11-27-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 2012
INDEX
Site Plan No. 46-2012 Steve Kitchen 1.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Site Plan No. 76-2012 Paul & Margaret Sheehan 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20
Site Plan No. 79-2012 Gerald Flynn 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-24
Site Plan No. 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols 5.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19
Subdivision No. 8-2012 Cerrone Builders 6.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25
Site Plan No. 74-2012 Adirondack Retirement Specialists 15.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-55
Site Plan No. 77-2012 Marcia Parker 18.
Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8
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 11/27/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-If everyone's ready, I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board on Tuesday, November 27th, 2012. The first item on the agenda is an
administrative item, Site Plan 46-2012, for Steve Kitchen.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 46-2012 STEVE KITCHEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any new information?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's still going through the ZBA, the ZBA trial so to speak, and at this point
you gave them a recommendation two weeks ago, and they're now going to be before the
Zoning Board tomorrow. I would suggest that we table them out through December to start with,
and dates are the 18th and the 20tH
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. Make it the 20th because there's a Zoning Board meeting on
the 19tH
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good idea.
MR. TRAVER-Just a note on the motion prepared for tonight's meeting. I note that on the
agenda it's listed as 46-2012, and on the draft motion it's 48-2012. So we want to make sure
that's correct for the record, whichever it is.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and I'm not sure, off the top of my head, which one it is, to be honest with
you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think on all the other documents it was 48. We have a motion, is there
a second?
MR. FORD-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second. Any discussion? This is to table it to December 20th. Call the vote,
please.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#48-2012 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.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 STEVE KITCHEN, Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled until December 20, 2012 pending variance decision - public hearing left open.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-1 neglected to welcome members of the audience. There are copies of the
agenda on the back table. There's also a handout there for public hearing information. Many of
the items this evening do have a public hearing associated with them and when we get to the
first public hearing I will go into more detail on the purpose of the public hearing. We have a
couple of items to recommend to the ZBA.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA:
SITE PLAN 76-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31 BIRCH ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,950 SQ. FT. FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. CONSTRUCTION OF A
DWELLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ACTUAL
PHYSICAL ACCESS FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD TO
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-12, BP 89-
508 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.13-1-20 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060, 179-4-050
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and it has an associated variance, 62-2012. This is a recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested. 31 Birch Road is the location.
Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. It's a Type 11 SEAR. No further action is required.
Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence with
accessory structures and construct a new 2,597 sq. ft. three bedroom residence. Construction
of a dwelling within 50 feet of 15% slopes in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and
approval, and the variance specifically is relief requested for actual physical access from road
frontage requirements. The applicant does not have access through their property. They have
to go through somebody else's property, and with new construction, you need to get a variance
for that, and that's really the long and short of the recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. They do have language drafted for an easement, actually. I received that today. So
that's moving forward, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name's Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins
Engineering in Queensbury. With me is owner/applicant Paul Sheehan. The Sheehans own
property at 31 Birch. It's a .64 acre parcel. It's been in his family since 1946. They propose to
replace an older camp with a new residence. There has been shared access to this property
since the beginning, I presume. For a long time it was understood. In 1995 it was formalized
with a formal easement from the owner to the Sheehans, or the Sheehan family, and that
easement is being updated to clarify some issues within that, and presently that has been
drafted and the attorneys are looking at it. We're here tonight looking for a recommendation
from this Board to the Zoning Board to allow us to essentially work on this structure or re-build
this structure and continue to use the shared access with the appropriate agreement. As you
can see the parcel, the shape of the parcel has got kind of a jog in it and we could construct a
driveway on this parcel that would serve his needs and we wouldn't be here asking for a
variance. However, it's a nice wooded area. It's been in use for years and years and years and
it makes sense. So with that we'd request your support on our variance request, and, Paul,
anything to add?
PAULSHEEHAN
MR. SHEEHAN-No.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? I thought it
looked pretty straightforward.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. FORD-I agree.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is, as far as the variance is concerned. I did note, in looking at the
engineering comments, there's a lot of references to the infiltration, which appeared to me, at
first read, as though this may affect your design.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we'll have to work through them, yes.
MR. TRAVER-That was the only thing I had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there were some site plan issues, but, yes.
MR. HUTCH I NS-There's one spot that there's a little bit of cut and then a stabilized slope, and,
yes, we'll have to work out all the infiltration separation. The separations become difficult when
you start applying a new water supply and separations to all the stormwater. The wastewater
we're proposing to take up away from the lake as far as we reasonably can while conserving the
wooded area. We are trying to do that to the greatest extent we can.
MR. FORD-It would just make that more challenging if we recommended putting a driveway in
there and cutting that timber. It would just complicate the issue.
MR. HUTCHINS-He would have another page or so of engineering comments. It would be a lot
of earthwork just by the topography, and a lot of trees would have to go.
MR. MAGOWAN-There's also a lot of houses up on that lake that share, too. I mean, that have
been families for years. I mean, it's tight.
MR. HUTCHINS-And this works. You go over there and look at it, this makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the ZBA on this
project?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 62-12 SHEEHAN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to
demolish existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence and accessory structures and construct a new 3,950
sq. ft. four bedroom residence. Construction of a dwelling within 50 feet of 15% slopes in a WR
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for actual
physical access from road frontage requirements. Planning Board to provide 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. 62-2012 & SITE PLAN 76-
2012 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan; and
The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 27th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 79-2012 SEAR TYPE II GERALD FLYNN OWNER(S) JAMES DENOOYER
ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 4 LOCKHART LOOP SITE PLAN:
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 208 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO MASTER BEDROOM
AND THE ADDITION OF A 208 SQ. FT. SCREENED IN PORCH. EXPANSION OF A NOW
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE; RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT, SIDE SETBACK RELIEF,
AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD TO
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-12 APA, CEA,
OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-24 SECTION
179-9, 179-3-040
GERALD FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Again. A recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief
requested in the variance. Four Lockhart Loop is the location. Waterfront Residential is the
existing zoning. Again, this is a Type 11. No further action is required. Project Description:
Applicant proposes a 208 sq. ft. residential addition to master bedroom and the addition of a 208
sq. ft. screened in porch. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA, or Critical
Environmental Area, requires Planning Board review and approval. The variance: Relief
requested for height, side setback relief, and expansion of a non-conforming structure.
Specifically the nature of the variances are as follows: Height- Request for 8 feet of height relief
from the 28 foot maximum. Side Setback - Request for 4.4 feet of relief from the 25 foot side
setback requirement, and expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Not a lot of moving parts to this, to be honest with you. However, the
existing structure is non-conforming due to height, and as such they are here before you seeking
a recommendation, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FLYNN-Good evening. I'm Jerry Flynn, representing James Denooyer on this project
where the one addition in addition to the master bedroom which there's a bedroom below it and
we want to build on top of that, which it stays in the original footprint of the house, and the other
is an additional screened in porch to the side which makes the lower level of the room inside
there that's not very usable and this would be usable to them for inclement weather, you know,
rain and like that. So there's nothing that's going to get disturbed on the property. There's no
trees that have to come down or the additional growth. It's just that the one, the addition to the
master bedroom is taller than what's required, but it does not interfere with the view of any other
houses or the road where the house sits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. FORD-Could that porch be used for sleeping purposes?
MR. FLYNN-No, it's going to be a screened in porch.
MR. KREBS-They may be dozing at two in the afternoon.
