zoning changes, no.
MR. SEYMOUR-Okay, and all grading on adjacent properties will remain the same?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEYMOUR-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board willing to move forward? Comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a previous Environmental Impact Statement from 1987.
MR. OBORNE-It is, which did have a SEAR component to it.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you want to reaffirm, if you feel that there are any environmental
issues require that. I don't think that it's an issue because I think there is less of an impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I would think any argument to be made to any
environmental impacts would be fewer impacts as opposed to more impacts.
MR. OBORNE-It certainly would not be a bad idea to reaffirm, but at the same time, I don't think
it's overly necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you give us a sample resolution? I don't think you did.
MR. OBORNE-I should have.
MR. TRAVER-We have a modification resolution. We don't have.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, yes, which does have a comment on SEAR. So, I think that was
the only reason why I was checking. Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? Yes, SEAR
is Item Two.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is already in the resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO PUD SP 20-2009 MICHAELS GROUP
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to modify an existing subdivision by reducing the number of overall dwelling
units from 34 to 33 units by making 4 duplex lots into 7 single family lots. Modification to an
approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 MICHAELS
GROUP, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. As a condition that the applicant submit a
photometric plan of the existing lighting on the PUD, specific to the entrance.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) 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;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans
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) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans;
8) 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.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
9) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans 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;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
10) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
11)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;
12) Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-They did have waiver requests, Keith, were there waiver requests, Item
Three?
MR. OBORNE-Stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I'll amend my motion to include that waiver requests are granted for stormwater
management, grading, landscaping and lighting plans.
MR. FORD-As long as we're talking about the lighting plan, this may be the appropriate time to
address the three lights that are at the main entrance to the compound. I believe that they are in
excess of what our Town Code called for and not what we originally approved. Could that be
addressed, please?
MR. STEVES-You're asking me? This is the first I've heard of that or the Town has heard of
any.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think if it's a concern, you might want to make it a condition of approval,
that they submit a plan that potentially has a photometric of those lights.
MR. FORD-That's what I'd like to add.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you'd like to amend the motion?
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'll amend my motion further by putting a condition that the applicant
submit a photometric plan of the existing lighting on the PUD.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that clear enough, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Was it specific to the entrance?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine, yes. That's fine.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
SITE PLAN NO. 47-2012 SEAR TYPE II GORDON & CAROL STOCKMAN AGENT(S)
TIMOTHY STOCKMAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1,820 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK TO INCLUDE STORMWATER AND E & S CONTROLS ON A 0.31
ACRE PARCEL ON GLEN LAKE. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES IN EXCESS
OF 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
BP 12-225 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.7-1-37 SECTION 179-9
TIM STOCKMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-One second, please. Site Plan 27-2012, Gordon and Carol Stockman.
Requested action is Site Plan Review. Waterfront Residential, it's Glen Lake. This is SEAR
Type II. Engineering review is attached. Parcel History is also attached. Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,820 square foot single family dwelling with
attached garage, and associated site work to include stormwater and E&S controls on a
0.31 acre parcel on Glen Lake. Specific reason that they're here, there's no zoning
issues with this. The specific reason is that the structure is going to be within 50 feet of
a 15% slope. What follows is Site Plan Review. No huge issues with that. Town
designated engineer comments are attached, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STOCKMAN-Good evening. My name is Tim Stockman. I'm here with Carol
Stockman and Gordon Stockman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. STOCKMAN-No, with the considerations of where the property is and the slopes
and stuff. I think along with Keith and other sources we've, I think, achieved a good plan
to control that aspect of it and other ways of the property actually kept in the modern
upgrades as far as the septic system and all conditions of the Codes and stuff like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a chance to review the engineering comments and the
Staff comments?
MR. STOCKMAN-Just briefly earlier today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have any comments based on that?
MR. STOCKMAN-No, I don't believe I do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STOCKMAN-Everything looks compliant to what we had figured on, we'd go along
with anyway. Is there any modifications that you see?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was just wondering if you had any comments based on those.
MR. STOCKMAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board.
MR. TRAVER-There are a number of engineering comments related to stormwater
management. Have you had an opportunity to see those, the report from the Chazen
Company? The comments of the Town Engineer on your application?
MR. STOCKMAN-1 believe they were resolved with Keith, our engineer.
MR. TRAVER-September 13th is the letter.
MR. STOCKMAN-Were they resolved, I believe?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Not that we're aware of.
MR. TRAVER-They primarily have to do with stormwater issues.
MR. STOCKMAN-I'm sorry. With stormwater issues, we have a plan in place that tiers
the property off with that drainage system. I'm not sure what you're asking of me as far
as (lost words).
MR. OBORNE-Tim's not an engineer. Typically what we have, Devin developed the
plan for you?
MR. STOCKMAN-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-And obviously we submit to our Town Engineer for review and our Town
Engineer has developed, obviously, these seven items here, of which, looking over
them, are not bad, especially Item One. That's just a statement. So, I mean, just to kind
of dig Tim out of, him spinning his wheels, just to explain that these need to be satisfied
by Devin's crew eventually.
MR. STOCKMAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And it's Greek to you. I totally understand that.
MR. STOCKMAN-Okay. There was a little bit of back and forth conversations about
how it was critiqued, and I thought that that part had been resolved, but obviously
there's maybe a couple of ongoing issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe it had been verbally. I mean, just speaking for myself,
but I certainly don't see anything here that's a deal killer.
MR. TRAVER-No, the reason I wanted to point it out to the applicant is that he probably
hadn't seen those comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, I had just asked him the same question.
MR. TRAVER-So they need to be aware of.
MR. STOCKMAN-1 did review this a little earlier, but I thought it may have been the
previous issues that were addressed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STOCKMAN-Possibly, like you say, it may have been more verbal than
documented. So I will further up on that to make sure that they are depicted on the plan,
or addressed.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that's one of the reasons I pointed it out to you is it is generally part
of our requirements that the Town Engineer be satisfied with your plan.
MR. STOCKMAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So those items, many of them are minor, but they do need to be
addressed.
MR. STOCKMAN-Okay. Very good.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other big item, typically, for us is shoreline plantings, and there's
a Staff comment to that effect.
MR. STOCKMAN-Shoreline plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. STOCKMAN-At this point, I don't know if there was necessarily a plan in place, but
our intentions were that the soil is fairly rocky in that area, and we've already started
collecting miscellaneous ones that are on the site to create possibly like a seawall, just
dry laid seawall on the edge of the property, on the edge of the shore, just so that, to
reduce any erosion that would take place, because there are a few trees that are near
that edge and time would tell that would just bury itself back into the shore. So to try to
protect that we have intentions of building that up a little bit just to create some kind of
barrier.
MR. OBORNE-1 would suggest you don't make it any higher than eighteen inches, if you
are to do that. It's not something that we typically look positive on is hard surfacing
along the shoreline, but regardless, would one of the questions be, are any of these
trees going to be removed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was going to be my very next question. I mean, you do
have several decent sized trees on the site. Are there any that are going to be removed
as a result of the project?
