07-17-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
Q UEENSBUR YPLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRSTREGULAR MEETING
JULYI7Tr,2024
INDEX
Site Plan No. 11-2024 Patten Property Development,LLC 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 2S9.11-1-23
Site Plan No. 12-2024 Patten Property Development,LLC 7.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 2S9.11-1-59.312
Site Plan No. 36-2024 Stephen Haraden 10.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74
Subdivision No. 6-2024 Christopher Leonka 20.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 30S.6-2-7
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 29-2024 Daniel Zotto./Carrie Hedderman 22.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 2S9.9-1-S6
Site Plan No. 3S-2024 Ronald&Jill Barton 23.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-23
Site Plan No. 37-2024 Dave &Shannan Carroll 25.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-5
Site Plan No. 42-2024 Morgan Gazetos 27.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.20-1-19
Site Plan No. 39-2024 Benjamin Katz&Erin Barton 29.
Tax Map No. 2SS.-1-S6.22
Site Plan No. 44-2024 Wish Health,Inc./Movere,LLC 32.
Tax Map No. 303.20-1-5,303.20-1-4
Site Plan No. 40-2024 BBL Management,LLC 35.
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-S2.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17TK,2024
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN
FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY
BRADY STARK
DAVID DEEB
BRAD MAGOWAN
TOM UNCHER,ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
WARREN LONGACKER
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Wednesday,July 17`h, 2024. This is our first meeting for the month of July and our fifteenth
meeting thus far for the year. I can't really apologize for the weather,but I do want to reach out to Staff
and thank them very much for working so hard to re-arrange our meeting for a 24 hour delay and thanks
to all of the applicants and all of you that were willing to re-arrange your schedule to come in this evening.
The roads were passable and we were able to get together again. In the event of an emergency, please
make note of the illuminated exit signs. Those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other
electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that, so as not
to interfere with our recording of the minutes for the meeting,and other than public hearing,which we do
have three towards the end of the meeting, please don't have conversations amongst yourselves in the
actual meeting room. If you wish to, go out to the outer lobby for that, again,because we do record the
meeting to document the minutes of the meeting, and with that we'll begin. The first item is approval of
minutes for the three meetings we had in the month of May,that's May 14,May 16 and May 23rd. Do any
Board members have any corrections or updates to those minutes? Okay. We have a draft resolution.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 14`h,2024
May 16`h,2024
May 23rd,2024
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY
14`h, MAY 16h, AND MAY 23rd, 2024, Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ellen McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 16`h day of July,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-All right, and now we can move to our regular agenda. The first section is Tabled Items.
The first item is Patten Property Development,LLC. This is Site Plan 11-2024.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,482 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A 47 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK
AREA AND A 4,639 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE EXISTING HOME HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE LOT
SIZE FROM 12,690 SQ. FT. TO 18,200 SQ. FT. THE ADJUSTMENT ALLOWS FOR DIRECT
ACCESS TO HALL ROAD. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, WELL,
LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE DISTURBANCE. THE
PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE A NEW DOCK ON GLEN LAKE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-3-040&z 179-6-050,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN
50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS,HEIGHT,FLOOR AREA,ROAD
FRONTAGE, DOCK SETBACK, AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 9-2010, SP 14-2010, AV 15-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: 0.3 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23.
SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-050,179-6-065.
ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is back at recommendation. The applicant has revised the structure to
be 2,452 square feet with a 47 square foot porch/deck area and the floor area of 4,63E square feet. The
project includes a lot line adjustment from 12,690 square feet to IS,911 square feet and the reference to the
variances sought, shoreline setback, floor area,height,road frontage, number of garages, and a dock, a U
Shaped dock is proposed to be six feet. So there's a dock setback as well.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records,my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall
Architecture,here tonight representing Chris Patten,Patten Properties. So we were back before,we were
before you May I believe it was. We had a discussion about what Chris is looking to do. Some suggestions
were made as to ways that we could reduce the amount of variances that we were looking for. So we went
back to the drawing board,looked at,first of all we made the driveway completely permeable now. So it's
permeable pavement driveway. When I did my original calculation in the original application that you
have,I had to amend. I had used a 350/o credit for the permeability. Our number was fairly close at that
point. I got back in touch with Laura and she said that's actually 500/o. You get 500/o credit. So that
actually put us over. So our permeability variance went away. We made some modifications to the floor
plans to take away some of the roofs over deck areas so those don't have to count towards our floor area
ratio anymore. We reduced the size of the second floor,brought that down some. So we got rid of some
area above the garage. We got rid of some area within the children's bedrooms and made those a little
smaller,got our floor area ratio down. So 220/o is what's allowed. We're at 24 and change. We're just a
little over what's allowed, and everything else pretty much remains as we had done it. Obviously we're
looking for the extra garage space,simply because it has a garage door. It's for storage. It's for stuff coming
in off the lake and for the airplane.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Well as I recall in our discussion, one of the major concerns was the FAR,
the floor area ratio, and it looks, if my calculations are correct, and correct me if I'm wrong, it looks as
though the reduction with the updated plans are,you reduced the floor area ratio by 526 square feet. Is
that right?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So it went from 5,165 square feet down to 4,639,and with the expanded property size,the
new.
MR. HALL-Floor area ratio is 24.53.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay,maximum allowed is 4,160 and you're at 4,639. So 500 above the limit.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-I had a closer look at the property and was that lot pretty much clear cut?
MR. HALL-The lot on the lake? The lot on the lake really wasn't clear cut. They did take down some
trees there,but they took down the anything of the house that was there.
MR. MAG OWAN-Well,there's a pile of logs right up.
MR. HALL-That's mostly what came off of the hull.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. MAGOWAN-Across the street,across Hall Road,someone built a house,and we made them put that
on a two acre lot, and you want to put another house on the second one there on that little small lot. I
have some concerns with that, and also the dock. You follow that property line right down,you take a
straight line off that property line,it's like it's right on the edge of the boat,and you've got the jet skis right
there and the neighbor has a beach right there. Is there any way that we can maybe flipflop that dock
around?
MR. HALL-We can move the dock around. I had talked with Chris about that already and we can move
that around,and I think,correct me if I'm wrong,does the property line not go perpendicular to the lake?
MRS. MOORE-Typically.
MR. HALL-So we've got that shown,that we're perpendicular to the lakefront. The property.
MRS. MOORE-The property extension.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. HALL-It doesn't necessarily extend out if your line comes at an angle to the shoreline. It goes from
there perpendicular out into the lake. We've got our line shown there. We've got our dotted line shown,
and you're right, if you take the property line and go right straight and follow the property line out into
the lake,that would clip the corner.
MR. MAGOWAN-So what you're telling me is that the line's straight all the way down the property. It
hits the water,then it takes a jot out?
MR. HALL-It goes perpendicular to the shoreline.
MR. MAGOWAN-If you locate that iron pin.
MR. HALL-Yes,the surveyor's got it marked there.
MR. MAG OWAN-No,the iron pin under the water. I didn't know that the lines went out into the water,
because nobody really owns the water.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-The State does,so you would think that the line would just continue straight.
MR. HALL-Yes,they don't continue. It's been my understanding in the past that when the property line
hits the lake,then it goes perpendicular to the shoreline,not following,not converging,because those lines
would eventually converge somewhere out in the lake.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I just think that dock and the jet skis are just way too close. We make people put
sheds 20 feet off the property lines and stuff like that,and they're kind of right next to a beach. I mean not
that it's a public beach.
MR. HALL-Yes,it's Don and Sandy's beach.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I was looking at it and I was saying well geez maybe you could flipflop that
around.
MR. HALL-Potentially. I kind of have to keep the lift on that north side. That's the only way he can get
his plane out of the lake. He's got a personal aircraft.
MR. MAG OWAN-What lift,the jet ski lift or the boat lift?
MR. HALL-It's a boat lift. It's actually a plane. It's a platform that comes out of the lake.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. HALL-Up on the north side, and I talked to Chris, and he agreed that we can get to more of a U-
Shaped dock and push that south side up a little bit and get it farther away from the outside,but we can
make that change.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then what about planting? Do you have a planting?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. HALL-We do have planting plan. I have plantings shown along the shoreline. We have two trees
that are,two full sized trees that are shown there. There's already one in the corner and then we have low
plantings, shrubs and stuff, along the edge between the dock and the lawn area and then also going
between the two trees up the property line. We have shrub plantings along there as well.
MR. MAGOWAN-Everything was taken down before.
MR. HALL-They have a demolition permit to take the house down.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then they cut down all the trees.
MR. HALL-Everything that was behind there. The willow tree came down on its own. They didn't cut
that. That one came down,and,trust me,this was my wife's great-aunt's property.
MR. MAG OWAN-It's a pretty tough tree.
MR. HALL-It is. It was split in the middle, and my wife was not happy about that coming down. I've
already heard that at home.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you have nothing planned for the front shoreline area?
MR. HALL-As far as plantings go?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. HALL-Yes,we've got two trees shown there and then the shrubs shown in between the two trees.
The only place that wouldn't be landscaped is the access where they're bringing the plane in off the lake.
MR. TRAVER-And recall that we're here this evening for the variances,not for,we're not doing site plan
review tonight. That will come later.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry,I've been gone a month. I'm jumping ahead. Sorry,Ethan.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,this is for the.
MR. HALL-Recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-Whether we're ready to pass this on to the ZBA and make recommendation to them
regarding setbacks,permeability,setbacks,height,floor area,road frontage and number of garages. That's
what we're here tonight to review, whether we pass this on to the ZBA, if we're ready, and then it will
come back to us,assuming they get variances,and at that point we'll do the actual site plan review.
MR. DEEB-We have touched on Site Plan Review before it goes to zoning sometimes so that they get a
heads up so that when they come back they'll know.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Other questions,comments?
MR. STEFANZIK-I'm really not a fan of exceeding the floor area ratio. Especially houses along the shore,
high density around the lake, but I do acknowledge that you guys have made some significant
improvements.
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR. STEFANZIK-I'm still not a fan of exceeding the floor area ratio. Regarding the site plan, perhaps
when you come back for that we can talk about stormwater. When I was out there, not yesterday, the
day before,after we had that heavy rain. I did notice a lot of runoff,a lot of erosion coming from right,not
into the property, but the driveway leading to the property, right where it's cleared out, and I was just
wondering. Before everything was, the land was,you know, torn down, the trees came out,was there a
stormwater plan?
MR. HALL-The old house that was in there,had,no.
MR. STEFANZIK-So we don't know before versus after.
MR. HALL-There was no stormwater. That house was there in the early 40's I believe,and it's actually it
was just a house that was set on piers and everything in the floor had rotted out and there was nothing,
there was no foundation or anything underneath it, and in fact this is one of the lower spots, and what
you've seen there is what they're bringing in,because in order to build anything,they've got to bring this
building,which is the other reason that we need the height variance.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-But for site plan you will have a stormwater?
MR.HALL-Yes. I've done the stormwater calculations. They're in here. They're on the drawings. We're
providing eaves trenches for both sides. We have a very low slope on our roof. So it's not,water's not
flying off of it,and it's still a shingled roof. So it's not a metal roof.
MR.STEFANZIK-But how is it coming off the driveway> You're going to be making a long driveway down
Hall Road all the way down. That includes all of that?
MR. HALL-Yes,and we've changed to all permeable asphalt. So there won't be runoff from that. It will
absorb in,and we also do have a storm trench,a stone infiltration trench that runs on the downhill side of
it. So anything that does runoff, it's caught by that. The soils are super for drainage. It's cobbles. It's
really good for drainage,not so good for my septic. I had to work a little bit to get the septic in.
MR. STEFANZIK-And for site plan you'll talk about snow removal?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Other questions,comments regarding variances? All right. So the Zoning Board has asked
us to send this along to them with any communications we wish to provide with regard to the variances
for, again, this is for setbacks,permeability,height, floor area,road frontage and number of garages. Do
any Board members have any concerns?