MR. FLYNN-Yes, probably for a nap, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's not a bedroom, in other words.
MR. FLYNN-No, it's a screened in porch. It's not insulated and just strictly for a screened room
to get out of the bugs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? Okay. Would anyone like to make a
recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 60-2012 GERALD FLYNN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a
208 sq. ft. residential addition to master bedroom and the addition of a 208 sq. ft. screened in
porch. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and
approval. Variance: Relief requested for height, side setback relief, and expansion of a non-
conforming structure. Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the ZBA.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
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. 60-2012 & SITE PLAN 79-
2012 GERALD FLYNN: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan; and
The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 27th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. FLYNN-Thank you.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART& RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANTS ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 8 GLEN LAKE ROAD
& 1300 STATE ROUTE 9 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
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
Cl 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 MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW AND MAY PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 35-12 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL 8/2/2012- NO COUNTY IMPACT W/STIPULATION LOT SIZE 4.36 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-18, 19 SECTION 179-9
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is going to be tabled once again. I'm going to read into the record for
the record something from Bartlett, Pontiff, Jon C. Lapper to myself, Keith Oborne. "Keith, as
we discussed, we will have to table both the Planning Board and ZBA appearances until
December because we do not yet have signoff from OPRHP. We are in the process of
documenting the prior site disturbance in accordance with the initial letter from OPRHP but, in
accordance with the staff notes, this needs to be accomplished prior to the SEAR determination
by the Planning Board." So we're waiting on those signoffs from Parks and Rec at this point.
They've requested additional information. What I would like to do is if you can give me a
second, I'm going to run out and grab Tom Hutchins who's the project engineer on this. Give
me one second, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Keith thought you might have some information on Nichols.
MR. HUTCHINS-We are in the process of putting together a back and forth submission with
SHPO with regard to the extent of prior disturbance on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and it's to get through that that archeological, historic preservation step
that, and that's still in the process.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-You know, this is one of those situations where I think if they ever visited the
site, they would typically not have issues, but.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's very difficult to, and what they asked us to do was document the extent of
disturbance, and that sounds easy, but it's not quite as easy as it sounds. We are putting that
information together.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it reasonable to think you might hear back for a December meeting, or
should we table this to January?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 think it is reasonable. They respond fairly quickly. Usually within a week. We
have not re-submitted the package to them yet, although it's very close.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know when it will be going in?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 do not know specifically when it will be going in.
MR. OBORNE-I'd recommend out to January.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, it sounds like we're moving it to January.
MR. FORD-We're pushing in on December meetings.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's only three weeks away, and if it hasn't even gone in yet.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-You've got a holiday coming.
MR. OBORNE-And we do have two full agendas at this point, not that this project is not worthy
of placement on any of these agendas, but it seems to be a little bit nebulous.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, the January meetings are the 15th and the 22nd. Do you have a
preference to either meeting date?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 guess our thought was hopefully December, but if January, then the 15th
would be our preference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Why don't we shoot for that. Any other discussion before
we entertain a motion?
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Tabled to January 15, 2013 pending receipt of DEC and OPRHP sign-off.
Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll see you then.
MR. OBORNE-Thanks, Tom.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question. Will the public hearing be left open?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it will be. Yes. I'm sorry. Thank you.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW:
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2012 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEAR TYPE N/A CERRONE
BUILDERS AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR, VISION ENGINEERING ZONING MDR-
MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 29.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO 29 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM 0.28 TO 0.35 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE S135-2010 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 29.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25 SECTION
CHAPTER A-183
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 8-2012, Sketch Plan Review for Cerrone Builders, subdivision
of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is Sweet Road. Existing zoning
is Moderate Density Residential, or MDR. SEAR status at this point, at Sketch, is not
applicable. When we do get to Preliminary it will be a Type I realty subdivision. Project
Description: Applicant proposes a Conservation Subdivision of a 29.45 acre parcel into 29
residential lots ranging in size from 0.28 to 0.35 acres. As proposed, the Conservation
Subdivision does meet the requirements for density with 29 lots on 24.22 acres with the 20%
factor applied. Per §A183-37, the submitted Sketch Plan appears to meet the intent of the
objectives laid out for a Conservation Subdivision and includes: Efficient use of land resulting in
a compact infrastructure design while preserving open space for pedestrian paths and
recreational areas. Development pattern in harmony with land use intensity, transportation
facilities and community facilities. The sewer will have to be extended either as an, Dan, I
believe it's an out of district at this point. I'm not sure, but those issues will be resolved,
obviously, with a map plan report to the Town Board on that, and again, we're at Sketch, and
obviously we're here for any questions the Board may have, and with that, I'd turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael O'Connor. I'm from the law firm of Little &
O'Connor. We represent the applicant, Cerrone Construction. With me is Dan, who is the
engineer for the project, and behind me is Al Cerrone who is the principle of Cerrone
Construction. Basically we think that we have put together a plan that is fully compliant with all
the conditions of a conservation subdivision. We think it's a great location. This will be a
maintenance free subdivision. The homes in there will be maintenance free. They will be
ranches. We have been very specific in setting forth what we asked for for setbacks for the
structures. That makes the site work. As Keith has mentioned, this will be sewered and Town
water. We have filed with the Town Board a map plan and report for a sewer district extension.
They basically said come to you, get your input, and then go back to them. So it's sort of like the
chicken and the egg, but we understand that we need both approvals. Dan can walk through, if
you want, all of the calculations. We'd kind of like to have you actually look at some of those,
see if you have any particular problems with them, because they have great impact upon the
design. Maybe you want to start.
MR. RYAN-Sure. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. In front of you, with the submitted
application, are four drawings. We tried to lay out the bulk data and statistical information on
Drawing C-1, and the following subsequent drawings, C-2 is existing conditions plan, which is
there to provide you a little bit about what's on site as it exists today, and hopefully you've had a
chance to either visit the site or get yourself familiar with that. There is an old section of that
parcel that was previously subject to mining activity, which hasn't happened in quite a few years.
So that area would be re-developed as part of this project. There are some trails throughout,
and a considerable amount of wooded and forested areas as well. You'll see that we did do
some site testing back in 2009. We did a considerable number of test holes, and I did some
additional percolation testing and groundwater testing. We also have had the environmental
constraints all identified on that plan, related to adjacent wetlands and steep slopes, all those
things have been identified for you. Hopefully that is clear enough. The subsequent drawings,
C-3 and C-4, really are why we're here today which is to give you a good overview of the lot
layout, the development, amenities and our goal, obviously, and object, basically we're trying to
comply with the conservation subdivision regulations which you either, I'm not sure if you've
actually exercised those in front of you for a subdivision or not, but hopefully this will be a good
starting point for us to be able to move forward with a full design for Preliminary, and as Keith
did mention, I believe we're fully compliant with the requirements of conservation subdivision.
I'll walk through calculations, if you want to refer back to Drawing C-1. First and foremost, I think
it's important to note that for conservation subdivisions the Planning Board is empowered to
make some modifications to bulk requirements, such as lot size, setbacks, road frontage. So
those are the types of things that the conservation subdivision gives you a little bit of leeway for
the purposes of shrinking the development down, preserving open space and limiting your
construction on the site. So what we've provided for you are some proposed setbacks. The
front yard setback being 30 feet, the rear setback being 30 feet as well, and side setbacks of 10
feet. The lots are uniquely configured with some radiuses because of the loop road, but I guess,
as a general rule of thumb, each lot is proposed to be 90 feet minimum wide, and each lot would
be approximately 135 feet in depth. I think the smallest lot itself is about .28 acres, with
obviously some variation within that. We would propose to meet the requirements of
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
permeability, and so the next component of conservation subdivision is to achieve open space.