MR. STOCKMAN-Some that aren't shown in that picture. Obviously a lot of those are
within the realm of the setbacks anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STOCKMAN-For untouchable space. Up the side of the property, there are a
couple of large overbearing trees that actually in the glow of the light, the daylight there,
you can see the roots are kind of nested at the surface and to the opposing property to,
it would be our right side, the grade does drop off considerable. So there are a couple
on that tree line that I would like to remove, just for liability reasons of digging the earth
out beside it and being such a narrow property, that it would have a great impact on
digging the root system out, having the building that close.
MR. SIPP-You have some good big trees there, some of them probably will have to
come out, but you need some smaller growth. I walked across there yesterday, and it's
kind of soft and squishy like it's water.
MR. STOCKMAN-1 think some of that I've noticed, too, is years of being a virgin property
that a lot of the like needles and stuff that are built, you know, layered up on the top of
the surface that it creates a little bit spongy effect, but I do have intentions, integrated
with our filtration, or stormwater system, tiering that and obviously, like I say, a lot of
landscaping or young shrubbery.
MR. SIPP-You need some four to six foot shrubs in there and then some ground cover
underneath because obviously that water's been there for a while.
MR. STOCKMAN-It doesn't seem.
MR. SIPP-Well, it's not water. It's just it's.
MR. STOCKMAN-The moisture level.
MR. SIPP-Yes, the moisture level is high. You've got a pretty good slope there from the
house down to the lake, and it's all going to run downhill.
MR. STOCKMAN-Right. They have, with the plan in place, it shows all the piping
coming together, and then it raised, almost thinking about a raised area a little larger
maybe than the plan, seeing how, depending on how it develops, but to catch that and
maybe tier it off one more time before it reaches the lower level.
MR. SIPP-You've got a copy of this shoreline protection from the Building Department.
It'll outline some bushes and shrubs and ground cover that would be necessary.
MR. STOCKMAN-Okay.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. SIPP-And you've got a good shaded lot. So you've got to pick out shady stuff.
MR. STOCKMAN-Right. Definitely the right one for the right application.
MR. SIPP-It gives you a list of acceptable plantings that could be put in there. Best that
they be native to this area.
MR. STOCKMAN-Yes, definitely, and probably would have been more shrubbery on the
property before this but to keep it open until the project's done.
MR. SIPP-Yes, you're narrow lot. So you can get some low growing plants that do just
as good.
MR. OBORNE-Cudzu?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's thinking of burning bushes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address
the Board on this project? Okay. We have at least one.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador, again. This schedule says residential construction on
slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. How much
greater than 15% are the slopes? Is that any, been quantified? There's a big difference
between 16 and 25.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-It's steep, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me?
MR. SIPP-It's steep. I wouldn't hazard a guess.
MR. SALVADOR-Do they have a site plan that has contour lines where you can tell how
much in excess of 15% we're talking? Secondly, if the Code requires that development
not take place on slopes greater than 15%, do they need a variance?
MR. SIPP-Actually the front side of this lot, the street side, is fairly flat until you get about
30, 40 feet into the lot, then it starts downhill. I assume from the plan that construction
of the house will be up on the area that's fairly level. There's two buildings, two sheds
on that property.
MR. SALVADOR-That should be shown on the plan. Are they going to invade the area
of the steep slope is the question, I guess. .
MR. SIPP-1 don't know. Well, I don't know what you mean by invade.
MR. SALVADOR-Are they going to disturb it in any way? We're talking about steep
slopes, we should know how steep, and what's going to take place on these steep
slopes.
MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I've asked for contour lines on these plot plans and sometimes they
show up and sometimes they don't.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they're here. It just doesn't show a measurement of what the
actual slope is.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, do you have the distance between the contour lines and all?
You can calculate that. That's no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't have a scale ruler in my briefcase.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. More importantly, do they need a variance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SALVADOR-Why not? The Town Code limits construction to 15%, then if you
exceed that slope, you need a variance. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Should we send this back to the Zoning
Administrator, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-It does not need a variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It does not need a variance. It requires Site Plan Review at 15% slopes
if you're building within 50% of said slopes. Those slopes are greater than 15%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Within 50 feet of 15% or greater, it requires Site Plan Review. There's
no variance associated with this whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application?
Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the feeling of the Board? Okay. I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEAR. So no SEAR review is required, unless
there's an item that we feel needs to be addressed. We do have engineering
comments, and we did have a discussion about the plantings. Any other conditions that
we need to consider?
MR. TRAVER-Well, the erosion and sediment control comment on the Staff comments,
State standards and so on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any plans for lighting, other than standard residential
lighting at entrances?
MR. STOCKMAN-1 have no other plans for that, no, just pretty standard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would anyone like to put forward a motion?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 47-2012 GORDON & CAROL STOCKMAN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,820 sq. ft. single family residence with attached garage,
and associated site work to include stormwater and E & S controls on a 0.31 acre parcel on
Glen Lake. Residential construction on slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review
and approval
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012;
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2012 GORDON & CAROL STOCKMAN,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA;
3) Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans
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) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans;
8) This application is approved with the condition that New York Standards and
Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control Appendix E titled Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans for Small Home Site Construction will be utilized for this project,
9) 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.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
11)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
12)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;
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. DEEB-What about the plantings, any shrubbery specific?
MR. SIPP-Specific planting?
MR. DEEB-The shrubs.
MR. SIPP-Well, they can get a list from the Planning Department which will give you the native,
and also will give you the height of which they grow, whether they are for shade or sun, partial
shade, partial shade.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what you're asking is did we want to have anything in the resolution
regarding plantings?
MR. TRAVER-Well, my resolution calls for a waiver for landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone okay with that?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. DEEB-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. STOCKMAN-Very good. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012 SEAR TYPE II STEVE
KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S. DE LAURA ZONING
WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD SITE
PLAN/FRESHWATER WETLANDS: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO
STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED
WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100
FEET OF A WETLAND IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-10, BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN CO.
REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 179-9; CHAPTER 94
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-All right. Site Plan 48-2012, Freshwater Wetlands 3-2012 for Steve Kitchen.