MRS. MOORE-And dock setback.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry?
MRS. MOORE-And the dock setback.
MR. DEER-I thought permeability was eliminated?
MR. HALL-Permeability was eliminated.
MR. DEER-So there's no permeability.
MR. HALL-It was,when this was written,I was still using the 350/o.
MR. DEEB-I understand,but Steve said permeability.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So,I'm sorry,that variance is gone. So it's dock setback. All right. Well,I'm not
hearing anything.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're looking for the setback.
MR. HALL-From the lake.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you're located at,what 37 and one foot?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Instead of 50.
MR. HALL-Correct,and that's to the front point of the overhang of the second floor.
MR. STEFANZIK-And where was the original house?
MR. TRAVER-Twenty-two.
MR. HALL-Twenty-two. 21'7'.
MR. MAGOWAN-And why can't you push it back a little?
MR. HALL-The farther we push it back,the higher the height variance,yes.
MR. MAG OWAN-Okay. I remember now. All right.
MR.HALL-Because we're going uphill,and going uphill our height variance gets higher and higher. We'd
rather ask for shoreline setback. I mean,we're changing,that whole front area is all grass. Even the area,
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
and I got a determination from Craig on the area that they need the hard surface to be able to get the aircraft
from the lake to the storage area. We're using a geo-grid, which is a plastic grid that's about four inch
deep plastic grid that gets filled with soil. It drains all the way through and Craig's allowed us to have
1000/o permeability for that. The manufacturer says it's 1000/o permeable. It's just hexagons that are open
all the way through.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I've seen that.
MR. HALL-Pebble Beach actually uses it for the concord out there.
MR. DEER-I saw the pictures. It's quite the setup.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You can grow grass in it,too. It's all open.
MR. HALL-Yes,it's completely,it'll be completely grassed all lawn in the front.
MR. STEFANZIK Just out of the curiosity,not part of the ZBA recommendation,how many airplanes are
landing on Glen Lake?
MR. HALL-There's fewer now than there used to be. There used to be two that were permanent on Glen
Lake. They were old pontoon planes. This one's actually kind of a,it's got a boat bottom to it. He actually
stores it at the airport, at Warren County Airport,but he would like the ability to,he's already landed on
the lake several times.
MR. STEFANZIK-So it's not unusual to land on the lake.
MR.HALL-No,there's people out there. I think Jim can answer to that. There's planes that fly in and out
of there quite often,not as much as they used to.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I remember. I live over there on Highpoint there. You'd hear them come in,big
float planes. Yes,the wings fold right up.
MR. HALL-This one folds right back. It's an ICON A-5. It's the one that actually has the parachute in it
so in case you run out of fuel.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,I read about that. Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything further? All right. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#15-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised)Applicant proposes to construct
a new 2,452 sq ft footprint home with 47 sq ft porch/deck area and a 4,639 sq ft floor area. The existing
home has been demolished. The project includes a lot line adjustment which would increase the lot size
from 12,690 sq ft to 1S, 911 sq ft. The adjustment allows for direct access to Hall Road. Site work includes
new septic system,well,landscaping, stormwater and other associated site disturbance. The project will
also include a new dock on Glen Lake. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179-6-050,site plan for new floor
area and hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, ",height,floor area,road frontage, number of garages,
and dock setback. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 15-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT,LLC.,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, just amend, remove permeability and add dock setback to the
project description. You're clarifying the motion that permeability is being removed as a variance and
you're adding dock setback,because it's not in that project description at the moment.
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay.
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR.TRAVER-All right. So moving on to the other half of this project,this is Site Plan 12-2024,also Patten
Property Development.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: WR. LOCATION: BARBER ROAD. (REVISED)APPLICANT PROPOSES A HOME
WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 641 SQ. FT., 299 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA AND A 1,351 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,DECREASING THE SIZE
FROM 0.47 ACRE TO 0.33 ACRE. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL,
LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE DISTURBANCE.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060, SITE PLAN FOR PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15%
SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 14-
2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE, SLOPES.
LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.289.11-1-59.312. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065.
ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This project is, the applicant proposes a new house with a footprint of 641 square feet, a
porch/deck area of 299 square feet, a floor area of 1,351 square feet. The lot line adjustment decreases the
size from 0.47 acres to 0.33 acres. Relief is sought for lot size and setbacks, and again,it's not sought for
permeability.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HALL-So this is the other half of the lot. This was two lots to begin with. It will be two lots when
we get done. So it's just a boundary line adjustment. This lot is actually the access for the other three or
four lots that are up along Hall Road Extension. All of those properties have an ingress and egress across
there which is currently considered impermeable crushed stone. When we started looking at this, as far
as permeability goes,we took the, Chris came back and said, okay,well,if that buys us permeability for
the other side,let's do this for the other neighbors as well. Then we'll give them an actual paved driveway.
So we'll put the permeable pavement there as well. That allowed us to get the credit which allowed us to
pull the property line back a little further. So we got rid of the permeability. Again,my initial was 350/o
and the clarification is to 500/o. So that further increases the permeability on the lot. Our floor area ratio
is well within what's allowed,even with that small lot,they used a very,very small footprint for this house,
and all we're really looking for at this point is an Area Variance for the front yard setback, and that's just
simply so that the new house has a lake view. You can see right between the two houses down the lake.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? This,again,is for the variances.
This is for permeability,lot size,setbacks.
MR. HALL-So permeability goes away because of the.
MR. TRAVER-Right,because of the driveway.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So there was no structure on that?
MR. HALL-There was no structure on that.
MRS. MC DEVITT-It just seems to me that it's a very small lot.
MR. HALL-It is,and we intentionally mad it a very small footprint because of that.
MRS. MC DEVITT-But in doing so it still seems to make it really crowded. That's my own thought.
S
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,yes,that's the question I brought up before,is I believe that's a really small,small
lot.
MR. HALL-It is,that's agreeable.
MR. MAGOWAN-And like I said,across the street,they wanted to build a house,or built a house,and we
made them have two acres because that is the Code, and now you're closer to the lake and trying to
encroach.
MR. HALL-I agree with that, Brad. These were both undersized, significantly undersized lots to begin
with.
MR. MAG OWAN-So I'm not in favor of that building on that other lot,and I'd keep it combined to all one
big lot since you're getting so much on the main house.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other comments regarding the variances? You have that draft resolution to
pass along to the ZBA.
MRS. MOORE-I just want to offer some clarification.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-Both lots would be potentially developable. They may require variances,but there's no
requirement that that lot.
MR. TRAVER-It's a buildable lot.
MRS. MOORE-It's as buildable lot,as long as it obtains its variances.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I guess my question is, why do we have these zones,you know, these Codes in
Queensbury, you know, people come in and they try to do everything and they have two acres or three
acres. Do you know what I'm saying? But on the lake,but on lakes we seem to put as much as we can
around the lake,and,you know,and they want to build a house. They're keeping it close to the frontline
so it can have a view of the lake,and to me it's just taxing,because I ride around that lake,you know,and
I just,they were just camps, and now they're year round homes and it just,it's crowded,and when do we
say enough's enough? And I'm a little protective of Glen Lake, and I have been in the past, so,you know,
buildable,not buildable,I don't feel comfortable. There's nothing there now. It's awfully small,and I don't
think it's fair for the other people that have bigger lots that put the bigger homes on them.
MR. HALL-What I can say to that,Brad,the two acre zoning is for a subdivision if you were starting with
a big piece of property,something larger than,you know,say 30 acres,and you wanted to do a subdivision
that's in the WR zone,the smallest lot you can have is a two acre lot then. These were pre-existing,pre-
dated the zoning code being in effect,as most of the ones along the lake are. So our hands are tied by that.
I mean pretty much anything that comes in here, I don't believe there's more than maybe one or two lots
that are on the lake now that are two acre lots. It was a number that was chosen when the zoning was
written to be the WR.
MR. MAGOWAN-That was the development across the street where we mad everybody have two acres,
but on the other side of the street, since it was a pre-existing lot,you know,we'll build another house on
it. Does that sound fair?
MR. HALL-It is,it's unfair. What I can offer is they can slide a mobile home. I mean a mobile home will
fit there without any variances.
MR. STEFANZIK Just for the record, I share Mr. Magowan's concerns. That's why I brought up about
exceeding the floor area ratio and bigger houses. I understand your point about these are pre-existing
houses.
MR. HALL-For this one we're not asking for floor area ratio. We meet all the areas except for the front
area.
MR. DEEB-And I agree. These are non-conforming lots to start with. Their hands were tied, and if it's a
buildable lot, I'm going to go back to the statement that I made several months ago. You're telling
somebody they can't build on their lot because it's too crowded and I think that's a wrong assumption that
we, as a Board can't make. I'm looking here atone we had prior. It was a.26 acre lot, and we allowed a
135E square foot home on that lot. So are we going to be consistent or are we going to be inconsistent?
We have to choose one way to go.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-Well to Mr. Magowan's point,that's why we have Codes. Are we going to enforce the
Codes or not?
MR. DEEB-It's a non-conforming lot to start with.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's used as a driveway for three other properties.
MR. HALL-Currently.
MR.STARK-I think Brad's overarching point is like,why do we have Codes if we just like push everything,
you know what I mean,grant variances and things all the time.
MR. HALL-That's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is for.
MR. TRAVER-We don't grant variances. That's the Zoning Board.
MR. STARK-Well,you know.
MR. HALL-Philosophically. I know where you're going with that.
MR. STARK-Yes,that's what I'm saying.
MR. HALL-But that's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is for.
MR. STARK-Yes,I know. I'm just reiterating what Brad said earlier.
MR. TRAVER-So do we want to communicate any concerns regarding these variances on this lot to the
Zoning Board with our referral?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,we're over the floor area ratio for the other house.
MR. TRAVER-But they're not asking for a variance.
MR. DEEB-There's no FAR on this.
MR. HALL-With this there's no floor area.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not with this one,but with the other one. It's a give and take. All right.
MR. HALL-It's a give and take.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm a no.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a draft resolution for the ZBA.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#14-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised)Applicant proposes a home with
a footprint of 641 sq ft,299 sq ft porch/deck area and 1,351 sq ft floor area. The project includes a lot line
adjustment, decreasing the size from 0.47 acre to 0.33 acre. Site work includes new septic, well,
landscaping, stormwater and other associated site disturbance. Pursuant to chapter 179-6-060, site plan
for project within 50 It of 150/o slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Relief is sought for ",lot size,setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 14-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT,LLC.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,this is also under Recommendations,this is also Unapproved
Development in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. This is Stephen Haraden, Site Plan 36-
2024.
UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN NO.36-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEPHEN HARADEN. AGENT(S): BARLETT,
PONTIFF,STEWART&z RHODES,P.C. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 334 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS AS BUILT CONDITIONS FOR
A 2021 PROJECT FOR A NEW 3 BEDROOM HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE
HOME HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 2,751 SQ. FT.WITH 232 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA. THE
AS-BUILT CONDITIONS INCLUDE HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE
AND OTHER HARD SURFACING. THE HARD SURFACING INCLUDES A SLATE PAVER
PATIO, OTHER PATIO AREAS, AND INCREASED DRIVEWAY AREA. IN ADDITION, THE
HOUSE AND RAIN GARDEN HAVE BEEN RELOCATED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,
179-6-050 &z 169-6-065, SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE
SHORELINE AND REQUEST FOR AS-BUILT CONDITIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR
PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 13-
2021, SP 11-2021,AV 36-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2024. SITE INFORMATION:
APA,LGPC,AND CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-74. SECTION: 179-3-
040,179-6-050,179-6-065.