The requirement is 50% preservation of open space on the entire lot. We did provide that
calculation for you, resulting, as designed today, a preservation or open space of 55.3°/x. So we
do have a little bit of leeway there, but we, you know, basically this was the result of our hard
work in laying out the design of the project, and we were able to achieve that 50% relatively
easily. The density calculation becomes the last component of conservation subdivision. Your
subdivision regulations do allow what's called a density bonus. I don't know if that's been in
front of you previously, but what is does allow is a 20% increase in your total number of lots, if
you are able to achieve and meet the requirements of a conservation subdivision. So we've
provided, in our lower right hand corner of Drawing C-1, that specific calculation which is
relatively detailed in the regulations, it provides for subtraction of the typical standard areas that
are not usable, such as rock outcrops, wetlands, steep slopes. So those have been deducted
from the overall site area. By doing that, we resulted in about 24 acres of usable or buildable
land, and thus using that density bonus allowance, we ultimately ended up with a total density of
29 lots. So that's what we are designed for. We feel that they fit nicely on the site. We did
provide a lengthy loop road which would require a waiver because it is over the 1,000 foot
threshold. So that's something we'd like you to consider today, but in doing so in our lot layout,
we were able to avoid some of the steeper slopes, try to follow some of that natural topography
on site. So that's kind of why the shape is what it is, it's dictated by the land. I guess we do also
need to discuss, we would like to request a waiver for sidewalks. I believe the subdivision
regulations, you've come across this probably plenty of times previously, there is no place for a
sidewalk to go to on Sweet Road. We'd prefer not to have the sidewalks. Being a loop road
with minimal just traffic within the development, it should be considered a multi-use pavement
surface that could be easily and safely utilized by pedestrians, along with occupants of the
neighborhood. So, that being said, we would prefer to not have sidewalks. That's also in
keeping with conservation subdivision requirements which is reducing pavement. So that's kind
of why we went with that particular choice. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer questions.
We do have Al Cerrone here for any other types of issues related to homeowners association or
open space land, and we'd be happy to answer those.
MR. O'CONNOR-The open space area will be owned by the homeowners association. It will be
maintained by the homeowners association. It will be used for passive recreation. If you take a
look at one of the maps there, I think it's C-4, we're going to set up a walking path, if you will,
that the lots will all have access to. It will go through the inside of the (lost word) and then it
goes over to the piece that's on the back corner of the property. We really haven't planned out
what improvements we would make. We think there would be minimal improvements, but we
will have a pathway that people can walk on and probably have some benches. That will be the
type of activity that we will promote. We think that this being small lots it means ranches, single
story ranches. It will probably be attractive to more seniors than younger families, and we think
it'll work out. Dan did mention the fact that we need a waiver on the road because the road, loop
road system is in excess of 1,000 feet. I think staff notes said it's 1200 feet. It's actually 2200
feet, and we'd like to have that, you know, understanding that that is something that's
acceptable. We were here before, and I don't know if you have a separate file on this or not.
We did show a simple horseshoe, and that didn't allow use of a conservation subdivision, or
didn't allow much open space. It would have allowed less of a waiver, or required less of a
waiver, but basically we're talking about an area that we don't anticipate any traffic queue except
to serve the 29 lots. I mean, there's no outlet behind it. There won't be any outlet behind it.
Not even the (lost words) if it's not already developable, is not something that can attach.
There's some open land I think on the west side, but there's quite a bank going up to that west
land. So I don't think they'd ever be able to incorporate that or bring that into the subdivision.
So we're talking about people who will basically being entering just their own home site. They
won't be using it as a bypass or something of that nature. So we will talk to the Fire Marshal
and get his input on that, and we think that we won't have a significant problem, but that waiver
is very necessary in order to go forward with this design. We'd like to get your thoughts on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there less pavement on this design than there was on the horseshoe
shaped road?
MR. RYAN-It's probably close, but it may be slightly less, but not much, maybe a couple 100
feet overall length.
MR. KREBS-I think of all the traffic that's on Sweet Road already, having only one egress is
much better than having two in a short space. I like this design much better than the previous
design.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the ingress/egress is a boulevard type thing. You're going to have one
side in, one side out.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think you've got enough room to do that. You've got to have 20
feet.
MR. RYAN-Yes. That was one of the, the Fire Marshal did send a memo. I think I've got that,
regarding the fire access.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you've got 14 feet with a mall down the middle. That's not going to
fly.
MR. RYAN-Yes, he'd be requiring a minimum 20 foot road width per that Code there. We can
easily work that in to a 60 foot right of way. That's certainly not a problem. So we would make
that modification, obviously, to satisfy that requirement.
MR. KREBS-And the homeowners association will be included in the deeds to the (lost words)?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There's very specific requirements in your conservation regulations
that's mandatory membership that there be provisions for maintenance of the common areas,
that it be perpetual, that the common areas not be later developed for other purposes, and all
that gets worked into the homeowners association. Each owner has one boat and that type of
thing. It's very specific, and we'll probably have a second layer that's not in there that says,
deals with maintenance, and we will do the outside maintenance of all the homes, lawn care,
snow removal, and the garbage pickup. The homeowners association is going to get a discount.
You get one contractor to come in and do all the homes. It's a substantial savings, actually,
we're doing one in South Glens Falls, and the people's savings on their normal pickup is a good
portion of what they pay for the homeowners association , which includes insurances, the taxes
you have to pay and everything else. I'm not sure, in Queensbury, if they will tax that property
separately. Some towns will simply say that each of the houses benefit a little bit by having it so
we're going to bump each of your lots by $500 or $1,000 in assessment, then you don't run into
taxes on the homeowners association parcels. It spreads it evenly through the whole
subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-So this is a proposed Town road, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the average selling price for a house in there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cerrone?
MR. FORD-While he's up here, how many bedrooms are anticipated per unit?
AL CERRONE
MR. CERRONE-Hi, I'm Al Cerrone. We're going to try to keep the numbers under 300.
MR. FORD-Typical number of bedrooms?
MR. CERRONE-Probably three.
MR. FORD-Three?
MR. CERRONE-Yes.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-You're talking ranches, 13 to 1600 feet, plus a two car garage, something in
that area.
MR. HUNSINGER-So are these single story or a story and a half?
MR. CERRONE-It could be a story and a half, yes. Sometimes we'll do a loft upstairs with a
couple of bedrooms, a single bathroom.
MR. OBORNE-1 will say, if I could chime in, one of the issues that you have with smaller lots is
the placement of pools, sheds and the like. So, you know, that should be considered when
these conservation subdivisions are being designed. It's really tight now with the lots.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. KREBS-Of course the fact that they have water and sewer as part of the project is going to
eliminate some of those problems, because otherwise you'd have septic systems all over the
backyard.
MR. OBORNE-That's true. You still have to meet the setbacks of the zone.
MR. FORD-Could we go back to the anticipated, the narrowest lot frontage and the widest,
please.