Site Plan Review is the requested action. Location is the end of Forest Road. It's Waterfront
Residential. SEAR Status is a Type II. Engineering review should be attached. Applicant
proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 square feet,
associated wastewater and stormwater systems are planned. The reason that they're here is
disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. What I
have passed out to you tonight before the meeting started was Mike Travis' comment on the
extension of the road. He's on board with that. So that issue has been laid to rest, as far as the
road extension goes. So that's been taken care of. Some comment on some stone storage
within the Town right of way may need to be addressed, and Town designated engineer
comments are attached. Again, most of my notes were centered around that road extension
which has come to pass. So with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center from Nace Engineering. My clients, the applicants,
Steve and Jennifer Kitchen. As you can see before you, we're proposing new construction for a
new single family residence, approximately 1500 square foot home located on the lot, along with
an asphalt driveway and a septic system with Elgin trenches up on the upper slope. What you
have before, what I just handed out is the process I went through with the Town Highway. We
had some changes to the stormwater management issues. Based on the Highway
Superintendent's request to follow the same angle of the road and the distance into the road
necessitated some changes to the stormwater management. What we had originally envisioned
was having the road be graded to drain back in towards the parcel to a rain garden along the
property and not only manage the stormwater from the driveway but also from the road
extension. The Highway Superintendent has decided that he would like to extend the road in
the fashion that you see on this drawing right here, which would be graded to drain to the east,
and extended towards our parcel in the fashion that it's presented on that drawing. In that, I had
to change the grading along the driveway and change the location of the front rain garden from
the northeast corner of the parcel down to along the property line. It actually straddles the
property line, and the Highway Superintendent did not take any exception to us maintaining the
stormwater in that fashion across the property line and along the right of way. It would be similar
to, in a subdivision, where stormwater is shed off a driveway that's graded on a slope towards
the street would go to a drywell. In the same manner this would be graded for the driveway to
drain towards this rain garden and be managed in the rain garden, would be maintained by the
occupants, or the owners, would also facilitate the Highway Department when they plow their
snow to get some additional sedimentation in the rain garden area for the plowing and the snow
removal. They plow into this area, as is at the end of the road. So he has agreed, in principle,
to what we have before you. I know the Town Engineer will have to take a look at it and review
the hydro cad calculations, which we've modified the calculations for this and also taken into
consideration some of their comments, and I'll go through Chazen's letter and explain how we
tH
addressed their concerns. So with that I guess I will go into Chazen's letter of September 13
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Before you get off that, I'm still a little confused, because I'm
looking at the submitted plan versus the new one and trying to see where there's.
MR. CENTER-The changes on the submitted plan, we had the initial plan that we submitted,
before we got into conversation deeply with the Town Highway Department, had the stormwater
being managed down in this area, along the property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CENTER-And that would have been, had we taken the road which comes in here and
elevated and drained it back in to try and get some stormwater management of the new
driveway extension basically back into the stormwater rain garden, and then outlet, we have an
emergency overflow in there with a size to overflow an outlet. In the case it built up obviously it
doesn't go across the road, it would go out a culvert. The Town Highway Superintendent did not
like that plan. He wanted to do something more in this fashion, and that's what we came up with
and worked back and forth to come up with the final plan that you see before you tonight, which
was taking the road, grading it so that it drained as it does now, and it facilitated me having to do
some stormwater work, obviously, on the slope it's very difficult to catch it (lost words). The
Highway Superintendent didn't have a problem with the rain garden.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the rain garden in the new plan would capture not just your driveway, but
also the road extension.
MR. CENTER-It would capture a portion of the road, not the entire road. That road is going to
drain right to the east as it does not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where there's a 35 foot ravine.
MR. CENTER-Where there's a 35 foot ravine, and then it goes out (lost words). So that was the
change that was facilitated based on our conversations. We went out there several times and
laid out the property line so he could get an idea of where the property line was. It's a little
deceiving, if you look at the end of the road. It doesn't go straight. The road kind of tilts back in.
The property line angles the other way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CENTER-In regards to Chazen's comments from September 13t", the first comment, I
believe, is just a statement in regards to the 25 year design storm is required for residential
projects, which we have provided. The second comment was more of a statement that this is a
minor project, no response from us. The third comment, we have revised the Hydro Cad
subcatchments to reflect the site plan changes that you have before you right now, which have
been precipitated by the driveway extension. So we've modified the Hydro Cad for the areas,
and I've re-delineated what goes to the rain gardens and what goes beyond, off the parcel. As
you can see the rear rain garden on the west portion of the parcel does exit off, it does go into
the other rain garden, and we've provided some channel protection, slope stabilization there for
any overflow or emergency conditions. Number Four, we've provided the stormwater
management for all hard surfaces that would be created by this proposed application. The area
upland is very minimal. It's mostly grass covered. It will flow through the system. I didn't
delineate the hard surface up above. I looked at it from a commonsense portion. It's not a large
draw going up the side of the mountain where I've got a heavy flow coming down that I need to
size the pipe system through. It's a small area of grass and some lawn area. So we believe that
we've addressed any issue that would come from off site. Number Five, our understanding of
the rain garden, based on the description of 5.3.7 in the Design Manual states that rain gardens
are a simplified version of bio-retention and are a passive design filter in that rainwater is
directed into the garden from roof drains, driveways and other hard surfaces. With that said,
that's what we've designed. This is basically a driveway. It's not a parking lot or roadways.
This is, it's an extension of the Town road but it's basically a driveway, and that's what we've
tried to provide the commonsense approach to stormwater management. Number Six, again,
the area where they're referring to the 1,000 square feet is actually comes under a bullet titled
compacted soil and clay sub soils. This is not compacted soils or clay sub soils. So we believe
that, although this is 1700 square feet going to the rain garden and that particular part of the
Code says 1,000 square feet, we're not even, we're not twice the amount, but it's also not
compacted soils or clay sub soils. We don't believe that that would apply. Number Seven, we
understand the concerns in regards to the depth of the rain garden. The actual wording in the
stormwater design manual is should not. It's not shall. It's should not. We've taken steps that
the applicants understand when they put in their rain garden plantings that they're going to have
to get tolerant plants for the lower portions and less tolerant as the water goes up. So that's
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
something that we've worked on. It's no different than what we've done on Rockhurst with the
Shine project and over at Mr. Kelly's, both lakefront projects where we've done the rain gardens
that are a little bit deeper than the six inches. We've just been careful with the plants that are
selected, and I've actually been watching both of those through the season. They've both done
their jobs and maintained stormwater management and not had any issues. Number Nine
would be the same comment, same response as Number Seven. Number Ten, the revised site
plan has eliminated the culvert due to changes predicated by the Town Highway
Superintendent's request in regard to the road extension. Number Eleven, we changed the time
span in the revised Hydro Cad to a full 24 hours, and Number Twelve, we believe the proposed
plans, which include the Stormwater Pollution Prevention control, address the issue of coverage
and erosion control during construction. That's why we put the, this is, again, where the 147 and
the zoning regulations start to conflict. I believe that that 15% slope was any disturbance in 15%
slope would be if someone was just grading an area that they wanted to make sure erosion and
sediment controls were in place. We've provided a Stormwater Pollution Prevention control plan
that has erosion control devices, measures in it during construction. So we believe that, you
know, that's been taken care of by the plan itself, and if there's any in particular questions in
regards to those or any one that you may have concerns about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, the Highway Superintendent, I know he was pleased to be able to
extend that road there. I don't know if the Board's familiar with this, but the Fire Marshal came
up to Assembly Point in April, I think it was, April/May, to look at some issues. We had three.