JON ZAPPER&JAKE HOWLAND REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this is a request from the applicant for as built conditions for a project that occurred in
2021 for a new three bedroom home with associated site work The house footprint is 2,751 square feet
with 232 square foot porch and deck area. The as built conditions included hard surfacing within 50 feet
of the shoreline and other hard surfacing on the site. This included a paver patio area towards the shoreline
and increased driveway area and the raingardens having been re-located. There was a note with this
project that the original footprint of the building was incorrect so that has been now corrected from 2021
to now,2024,information that was shared in the site data sheet.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. The applicants, Steve and Dee
Haraden, are behind me, along with their builder,Jake Howland from Howland Construction and my
associate Alex Finocchio who worked with Laura for months to try and get this application right. We
never like being here for an after the fact variance and some changes were made during construction which,
you know,if I had known about we would have come back during construction but I didn't hear about it
until afterwards. These are all explainable and I think that they did a really fantastic job on this site,
dramatically oversizing the landscaping from what was approved. So I've got a bunch of pictures to show
you. It wasn't done the way it should have gotten done,but what they did, in terms of the stormwater
design,in terms of landscaping,in terms of that neighborhood and the neighbors,they really did a beautiful
project here. So just to begin with,the driveway coming in was straight and when they got out on the site
it was so steep. So the landscaper said,you know,let's start the driveway here and curve it because it just
reduces the slope and of course that makes it a little bit more impermeable.
MR. TRAVER-And that was not the approved plan. Correct?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. ZAPPER-Not the approved plan. So that got done during construction and nobody said that needs
approval.
MR. TRAVER-There is some additional information that I'd like to have. One is when did, once the
approval in 2021 was given,when did actual development begin on the site? So the approval was in the
Spring of 2021 and construction started late summer that same year.
MR. TRAVER-So basically a matter of months after the approval was given construction started.
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And it was done in non-conformance with the approved plan.
MR. ZAPPER-Well, first the house got built. The landscaping happened later,but,yes,it was certainly
done in non-conformance with the approval.
MR. TRAVER-But the house was not built according to the approved plan either.
MR. ZAPPER-So what happened with the house is they used a surveyor who's not someone that we're
used to working with and I think that they missed the fact that the overhangs,that's really the difference
is that the roof eaves should have been counted and they weren't counted.
MR.TRAVER-So can you provide this Board with a list of all of the contractors,the engineer who re-drew
the plans, the non-conforming plans, and all of the contractors that participated in this unapproved
development?
MR. ZAPPER-The main landscape, it was a landscaping contractor, Gould's, who have a fantastic
reputation for doing great projects on the lake,and,you know,essentially.
MR. TRAVER-Well this isn't a great project on the lake. This is unapproved development in a Critical
Environmental Area.
MR. ZAPPER-What they did,at the end of the day,Steve,is that they put in,they changed the raingardens
and put them down the hill where they're much more effective than how it was planned, and last night
with all that rain this site worked great. They didn't have any problems, and they're dealing with water
from off site. So this is a third of an acre. We got variances in 2021 because this Board and the Zoning
Board recognized that relief was needed. This site is across the street from the dumpsters at the Sans
restaurant. Sothis is not a prime lot,but what they've done with it with,I'm sure all or most of you have
been to the site. The size of the landscaping, this is so protected at the lake, along both sides, and they
really spent more than other people would have to dramatically increase the size of the plant material from
what was on the plans,and it's effective for stormwater. It looks great. The neighbors aren't looking at
it. So,you know,but,yet,the floor area we had a variance and,you know,apparently it didn't count the
roof eaves because the survey was wrong,but that's the same house that was approved that was built.
MR. TRAVER-That's not my understanding. My understanding is that the house location was changed,
in an unapproved location. I was thinking last night,Jon, and I'm sorry. I know you're not responsible
for this,but there's been,some folks have grown a little concerned in the Town that there's been an increase
in unapproved development, and,you know,we're all concerned about the environment of the lake and
unapproved development within the Critical Environmental Area especially,and there's been some debate
about,you know, some people say,well,how serious is it really? How much unapproved development is
there really? This is so egregious,in the long run,this may actually help protect the lake because this may
help drive more interest in developing regulations to punish unapproved development, like some of the
other towns have recently begun to do. There was a guy I think,what was it, Bolton Landing that was
almost threatened with jail time for this kind of behavior. So anyway. I want to open it up for other
members of the Planning Board. I can tell you that myself,it's a much,you know,the house is the house.
It's there. I would like to see all of the exterior project returned,changed back to what was approved.
MR.ZAPPER-So I'd like to go through my presentation,Steve. I'm certainly sensitive to the fact that we're
here with an after the fact, which never should happen. I rarely have these, and I did get them their
approvals originally,but just to go through the pictures and to see what's there.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. ZAPPER-So this is the paver driveway which comes in on an angle just to minimize that slope,but if
you look at the plant material on both the right side and the left side, this is mature screening for the
neighbors and it looks fantastic. If you could just keep scrolling through the pictures, Laura. It might
take a while.
MR. TRAVER-So you're saying unapproved development can be beautiful. Right,Jon?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. ZAPPER-Well, it can be effective for stormwater. So the raingarden were supposed to, the way it
was designed.
MR. TRAVER-But it wasn't reviewed for stormwater. Was it? This plan was never reviewed by the
engineer for stormwater. This was just put together as a change in what was approved and was going to
protect the lake. So you're saying that you think it's working protecting the lake. We don't know that
because it was never approved. It was never reviewed by the engineer for stormwater. Correct?
MR. ZAPPER-The changes were never reviewed.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. ZAPPER-That's correct, and if that's something you want to have happen, that's fine. We know
because of yesterday.
MR. TRAVER-What I want to have happen is the lake protected and I don't want unapproved
development,especially in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. ZAPPER-Unapproved development is wrong and it's bad,but what they did here is actually better
than what was approved,because they moved the raingardens down to the lake and it's working better.
MR. TRAVER-But you're not an engineer,Jon.
MR. ZAPPER-But that's a fair question,and we can have an engineering review of this site. That's totally
appropriate,but it worked yesterday in that horrible storm.
MR. TRAVER-And I apologize,I interrupted you again. Go ahead.
MR. ZAPPER-I came in here understanding the sensitivity to this. This isn't an application that I like to
bring before you,but I still think the Haraden's did a fantastic job with what they have here and it works
really well and it looks great and the stormwater is really effective. So the way it was designed, it was
much closer to the road and now it's much closer to the lake. The whole backyard is basically underneath
the patio area,it's two feet of crushed stone. So it's all infiltrating. There's nothing that's not going into
the ground. So this is down on the southside along the lake.
MRS. MC DEVITT-That patio was not approved. Correct?
MR. ZAPPER-The patio was not approved.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Right. And were the deck and the sunscreen approved,too?
MR.ZAPPER-Yes,they were. The patio,the change that was made is the landscaper said,hey,we're going
to have this concrete path that was approved that ran along the lake and up the side,you know, not as
much permeability,granted,as the slate patio area,but they switched it out. They moved it from closer to
the lake,where there would have been a path,and they got rid of that along the lakefront and the southside
and they did this instead. So it wasn't that they threw something in additional. They swapped something
out.
MR. TRAVER-And that was Gould's you said,right?
MR. ZAPPER-Yes,and that was Gould's. And we should have come in and asked permission,but I didn't
know better or I would have advise them to do this. So if you could keep going,Laura. So that's all along
the lakeshore,all of those plantings.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that walkway was going to be concrete?
MR. ZAPPER-Well,this was only a little piece of it. It was going to go all the way down, straight along
the lake,and then make a right turn along the southside of the property,and,yes,that was all impermeable.
MRS. MOORE-We talked this morning about there originally were two trees that were on the site and
now you have about four trees planted there.
MR. ZAPPER-They couldn't get the plant material initially,but they did,so,yes,that is compliant.
MR. TRAVER-So the plans, the construction must have been done from plans, right? So someone, an
engineer, someone must have re-drawn the plans to what they wanted to do other than what was
approved?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. ZAPPER-No,because when Gould's comes in,you know,we're used to dealing with design engineers
that design these things.
MR. TRAVER-I'm talking about like the house. There must have been drawings and stuff that must have
been done different from what was approved in order for the construction to begin. Right?
MR. ZAPPER-The house is the same house. It's just the application was wrong in terms of not counting
the eaves,but this is the house that got approved.
MR. TRAVER-I thought it was in a different location.
MRS. MOORE-It's in a slightly different location off the north property line.
MR. ZAPPER-By like a foot.
MR. HOWLAND Jake Howland,Howland Construction.
MR. ZAPPER-So his dad is Dean Howland. They've been doing houses on the lake for decades.
MR. TRAVER-And you didn't realize that it was subject to an approval process in the Town of
Queensbury in a Critical Environmental Area?
MR.HOWLAND-Okay,so that house that was drawn is the house that was built..There was a calculation
on the roof eaves that apparently was found as we got into this process asking for the variance for the patio,
but the house that was approved is that house that was built. We did have the foundation pinned D.L.
Dickenson so that we put it in the proper location. If it's off a foot, I'm sorry for that. That was not
intentionally,but they were also pinning it for us.
MR. STEFANZIK-Was it known when the building inspector came out to do an inspection of that
foundation? That's a check off by the Building Inspector.
MRS. MOORE-So the setback itself would not be a building inspector. That would be Code Compliance.
MR. TRAVER-They didn't get caught until this year. Right, Laura? Because they didn't get around to
checking that it wasn't approved.
MRS. MOORE-So the site compliance came out and said these things are deficient. And that's Bruce
Frank. So that's not Building and Codes. Building and Codes would do standard items related to the
building itself.
MR. TRAVER-So they didn't get actually caught until this summer.
MRS. MOORE-I don't known when Bruce came out to visit.
MR. ZAPPER-You didn't know.
MR. HOWLAND-I did not know that the foundation had shifted itself.
MR. DEEB-Can you explain to me how that could have happened, how they missed a foot on that
foundation in placement? I'm not criticizing. How could that happen?
MR. HOWLAND-That's for the surveyor. I'm not sure if you got set up on that lot,if you saw when we
excavated it to put the footings in. It was a giant hole,a muddy hole. I can see maybe they had to pull a
measurement off. I'm not sure.
MR. TRAVER-To your knowledge, has Howland Construction ever participated in unapproved
development in the past?
MR. HOWLAND-No,never,never.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-So we're talking about a foot,twelve inches.
MR. ZAPPER-On the north side it's about a foot. And again,it's the same house. That's the north side.
MR. DEEB-And the setback is because of the eaves?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. HOWLAND-Basically what we're getting into is that overhang on the roofline is now what is non-
conforming.
MR. TRAVER-In addition to all of the exterior features,right,the gardens and the walkways. All of that
was developed completely differently and it was never reviewed. So it's not approved engineering or
stormwater? And this is in the CEA,the Lake George CEA.
MR. ZAPPER-We think it's better, but if you would like us to table this and to have it go to the Town
Engineer and to come back in a month after the engineer looks at it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, you're here tonight for the variance. I mean, I don't think I can approve this for
review for variances myself, but, I mean, I'm only one voice. So what do other Board members, how do
other Board members feel?
MR. STEFANZIK-My concern is what lead to all of these items not be formed as approved? Where did
the communication break down?
MR. TRAVER-And this is right after the initial design.
MR. STEFANZICK-Yes,because I don't know if it's the surveyor,the builder,whoever. There's a bunch
of players inhere. Where did the communication breakdown? Unless we understand that and come up
with future corrective actions and controls these are going to happen again.
MR. TRAVER-Absolutely.
MR. STEFANZIK-You mentioned a number of times about this has become a concern at the Town level
on approved drawings. I would at least like to come out of here with what was the root cause out of all of
these communications and how is it going to be prevented and,you know,I may be getting carried away.
Is there a case study that gets communicated to all the other builders and all the other surveyors so that
this doesn't happen again?