MR. RYAN-The minimum lot width we would propose is 98, okay. Because we're on a regular
circle, some of the lots on the other part of the circle would have a 90 foot minimum on the front,
but it would be more of 120 on the back, and then on the inner part of the circle it would be the
inverse of that, where the 90 would be on the back side of the property rather than the front. So
it's really constrained by the lengths of the proposed new road. Maintaining 135 feet (lost
words). So (lost word) foot setbacks and the front and back setbacks would (lost words), and
this is really driven by the typical designs.
MR. FORD-How do you anticipate the widening of the road to impact those lot sizes, particularly
frontage?
MR. RYAN-Well, the road widening is only really talking about the boulevard. The remainder of
the road is adequate. It's just the front entrance (lost words) road is a little narrower than the
minimum. So you will widen, we already have a 60 foot right of way proposed on the entry. So,
we'd be able to stay within that but we'll make the pavement a little bit wider.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've already got 30 feet. You've got 14 on each side of the center. So
you took the center of it and you've got 30 some odd feet, right, at the entrance way?
MR. RYAN-Yes. Right now we have 28 feet plus it's about 30, almost 35 feet in overall width.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, which is more than adequate.
MR. RYAN-So, you know, with the boulevard entrance, the purpose of that really serves kind of
a two-fold. One primary being safety, that if for whatever reason one side was to be blocked by
an accident or whatever the emergency was, emergency vehicles could still utilize the opposite
entrance or exit for access to the neighborhood. So we kind of like to divide them for that
purpose.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they still can now.
MR. RYAN-So our preference would be to have 20 feet of pavement on both sides of the (lost
words).
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there's enough room there that I can widen that on the outsides, leave
the boulevard portion.
MR. RYAN-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a nice, softer entrance coming in, too.
MR. RYAN-Yes, aesthetically it's a lot more pleasing.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-What I was about to comment on is usually I'm a real stickler for the 1,000
foot dead end roads, but in this design, I don't have a problem with it at all, because you only
have about 200 feet and then you get into a loop. So it's really.
MR. CERRONE-This is more, I mean, when we first laid it out, it's more of a desirable private
entrance, heavily wooded street in that area. So you're really not even going to see the homes
in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-Could you address the areas of stormwater retention, please.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. RYAN-We did do some conceptual design. I'm sure we reserved enough space for
stormwater control, obviously, we will have to maintain the standard for stormwater design.
MR. FORD-That could be a challenge in that area, could it not?
MR. RYAN-It could be. I mean, we're anticipating, we've already anticipated off site runoff from
that northwest higher ground. You'll see that we do have a couple of basins proposed along that
left side of the development. Those are intended to basically cut off what's coming from off the
property, and potentially convey it around or infiltrate it. We have great sandy soils, no
groundwater, shallow groundwater issues. So we do anticipate a considerable amount of
infiltration in the design. We'll have to meet, you know, green infrastructure requirements per
DEC manual, and we will have some challenges there, but we feel, we have two larger basins
that we're just showing kind of in conglomerate right now which may be a multitude of types of
systems utilized to meet the standard. So we have those two larger areas. If it becomes
necessary, we do have some ability to capture and treat some runoff within the development, so
we fragment some of that runoff and we will attempt to do that in that next stage of the design.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, it's mostly sand in that part of Town.
MR. RYAN-It's very porous sand.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would think that runoff would be managed.
MR. RYAN-It's very well accessibly drained soils.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's much higher than the lower in the Sweet Road. The bike path is (lost
words).
MR. RYAN-Yes. I think the wetlands are about 40 feet lower in elevation than where our road
would be.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The trailer park is at the other end, right?
MR. RYAN-The west side.
MR. FORD-West.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it's off of Montray Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you agree with us as far as the waiver and the length of the road and what
is your position on the sidewalks?
MR. KREBS-I personally don't see any need for sidewalks. I live in Hiland. We have no
sidewalk. Everybody walks every day, and nobody has any problems whatsoever. I mean, you
know, it has a lot of traffic, it's just people who live there. So I don't see a need for sidewalks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments?
MR. KREBS-The other big problem with sidewalks is that somebody eventually has to maintain
them.
MR. O'CONNOR-Will the Town do that for them?
MR. FORD-In this instance, I would concur with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Could we go forward with our design based upon this road layout and no
sidewalks?
MR. KREBS-That's what I would do.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the setbacks. I mean, I'll tell you my opinion on the sidewalks. I agree
with Mr. Krebs. Small subdivisions like this that's going to have small lots, you know, you're
going to know your neighbors. I don't see any issue. Sweet Road, however, that would be
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
different. I mean, I travel Sweet Road a lot in the summertime going back and forth to work, and
I almost nailed somebody one day because there's a tree that's overgrowing into the road, and
the person was actually behind the tree so I couldn't see them, and they stepped out from
behind this tree just as I was coming up on them.
MR. CERRONE-By my property?
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a car coming the other way, and one more step and they would
have been on my bumper.
MR. O'CONNOR-We intend to keep all the trees that we can between Sweet Road and the
development for the privacy of the development.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where's that guy going to park his log truck?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I was wondering, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-He'll call you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have a little spot off to the side of the entrance, right? To pull over. Are
there any concerns, I'm the only one that really spoke, about the road length. Does anybody
have any concerns about the waiver request for the road?
MR. FORD-Not with this layout. I like this. A lot of thought and consideration from several
different angles have gone into this plan. I like it.
MR. SIPP-Who's responsible for putting in the sewage line?
MR. RYAN-We are.
MR. TRAVER-The only comment I would have is just the thought that we have looked at
conceptual plans requiring waivers in the past and not had a problem with them, and the Zoning
Board has had a problem with them. So our discussions have, I guess, a limited amount of
weight as far as the final plan is concerned. But with that being acknowledged.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think these two waivers are within the Planning Board's discretion.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don't think that they would need to go to the ZBA.
MR. O'CONNOR-We do not need to go to the Zoning Board on that.
MR. OBORNE-That's correct. You have the ability to waive the waiver request.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Or grant the waiver request, I should say.
MR. O'CONNOR-If I remember right, the original writing of the conservation provisions gave you
the right to waive or set your own setbacks. It didn't give you the right to set your own lot width.
But anyway, we ended up going to the Town Board at the same time (lost words) the sewer, and
they changed their regulations to give you full discretion to handle both setbacks and lot width.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, I would add one more thing. I don't know if you've had any discussions
with Mike Travis on this. I know initially you did, in order to skinny roads up.
MR. RYAN-Yes. I mean, his preference has been to stick in the 24 foot range. He likes the two
foot wings. So we'll give him the typical design that he.
MR. OBORNE-You'll give him 20 with two foot wings?
MR. RYAN-Yes, that he prefers, and that's what he prefers.
MR. OBORNE-And also, I mean, there are quality of life issues that are being presented right
now, paths, a bench or a couple of benches along those lines. So, again, sidewalks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think the previous sketch plan there were actually amenities in the
recreation field in the back. I think there was like a playground or something.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe there was, some type of field, a ball field or something along those
lines.
MR. CERRONE-Yes, there was, but the problem, again, the more we get into this, is I'm going
to refer back to the homeowners association liabilities and stuff like that. So it kind of got out of
control with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we're trying to minimize any kind of liability situations.
MR. MAGOWAN-Really just a bocce ball field, whatever the older people want to play, right?
Get the basketball court out of there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, the amenities that you provide are going to help us
steer the market.