We identified three issues that we considered to be serious that we couldn't handle if we had a
fire, and one of them was Okiota, which I think some of you are familiar with. That's the big area
there with a lot of trees on it and so forth. The fire load was ten times what we could handle, and
so they brought in a contractor from Warrensburg and he worked there all summer, took out all
the dead wood and the trees and a lot of the material laying on the ground. The second most
dangerous one is the 35 foot dip in that range which is right to the left of this road, and there is
no access to that for the Fire Department because one end of it is blocked by the homeowner,
some of you know Dennis, and the other area is, the only way you can really get to it is to come
down Forest Road, and we can only go so far. To be able to get a little further is key. Because
with his measurements and ours they can set up a deck and they could flood it so they could at
least knock it down to a reasonable size. So that was very important. I'm glad you guys worked
that out because it's more than just doing something for the homeowner. It's going to help
everybody that's there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to
address the Board on this project? Okay. Mr. Klein? I think you were here when I gave the
introduction during the public hearing before. Speak into the mic and address your comments
and questions to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVE KLEIN
MR. KLEIN-My name's Dave Klein. I'm with North Country Engineering. I represent some
property owners up in Assembly Point. This property was subject to a Site Plan Review in 2010.
We came and raised a bunch of issues in 2010. I'm surprised to see it back. I've prepared a
letter that I gave Keith. I've got some extra copies here. I don't know if you want to hand them
out.
MR. OBORNE-I've already got one in the record. Just hand it to Don.
MR. KLEIN-Okay. I'm not one for reading letters into the record. I'd rather work on a
PowerPoint presentation. So I made some graphics that I gave Keith, and he's got them up
there. I've also got some extra copies of that if you'd like to follow along, pass them around.
Before we reviewed this project, we also represented another property owner up in Assembly
Point that owns this 7.24 acre parcel across the street from the subject property. He also owns
a parcel up here that we tried to develop, and he also owns one at the end of, actually owns two
at the end of Pine Street. When we went to try and develop those properties, they were all close
to the wetlands, in a Critical Environmental Area. The have a much further setback from the
wetlands than the subject parcel does, and we actually had to go to the Zoning Board to get a
variance because the Town was not going to extend the road for the Pine Street properties, and
we had a very difficult time being able to get the proper stormwater setbacks from paved
surfaces. So I'm fairly familiar with the environmental challenges of this property, and the
issues, I've kind of summarized them on the side of the handout. The first one is all water from
newly created impervious areas which would otherwise run off the parcel shall be directed to an
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
infiltration device. The applicant is saying that he's got storage trenches and rain gardens and
because they've got a different terminology they're not an infiltration structure. Well, they're
either an infiltration structure and they meet the requirements of Section 147-11-1(2)(a) of the
Code or they're not infiltration structures and they don't need the 100 foot setback from any
wetland for an infiltration structure serving roadways and other areas subject to vehicle traffic,
which is Section 147-11-1(2)(c). So they're out of compliance with one or both of those sections
of the stormwater code, and this is the special section for Lake George. Any stormwater
measures within the Lake George basin need to comply with these regulations which are right
out of the Lake George Park Commission regulations, and they were adopted to protect Critical
Environmental Areas such as this. Inlets to infiltration devices shall be protected from sediment
at all times in order to maintain their capacity. There's absolutely no protection for the rain
gardens. I'm not sure how the roads and the rain garden have shifted, but based on the plan
that was presented before. The setback between the, what I'll call the infiltration devices, is 52
feet. You can see that the base of the, the toe of the embankment here is actually 10 foot from
the wetlands. They have a silt fence at the base of that toe, and they have it going uphill, and
when you put silt fence in, DEC requires you to have that level. Basically they don't want to
have a concentration of flow flowing down the edge of the silt fence and over top the silt fence.
So their installation guides say silt fence has to run parallel with the contours. They've got this
silt fence going uphill on both ends. So anything that comes down that two on one embankment
is going to collect at the low point there and potentially overflow the silt fence. If they were to
install the silt fence as required by DEC, the silt fence is actually going to have to go into the
wetlands. The edge of the pavement was 24 feet from the wetlands. It sounded to me that the
road was going to be shifted to the east, which is going to make the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just about to say, I mean, I really appreciate all the work you did here,
but their plan now has changed.
MR. KLEIN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Dramatically. So a lot of the comments aren't really going to apply, because
they have a new plan.
MR. KLEIN-So, what are we going to have to table this and give us another chance to review it?
The key components to this site is, and I don't see how they can overcome this. You have to
have an infiltration device to manage the stormwater off any new impervious surfaces. That
infiltration device, if it's off a roadway, or a driveway or other vehicle surfaces, has got to be 100
foot away from the wetlands. They're going to need a variance for that. That's what the Code
says. That's what I read in the Code, and that's how it's been interpreted in other municipalities,
and I believe in this municipality, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I'm sorry to cut you off, but we're not even looking at the same
plan now that you have here on your PowerPoint.
MR. KLEIN-So are we going to table so we can have an opportunity to look at the new plan? I
don't believe that's, the public hasn't seen the new plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we haven't either until this evening. Neither has the Town Engineer.
MR. KLEIN-Then you can't accept it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can accept it, but we're not going to approve it without the Town
Engineer reviewing it.
MR. KLEIN-Okay. So you're going to hold the public comment open?
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. KLEIN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll have to. I mean, unless Board members feel strongly another way.
MR. TRAVER-No, I mean, we normally don't even accept new materials the night of a meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is pretty new information.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we don't usually accept new material the night of the meeting.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I find it interesting that you would come up here and comment on this
because about two years ago Mr. Grasso was looking at two lots which he brought to the Board,
and you came up and commented on how bad they were, couldn't build on them, etc., etc. He
had other plans, but there are only five lots up there for sale and there's three owners, okay, and
the man you're representing, which is George Hearst, wants to buy all five of them. If they're so
bad, I don't understand why he wants to buy them, but the situation is the people won't sell to
him because they don't want him to clear cut them like he did all his other property across the
street from his house. That's what's really happening on Assembly Point.
MR. KLEIN-There was a hurricane last Fall, and there was about 300 trees that fell down, and
as I understand, Mr. Hearst spent tens of thousands of dollars cleaning that up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, even the ones that were standing up he did.
MR. KLEIN-I don't believe so.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I watched it.
MR. KLEIN-Well, I don't believe so.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don't live there.
MR. KLEIN-No, I wasn't watching him.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if you have any other sort of concluding comments.
MR. KLEIN-Yes. I do have, I believe the project is being segmented also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, we have your letter where you say that as well.
MR. KLEIN-Right. The road is part of the project. It wouldn't be extended if it wasn't for the
development of this lot, and there's other requirements in the Code that would make this a major
project, major stormwater project, and I might also ask that the Planning Board consider having
the Town Engineer look at the septic system and the well. The last time when we Mr. Grasso
submitted his application, supposedly Staff had approved the septic design, and we came up
with at least two pages of items that didn't meet the Town or the State Health Department Code.
So it looks like they've made some adjustments to that, but this is a Critical Environmental Area.
It's extremely close to the wetlands, and I really think it needs the scrutiny of a full review, not
just saying, well, the building official looked at it and it's just fine, you know, we don't even have
a checklist or a thorough review from the building official, and that's just based on past
experiences, and one other thing that was attached to my letter. There was a letter from the
previous Town Engineer to the Highway Superintendent advising him he needs a jurisdictional
determination from the APA about the road extension and the variance to the wetlands. I talked
to the APA yesterday afternoon. That jurisdictional determination has never been requested,
and the APA advised me that both the applicant and the Town need to make that jurisdictional
determination, and most likely they'll require a APA permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KLEIN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did anyone else want to address the Board on this project? Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador, again, for your record. I have here the letter that the Highway
Superintendent wrote. He says I have no objections to extending this road. What constitutes
extending? Is there a roadway there?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sixty-five feet. It's a paved road up to that point.