MR. TRAVER-The concern is what is to discourage other people from doing this? If this gets approved
the way it is,and they're going to say,well,I'm going to give them whatever they want in the meeting,and
then a month later when I go back to my site,I'm going to do it the way I want to.
MR. ZAPPER-That was definitely not what happened.
MR. DEEB-I agree with that.
MR. ZAPPER-Steve will talk about that. They were on the site,putting in the driveway, and they said
coming down straight doesn't make sense let's curb it because it's just less of an angle,less of a hill.
MR. TRAVER-This was right after the review by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board.
MR. ZAPPER-The landscaping probably happened a year and a half after that.
MR. TRAVER-So they had no driveway for a year and a half?
MR. ZAPPER-Right,yes.
MR. HOWLAND-You don't put the permeable paver driveway in until the very last because you drive
vehicles.
MR. STEFANZIK-But the curvature, the contour, because I've seen this house being built, and I can
remember the contour of that driveway was not straight. At that point.
MR.TRAVER-And one argument here is that if we submit these unapproved plans to the engineer and the
calculations work out then it's okay. Right? Then why shouldn't everybody in the Town be able to do
that?
MR. ZAPPER-That wasn't what happened here. These are minor changes.
MR. TRAVER-No, but I mean you're saying well why not send it to the engineer, then, and see if it's a
problem. If it isn't a problem,then it stands,right?
MR. DEEB-I think what Jon was saying is we send it to the engineer. Let's see if these are better
improvements that were made then what was done,and see what the judgment is,and I'm all for that. I'd
like to see the Town Engineer go up and evaluate that.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. ZAPPER-If the engineer says that there's a problem,then they'll have to get it changed.
MR. TRAVER-So if somebody ignores what was reviewed and approved and they do something on their
own and it happens to work out that the stormwater works,then they should be allowed to do it however
they want?
MR. DEEB-No,I'm saying that they have to know that they've got to come back for a modification. That's
what has to be done first.
MR. TRAVER-Before the development takes place.
MR. DEEB-Right.
MR. TRAVER-This is not what happened.
MR. DEEB-I know. I understand that's not what happened here.
MR. ZAPPER-Let Steve explain. This is the applicant.
STEPHEN HARADEN
MR. HARADEN-Stephen Haraden,born and raised in Cleverdale all my life pretty much. I just want to
say that the raingardens, I think Gould's put them where they felt they should be, and my whole thing, I
think they really are where they should be.
MR. TRAVER-You think we should allow people, instead of coming to us, for example, or the Town
Engineer or the Zoning Board,people should put them where they think they should be?
MR. ZAPPER-No.
MR. HARADEN-I totally agree with that. You're right. You're right. I do think Gould's, with all due
respect,put them where they needed to be on the north and south side. If you put them in the middle,
they'd be no good whatsoever.
MR. DEEB-You could always come back for a modification,is what we're saying.
MR. ZAPPER-We think that the result was good,but the process was terrible. That's why we're here.
MRS. MC DEVITT-That, to me,is a big deal,because you cannot just willy nilly say,in our opinion,it's
better. After all the engineering things are going on and all these calculations and then arbitrarily say,no,
it's going to be better. I don't know if it's better or not.
MR. ZAPPER-Ellen,it shouldn't happen that way. It's not supposed to happen that way,and if we knew
about it in the middle it would have changed,but this just happened. I found out about it when there was
a violation,and here we are to try and fix it,but,you know,you're perfectly right to say let's let the engineer
look at this because it's a deviation.
MR. TRAVER-Well it's the fix it part that I'd like to deal with. I would like to have this converted back.
I mean the house is the house. We're not going to move the house,but I would like to have the exterior
design changed back to what was approved.
MR. ZAPPER-Even the raingardens?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. ZAPPER-That doesn't make sense. Let us prove that by going to the Town Engineer.
MR. HARADEN-If the raingardens go to the middle,they do no good whatsoever. It's just common sense
they need to be on the north and south side of the house.
MR. TRAVER-They were signed off by the Town Engineer.
MR. HOWLAND-The engineer was Dennis Dickinson.
MR. ZAPPER-Not Dennis Dickinson. Was it Dennis? It was Devin.
MR. HOWLAND-Well,Devin,it was D.L. Dickinson did all the site plans.
MR. MAGOWAN-Did they set the pins for the foundation?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. HOWLAND-Yes. They did the engineering design.
MR. ZAPPER-So Dennis has now passed away. He was the Supervisor for the Town of Lake George. He
died a couple of months ago,and Devin and he sold the business,you know. So obviously that wasn't who
we usually use,but that's what happened.
MR. DEEB-There's nothing that can really be done about that,with the house,your foot. We understand
that,but to your point,Steve,before we make them move the raingardens.
MR.TRAVER-I'm not talking about the raingardens. I'm talking about everything,everything except the
house.
MR. DEEB-But if the raingardens are work more efficiently the way they are, I'd hate to move them
somewhere where they're not as efficient.
MR. TRAVER-So why do we pay the Town Engineer what we pay them? Why are we sitting here when
we could be home watching t.v.? Why don't we just let people put the raingardens where they want?
Maybe they don't think they need them at all.
MR. DEEB-And I agree,and they should have come back for a modification.
MR. TRAVER-So should there be any consequences for doing that?
MRS. MOORE-There's no requirement for consequences. You know that.
MR. TRAVER-I know that. I'm asking a rhetorical question.
MR. MAGOWAN-I've tried that. I have brought it up,and that's something that I think the Town ought
to,you know,because I remember a project I wanted a lot of large trees and if you can't find them,you're
right,but the problem is,we can haggle this all night long. It's happened. So can we get it re-surveyed
with a map of where the house sits now compared to everything and hire an engineer that can tell us,not
to our Town. Our Town does reviews,all right. So what we need is you have to hire the engineer so the
stormwater,and I'm not speaking over you,Mr. Chairman.
MR. TRAVER-No,I understand. Go ahead.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think they hire the engineer and then it's sent the proper way to our Town Engineer
to review it and make sure the stormwater and everything else. I agree,it looks beautiful,and I remember
that lot. I have a few hours over there at Sans Souci back in the day,but,you know,and I understand how
things happen,especially being in construction my whole life and the Howlands,you guys have always had
a good reputation. I haven't heard anything negative. So that's good because I hear everything,but I think
that would be good. So if we table it until we can, it would be my recommendation for the Chairman,
because this is his show,not mine.
MR. ZAPPER-We would have to hire a design engineer. We would have to do a stormwater management
report based upon the new compared with the old. So it would probably take a month to get that done,
but we would table it,and the we'll go to the Town Engineer.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Can it also be compared to what was proposed?
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So before what was proposed and as is now.
MR. ZAPPER-Yes,and let the Town Engineer tell us.
MR. DEEB-What was approved and what is not. And then what it is now.
MR. MAGOWAN-And if that pin wasn't set a foot off, then we wouldn't really have a problem with the
eaves?
MR. HOWLAND-That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-That's the least part of the issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. TRAVER-I mean that's virtually nothing.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm not too worried about that, but now, like I said, I just would like to see the
calculations to make sure that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well like I said, I think the one benefit of this, it's so dramatic that I think the one
benefit of this might be in the long run to protect the lake. This is so egregious and they're going to get it
built the way they want to even though it wasn't approved,with no consequence,and,you know,it's going
to serve,I think,as an example that will ultimately help protect the lake environment.
MR. DEEB-We need better enforcement. We need to have, say,okay fines, etc. We don't have control
over it.
MR. TRAVER-This defines it so clearly that it's going to be very helpful,I think. It's in the long run. It's
not going to happen overnight,but I think this is so egregious.
MR. MAGOWAN-So,Laura,my question to you is,how do we go,it would probably be the Town Board.
We have to add some form of punishment to the Codes.
MR. TRAVER-No,no,no.
MRS. MOORE-You can't do that.
MR. MAGOWAN-But in the future,because I agree with Steve,you know,we're starting to see a lot of
unapproved come in and.
MR. TRAVER-There is a process for,actually the timing isn't terrible,because we are in the process,now
of updating the Comprehensive Plan for the Town, and we're going to actually have a public hearing on
the 29`h of this month for a draft plan that we've been working on for a couple of years now. The next
phase is going to be zoning,and that's where any potential issue of unapproved development or whatever
might be addressed. So I suspect that this package is going to be part of that discussion. This is the one
good thing about this is that in the long run it could help protect the lake.
MR.STEFANZIK-To that point,you talk about process breakdown. I would like,as part of this submittal
coming back,a more detailed report or summary of what broke down,who was involved in the breakdown,
and, you know, almost a step by step, so we can understand where this process broke down, the
communications between whoever.
MRS. MOORE-That's not really part of site plan.
MR. STEFANZIK-I understand.
MR. TRAVER-It's more on the lines of research.
MR. STEFANZICK-So it can be communicated,these are things they need to watch out for.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,well,part of it,I mean there's a lot of different elements,some of it,you know,and it's
difficult to blame,necessarily,completely the landowner because again in this case Gould's or Howland or
somebody went to them and they said,hey,why don't we do it this way,this would look nicer. So what's
the guy going to say,well,if it looks nicer,why not? Why object to that? And it's the professionals the
make the decision to throwaway the approved plans,not necessarily the homeowner. They might sort of,
well,wait a minute,this isn't quite what we're supposed to do,but my experience with this,and we've had
a lot of it as you know,it tends to be the professionals that say, hey,why don't we do it this way or why
don't we do it that way. So,you know,it is what it is,but when,we will look at it as part of the update
for the zoning code,believe me,and this will help us.
MR. STEFANZIK-And that's why I'm saying a summary so that this could be used almost as a case study
for the update.
MR. TRAVER-One element that, again,has to do with timing,was the enforcement. It's difficult for the
Town to provide extremely comprehensive enforcement because Staff are expensive. Staff have a lot of
responsibilities. It's a big Town, and this went on for several years, and they didn't get caught until this
summer so,you know,it's a good argument for an environmental.
MRS. MOORE-Can I offer what occurs once an application is approved? They're provided letters and
communication with my office about Code compliance. Our Code Compliance Officer meets with their
potential engineer,contractor,whomever they wish,including the property owner, and go through every
aspect of their plans.
MR. TRAVER-And then they go away and do it however they want.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MRS. MOORE-Not always, and many often call. So it's not,you know,we do often get calls. So you're
seeing the ones that did not come to Code Compliance in the beginning,but we go through and ask them
to,explain to them that any changes from rocks type,planting type,that they're supposed to call our office
in advance. So they're given specific instructions to do that.
MR. MAGOWAN-But at the end of the project,you get an engineer's signoff.
MRS. MOORE-We get what is called an as built signoff,and so if it's built as designed,that signoff.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're supposed to get a signoff.
MRS. MOORE-This did not get a signoff.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So why the delay?
MRS. MOORE-There was no delay.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I mean,but this has been completed for a while.
MR. ZAPPER-We worked with Laura on the application to make sure it was all right.
MR. STEFANZIK-Was a CO issued?
MR. ZAPPER-It's a Temporary CO,because of this.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. ZAPPER-I want to just leave you with this,that this isn't an applicant who said I'm going to get this
approved and turnaround tomorrow and build something. The house got built, and then it got tweaked
when the landscaper said it would be better to do this. They were dealing with major stormwater issues
down the,coming from off site, a spring on the Sans property. They had to do two feet of crushed stone
underneath the grass to make sure it could handle it. So this wasn't, they were trying to make it work
basically,you know,to infiltrate it, and it should have come back,but we think what was done is better
and we'll ask the Town Engineer to verify that,and if they say something needs to change,it'll get changed.
MR. DEEB-I think it has to go back to Gould's. I hate to say that,but they're the ones that changed.
MR. HOWLAND-That's on me. Everything was built to the calculations and the size,but the location
changed. That's on me.