MR. CERRONE-You know, you put some benches in there, a couple of barbecue, whatever,
you know, you've got people could use it for their own family parties or whatever. We're going to
keep it mowed down, keep it looking good.
MR. O'CONNOR-They can later make improvements to it.
MR. FORD-At what percentage of ownership will it be turned over to the HOA?
MR. O'CONNOR-Five years from the time of the first sale or 80% of sales as they occur. The
board of directors will turn it over to members of the homeowners association. Until that time,
the developer has control of the buildings.
MR. KREBS-Just so everybody knows, on A-183 50, waivers, "The Planning Board may waive,
when reasonable, any requirements or improvements for the approval, approval with
modifications or disapproval of subdivisions submitted for its approval. Any such waiver, which
shall be subject to appropriate conditions, may be exercised in the event any such requirements
or improvements are found not to be requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and
general welfare or inappropriate..", but that gives us the right to waive.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Just to go back to one of Keith's comments about sheds and things
like that, have you given that any thought?
MR. CERRONE-Well, you don't have septics in the back. So, you know, actually, before we
did, not, I don't believe sheds have to meet the 30 foot setback.
MR. OBORNE-If they're greater than 120 square feet they do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, it depends on the size.
MR. CERRONE-So when we do our deed restrictions, we'll limit the size of the shed that they
can put in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-To 10 by 10, so they can have a 100 square feet.
MR. CERRONE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You really can't put pools or anything in there, you're going to be encroaching
on some of the green space.
MR. CERRONE-Depending on some of the lots. I mean, you know, listen, some of these
ranches are not, stick the garage out front. We're doing them now they're like 45, 50 feet wide.
So you shift it over, you've got 10 foot sideline setbacks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CERRONE-So you can manage, if you want, and there's no septics.
MR. O'CONNOR-And if there's a maintenance program, I don't know how much (lost words) for
sheds.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. O'CONNOR-People may have gardens. They're going to own the lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when you say there's going to be maintenance, the homeowners
association is going to take care of the individual lots.
MR. CERRONE-That's right, the lawns and snow removal and trash, all done.
MR. FORD-But the lots themselves will be individually owned by the homeowners.
MR. CERRONE-The people will own them.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's an interesting concept.
MR. MAGOWAN-What about fertilizing and all that stuff?
MR. CERRONE-We're going to do that, too. We're doing it now down in South Glens Falls.
MR. OBORNE-Just make sure all that gets fleshed out at Preliminary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-If they want to change their flower beds or something.
MR. CERRONE-They can, you know something, we even have some customers that want to
add some flowers in or something, no big deal. It depends, if they want to put a whole thing in,
you know, they've got to be a little reasonable, too, with what they're doing. Yet, again, we have
a customer that does his own vegetable garden. He takes care of that himself.
MR. O'CONNOR-We may sprinkle it.
MR. CERRONE-We are.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I spoke when you were talking, but I said maybe you could put in a
community garden. Because that is, you know, becoming a popular thing.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, back in the open space over here.
MR. CERRONE-Yes. The homeowners can get together and do their own thing. That's true,
though, that community garden would be a good thing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Any suggestions, this is a time for us to listen to you as much as anything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I like the design. Unfortunately I wasn't here for the first one that you
came in with, but I'd have to swing my weight with the rest of the Boards and say I'll like this one
much better. So I remember we used to call it the pit back when I was a kid, but, no, I mean, if
you, you know what I remember what it looked like back in '79, '80, I think would be a nice
addition over there on Sweet Road.
MR. RYAN-Sidewalks and what were the other, road length, and just to approve lot sizes and
setbacks that we're proposing. Because that is within your discretion for a conservation
subdivision.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's going to be the name on the sign?
MR. CERRONE-I don't know. Haven't thought of that yet.
MR. FORD-Cerrone city.
MR. CERRONE-Cerrone.
MR. O'CONNOR-Keith, there's one comment in your comments about the view presentation.
MR. OBORNE-I would say as far as the view presentation goes, there's not much of a view, so
that's what that speaks to, if there are any features that are seen from where the houses are
being built, you would want to have them present that.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, it's always helpful to see some elevations, you know,
building plan elevations, you know, colors, building colors would be another.
MR. CERRONE-Dan does all my blueprints for me.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it's fine.
MR. FORD-I like it.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks good. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thanks.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 74-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 351 BAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE
ADDITION OF 3 POLE MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURES AND ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT ON THE
NORTH SIDE. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 68-10, AV 57-10
WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
296.20-1-55 SECTION 179-9
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Adirondack Retirement Specialists. Site Plan 74-2012. This is a modification to
an approved site plan, and as such requires this Board's approval. Location is 351 Bay Road.
CI is the existing zoning. This is a Type 11 SEAR. Warren County Referral is No County Impact
the last month. Project Description: Applicant proposes an after the fact modification to an
approved site plan to include addition of 3 pole mounted light fixtures and 51 square feet of
additional pavement on the north side adjacent to wheelchair lift. Additional comments:
Permeability calculations have been updated to reflect changes to southeast parking area as
well as the new pavement near lift. According to the applicant's agent, calculation of lumens
from installed lamps not possible due to low level of lighting. So I don't know if you all visited the
site. There's three ornamental lights and a little bit of pavement.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I was there today just as it got dark, and the lights from the light pole next
door are significantly greater than the light that's coming from, in fact, I would have almost
questioned whether there shouldn't have been a little more light, but.
MR. OBORNE-The thinking to bring this to the Planning Board was specifically because of the
lights, not so much the pavement because the permeability calculations are okay, and with that
I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski-Hall
Architecture. As Keith said and Mr. Krebs said, during construction of this project, if you recall it
was Dr. Wasserman's office, and the folks from Adirondack Retirement Specialists bought the
property, updated it, we went through site plan review, initially took away the cross traffic
through there. As they were going through and doing the construction, they decided that, hey,
some ornamental lights along this walkway would look nice, and they just all of a sudden sprung
up there and unbeknownst to me, here they are. They are, each one is on a six foot pole. Each
light itself has two 25 watt candelabra style bulbs in them. The manufacturer, I did include the
manufacturer's cut sheet. The manufacturer does not have a lumen count for that. They don't
have the photometrics for it. They weren't available. I actually went out there with a light meter,
with my light engineer, with my electrical engineer, and took the light reading with the light meter
and then we shut the lights off and the light meter didn't change. So there's really no discernible
change to the lighting increase. They are pretty much strictly ornamental, and we do have quite
a bit of spill coming over from AAA and a significant amount that comes over from Lowe's. So
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
these are pretty much ornamental more than anything else. They don't really add much to the
stumble lighting on the site.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm more interested, how many more times are you going to move that sign on
the corner?
MR. HALL-That one's coming back later. That's somebody else.
MR. KREBS-Well, probably the owner would want to make it so that it can be seen from the
road.
MR. HALL-From both directions, and from what I understand.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they should have just put it up on the building right there on the
washboard in the middle.
MR. HALL-In the middle on the front, yes. I know that Holly Wheeler's been dealing with that.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's where Holly wanted to put it, too, because I yelled over at the light one
day. I'm like, how many times are you going to move that sign.
MR. HALL-I think they've got some stakes in the ground.
MR. OBORNE-I think they're done. The sign's in, but it's going to be after the fact approval in
front of the Zoning Board.
MR. HALL-Right. I think they're in front of the Zoning Board next month. Right? Yes. I ran into
Holly downstairs when I was submitting this.