MR. SALVADOR-And he's going to extend the paving 65 more feet?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Correct.
MR. SALVADOR-So there is no roadway there right now?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There is a road, John. You've been up there. Forest Road is a dead end
road. It has five lots on it, okay. All but one house has been re-built and there's one vacant lot
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
which is the one we're talking about. When these people build at the end of a dead end road, he
has to extend the road. He's done this before up there, and he's just doing it again. He can
only extend it to the end of their property, and that's as far as it can go. Because the rest of the
property is owned by Mr. Hearst.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Is this what we call a paper street?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it's not a paper street. It's a regular street. You could call Assembly
Point Road at one time a paper street, but it's not now.
MR. SALVADOR-No, no.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The land's owned by the property owners, but the Town runs it.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. He says here, this is Town property. Got a deed?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If he puts the road through it becomes a Town road.
MR. SALVADOR-He doesn't have any authority to go on private property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who said it's private property, John?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, if he doesn't have a deed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns it?
MR. SALVADOR-If the Town does not have a deed, okay, it's not their property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Look at the Town map, you'll see this road. Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-The Town map?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you'll see the extension of this road drawn on one of the maps, yes,
you will. Because I've seen it.
MR. SALVADOR-The Highway Superintendent submits an inventory of his road system every
year. It's the basis for the CHIPS payments.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That that is paved, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-No, there's a description of every, a road doesn't have to be paved to be a
Town road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If it's a paper road then it's on the map and it's on Town property. It's just
like the road that I just got through describing at the top of Sunset, where there's a road up
there, it's not paved because the owner at the end of the road won't let traffic through, even
emergency traffic, but that's a Town road.
MR. SALVADOR-He can't prohibit traffic if it's a Town.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, he can. He owns the last 30 yards of it and he won't let anybody
through it. He's piled up rocks and dirt.
MR. SALVADOR-Then it's private property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is his private property, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, my point is that it's not sufficient for the Highway Superintendent to say I
have no objection to extending the road. Either he has authority to do it, in that he has a claim
on that land, and it's usually in the form of a deed. You're going to keep the public hearing
open. I'll chase this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Realize that the plan had
changed, but we had a couple of general comments. First of all, we have concerns about the
extent of the disturbance and the protection of the wetlands and compliance with the stormwater
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
code. First of all we feel the project should be considered a major stormwater project based on
disturbance. The drawings indicate 13,100 square feet of disturbance, but that doesn't include
the disturbance for the roadway which, again, should not be segmented out of that and it should
be included, which would tilt the disturbance over 15,000 square feet, and require major. That's
important just due to the setbacks, as Mr. Klein had said. Also you have the prerogative to
make it a major with the proximity to the wetlands, which, again, would protect that resource in
Critical Environmental Area. The reference to runoff from all new impervious surfaces should be
complied with. It didn't appear the driveway was directed as required. Also there was no
stormwater management plan for the roadway. I know this Board a lot of times have said that
comments are made picking on individual homeowners, but the Highway Departments
themselves don't comply. So right here you have the opportunity to make the Highway
Department comply, and there is a Memorandum of Understanding with the Park Commission
regarding stormwater management on highway activities and regarding the management of
construction of new roadways. So I think that needs to be complied with also. There's no soil
testing for any of the rain gardens. So, and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
revised plan. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Good evening.
KATHLEEN MALONEY
MS. MALONEY-Good evening. My name is Kathleen Maloney, and I'm here on behalf of the
estate of Eleanor Maloney, the owner of the adjacent property. Because there's been changes
in the plan, just like Mr. Klein, I'd like to have the opportunity to review the changed plans before
I make any comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MS. MALONEY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Could I ask you a question, Kathy? Your house for sale?
MS. MALONEY-No, it's not.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a for sale sign in front of it.
MS. MALONEY-Well, I don't know who, I'm the executrix of the estate, and I assure you it is not
on the market.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm telling you, I drove by it yesterday and there's a for sale sign.
MS. MALONEY-What company?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You know, I didn't even look.
MS. MALONEY-1 can assure you no one has contacted.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was just surprised to see it there. Not the one for this lot.
MS. MALONEY-No one, I assure you the house is not on the market, and it's not going to be on
the market. I assure you of that, and if there is a for sale sign up there, it's a little late tonight for
us to go up and get it off the property, but it will be taken care of. Because no one has contacted
me regarding that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was surprised to see it.
MRS. MALONEY-1 assure you, it's not on the market.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MRS. MALONEY-But thank you, and I'll be able to look at the, thank you so much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. You're welcome. Anyone else? Written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-One second please. I do not believe so.
MR. CENTER-I believe there were two in favor.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. OBORNE-They're not in here.
MR. CENTER-I went down, today, to drop off some other documentation, actually the letter from
the Highway Superintendent, and she said there was two in regards to this project that took no
exception.
MR. OBORNE-One second. This is an e-mail, not dated, no, it is September 16t", to Don Krebs
"Dear Mr. Krebs: Our family has been a neighbor of the subject property for twenty years. In
reviewing the proposed development plans we note that the renderings of the two-bedroom,
two-story structure show a 1,500 square foot home and garage that is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood and will be a positive addition to it. We understand this property
is adjacent to a wetland are and note that the site plan indicates the proposed structure and
wastewater systems will be situated on the lot away from that area. We also note the
application includes stormwater systems to address the control of runoff that will be generated.
Accordingly, we support the Kitchen's application and encourage your approval of it. Sincerely,
David H. Wilcox" "Dear Mr. Krebs: I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband to
express our approval of the application of Stephen Kitchen for construction of a home at the end
of Forest Road. Our address is 15 Forest Road. We are located at the corner of Forest Road
and North Lane. Sincerely yours, Patricia Killeen" And I do have Dave's public comment also
on file. That's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Board? I
mean, obviously since we have a whole new plan, we're going to table this.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You have to table it because engineering has to look at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll obviously leave the public hearing open.
MR. CENTER-I'd just like to make the comment that what we've done here is similar to the other
projects we've done on Waterfront Residential sites with the rain gardens. In response to some
of the questions in regards to infiltration devices, these are rain garden storage and the hydro
cad does not include infiltration or exfiltration in the calculations. So we've designed these as
storage devices, not infiltration devices which would require the separation and everything else.
The lower rain garden is actually a built up berm on the down slope side. So it actually sits on
existing grade once it's cleared and re-graded. As far as segmentation, and the other issues, I
would leave that to the Highway Department. We've included the work on this site plan, not tried
to say that it's not going to occur, but we've included it as part of this project.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you want to talk about water to the Highway Department you should
drive up Assembly Point Road today. You needed a boat, but there's obviously not going to be
any water settling on this piece of pavement, and it's a long way from the lake. So it's not going
to impact.