MR. DEEB-We have to impress upon people when they come for the project,if they want to make changes
it's got to come back for review.
MR. TRAVER-And some communities do, when they have policies, more strict policies for unapproved
development is that generates an environmental defense fund, and that funds enforcement. So then you
can have an extra staff person who's sole responsibility is to go around and ensure, especially in these
critical environmental areas,that these plans are followed.
MR. DEEB-We have to deal with what we have now,though.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. ZAPPER-We think the lake is better protected, but it's not for us to say that. It's for the Town
Engineer to say that.
MR. MAGOWAN-You will have to find a new engineer.
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. You hired the best to represent you.
MR. TRAVER Jon,we understand that you're not responsible for this.
MR. ZAPPER-Yes. We'll get this fixed as much as we can.
MR. TRAVER-You're in the unfortunate position of representing this application. I understand. So
please don't feel that we're angry with you.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. ZAPPER-No,we'll get he right engineer and we'll get this to the next step.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So do we need a draft tabling?
MRS. MOORE-You need to table the application. Is there potential that you can submit the information
by August 15`h for September?
MR. ZAPPER-Probably not,because we have to find an engineer.
MRS.MOORE-All right. So it would be tabled to October with submission information due by September
15th
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.HARADEN-I just want to say,I'm a Lake George High School graduate. I absolutely love Lake George
and 1000/o I would make sure that the lake is protected. I think that the engineer will show that we did
the right thing and I appreciate your time.
MRS. MOORE-So that submission date would be September 16`h
MR.TRAVER-Okay. And the table to date would be October 15. That's the first meeting,Laura? Would
that be all right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be October 15. So we're ready for that motion.
MR. ZAPPER-When is the second meeting?
MRS. MOORE-So the second meeting would be October 2211a
MR. ZAPPER-Yes,I'm going to be away the 15`h. So if you could do the 22nd
MR. TRAVER-Okay. October 22nd Yes,we want you here,Jon. All right. 10/22.
MR. STEFANZIK-Are we ready?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#36-2024 STEPHEN HARADEN
Applicant requests as built conditions for a 2021 project for a new 3 bedroom home with associated site
work The home has a footprint of 2,751 sq It with 232 sq It of porch/deck area. The as-built conditions
include hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline and other hard surfacing. The hard surfacing includes
a slate paver patio,other patio areas, and increased driveway area. In addition,the house and rain garden
have been relocated. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-050 &179-6-065, site plan for hard surfacing
within 50 ft of the shoreline and request for as-built conditions shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for permeability,floor area and setbacks. Planning Board shall
provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 36-2024 STEPHEN HARADEN. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt.
Tabled until the October 22, 2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 16,2024.
Pending a comparative stormwater management and design engineering studies.
Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in October.
MR. ZAPPER-Thank you.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Christopher Leonka. This is subdivision modification 6-
2024.
SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED (REAFFIRM SEQR).
CHRISTOPHER LEONKA. OWNER(S): CHRISTOPHER LEONKA &z MICHELE LEONKA.
ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 29 CHARLTON LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 384 SQ. FT. GARAGE IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,926 SQ. FT.
HOME AND 732 SQ. FT. GARAGE AREA INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT. THE
PARCEL IS PART OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION THAT STIPULATED A NO-
CUT BUFFER ZONE OF 20 FT. FOR THE WEST AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 183,MODIFICATION OF A SUBDIVISION FOR WORK IN THE NO CUT BUFFER
ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR GARAGE SIZE AND NUMBER OF BAYS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: SUB 14-2005,AV 42-2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION.
SITE INFORMATION: LUZERNE ROAD SUBDIVISION. LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.
308.6-2-7. SECTION: 183.
CHRISTOPHER LEONKA,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is proposing a 3S4 square foot garage in addition to an existing 1,926
square foot home which includes a 732 square foot garage already. There was a previously approved
subdivision that stipulated a no cut zone of 20 feet to the west and south property lines,and this applicant
came in and showed us some of the information that was available. That area where the garage addition
would occur had already been cleared, and it was not cleared by this property owner. It was cleared
previous to this,you know, as part of the subdivision when it was actually developed. So it wasn't this
applicant that actually did it. So there's a subdivision modification as well as a variance for the number of
garages or the size of the garage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Yes,sir.
MR. LEONKA-Do you want me to come up?
MR. TRAVER-Please do. Good evening. State your name for the record. Tell us about your project.
MR. LEONKA-I'm the applicant and the property owner.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So tell us about your project.
MR. LEONKA-It's just a 24 by 16 square foot garage off an existing open carport,same roof fine. Basically
why I'm here is I found out through the application process that there was a 20 foot no cut buffer zone and
I had no idea that that was in existence because it was another contractor that clear cut the lot next to the
property line.
MR. TRAVER-So you've actually already built this?
MR. LEONKA-This house was built. I'm just putting on the garage.
MRS. MOORE-Not the bay. He has not constructed the bay yet,no.
MR. LEONKA-No,the garage is not built.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Because I saw a picture of the spot where you want to put it.
MR. STEFANZIK-The garage goes next to your carport.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So the issue here is,again,you're here for the variance,not Site Plan Review,and
so it's garage size and number of bays. So basically you're looking for a second garage,because you have
one that's part of your house.
MR. LEONKA-We're looking for a garage that we can park a full size vehicle in.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. LEONKA-And storage above.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR.TRAVER-And storage above,okay. That's right,because it was going to have electric. Did I see that
somewhere? All right,and so the variance,so you're here tonight for the ZBA variance. This is for garage
size and number of bays. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-So you have your garage. You have your carport,and then you're going to have another
garage.
MR. LEONKA Just a 16 by 24, same rooflines,with a setback. The carport is actually setback from the
existing garage.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now why not just add on to the carport and close that off?
MR. LEONKA-Well,because the carport has a cellar entranceway behind it, and it's going to need more
space. I can't get a full size vehicle in there. I'd have to build a garage to be able to get a full size vehicle
in there and close the door.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-I know. Those darn Fords are so big.
MR. LEONKA-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? Any concerns with the variance requests?
MR. MAGOWAN-Have you talked to your neighbors?
MR. LEONKA-Yes. Like I said,this sets back along with the carport,and there's only two or three houses
that can actually see this.
MR. STEFANZIK-Do you plan on using this sketch to build?
MR. LEONKA-Yes,the building permit side has all been set. It's been approved.
MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns with the variance request for the ZBA motion that we'll be
sending along? Okay. So we have that resolution.
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#42-2024 CHRISTOPHER LEONKA
The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes construction of a 3S4 sq
ft garage in addition to an existing 1,926 sq It home and 732 sq ft garage area included in the house footprint.
The parcel is part of a previously approved subdivision that stipulated a no-cut buffer zone of 20 ft for the
West and South property lines. Pursuant to chapter IS3,modification of a subdivision for work in the no
cut buffer zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance:Relief is sought for garage
size and number of bays. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 42-2024 CHRISTOPHER LEONKA.
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. TRAVER-You are off to the ZBA.
MR. LEONKA-Thankyou.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next item on our agenda, also under Recommendations to the ZBA,is Daniel
Zotto/Carrie Hedderman. This is Site Plan 29-2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DANIEL ZOTTO/CARRIE HEDDERMAN.
OWNER(S): DANIEL ZOTTO &z CARRIE HEDDERMAN. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 306
GLEN LAKE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ.FT.DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
HOME. THE HOME IS 828 SQ.FT.WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,356 SQ.FT.AND WILL REMAIN
UNCHANGED. THE DECK WILL BE LOCATED FACING THE SHORELINE. THE AREA
UNDERNEATH THE DECK WILL BE GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC. THE DECK WILL BE 12
INCHES HIGH AND HAVE ONE STEP TO THE GROUND LEVEL. NO OTHER SITE CHANGES
ARE PROPOSED. PREVIOUS 2022 APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS
179-3-040, 179-4-080 &z 179-13-010, SITE PLAN FOR NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.
OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT
FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 42-2022, AV 30-2022, AV 32-2024.
WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE,CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.28
ACRE. TAX MAP NO.2899-1-86. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-4-080,179-13-010.
DANIEL ZOTTO&CARRIE HEDDERMAN,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is for a 400 square foot deck addition to an existing home. The home
is 888 square feet with a floor area of 1,356 square feet. This is to remain unchanged. The deck will be
located facing the shoreline. The setback,it's hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and they also
require side setback as well as shoreline setback.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Tell us about your project.
MR. ZOTTO-Goode evening.
MS.HEDDERMAN-We've done this once before. We've let our variance expire by accident. So just asking
for that setback from the lake.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,state your name for the record.
MS. HEDDERMAN-Carrie Hedderman.
MR. ZOTTO-Danny Zotto.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So this is something that you had applied for previously and just didn't
get around to building it or whatever and so it expired,the one year went by?
MS. HEDDERMAN-Yes. I forgot to renew it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay,and you were approved last time?
MS. HEDDERMAN-Yes,we were.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. STEFANZIK-And nothing's changed?
MS. HEDDERMAN-Nothing's changed.
MR. TRAVER-Same design.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going to do it this time?
MS. HEDDERMAN-I am going to do it this time. We are,promise.
MR. TRAVER-Any questions or concerns for approving this and passing it along to the ZBA for their
approval again from any members of the Board? All right. We have a draft resolution.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#32-2024 ZOTTO/HEDDERMAN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 400 sq ft deck addition
to an existing home. The home is S2S sq ft with a floor area of 1,356 sq ft and will remain unchanged. The
deck will be located facing the shoreline. The area underneath the deck will be gravel and filter fabric. The
deck will be 12 inches high and have one step to the ground level. No other site changes are proposed.
Previous 2022 approval has expired. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040,179-4-OSO&r 179-13-010,site plan for
new hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board
shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 32-2024 DANIEL ZOTTO/CARRIE
HEDDERMAN.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA again.
MR. ZOTTO-Thankyou.
MS. HEDDERMAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Recommendations to the ZBA, is Ronald&Jill
Barton. This is Site Plan 35-2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 38-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RONALD &z JILL BARTON. AGENT(S):
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 74 BAY PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING
1,155 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 625 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES
REMOVAL OF AN UPPER LEVEL; OPEN DECK AND ENCLOSED PORCH TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW 185 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT ADDITION AND A NEW
UPPER-LEVEL DECK/TERRACE AREA. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,150 SQ.FT.WITH A
NEW TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 4,240 SQ. FT. PROPOSED. SITE WORK INCLUDES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-3-040&z 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE : RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 36-1989, AV 37-1989, SP 19-89, AV 16-1992, SP 11-92, SP 1-
2004,AV 38-2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JULU 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,
APA. LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.226.15-1-23. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065.
LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. The applicant proposes a renovation of an existing 1,155 square foot home with 625
square foot of porch/deck area. The project includes removal of an upper level, open deck and enclosed
porch to construct a new 1S5 square foot footprint first floor and basement addition and a new upper-level
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
deck/terrace area. The existing floor area is 4,150 square feet. New is 4,240 square feet. Variances are for
shoreline setback,floor area,and that's it,those two items.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with
Hutchins Engineering, representing our clients Ron and Jill Barton at 74 Bay Parkway, which is the
northeasterly corner of Assembly Point. I believe we're four properties south of the Point on Harris Bay
and the Bartons are with us if you have any questions for them. They purchased the property in 2002 and
the home was built in the early 70's,renovated in the mid SO's and they propose to renovate the home again
to suit their needs and the long and short of it is there's a,what I call the sunroom,on the middle of the
house, on the lakeside, it's at the first floor level, 10 by 14. It's proposed to take that off and then to the
south we have a second floor, eight by twelve, deck. We'd take that off as well, and then to construct a
seven foot by twenty-six foot three lakeside addition for additional basement space and additional first
floor space,which just helps with the flow of the house really well,and then it'll have a second floor terrace
over the addition. So it amounts to an increase of 90 square feet of floor area, which we believe is very
minimal. There's no increase in the impervious cover,and site wise they've made some nice improvements
or proposals to construct a series of four raingardens to help with the stormwater mitigation,which are
the green areas,and then the green area along the middle and south of the boathouse is proposed additional
shoreline plantings. So I believe they've proposed a real nice improvement to the site. Aesthetically the
house would be very much nicer on the lakeside and then regarding the septic, they did pass their Lake
George Park Commission inspection last June. One of the few properties that we've dealt with that passed
on the first time. So it's functioning well. It's a mound system and I did write a letter to the Board and to
the Building Department basically reversing engineering the numbers on it that it is adequate for their
three bedroom home. Pretty straightforward project. Again,our variances are for the shoreline setback
because our addition is within the 50 feet, although right now the sunroom is at 31 feet and then our
addition is proposed to be 34. So it's a little bit of an increase in the setback from the shoreline,but it is
still within that 50 feet. So that's our area variance and then also for the increase in the floor area.