MR. MAGOWAN-The lights, geez, I really didn't even notice the lights until I saw the package
and I had to drive by and I'm like, they're ornamental more than anything else.
MR. HALL-And the additional 51 feet of paving is right where, it's between where they put the
new entry walkway and the handicapped parking space. We had a drip line in there that came
off from the new roof line and the paver was in there paving and he said, I'm just going to pave
up to this and we'll take the stormwater with it, and it didn't increase our impermeability by a
significant amount, 51 square feet didn't amount to a whole lot.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, they did a beautiful job renovating that building.
MR. HALL-I kind of included the before and after shot in the package, just to give everybody
kind of a feel. They did a nice job.
MR. HUNSINGER-You kind of forget how bad it used to be.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional comments or questions from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Just, too, that any lighting in that area is going to (lost words) immediate area
either, so, we've got more light coming from Lowe's and AAA than.
MR. HALL-Than we put out, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Lowe's was one of the first big projects that we did when I was on the
Planning Board, and I think anyone who was on the Board at that time would say we should
have done it differently, and I mean, I go to Lowe's all the time. I'm a big customer of Lowe's.
MR. HALL-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's not the issue.
MR. HALL-But there is a lot of light there.
MR. HUNSINGER-The light is especially excessive.
MR. OBORNE-Ingress and egress there is horrific.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. OBORNE-That's just my opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 agree.
MR. FORD-On your photos it shows such an improvement, I won't even challenge you on the
cement building post constriction rather than construction.
MR. HALL-Yes. Spelling's not my forte.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for this project. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show, no comments were received. It is a Type 11
SEAR. Unless there are other comments or questions from the Board, I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #74-2012 ADK. RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan to include addition of 3 pole mounted
light fixtures and additional pavement on the north side. Modification to an approved site plan
zone requires Planning Board review and approval
SEAR Type I I-no further action required;
Warren Co. recommendation-11/15/2012 - No County Impact
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/27/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 74-2012 ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT
SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions:
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) 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.
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
Duly adopted this 27th day of November 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Nice job, yes, it's a nice project.
SITE PLAN NO. 77-2012 SEAR TYPE MARCIA PARKER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 SPERRY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A
300 FOOT LONG, 6 FOOT WIDE GRAVEL PATH ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%.
FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40' X 8' (320 SQ. FT.) GRAVEL TURN-AROUND
ADJACENT TO THE HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING & FILLING WITHIN
50 FEET OF SHORELINE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 04-106 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT
SIZE 2.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-8 SECTION 179-9
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 77-2012, give me one second. Site Plan 77-2012, applicant is
Marcia Parker. Requested action is site plan review for hard surfacing and filling within 50 feet
of a shoreline. Location is 11 Sperry Road. Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. This
is a Type II SEAR. No further action is required. Project Description: Applicant proposes to
construct a 300 foot long, 6 foot wide gravel path on slopes in excess of 20%. Further, applicant
proposes a 40' x 8' gravel turn-around adjacent to the Hudson River shoreline. Staff
Comments: Much fill in the form of rubble has been placed within the proposed location of the
path and appears to be stabilized. The current slope, at least up to the drop off will need to be
graded further down for slope gradation purposes, resulting in an increased slope percentage
approaching 33%. Bank slopes approach 1:1. I think it's obvious what the real issues are
here, and that would be stabilization, at this point in time. You do have engineering comments
attached, and specifically slope stabilization and bank stabilization should be your focus. With
that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I'm here with Marcia
Parker and her husband Rick Rosoff. The applicants own the property at 11 Sperry Road. It is
nearly a two acre parcel, 1.9 acres. The intent, the reason we're here, is over the past few years
they've been in the process of attempting to develop some reasonable and safe access to the
shoreline of the Hudson River from their property. There's a little bit of a vertical challenge in
that accomplishment. Presently the access is by wooden stairway. I think I submitted some
photos with the application. There are 97 steps. No landings. It's intimidating. It's unsafe, and
we're trying to improve the access. They do use the river frequently for kayaks and canoes and
swimming. The proposal we're showing kind of looks more like a road than the intent. The
intent here is to be a walking path, but it's their desire that occasionally this path would be
something that they could take an ATV down, but again, the intent is to be a path and not a road.
There is, the area has been, there has been some work done in the area. Some of the fill has
been placed. There are, I think there's six or seven trees that would require removal in order to
implement this, and we feel it's the best approach we can come up with to accomplish what they
want to do as well as preserve the area and get some access there long term, and, Marcia, do
you want to add anything on the?
MARCIA PARKER
MS. PARKER-Yes. Good evening. Hi, I'm Marcia, and I've been living there like eight years
now and it's beautiful right on the Hudson, and it's challenging, the 100 stairs, to go down, and.
MR. FORD-Probably more challenging coming back up.
MS. PARKER-Yes. So I'm just trying to get some other way to get down there, and this is the
best way, instead of just building 100 more stairs, because it would really not improve much to
put another set of stairs there, but we're looking to get down there and swim and canoe and
kayak and that's what we're looking to do. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that you wanted to add?
RICK ROSOFF
MR. ROSOFF-It's just that we're not getting any younger, you know, a few years ago the stairs,
getting up the stairs, wasn't such an issue. The stairs have been deteriorating over the past few
years, and now we're at a point where these are not going to be here much longer, and they're
challenging and unsafe as it is. We could negotiate them then. So we really need to look at
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
doing something, and this access way down would be the safest, especially as we get older.
Replacing the stairs or building a new set of stairs would still be quite a challenge, and that bed
that the stairs are on is quite steep. Steeper than the rest.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 would add one other comment. The path will be relatively steep from a
vehicular standpoint, 33%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HUTCH INS-Certainly that's not bad walking. It's very steep for a vehicle, and again, the
vehicular use is occasional, and it's ATV. It's not motor vehicle. We did look at some options.
We had a serpentine option going down there that was, I think, 12 or 14%, but it really, it was a
whole lot of work, and more fill and the disturbance went way out and it just didn't make sense.
This really minimizes the disturbance and still accomplishes what we need to accomplish.
MR. MAGOWAN-Have you looked into a cable car and rail? I've seen some of those up on the
lake on some of the, I mean, just a suggestion for you. I mean, to me, you already have the
steps there. You take them out, you lay them down, and two way button both sides. It seems
like pretty much the same pitch. You get down there. I almost think that would be less
expensive.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know. I don't know that we've looked into that.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's just an option. Like I say, it's a straight shot down right now. You don't
have to disturb anything and you get all different sizes, you know, two, three people, it all
depends on the size of the motor, and you can bring it right up into the cage, right to the house,
right off the deck. I've seen those up on the lake where they're, you know, there've been steep
grades down and it's setting some rails down and, boom, you're right down at the bottom and
you get off and get back in, close the gate, and you forgot something. I'm not saying it's going to
be a turbo ride, but you know what I'm saying, you know it's a lot easier, something to look into,
if you were looking at different options. I'm just looking at that with the stabilization and all the,
you know, with the engineering and the digging and the cutting, and then the maintaining. I
mean, if you have a big storm and it washes out, you're going to have to fix that, and it is steep,
and as we get older, being an ATV and snowmobile rider, the steepness, sometimes I look at
that and say, yes, I used to do that. I'm not doing that anymore. Thanks, though, you know, so,
it just is an option, a suggestion.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How far is it to either side before somebody else has access to the river,
like your neighbors? How far up would you have to go to have access down to the river?