MR. CENTER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think there's any new information needed, but we're past the 15th
MR. TRAVER-Well, we'd be requiring the report from the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but we're not requiring new information from the applicant.
MR. OBORNE-I need to make sure it fits the zoning, too. There are changes on it, as far as, I'm
pretty sure the permeability is fine, but I don't know that for sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. CENTER-Actually the pavement was reduced.
MR. OBORNE-It was reduced? Okay. Well, that's a good thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just trying to figure if we could table it to an October date or a
November date.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. In fact, I was going to recommend that you do do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-To October?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, to October, and we'll get this new revised plan right out to the engineer.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-If that's amenable to the applicant.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We haven't asked for any new information. You gave us a new plan.
MR. CENTER-Right, and we addressed some of the comments that Chazen had in regards to
the design calculations and some of their concerns with the rain gardens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, you may want to give a written response to the engineer.
MR. CENTER-Yes. I did it. It's a rough draft that we did today. As you know, we receive these
comments on Friday and try to come up with, you know, our response as best we can, as
quickly as we can. So if I could have until Thursday to submit them to you, Keith, the written and
the drawing, because I'll have to, the one drawing that I did not revise was the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, based on the grading with this. I mean, I need to upgrade it. I
needed to do something quickly to the Highway Superintendent in order to get his approval for
extending the road, and that's, you know, where we got along at this point.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just to let you know, Tom and I tag teamed the Highway Department to get
that letter also. It was a last minute thing. I received it today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And he's a busy man, for what it is, but Thursday, I have no issue with Thursday.
You could put that in the resolution. Table that to either the first or second October meeting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are they?
MR. OBORNE-The 16th or the 23rd
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let's make it the 16th, then.
MR. TRAVER-The 16tH
MR. OBORNE-And revised plans to Staff by the 20th of September.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-You got that, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP #48-2012 FWW# 3-2012 STEVE KITCHEN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site
Plan / Freshwater Wetlands: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with
attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned.
Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012
STEVE KITCHEN, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
Tabled to the October 16, 2012 Planning Board meeting. The applicant to submit required
materials to the Planning Department by September 20, 2012 and this is tabled to provide for
adequate review of the updated plan submitted this evening.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, for members of the audience, the public hearing will
remain open, and we will take public comment again on the 16th of October. You're all set.
Thank you.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 SEAR TYPE II KIRK ROBERTS OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 11 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,612 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A
576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE
WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 6.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-8 SECTION
179-9, 179-6-060
DAVE KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is, again, construction within 50 feet or 15% slopes, and yes they are
15% slopes or greater. 11 Old West Mountain Road is the location. This is in RR-5A, Rural
Residential Five acres. This is a Type II SEAR. Warren County Referral is a yes. No County
Impact. Engineering review is attached. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction
of a 1,612 sq. ft. single family residence with a 576 sq. ft. detached garage. Construction within
50 feet of 15% slopes requires Planning Board review and approval. Waivers requested from
landscaping and lighting requirements. I have no issues. This is specifically an E&S issue here
that's going on, and as far as a planning issue, this is really not a planning issue whatsoever.
This is strictly a stormwater and E&S issue. It's for the engineers to resolve in my eyes, and
with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KLEIN-Good evening. Changing hats. Dave Klein with North Country Engineering. I
represent Kirk Roberts. I was retained this afternoon or yesterday afternoon to attend this
meeting. We did prepare a site plan for him that was submitted. He works in the evening. He
didn't know he was going to be last on the agenda so he didn't take enough time off from work to
be here. So since we were going to be here anyhow, I agreed to sit in. In any event, we
received the comments from the engineer regarding the stormwater. My stormwater designer is
in the hospital with pneumonia. So he couldn't rally to be able to address them. I've briefly
looked over them. I've been busy the last two days preparing for the previous meeting, so I
haven't had a chance to dig into them in detail, but I assure you if we get approval tonight it
would be conditioned that we get a signoff from the Town's engineer on the stormwater issues,
and as Keith said, there doesn't seem to be any other issues with the project. The only reason
we're here is we're on a site that is greater than 15%.
MR. HUNSINGER-You did do the design, though, right?
MR. KLEIN-We did do the design.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you're familiar with the site and the site plan?
MR. KLEIN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-I did most of the design. We didn't do the septic design. He had somebody else do
that, but we've located it on our septic plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Looking at the engineering comments, particularly Number Six and Number
Twelve, I guess what I'm wondering is, and I know you're, and Keith indicated that these are
engineering issues, but looking at those comments in particular, do you not think that the plan
itself will need to be changed to accommodate these engineering issues?
MR. KLEIN-I haven't looked into it in detail yet. I know some of the comments we have
infiltration trenches that are, he indicated that were on a very steep slope. Do we have a site
plan you can pull up?
MR. OBORNE-Do go you?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. KLEIN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I do have an overhead, if that's what you're looking for.
MR. KLEIN-No. In any event, they started the driveway before they knew there was a greater
than 15% slope. So we got pulled in to address the erosion control problems that they were
having on the driveway, and it is a steep slope, and uphill, and the undisturbed area, we wanted
to get the water off the road, intercept the water before it went across the road and caused, you
know, drainage issues on the embankment on the downhill side of the road. So we put a ditch
on the uphill side of the road. We don't need that ditch, but it was, you know, to help improve
the stormwater. We have, on the downhill side of the road we have a detention pond. We can
handle the whole site on that detention pond if we want. The purpose of an infiltration trench
being flat is so it collects the water and stores it without, and then lets it infiltrate down at the
bottom of it. If you put it on a slope, a steep slope, a 40% slope, you can see the water's going
to flow down to the end of the thing and it's not going to have any storage capacity and it's all
going to collect at the bottom of it. We ran those infiltration trenches parallel with the contours.
So they are level. They are on a 40% slope, but the trenches are level, and I think that's the
intention of the Code, not to not use them on a 40% slope or 30% slope. It's to have the
trenches, the trenches level.
MR. TRAVER-Well, my comment to your comments is that because of the engineering
challenges afforded by this site, this may well be a project that is suitable to a procedure that
we've used in the past where we've asked the applicant and the Town Engineer basically to do
much of the engineering before the plan is submitted, because sometimes the engineering
actually drives the plan, and I think this may be a case where that's going to happen, from what
I'm reading in these comments. It sounds as though there may not only be engineering
changes, but actually design changes because of some of the issues.
MR. KLEIN-There could be.
MR. TRAVER-So what I would like to suggest is perhaps that this be tabled and that you have
an opportunity to look at the plan and discuss these fairly significant issues and fairly significant
number of issues with the Town Engineer and largely resolve them before you submit a plan.
I'm only speaking for myself. I don't know how the other members of the Board feel.
MR. KLEIN-I know my client would like to get approval, and subject to us resolving these issues
with the Town Engineer. There are no other zoning issues. It's strictly stormwater issues.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can hear from other members of the Board.
MR. KLEIN-I think Staff had indicated that they would support that, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's always a tough one when there's outstanding engineering.
MR. TRAVER-And significant issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Within two feet of the structure.
MR. FORD-I would tend to agree with Steve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other members want to chime in?