MR. TRAVER-So it's actually a slight improvement in the setback.
MR. DOBIE-A slight improvement in the setback. Yes,sir,Mr. Chairman.
MR.TRAVER-This is another example,I guess,of talking about floor area ratio where you have a small lot
with a relatively large building on it because the maximum floor area is supposed to be 2513 feet and it's
almost twice that because of the size,I guess basically because of the lot size.
MR. DOBIE-Yes,so we do deal with these all the time,as do you,for the smaller lots. We've talked about
if there's an opportunity for a sliding scale,if you will, for the floor area. It's a very large discussion,but
2500 square feet on a two floor house is not very much for allowable,for functionality.
MR. TRAVER-No..
MR. DOBIE-So it feels very appropriate.
MR. TRAVER-So again you're here tonight for us to refer this to the ZBA for setbacks and floor area
variances. Questions,comments from members of the Boar?
MR. DEEB-You're only increasing it by 92 square feet.
MR. DOBIE-90 square feet.
MR. DEEB-90 square feet in floor area,yes,sir.
MR. TRAVER-And actually a little bit improvement in the shoreline setback.
MR. DEEB-Yes,better shoreline.
MRS. MC DEVITT-And plantings.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the plantings, yes. All right. Does anyone have any concerns we want to
communicate to the ZBA?
MR. STEFANZIK-Overall it's a plus.
MR. TRAVER-We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#35-2024 RONALD&JILL BARTON
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a renovation of an
existing 1,155 sq ft home with 625 sq ft of porch/deck area. The project includes removal of an upper level;
open deck and enclosed porch to construct a new 1S5 sq It footprint first floor and basement addition and
a new upper-level deck/terrace area.The existing floor area is 4,150 sq ft with a new total floor area of 4,240
sq ft proposed. Site work includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Pursuant to chapter
179-3-040&179-6-065,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and floor
area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 38-2024 RONALD &z TILL BARTON.
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DOBIE-Great. Thank you. We hope to see you next week. Thank you for your time.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is
Dave and Sharman Carroll. This is Site Plan 37-2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVE&z SHANNAN CARROLL. AGENT(S):
FLYNN DESIGN STUDIO. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
21 HERON HOLLOW. APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING
HOME INCLUDING REMOVAL OF EXISTING FLOOR AREA, INTERIOR ALTERATIONS,
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 115 SQ. FT. DORMER OVER THE GARAGE AND AN 85 SQ. FT.
SECOND STORY ADDITION OVER THE PORCH. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS INCLUDE
REPLACING SOME WINDOWS AND DOORS AND RELOCATING OTHERS. THERE WILL
ALSO BE SOME WORK ON THE ROOFLINE NEAR THE SHORE. TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS
BEING REDUCED BY 149 SQ.FT.WITH ALTERED INTERIOR LOCATION. THE NUMBER OF
BEDROOMS REMAINS THE SAME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-6-065, SITE
PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE
SHORELINE IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 55-
89, AV 37-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA,
LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.6 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.227.17-1-5. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065.
TREVOR FLYNN&r LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes several alterations to an existing home. Removal of the existing
floor area, interior alterations, construction of a new 115 square foot dormer over the garage and an S5
square foot second story addition over the porch. Exterior alterations include replacing some windows
and doors and relocating others. There will also be some work on the roofline near the shore. Total floor
area is being reduced by 149 square feet with altered interior locations of that floor area. The number of
bedrooms remain the same. Relief is sought for setbacks and floor area.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. FLYNN-Good evening. Trevor Flynn with Flynn Design studio and Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering representing Dave and Sharman Carroll at 21 Heron Hollow Road. So I just wanted to jump
in briefly and give a bit of a background. It is an existing non-conforming lot and the house was built,
total built was in the 1950's. What's on site now was built then. Tommy and Joanie Moynihan were the
previous owners and Dave and Sharman purchased it from them I believe roughly around 2019 and at that
time there were some septic tank updates to the house at that time. Since then they're looking to renovate
the home. It's still going to stay a camp in its nature and the idea is to turn it into a multi-generational
home. They're the second of the generation and Dave and Shannan wish to turn it over to their kids next
and grandkids,etc. So that's the main goal for this project,was to renovate the interior,open up some of
the spaces on the interior,move some rooms around,open the second floor so all the bedrooms are equal,
and then also create alike toy room,future playroom over the garage area. So just somethings to note as
we look at the site plan. So some of the variances we are going for is the lake, and I wanted to note that
right away as well. We're not changing the massing on the lake at all. We started to reconfigure the
windows and realized that we're touching so much of that wall that,just to be safe,we wanted to go for a
variance for that anyway. We're not moving any walls or changing it,but we said,we're changing all the
glazing and configuration we might as well get a variance for that lake setback. Similar for the garage,the
dormer variance. We're not increasing the footprint. The dormer's actually setback slightly but we
requested the full relief of where the existing garage footprint is. We're really just adding a dormer up
there, and with that being existing attic space, closing some of that down and then also connecting the
second floor. So this is a great diagram of where we're trying to remove portions of covered porches on
the two sides of the house,this new front entry and connection to the second floor so we can access that
future playroom,and then even removing some more of the shed on the garage so increasing and improving
this setback to the east northeast as well. So overall we're reducing the FAR. We realize that it is
substantial for this size lot, and what we did is we tried to decrease as much as we could so we're not
increasing any of it,but due to the size of the lot,roughly 29%of what's currently allowed with the zoning,
at 25,433 square feet,we are over,but we did do a quick calculation,too. The entire basement,if we could
go down one sheet, so we did include all of this area. This is fill. This is all crawl space,but this is just
around five feet in this area,and this is closer to like 6,6,but we included all that in our FAR calculation,
due to the Code. If we were to remove that,we'd be closer to 26.5%. Still overall it's still an undersized
lot. Could we jump to the planting plan. As far as the site plantings, as far as the site as exists,we are
adding quite a substantial amount of what we think are improvements,you know,to the lot. We limited
impervious area, We've actually slightly bettered it. We're trying to keep most of it intact as is,but a lot
of these mulch bed areas,some discussions of improving the shoreline buffer as well,and potentially even
doing more as we start to look at that overall, and we're also upgrading the septic field as well. I don't
know if it's noted in this application or maybe the zoning, Laura, I think it states seven bedrooms in the
zoning agenda. It is a six bedroom house. We plan to keep it a six bedroom The septic tanks are 2500
where only, you know, 1750 is required, and then the same with the septic field. It's slightly oversized
right now,but new design for that six bedroom. Other than that,any other questions.
MR. TRAVER-So the floor area ratio,or the floor area,I should say,is actually,with your update,is being
reduced by 16S square feet?
MR. FLYNN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So you're still above the requirement for FAR but you are improving it slightly.
MR. FLYNN-Correct.
MR.TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? And this is,again,a referral to the ZBA
for variance. This is for setback and floor area. I think that's all of our business tonight. Any questions,
comments?
MR. STEFANZIK-I think they're improving a non-conforming property. The house has been there for a
while. It's bigger than they should have it,but they're making it better. So I think it's a good project.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Any other comments,concerns? We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#37-2024 DAVE&SHANNAN CARROLL
The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes several alterations to an
existing home including removal of existing floor area,interior alterations,construction of a new 115 sq It
dormer over the garage and an S5 sq ft second story addition. Exterior alterations include replacing some
windows and doors and relocating others. There will also be some work on the roofline near the shore.
Total floor area is being reduced by 16S sq ft with altered interior location. The number of bedrooms
remains the same. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 &179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and
hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline is subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Relief is sought for setbacks and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
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 37-2024 DAVE&z SHANNAN CARROLL.
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. FLYNN-Thank you. I appreciate your time.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. This particular one is Site Plan No. 42-2024 for Morgan Gazetos.
SITE PLAN NO.42-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MORGAN GAZETOS. OWNER(S): GREGORY
R. FRANCIS TRUSTEE SR. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2930 ROUTE 91. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 16 FT. X 20 FT. GARAGE WITH STORAGE ABOVE AND
ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTING. PROJECT WORK WILL BE NEAR AND ON THE EXISTING
DRIVEWAY. PROJET WORK INCLUDES ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTING. THE EXISTING 1,306
SQ. FT. HOME AND 1,262 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AREA WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE
SITE WORK IS ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE WITH NO CHANGES TO THE SITE
OR SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 &z 179-6-065, SITE PLAN FOR NEW
FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR
HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 85-2014, SP 72-2014, AV 25-2022, SP 35-2022,
AV 40-2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JULY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC.
LOT SIZE: 092 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.20-1-19. SECTION: 179-5-020,179-6-065.
MORGAN GAZETOS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-So this applicant proposes to construct a 16 by 20 garage with storage above and electricity
for lighting. The project will be near and on the existing driveway. The existing home of 1,306 square feet
with 1,262 square feet of decks and porches will remain. The site work is only at the location of the garage
with no changes to the site or shoreline. The relief being requested is for height of the garage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. GAZETOS-Good evening. Morgan Gazetos for the record.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project.
MR. GAZETOS-A previous client called me up,wants a garage with storage above,and it just so happens
when you pull in this driveway, all those houses on Dunham's Bay,it's down and loop and this and,you
know, there's all these knobs, and it's the worst turnaround ever. You come down that driveway, like
you're running right into the back of the house and just awful turnaround. You have to put it in four wheel
drive half the time to get out,but halfway down the right there's a relatively flat spot, and so that's been
everybody's turn out spot,but he says I have nowhere to put any,so if I put a little garage to put my jet skis
in,my stuff,whatever,because once you get to the house it's like 35 feet straight down,and I said sure so I
2S
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
went and applied for the building permit and Laura said you're awful close for height. So I did what she
said. I took some four by fours and I built a frame over it,and I realized I fell of IS,19 inches,plus,minus,
just when I laid it out on the ground. So that puts me over the height variance, and I'm asking for three
feet because I figure with two feet with my luck it would be 2S inches when I finally do it. So that's where
I'm at, and the reason for the height is this. I just did a garage on my house in Ballston Spa, and it's the
same problem always. You want a seven foot garage door as a standard. So you need eight foot to the
ceiling,but then you'd be up another foot in floor joists,and then by the time you frame in the second floor,
you're at like,you know, five foot three, which my wife can clear just fine, but for me it's thunk, thunk,
thunk as I walk through it. So I really want to get in the center,I think it comes out to 6, S or something
like that on the drawings down the middle of the upstairs area because then once you go to the sides to
put your stuff you're banging your head.
MR. TRAVER-Okay,and this is going to have,in the upstairs area,electricity but no plumbing. Correct?
MR. GAZETOS-No,just lights,a couple of outlets.
MR. TRAVER Just lights. All right. So the variance is for the height. So it's 19 feet in the rear and 16 is
the maximum height. Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-What did you say,like 100 feet below 9L?