MR. HUTCHINS-Do you know?
MS. PARKER-How far, you mean to the next neighbor are you asking?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, let's say something happened in the river and somebody wanted to
get access to the river, this is one way to go, but not the best way. Where is the nearest access
to the river?
MS. PARKER-Probably, you mean like the public one?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, whatever, let's say emergency access.
MS. PARKER-The way we get to the river now is we go all the way down to the Queensbury
park by the Northway there. That's how we get a canoe in and out.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, but what he's saying is do you have a neighbor that has a closer access
where if an emergency vehicle or something had to come in, they could pull in there instead of
going all the way up to the Town access. Is that what you're asking, Paul?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MS. PARKER-Not that I'm aware of.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I thought. I just wanted to check.
MS. PARKER-Yes, not that I'm aware of.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because almost every time something happens you have to go down to
the Town park to get access to the river.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MS. PARKER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This side of the Northway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I'd just reinforce what you said, because I just came back from Annapolis,
Maryland this past week and along the Severance River there are probably 40 people who have
those elevators that go up, because they have the same problem as you do along the Hudson
where you have very steep banks, and so they have put these elevators in and it makes it very
easy to get back and forth to your landing area.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, they're great if you've got (lost words).
MR. KREBS-And a lot less maintenance.
MR. TRAVER-Can you comment on the engineering comments, particularly regarding the
stormwater infiltration and those issues?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I don't foresee that there is anything that we can't overcome. I will make
some revisions. We may try to squeeze the disturbance a little to minimize, and I will have to
make some revisions. I believe that we can come to some form of agreement. I mean, it's
going to take a little work. It's going to take some revision.
MR. OBORNE-1 would ask the Board, before, you know, you send the applicant down that path,
are you comfortable with that type of access, or would you prefer what you're offering, a ramp
system, and I don't know if the applicant's comfortable with that, either. I just don't want to
waste time with the engineers going back and forth if you're not on board with this.
MR. FORD-Good point.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, if they're comfortable with the pitch, you know, in my opinion it's their
property. I do believe it's steep.
MR. KREBS-But it's not like it's a public way where you worry about other people. It's only the
people that own it that are going to be using it, and their guests, of course.
MR. OBORNE-1 wasn't by any stretch of the imagination trying to limit the applicants' use of their
property. It is more in the vein of this is a difficult project, and if you impart to the applicant that,
you know, maybe you ought to go somewhere else, that would be fine. If the applicant obviously
wants to do this, then knock yourself out. It's just going to be difficult.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that's why I was questioning the engineering. It's going to be a real
challenge.
MR. FORD-What are your reactions to Mr. Magowan's recommendation that you consider a rail
system?
MR. TRAVER-That would certainly.
MS. PARKER-I think they cost like $20,000. So that's a challenge right there, because I know
someone along the river's got one, because I was canoeing by and I saw it and I was like, whoa,
you know, that's the key right there. So I looked at it and it's like $20,000 to do that. So that
deterred me a little bit. It wasn't a cable. It was like a little train, you know, the chair goes up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's a cable.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've seen the other ones with the cables, with the platform and the wheels
over the top, and they go up like that and a motor pulls them up. That's a lot cheaper.
MS. PARKER-Okay. This was like a chair on a rail.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know if you'd want to be on it riding up and down, but people do.
MS. PARKER-Yes. So that's what deterred me from that a little, the $20,000.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. MAGOWAN-What do you think this road's going to cost?
MS. PARKER-I have a contractor who will do that type of work for like $10,000.
MR. MAGOWAN-Really?
MS. PARKER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a lot of engineering work.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to caution Board members that price really isn't an issue for us
when we consider site plan review. It is for the applicant, but it isn't for us.
MR. TRAVER-The rail system isn't the application that's before us.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Well, I just threw it out there.
MR. TRAVER-It's a good point, very good point, and that certainly would, I mean, not being an
engineer, but conceptually it seems like that would address a lot of the engineering issues. I
MR. KREBS-Well, and of course how much maintenance is going to be involved in maintaining
this, that's going to be a cost factor also.
MR. OBORNE-Both, if they were to go with the other system, the rail system, there's probably
maintenance on that, too.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's something, I mean, that's something we can look into.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-We're certainly willing to do that, and we may come back and say that doesn't
work for this reason or that reason, but we did look at it. We're willing to do that.
MR. MAGOWAN-In the meantime, what do we do, work on the engineering comments?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, we'll work on, we're willing to look into your suggestion, and who
knows, if that works, we may come back with that. If not, then we'll work on the engineering.
MR. SIPP-Engineering wise, would a zigzag trail be better?
MR. HUTCHINS-It wouldn't be as steep.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-The disturbance would be greater, much greater.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you can cut around trees. I mean, you can put your, if you broke the 33%
slope you've got here, it would be more attractive, I think, for people to walk up and down.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we can get the slope under 20%, doing switchbacks. I've got it
concepted, but it wasn't an attractive look because of the, it just gets wide, and you end up with
a whole lot of earthwork to switchback, more trees, and I mean, we've got very minimal cutting
involved here, and we don't want a swath up the side of the hill.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, we heard some comments about maintenance of the
proposal. Do you have any comments on that, what your feeling is?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't foresee it. I mean, the area that's there was filled, four or five years ago,
and it's very stable. I don't foresee long term maintenance as, once established, as being a
tremendous effort. I mean, yes, we've got to get vegetation going and get good solid vegetation
going, and it's very stable right now.
MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think our storms are going to be getting any lighter, you know. I think
we've taken a turn in our weather that our storms are being, you know, greater, and they hit
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
harder. That's my only concern. So, not like the whole thing's going to get washed out, but you
might have some areas that, you know, so there will be some maintenance.
MR. HUTCHINS-There will be some, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's the only point I think we're trying to bring up and another suggestion I
would get out, nothing against Rick, I know Rick. I'd go out and get just a couple of other
estimates,just so you make sure. I hate to see you get into a project and find out it's going to be
more money once you're into it. So in my opinion, being in the building trade for as long as I
have, ten grand is not a whole lot of money for what I'm seeing and what I'm reading, you know.
MR. TRAVER-And the engineering isn't over yet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. So it's kind of hard to get someone an estimate, you know, looking at
the pictures. So I'd just hate to see you get stuck. So I'm just throwing out all the options.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. At least one person wanted to comment. The purpose of the
public hearing is for interested parties to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone
who wants to comment to state their name for the record. We do tape the meeting. The tape
is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website. So you can
hear back any of the meetings that would held, and I would also ask that you address any of
your questions or comments to the Board. Ma'am, do you want to come up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAT SPERRY
MRS. SPERRY-Hi, good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MRS. SPERRY-My name's Pat Sperry. I am a neighbor of Marcia's. I have no objections to her
plan. I'd actually welcome it because I'm older than she is and I have very much difficulty. We
just have a sand path. There are other private roads, further upstream, that probably have
greater pitch than what she's proposing, and they've been there for a long time. They're usually
seasonal. They're for summer camps. So I think she's got a good grasp of the situation. The
few trees that she would have to take down, because this tends to be in a bit of a ravine, will not
denude the landscape. So it'll preserve the nice wooded area that we have in there. So I just
wanted to say, as a personal neighbor, that I have no objections for their plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you.
MRS. SPERRY-You're welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? We will leave the public hearing open,
because I think we're going to be tabling this.