MR. MAGOWAN-I have to agree with Steve, too. I mean, due to the severity of the slopes and
everything, and there are, the issues are, I think, great. I tend to agree with Steve, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I looked at that driveway, I was my myself, and I looked at that
driveway and I was like, I don't think I'm going to try it.
MR. OBORNE-Drive up it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-They had water (lost word) across it, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was a smart move then. Well, I also saw the boulders sort of like, you
know, you sort of have to dodge them a little.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. KLEIN-Yes, I didn't drive up it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If I had other people in the car with me, I probably would have been
foolish enough to give it a whirl, but, or if I had the Town van.
MR. KLEIN-It's a difficult site, but I don't think the issues are insurmountable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, the other concern, and, you know, one of our retired members
would bring this up frequently, is, you know, there's a number of driveways on West Mountain
Road in fact that, you know, you get severe runoff down the driveway and such to the point
where it requires extra maintenance by the Town to keep the road, you know, the Town road
clear in the wintertime. So, you know, that's something that we want to take a look at fairly
closely. For example, the house, immediately to the north there's a driveway cut with no house
built, and the driveway's cut more on the contours of the land, you know, and you really can't do
that on this site because it goes straight up.
MR. OBORNE-You'll see that next month, by the way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, the first blush, when you look at that driveway is we're going
to have water coming down that driveway if we're not careful.
MR. KLEIN-Well, we've sloped the driveway to the downhill side there, and he's stabilized that
fairly well. He's got fabric with some heavy stone on top of the fabric.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's some huge boulders there.
MR. KLEIN-Yes, and they're planning on building a dam in the valley there to tame the
stormwater, and it was an extra thought to try and keep the water off the roadway with that
diversion ditch on the uphill side of the driveway with the infiltration trenches.
MR. OBORNE-That's actually the genesis of this, why this is before you, because a building
permit was released for this, and there was some road runoff that went right across the road ,
and Bruce went out and generated the report, and thus I got involved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And it was stabilized relatively quickly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it was pouring when I was there today.
MR. KLEIN-We submitted the plan, we prepared the plan in one week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing.
We'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 have no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I know, Mr. Traver, you had offered to have them meet with the Town
Engineer and satisfy the engineering before they come back.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or we could just table it, you know, as we normally would. I'd almost give
you that option.
MR. KLEIN-What's that?
MR. HUNSINGER-To either meet with the Town Engineer and satisfy the engineering before it
comes back to us or we could just table it to a date specific and hope that the engineering's
worked out between now and then.
MR. KLEIN-I'm hoping to get this resolved in the next week. Pending my designer getting out of
the hospital and getting better.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-So, you know, I'd like to get back here as soon as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-So when's the next Board meeting?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it would be November, right?
MR. KLEIN-There's not a meeting before that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's meetings in October. The question, well, I mean, typically when
we table an application because it requires new information, we table it for two months out so
that we can meet deadlines and Staff reviews and engineering reviews.
MR. KLEIN-Well, the engineering review's going to be done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I know you're very optimistic about the engineering. I can appreciate that, but I
suspect that there's going to be some more discussion than you may anticipate about this site
and the design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, conversely there's not a lot of planning issues. So the engineering will
be done or it won't be done. Right?
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not going to be a huge.
MR. OBORNE-They did allude to Staff supporting it, and I support whatever the Board wants to
do, I mean, obviously, within reason, but I would say that this is strictly an engineering issue,
and they're going to have to battle that out. So, Staff, I'm not averse to a conditional approval, to
be honest with you, and have them battle it out, but if you feel that there's going to be a change,
markedly, in the plan, then, yes, I mean, I would table it. So that's my balancing act.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KLEIN-There can't be much of a change, you know, we may have to delete the ditch on the
uphill side, and take it all across the road, but we'll be able to manage it on site. There's very
few options with this site.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and that's my concern. There's very few options, and when you're doing
engineering on slopes this severe, it kind of has a, I hate to use the analogy with, because
stormwater's involved, but it's like a trickle-down effect. If you change something up here, then
you've got to change, you know, a number of other things. I mean, I'm not an engineer, but I've
seen enough of these to know that. So, I just, you know, whatever, I mean, I'll go along with
whatever the majority wants to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'd be comfortable tabling this to an October date.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-With a submission of.
MR. KLEIN-Is there no more meetings in September? Or is there one in the first week of
October?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. We meet the third and fourth Tuesday of the month.
MR. OBORNE-There's not enough time for notice of it either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think it's already too late for next week.
MR. TRAVER-It would be an enormous accommodation to give you a spot on what is probably
already a full agenda next month.
MR. KLEIN-Okay.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-So you'd say perhaps the 23rd.
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven't seen any draft agendas for October, but.
MR. OBORNE-We're full.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KLEIN-Yes, I'll take November, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-I'd rather have the conditional approval, where we can work it out with the Town
Engineer. That way my client can, you know, proceed to move forward. Starting this project
after November on a difficult site is complicating the issue.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we could put it on for October and then see where we stand. If you're
resolved by then, fine. If not.
MR. FORD-As an additional item?
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry?
MR. FORD-As an additional item to an already filled agenda?
MR. TRAVER-Well, the Chairman hasn't seen the agenda yet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Keith said we're full.
MR. FORD-This may not be a.
MR. HUNSINGER-This could be a five minute discussion.
MR. FORD-Or a 55 minute discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-If engineering's clean, we're done.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, we, it's been reported to us to be an engineering issue, and it's really only
me that's saying, you know, I'm saying that the engineering issues are severe enough that we
need to have, and the applicant's representative. So, you know, why don't we table it to, say,
the 23rd meeting, and if it comes back to us the way Keith presented it to us tonight, it should be
a very swift approval, if the engineering issues are decided. If not, then, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Then we push it out another month, and we treat it as a, you know, a half
item instead of a full item on the agenda.
MR. TRAVER-I'll make a motion to table Site Plan 62-2012 for Kirk Roberts. This application is
tabled to the October 23rd Planning Board meeting, October 23, 2012, and it's tabled to allow the
applicant's representatives and the Town Engineer to discuss the number and type of
outstanding engineering comments.
MR. OBORNE-Could I interject real quick? Would you like, before it comes to you, on the 23rd
do you want engineering flat? In other words, do you want signoff when it comes to you?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think that was your intent, wasn't it?
MR. KLEIN-That's the intent.
MR. TRAVER-That's the goal.
MR. HUNSINGER-If there's a couple, three minor items.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say, I wouldn't say, again, this is my own personal feeling. I don't
think we need signoff, but certainly we need to have a significant reduction in the number.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. My concern is turning this around fast enough. What type of revision date
are you giving me for that, in order to forward that to the engineer, to give the engineer time to
review it? That's, we are busy.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. So that's something, then, that perhaps should not be
accommodated?
MR. OBORNE-When can you turn this around?
MR. KLEIN-Well, I think it's got to be an iterative process between the engineer and us, Town
Engineer and us, you know, we need to talk to him. We need to get his buy in before we make
any changes. I don't want to be submitting something and then having it kicked back again.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine with me, also.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense, yes.