MR. GAZETOS-You're not going to see it from the road. The way it comes up,there's a knob right in front
of where the house is. I bet you'll see the top two and a half feet of the roof,and if it goes green,it's going
to blend in with all the cedars and all the pines on the other side.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. GAZETOS-And he's siding it brown to match his house.
MR. MAGOWAN-Some of those roads going down there,the driveway. The other day it was so mossy
we had to put it in four wheel drive to make it back up. Are we talking the same driveway?
MR. GAZETOS-It might be. I mean further down like Old Assembly Point Road and back in there, it's
harder in the summer than it is in the winter.
MR.TRAVER-All right. Well,again,this is a referral to the ZBA. This is for the height variance. Anyone
have any concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA? All right. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#40-2024 MORGAN GAZETOS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to construct a 16 ft x 20
ft garage with storage above and electricity for lighting. Project work will be near and on the existing
driveway. Project work includes electricity for lighting. The existing 1,306 sq ft home and 1,262 sq ft
deck/porch area will remain unchanged.The site work is only at the location of the garage with no changes
to site or shoreline. Pursuant to chapter 179-5-020&179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and
construction of a garage shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:Relief is sought
for height. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 40-2024 MORGAN GAZETOS.Introduced
by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. GAZETOS-Thanks,Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Benjamin Katz and
Erin Barton. This is Site Plan 39-2024.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BENJAMIN KATZ &z ERIN BARTON.
AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): BENJAMIN KATZ. ZONING:
RR-5A. LOCATION: 12 BUCKBEE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3
BEDROOM HOME WITH A 2,463 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT THAT INCLUDES A LOWER LEVEL,
MAIN LEVEL AND UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN. THE PROJECT WAS PART OF AN
APPROVED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, EACH REQUIRING SITE PLAN REVIEW. PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN AN RR-5A ZONE SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-
2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE:
7.18 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.-1-86.22. SECTION: 179-3-040.
ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a three bedroom home with a 2,463 square foot
footprint that includes a lower level,main level,upper level. The project was part of an approved two lot
subdivision which required site plan review when constructing a new home on the site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall
Architecture. Here night representing Bejamin Katz and Erin Barton. As Laura described it is a TS acre
lot, as part of a two lot subdivision. It's on the corner of Buckbee and Gurney Lane. The site slopes from
the south to the north. It slopes down. The large plan that you see here is our grading plan. These are one
foot contours where you're probably used to seeing two foot contours or better. We asked the survey to
give us one foot contours because we knew it was fairly steep and we that that was going to be an issue.
We've graded this so that the grading that's on the driveway is actually less than what's on Buckbee Lane.
So Buckbee's a little steeper than what we're doing it. Where the house was shown on the original
subdivision is the best lot for it. We've gone up there and dug test pits and taken a look at all that. The
lower end of the lot is fairly wet. There is a stream actually that runs down through there, and all of
Buckbee actually drains down to that point and ends up going through the wetland area and into the
stream. So we're well away from that. We're up on the upper part of it, and what you see there is the
house footprint and the grading. We've tried to keep the limits of disturbance as small as we can and we
kept the driveway basically immediately across from where the driveway is on the other side of the road.
So it was a little easier spot to get in.
MR. STEFANZIK-Say that again,Ethan,the driveway on the other side of the street?
MR. HALL-So there's a driveway immediately across Buckbee Road from where we are. So we
intentionally picked that spot to bring a driveway in.
MR. TRAVER-And we were just handed hard copies of the engineering comments,but in reading them,
yesterday I think it was, I don't know if you've had a chance to see them yet, but they do have some
significant concerns.
MR.HALL-They do. I've looked through them,and they're,I was very,that's why I went with the one foot
contours rather than two foot contours,and,you know,they're looking at this and saying,you've got places
that are one on three. One on three is the closest I've got anywhere on that lot, and one on three is that,
which is not a significant slope. It sounds like it,but one on three is not really a significant slope.
MR. TRAVER-I'd hate to try it in the wintertime.
MR. HALL-I guarantee you that the driveway coming up out here is steeper than one on three. Buckbee
is certainly steeper than one on three. My driveway grades are one on five.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. TRAVER-So you don't think you'll have any issue satisfying the engineer?
MR.HALL-No. No. I've been through and I've looked at it. They looked at putting the garage underneath
the driveway. I think I get into a height issue by doing that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Right. I remember that was a concern about visibility or something.
MR. HALL-Correct, and really that gains me eight feet over the length of the driveway. It's not a
significant amount, and we went through great lengths to get drainage swales down both sides of the
driveway so that we could put rock check dams in there so that we could slow the water down as it's
coming down the slopes on the sides. I don't have any issue. We're not paving that driveway. It's going
to be a crushed stone drive the entire time. So it's easier in the wintertime to getup and down it. I talked
with both Erin and Ben about doing this, and they're fully aware that they're going to live on a steep
driveway. They're aware of that. We've kept the grades on the top very shallow,one on ten. So once you
getup to the top up there it levels off quite nicely in front of the garage. So that you've got an easy time to
turn around and to get in and out of the garage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HALL-The comment that they made, and I don't understand about this. The comment is about the
septic field. We set up the septic field so that the septic field is actually going to step as it goes through.
They're calling it a fill system. I disagree. It's the only really flat-ish area that we could put it in,and we
will be stepping the actually runs. So I think they're mis-reading how I figured it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well as long as you're confident that you can clarify that, that's what we're mainly
concerned about.
MR. STEFANZIK-How about the,I think there was a comment in there because of the steepness around
the house,I'm not sure if it was a recommendation,the retaining walls.
MR.HALL-They said something in there about putting in,you know,to reduce the amount of grading that
would have to be done. Retaining walls are expensive. They tend to not last very long. The best way to
do them would be to pour concrete to do it,and that's not the fit for what this is. When I'm talking with
Ben and with Erin,they're not looking to have,you know,the area that we have cleared,they want a lot of
that to go back to natural. They don't want lawn to maintain. So we're not putting this out there to be
grass and a mowed,manicured lawn. They want to kind of put this house in there and kind of let nature
grow back in around it. So that it's not,you know, they're not taking a seven acre lot and making,you
know,three acres of it into lawn.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HALL-He doesn't want to be around to maintain that. They like the fact that the skidder trails that
were in there when it was logged last,they actually did a really nice job with cleaning up the skidder trails.
Normally they go in and just top all the,and leave all the garbage. They actually cleared it out really nicely
when they did this, and the skidder trails actually work very well for cross country skiing and mountain
biking. They're big mountain bikers. They do like that and they're right across from Gurney Lane trails.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Before we go to public hearing,do Board members have questions,comments?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I have a comment on the retaining wall there. You just made a comment like
right now I look at that every time I go to Home Depot. That's one big wall.
MR. HALL-That is a monster back there.
MR. MAGOWAN-But kudos for,you know, I saw the engineering comments and I read them and your
reputation,and as long as they realize,you know.
MR. HALL-They were actually prepared to be here last night,but they have something that's going on. I
said to them,this is going to comedown. It is a question to you,you understand that,and they said we're
planning to be there, and then it got cancelled last night. Ben called me this morning. He said we can't
make it tonight.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's all right,as long as they realize it. You're right,that Buckbee Road.
MR. HALL-As it goes up,can you flip back to the overall? As it goes up,it kind of makes the major turn,
that does get relatively steep up there. This portion of it just beyond their driveway turns and goes up and
kind of makes an"S"and that's where it starts to get fairly steep.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-Ethan,when do you think you're going to get engineering to signoff on your answers to
these questions?
MR. HALL-I just got these,when did they come in,early last week,on the 12`h. I got them on the 13`h. So
today's the Wh. I'm hoping to turn something around to them within the next week or so.
MR. STEFANZIK-Will you get his response by a week after? I mean is he going to give you a formal
approval to your answers.
MR. TRAVER-They'll give him a signoff.
MR. HALL-They'll have to signoff.
MR. DEER-He can't continue until he gets his signoff.
MR. HALL-Yes,I have to have signoff on his before I can move forward.
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants
to address the Planning Board on this application Site Plan 39-2024? I'm not seeing any takers. Are there
any written comments,Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will also close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? Hearing nothing,we have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#39-2024 BENJAMIN KATZ&r ERIN BARTON
Applicant proposes to construct a 3 bedroom home with a 2,463 sq ft footprint that includes a lower level,
main level and upper level floor plan. The project was part of an approved two lot subdivision, each
requiring site plan review.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new construction in an RR-5A zone
shall be subject to Planning Bord review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO,the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 7/17/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 7/17/2024 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 7/17/2024-1
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 39-2024 BENJAMIN KATZ&z ERIN BARTON,- Introduced by
Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted for items: h. signage, 1. landscaping, n traffic, r.
construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with
commercial projects;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 7/17/2025;
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) 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,
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection;
c) 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;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements;
f) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
i. 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;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required.
g) 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;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or
the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) 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.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. HALL-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next item under New Business is Wish Health Incorporated/MOVERE, LLC.
Site Plan 44-2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WISH HEALTH, INUMOVERE, LLC.
AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): YORK LIABILITY CO.US AUTO
GROUP LLC, A NEW. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 410 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 2,800 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND SITE TO OPERATE TWO
BUSINESSES. THE FIRST WILL BE A MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WITH AN
EXISTING FLEET OF 12 VEHICLES. THE SECOND BUSINESS OPERATION CONVERTS
STANDARD VEHICLES INTO ACCESSIBLE VEHICLES. PLANS INDICATE OFFICE AND
WORKSHOP AREAS. PLANS ALSO SHOW USING THE EXISTING SNOW STORAGE AREA
AND HEDGE ROW AND ADDING CRAB APPLES TREES. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED
CHANGES TO THE EXISTING WALL MOUNTED DOWNCAST LIGHT FIXTURES.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040 &z 179-9-120, SITE PLAN PER REQUIREMENTS OF THE
APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR SITE PLAN 43-2022 SHALL E SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 76-1990,SP 49-97,SP 43-2022. WARREN
CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2024. LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-5, 303.20-1-4.
SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-120.
ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to re-use an existing 2,800 square foot building and site to
operate two businesses. The first will be a medical transportation service with an existing fleet of 12
vehicles. The second business operation converts standard vehicles into accessible vehicles. Plans indicate
office and workshop areas. Plans also show the using of existing snow storage area and hedge row and
adding crab apple trees. No changes to the wall mounted downcast light fixtures. That is all to remain
the same.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So tell us about this project.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. HALL-Okay. Good evening,everyone. One last time, Ethan Hall with Rucinski Hall Architecture
representing Wish Health. So we were back in front of you 2022,'21,'22 with Queensbury Taxi for this
existing building.
MR. DEEB-I thought it was. I thought it was a taxi company.
MR. HALL-Yes. It was Glens Falls Taxi. I have to say that is one of the approvals that I wish you had
turned down. Because I knew what was going to happen. I know the MO of the owner of that, and
regardless of what he said,I knew how that was going to go and it remained a junkyard quite frankly.
MR. DEEB-Yes,it was sketchy.
MR. HALL-Very much so. To the point where the for sale sign never came down.
MR. TRAVER-Wow.
MR. HALL-The For Sale sign was up. They purchased the building. The For Sale sign stayed up. So I
had a feeling,and to be honest I kind of had to chase him around to get paid for my services on that. This
is a completely different animal at this point. Wish Health is a medical,they area contracted medical van
transport for medical patients who can't transport themselves. They also,the MOVERE is a company that
Alex owns that takes vans and makes them into accessible vehicles.
MR. TRAVER-They put the turtle backs on and stuff.