MR. OBORNE-Just for the record, there's no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. I was about to ask. I guess the only question is what
meeting we would table this to.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 mean, if January's more convenient for the Board, I guess we could do that.
We're not going to build it this year.
MR. FORD-You're not going to build it this winter anyway.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's right.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 haven't seen the agendas for January, for December, but you said they
were full.
MR. OBORNE-They're full, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there projects that have been bumped?
MR. OBORNE-Just one at this point. We may be able to grab that one and put it on.
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a preference on which meeting from January? The 15th
or the 22nd.
MS. PARKER-I don't have a preference in January, thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not going to be in Florida?
MS. PARKER-No.
MR. HUTCHINS-The 15th, I guess. I'm here already.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, that was what I was going to say. You're also going to look at
other options and engineering.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a 300 foot long, 6 foot wide gravel path on slopes in excess of
20%. Further, applicant proposes a 40' x 8' (320 sq. ft.) gravel turn-around adjacent to the
Hudson River shoreline. Hard surfacing & filling within 50 feet of shoreline in a WR zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Tabled to January 15, 2013 meeting.
Duly adopted this 27th day of November 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We will see you in a couple of months. Happy Holidays. Is there any other
business to be brought before this Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, I've been thinking, I stopped in and I spoke to Keith, and I was trying
to save, I asked Keith what we have to maybe like simplify a few things to, like in the one
particular case with Larry Clute on his lot size, the resolutions we went through, as to how we
could, you know, get him to cut down on the cost on the engineering, to be able to get them like
they're asking for the particular size to, we could get them to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So
instead of having a full-fledged environmental to go there to find out that they have to spend
more money to, you know, to get all the agreement to come back to see us to go back to them,
you know, how we could get maybe some of these preliminaries, some of these sketches, to be
able to get over to the zoning without having all the full-fledged just to get an okay on, say, the
lot size or do you like this particular concept, without, you know, going through all the monies
and the engineering, and I was told that's the way the law was drawn up and that's the way we
have to do it, and I was approached by a few other builders on trying, that's not had my, kind of
the thoughts that I was in, and that's what's prompted me to speak up more because I've been
approached, you know, again. So I was asking what your thoughts are. I mean, being a builder
for the years that I've been into, and just knowing the added costs or the time delays and
everything else that goes into the process that we have, you know, I was wondering, you know,
what we could do, well, I kind of know what we have to do, but, you know, (lost words) to maybe
change a few things to make it, make our Town a little bit more builder friendly, in the sense of
getting some approvals, but then on the other hand, not as friendly to be taken advantage of by
people that don't follow through with what we've asked.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds to me like maybe you're suggesting a workshop? Is that?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I don't know if it's a workshop, but, I mean, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-And you characterize it as a talk. I'd say that it was more of an ambush.
MR. MAGOWAN-Keith, I'm so sorry you felt that way. I'll bake you some Christmas cookies.
MR. OBORNE-But with that said, you're bound by New York State DEC laws, and specifically
the law of environmental review, and if you have a Type I SEAR, you cannot issue that
recommendation until we have a complete application. That's really what it comes down to.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, he's going for a lot size. He's got somewhat of an application.
He's going for a lot size, just to see if he can get approval for that particular lot size, which I
believe we kind of said we really didn't really think it would be a problem because it wasn't that,
they weren't that much smaller. Well, come to find out they didn't like it, period.
MR. OBORNE-Well, to actually answer the question, I mean, there is a mechanism in place right
now, and that is the combined Board meetings that we're doing. We're doing that for across the
street. We did ask the applicant if they wanted to be party to that, whereas they could have had
both Boards insitu that night and we could have discussed it after Queensbury Partners. They
elected not to do that. What they elected to do is they could go ahead and do the engineering
on that specific one at this point. One other issue I would point out, the applicant, I understand
that the cost of business, believe me, I hear it every day, what the cost of business is to
developers, and to mom and pop organizations and to Johnny Homeowner, but the bottom line
is is the applicant came in seeking relief from the Zoning Code, and that just kicks that
mechanism off. If the applicant came in with a compliant plan, we wouldn't be, we wouldn't have
this issue whatsoever. Now I understand the Zoning Board's there as a relief valve. I mean,
absolutely, and it's their prerogative, but the protocols are such that it would be very difficult to
complete an environmental review, a proper environmental review, without a complete
application in this case.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but it's not like they're coming in proposing the whole project. You know
what I'm saying? I mean, they still have to come back to us after, like, we've said, all right, we're
going to give you a preliminary recommendation to go and see if your lot size is all right. I mean,
what do you need engineering for that? Are you going to accept our lot sizes or not, it's a yes,
no question.
MR. OBORNE-And I agree 1,000 percent. Again, it is the SEAR law that kicks in. It's a Type I
SEAR in this case. If it was Unlisted, it may be different. There's a lot of juggling that needs to
go.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just for lot size?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You can't render a decision unless you've accomplished SEAR.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-The Zoning Board cannot render a decision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So how can, I mean, we're just asking for, I mean, understand that, and then
they're going to come back and they'll say, all right, so say you go approved for those lots. Now
we can do all the engineering and dump all the money that he can, then he comes for SEAR.
They have to have SEAR just to get a recommendation on the lot size?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that's how that works. All right.
MR. TRAVER-That's not the Town of Queensbury. That's the State of New York.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we've talked about this before with the stormwater plans, how,
you know, the State is pushing down mandates and, you know, backdooring requirements that,
you know, we don't have. Is there anything else that?
MR. TRAVER-Well, the only other comment I would add is that the more easily developed land
in this Town is largely (lost words). So I think these issues are going to be confronting us more
and more, and the environmental concerns, I think, are going to need greater attention, not less.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree.
MR. TRAVER-So there's going to be more challenges.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. OBORNE-You're getting more and more of those 15% slopes within 50 feet of a shoreline.
We have more and more, we have a couple in the hopper right now.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When is that done, you know, we were talking about before, the meeting,
those apartments, when is, is that on the?
MR. OBORNE-That's coming up in December.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In December?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the one I was talking about.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It's Cottage Hill.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-He's amended the plan. It does not require any Zoning Board approvals.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So it's coming in as a compliant plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Compliant subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-In the sense of the zoning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-However, whether the Planning Board wishes for the plan to go forward,
obviously, is a different story.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's nothing else.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?
MR. OBORNE-1 do have one thing. I do want to inform the Board that I have tendered my
resignation today. Okay. This may potentially be my last Board meeting. What will happen is
general staff will take over my (lost word) and will care of that. You guys are set through
December. It would be in January that that would have.
MR. MAGOWAN-What do you mean?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can't do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we're not going to let you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're not going to let you.
MR. MAGOWAN-We've just established a great working relationship and you're leaving us?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Sorry, and it's not anything personal.
MR. FORD-Yes, it wasn't that ambush that pushed you over?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. No, barring a miracle from the Town Board, I don't foresee any
more meetings here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just want to say I'm sorry to see you go.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, so am 1.
MR. FORD-I echo that.
MR. SIPP-What do you mean by asking the Town Board? Are they the ones who could turn
your thoughts around?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-1 did want to inform the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you, Keith, yes, it was the right thing to do. Yes. Well, on that
sad note, we did have a motion to adjourn. Was there a second?
MR. KREBS-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second by Mr. Krebs.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER
27, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
26