MR. KLEIN-And another question I've got. If I anticipate problems in October, so if we want to
have delay to November, can I make that arrangement with Staff?
MR. FORD-Why don't we do it tonight? Let's schedule it for November. Then you've got
October to resolve the issues.
MR. KLEIN-I don't think my client would like me to do that.
MR. TRAVER-One of the things you can report to your client is if you come back in October and
we have more issues or perhaps different issues and we still can't approve it, you're going to be
further than November. So sometimes a longer tabling means a shorter resolution of your
application. For what it's worth. I mean, there's a motion out there for October 23rd, but if you're
not confident that you can be ready, I might recommend that you consider waiting.
MR. KLEIN-I'd like to be able to take the October 23rd date and then say, hey, in the first week of
October, if we don't think we can have a good presentation, take a date in November. Can we
have it postponed?
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure we can do it that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We can't do that. If you knew it by next week, maybe. We set the
agenda on the last Thursday of the month, and then once it's set, then it means we're putting a
spot on the agenda for you and we're not putting a spot on the agenda for somebody else.
MR. KLEIN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I withdraw my motion. What do you think about, we've got an odd schedule
in November.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have an odd schedule for November.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because you have two meetings in one week.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-I have three meetings written down.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, this is what we have right here on this.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I have meetings on the 13th and the 15th and then for some reason I have the 27th
written down as well.
MR. OBORNE-That's what I have, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-13th and 15tn.
MR. TRAVER-That's what I have.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we have a special meeting on the 27th you haven't told us about?
MR. OBORNE-Well, the 20th is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. So that was moved.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, to the 15th, right?
MR. OBORNE-To the 27tH
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-The 15th potentially could be that. I don't know why this is color coded the way it
is. Combo deadline date, Planning Board. Yes. You're right, Paul. Paul's right. It is the 15tH
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The 15tH
MR. TRAVER-15th, the 13th and the 15th.
MR. HUNSINGER-15th 15tH and the 27tH
MR. TRAVER-So the 27th is?
MR. MAGOWAN-What are the days? Because I hear 13tH 15tH and 27tH
MR. HUNSINGER-13th?
MR. OBORNE-It's the 15th, I have the 15th, which is a Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 15th and 27tH
MR. MAGOWAN-So the 15th and the 27t".
MR. OBORNE-Correct, because of the holiday.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So there's no 13 th?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. OBORNE-That's a big 10-4.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I'll cross that one out.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,612 sq. ft. single family residence with a 576 sq. ft.
detached garage. Construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes requires Planning Board review
and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Stephen Traver
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Tabled to the November 15, 2012 Planning Board meeting. The application is tabled so that the
applicant's representative can discuss the numerous and complex engineering issues that
appear to exist with this site.
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. KLEIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to come before the Board? I'm sorry, Mr.
Salvador asked if he could address the Board at the end of the meeting. I blindly give you the
floor. I should ask ahead of time if it's relevant to the deliberations of the Board. So I have no
idea what you're going to speak to us about this evening.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I think it's very relevant. It deals with the issue of local zoning jurisdiction. At
your joint meeting that you had last week, I handed each of you a letter that I had addressed to
Craig Brown on the subject.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Departing from that letter, I'd just like to point out the fact that the Town's
project records are replete with my comments insisting that the Town lock zoning regulatory
jurisdiction on the navigable waterways in general and on Lake George in particular. In
response to my comments before the Town Planning Board during the review of Site Plan
application SP 39-2007, the then Town Attorney could not resist the chance to marginalize my
input by offering his legal advice. Mr. Fuller, quote, for the legal comment, until a court says
otherwise, this Town regulates docks along the shores of the Town of Queensbury. I think
we've demonstrated that the courts have said otherwise. Okay. I think no one wants to believe
this. From this letter that I gave you last week, I think you can see that there was not much of a
regulatory effort on boat docks and boathouses until about 1980, and a big effort was made to
get them registered because they hadn't been properly permitted. Everybody was building boat
docks and boathouses, and so they decided that they were going to register everything until
they could get regulations in place and the registration program was undertaken. All boat docks
and boathouses had to be registered, as well as marinas. It took them about eight years before
they could get the regulatory program in place and get the home rule resolution adopted, and to
empower the Park Commission, then, to take over this program from the DEC, the registration
and program of '81 was a DEC program. Park Commission had not been reconstituted at that
time, and so in 1988 the Park Commission, and they've got regulations, I've got to tell you, okay.
They have their own CPLR. The Park Commission has its own CPLR. In any case, they took
over in 1988 this whole regulatory program, and it pretty much stayed that way until about 1990
when this Town decided they wanted to get back into this arena, and we've been struggling with
it ever since.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Lake George doesn't, Lake George agrees with you.
MR. SALVADOR-Lake George agrees?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town of Lake George agrees with you. They're not ruling on docks
anymore.
MR. SALVADOR-You have applications before you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town of Lake George.
MR. SALVADOR-They are holding their applications in abeyance.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MR. SALVADOR-We are not.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we haven't had one since we had this discussion. If we don't vote on
it, that holds it in abeyance.
MR. SALVADOR-You had one, the dock on Assembly Point.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That wasn't a dock. That was a roof that he was placing over the thing.
That wasn't the dock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was land.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That was land.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, well, in any case, you've got one I think coming up Thursday.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we do. That's correct. Next Tuesday, or Thursday.
MR. SALVADOR-I'm thinking it's Thursday. Okay. Good. Well, I don't have anything more to
say. I think we should really, if we're serious about this in the Town, we should move forward
with it and we're not doing anything, that is those who are interested in fostering legislation that
would allow the Town to get into the business of regulating boat docks and boathouses.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2012)
MR. TRAVER-And I was opposed to the last application because it's been my feeling that if we
continue to review them, there's less motivation to address this issue at the legislative level.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're right.
MR. TRAVER-So I think we should vote no or not, which is why I voted no on the last one.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or just abstain. Because we don't have jurisdiction.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it's got to be sorted out. The courts have spoken. I mean, if you want to
do something to.
MR. TRAVER-And if these applications are denied or not heard, that this will be resolved fairly
quickly. If we continue to hear them, then it'll be who knows how long.
MR. SALVADOR-It doesn't get any better for this Town, if the Town Board is interested in a
home rule resolution, it doesn't get any better than at this moment. The juxtaposition of
circumstances is such that the Town Supervisor has the control, or he has the weight of the
Town Board behind him. He needs a 2/3 rd's vote of the legislative body for a home rule
resolution. He's certainly got that at this Town Board. He's Chairman of the Warren County
Board of Supervisors. He's certainly got 2/3 rd's vote there, and he's destined to go to the
legislature and he can sponsor the bill after the first of the year.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a home run. Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-It doesn't get any better.
MR. HUNSINGER-He looks like a hero.
MR. SALVADOR-That's right. What are we waiting for? That's all. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, you're right. You're absolutely right. Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Thanks, John.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to come before the Board?
MR. FORD-I move we adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion. Is there a second?
MR. SIPP-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER
18, 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned. See you next week.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
64