MR.HALL-Yes. They put in the lifts and they do all the work to convert somebody's personal vehicle into
a handicap accessible vehicle. So he's, if you've been to the site since, and it was an eyesore admittedly
when the taxi company was in there. What Alex has done since he has purchased the lot was to do some
of what was approved by this Board for the taxi service to make the lot,to clean it up,which the taxi service
never did. He has cleaned up all of the front,taken down all of the vines,cut out all the bad landscaping
that was there. He has held off on putting in the new trees. He does have it all planted now,but he hasn't
put the trees in yet because he wanted to wait until he got the approval to do that. He has cleaned up the
outside of the building significantly,which it's in significantly better shape than it was,and the way he has
this laid out for his vehicles, for his fleet vehicles, he doesn't need as much space as what was there
previously. So we've not shown,when it was the fleet vehicles for the taxi service we had a six foot tall
that was going to come from the edge of the building out to kind of hide the garbage that was behind it.
We don't have that issue anymore. So he's like to not put any fencing into the space. Alex has, to me,
proven that he's a standup guy. He does what he's going to do and does what the other person said they
were going to do. So he's done a significant amount with this property.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe we should get him into the business of developing on the lake.
MR. DEEB-It does look better. It looks so much better.
MR. HALL-He's significantly cleaned up the property.
MR. DEEB-This is a much better use.
MR. HALL-And he's there every day,as opposed to when the previous applicant was not there.
MRS. MOORE-Can you just explain the Phillips Avenue? There was supposed to be sort of a somewhat
reduction. Can you just quickly go over that?
MR. HALL-So the original layout that had been done was basically corner to corner. They've actually cut
this off at the edge of the building and made the loop on the front of it. The pictures that I've got here show
where they made the loop. So it's basically a straight in from the street and then a straight in from the
street. It's significantly slowed down the stormwater runoff from there and did the neighbor submit the
letter? Okay,because that was one of the things that we wanted to make sure that the neighbors were
satisfied with what had been done on the street. Because they were the ones that had the biggest complaint
about the runoff from the site previously coming down and running into their property.
MR. TRAVER-And your changes have addressed that?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Good.
MR. DEEB-It really looks good compared to what it was.
MR. HALL-Compared to what was there,and unfortunately.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-That's like one of the entrances to Queensbury,that corridor. You've got the deli that's
looking nice,you know,improving that entrance.
MRS. MOORE-Can you just update me. Was he able to combine the lots?
MR. HALL-The attorney was away last week, so he's getting that done,but,yes,it is in process. They've
been to the County. They've gotten the paperwork for it. This is two lots. There's two,there's a property
line that runs right through the middle of it. We're in the process of combining that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we need to condition that,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-You can put it in there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-To combine.
MR. HALL-To combine the two lots. They're in the process of doing it. It's just the attorney was on
vacation.
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that
wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 44-2024? I'm not seeing any takers. Written comments,
Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There is a written comment. "We were unable to make the meeting. However,we would
like to go on record that the business that wants to operate on the property on the corner of Dix and
Phillips Avenues should be approved without hesitation. We reside on the corner of Phillips and Lynn
Avenues. This business has done more improvements to this property already than the taxi service did
the entire time they were at this address. The taxi service continued to keep a backhoe on the property
and many junk vehicles. In addition they were there all hours of the night. The property has been cleaned
up and looks well maintained. Thank you for your time." This is Cecilia Tanner.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? All right. We
have a draft resolution. We just added one condition that the lots be combined.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#44-2024 WISH HEALTH,INC./MOVERE,LLC
Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 2,SOO sq It building and site to operate two businesses. The first
will be a medical transportation service with an existing fleet of 12 vehicles.The second business operation
converts standard vehicles into accessible vehicles. Plans indicate office and workshop areas. Plans also
show using the existing snow storage area and hedge row and adding crab apple trees. There are no
proposed changes to the existing wall mounted downcast light fixtures. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040
&179-9-120,site plan per requirements of the approval resolution for site plan 43-2022 shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO,the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 7/17/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 7/17/2024 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 7/17/2024-1
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 44-2024 WISHHEALTH, INUMOVERE,LLC. Introduced by
Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption;
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted for items: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1.
landscaping,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r.
construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal as there are minor site work for landscaping and
the site to remain as is existing pavement and no changes to building.
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 7/17/2025;
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provide prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
h) Applicant to combine both lots.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also under New Business,is BBL Management,LLC. This is
Site Plan 40-2024.
SITE PLAN NO.40-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BBL MANAGEMENT,LLC. AGENT(S): JAMIE
MARGELOT. OWNER(S): BBL TRIBUNE, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 40 MEDIA
DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TENANTS IN A 33,000 SQ.
FT. BUILDING FROM FOUR TO TEN. THE SIX ADDITIONAL TENANT SPACES WILL BE
LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND BE DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING SPACES: 4,281
SQ. FT.,4,310 SQ. FT.,5,652 SQ. FT.,4,714 SQ. FT.AND 4,263 SQ. FT. THE FIRST FLOOR THAT
HAS FOUR EXISTING TENANTS, THE EXISTING BUILDING AND CURRENT PARKING
ARRANGEMENTS ALL WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. THERE IS AN EXISTING MONUMENT
SIGN THAT ALLOWS FOR TENANT PANELS TO BE INSTALLED. THERE ARE NO CHANGES
TO THE SITE'S LIGHTING,LANDSCAPING OR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 &z 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR ADDING ADDITIONAL TENANTS
SHALL BE SUBJECT SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-2007,
SP 37-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET
AREA. LOT SIZE: 6.18 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-82.1. SECTION: 179-9-120,179-3-040.
JAMIE MARGELOT,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to increase the number of tenants in a 33,00 square foot building
from four to ten. The six additional tenant spaces will be located on the second floor and divided into
those six spaces. I'm not going to read those square footages. Other than that, there's no additional
changes to the site,and the first floor will remain as is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. MARGELOT-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Board,my name is Jamie Margelot.
I'm with BBL Management,care of BBL Community,LLC. What we have is an existing 6,000 square foot
building. It's at 40 Media Drive. They built this building, I believe,back in 2009. The single purpose
then was for Neilsen Media Company. With COVID they've proven that they don't need the entire
building, as unfortunately a lot of tenants have. So we, I was actually in front of you with Jon Lapper a
couple of years ago. We got this approved for a decrease to a four tenant building,but I was really trying
to lease it out and keep the spaces as large as possible. Unfortunately there's not a lot of larger square
footage tenants out there. Currently we have four tenants in the building. One's actually,their lease ends
this month,at the end of this month,which is Nielsen. They reduced their size from 66,000 to 5,000 square
feet. So we have Travelers,Hudson Headwaters in there now. So there's two tenants. So what I have is,
you know,kind of looking to the future here. We're marketing the space heavily. I would love to lease,
the entire top floor which is 33,000 square feet is vacant. If I could find a single user, that would be
fantastic. I'm kind of future proofing this,in the event that I do have to cut this up a little bit more,then
I'm caught up in the process and able to sign a lease with somebody. So this is all proposed. When it
comes time to do that work and put somebody in that space,we'd obviously go for a building permit and
we'd have to get all the approvals, but this building and the site has remained unchanged. We're not
increasing the amount of people. We're not increasing the amount of cars. Even so, a building this size
would require 240 spots. We have like 600 parking spaces. We have a ton of parking. So there's no
physical changes to the building,no physical changes to the site. All I'm looking to do is have the ability
to lease to more tenants than I have the ability to now,an increase from four to ten.
MR. TRAVER-So in writing you're asking to add ten,but you'd be happy if it was just one,right?
MR. MARGELOT-I would love for it to be just one.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. So the second floor,the physical layout of the second floor,is it all open space
now and you would put in paneling?
MR. MARGELOT-It is not. It goes up into a lobby. There are offices like in the core. So the gray area in
the middle,that's existing now. So there's,it goes into a corridor,and there's,like I said game bathrooms.
So ideally that would remain the same. I would like to do the least amount of work possible,but what I
did is I proved that I could have up to six tenants, maybe more,but we just did six tenants,within that
space and still meet all the Code requirements. So at this point I'm not changing anything until we get a
tenant.
MR. TRAVER-Until you need to.
MR. MARGELOT-Until we need to, and then when that's the case then we'll come in front of the Town
with the building permit application.
MR. TRAVER-Understood.
MR. MAGOWAN-You advertise kind of like build to suit. What do you need,you know. I understand
the market because there's a lot of open offices and that's a big,beautiful building over there. So I see the
need to downsize because I actually know some people that are still working,well it used to be Tribune,
whatever you call it now. She works, and they work from home,but it just works out, it's working out
great. The company feels like they're getting more out of their employees now because they're not
wandering around the coffee machine and they actually do their work. It looks like this is the way things
are going. So the office space you have to make these changes. It's a good idea.
MR. MARGELOT-Thank you.
MR. DEER-Do you have any interest? Is anybody out there interested?
MR. MARGELOT-We had a couple of people interested. We're really marketing this real heavily. I've
listed with Peter Strewsy, Christian Wakefield with Pyramid. Just recently we did a new marketing
brochure with drone footage and pictures of the inside. So we're,unfortunately I don't have a lot of takers
on it. It's a beautiful building. It's right off of the highway and you could move in as is. Nielsen or Tribune
was responsible for the interior maintenance of the building, and if you met Gary, he's this military guy
and he's very precise with everything. It's move in ready. It's a beautiful space.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. MARGELOT-I just want the flexibility,if somebody comes in and says that they want X amount of
square footage,I want to be able to, and again,even though I have a lot of vacancy here,we're looking for
the right fit,too. So I'm not just going to sign on anybody,but when I do have somebody we want to sign
I want to be able to have that opportunity to do so without.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants
to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan? No? Are there written comments,Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Does anybody on the Board have any follow up questions or comments or any reason why
we shouldn't go ahead? Okay. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#40-2024 BBL MANAGEMENT,LLC
Applicant proposes to increase the number of tenants in a 33,000 sq ft building from four to ten. The six
additional tenant spaces will be located on the second floor and be divided into the following spaces:4,2SI
sq ft, 4,310 sq ft,5,652 sq ft, 4,259 sq ft, 4,714 sq ft, and 4,263 sq ft. The first floor that has four existing
tenants, the existing building and current parking arrangements all will remain unchanged. There is an
existing monument sign that allows for tenant panels to be installed. There are no changes to the site's
lighting, landscaping or stormwater management. Pursuant to chapter 179-9-020 &179-3-040, site plan
for adding additional tenants shall be subject to site plan review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO,the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 7/17/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 7/17/2024 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 7/17/2024-1
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 40-2024 BBL MANAGEMENT, LLC. Introduced by Fritz
Stefanzick who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted for items: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1.
landscaping,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r.
construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as there are no site changes and all
modifications are all interior changes for the first and second floor to accommodate additional
tenant space up to 10 total. The approval is valid for one (1)year from the date of approval.
2) Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of
7/17/2025-1
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 17`h day of July 2024 by the following vote:
3S
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2024)
MRS. MOORE-I'm just going to amend one item in there,and we'll end up amending all of them with 7/17
instead of 7/16.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. MARGELOT-And just one question. I don't have plans to physically divide this up into ten spaces
at this point. With that,you guys said there was an expiration. So I don't have to make a physical change
to this space within a year? It doesn't expire?
MR.TRAVER-You don't,and you will get a letter from the Town,following this approval,that will explain
the whole procedure. Basically if you start getting close to that one year, and you want to make an
extension for whatever reason,you can do that through the Town.
MR. MARGELOT-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Well,I'll talk with you further about it. I understand. Usually it's a physical alteration
to the site. Yours is not. Yours is interior. I don't see how that,I'll just confirm about the expiration. I
don't think there's actually an expiration for that. I'll be more of a building permit expiration when you
apply for it,but I'll confirm that. I understand what your question is.
MR. MARGELOT-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Let's see. Our next meeting is
Tuesday,right,Laura? And a reminder that next month we have three to try to cut down on the overhead
a little bit. If there's no other business,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DULY 17TrH 2024,
Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 17`h day of July,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Uncher,Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
39