09-23-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23,2014
INDEX
Site Plan No.46-2014 Russell Canterbury 1.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-25
Subdivision No. 2-2014 Joseph Leuci 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 301.15-1-19
Site Plan No. 61-2014 Fritz&Mary Stefanzick 14.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11
Site Plan No.40-2014 Paul Deslauriers 16.
Freshwater Wetlands 3-2014 Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45
Site Plan No. 53-2014 Thomas Kubricky 25.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-24
Site Plan No. 58-2014 Andrea Gray 27.
Tax Map No. 303.8-1-11
Site Plan No. 59-2014 Russ Faden 31.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-58
Site Plan No. 60-2014 Nicholas Daigle 33.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-16
Subdivision No. 13-1988 Cynthia Morris Suprenant 39.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 315.6-1-37,45, 48; 308.18-1-14
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER,VICE CHAIRMAN
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DAVID DEEB
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, September 23, 2014. Welcome members of the audience. There are copies of the agenda
on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Most of our items this
evening do have public hearings associated. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative
Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SP 46-2014 RUSSELL CANTERBURY: TABLED TO 9-23-2014-FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-They're looking to further table. Do you have any additional information, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I can give you additional information that the applicant is going through the Zoning
Board review process right now, and they weren't able to submit for the Site Plan, and so they
would like to be tabled to a November meeting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're both in one week. Take your pick.
MR. HUNSINGER-18th or 20th.
MRS.MOORE-Pick the first one.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#46-2014 RUSSELL CANTERBURY
On 7-15-2014 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals;
On 7-22-2014 the Planning Board tabled this application to 9-23-2014 pending a decision by the
Zoning Board of Appeals,therefore
On 7-16-2014 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled the application to 9-24-2014;
Therefore,
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 46-2014 RUSSELL CANTERBURY, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Tabled to November 18, 2014.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items on the agenda for recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 SKETCH PLAN, PRELIMINARY STG. JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOOTHILL BUILDERS,LLC ZONING MDR LOCATION PEGGY ANN
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.8 +/-ACRE LOT INTO 18 LOTS RANGING
IN SIZE FROM 1.46 TO 0.58 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE A SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM DENSITY, LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD
AGENCY STATUS,MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND MAY PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE A V 61-2014 LOT SIZE 14.8 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-
1-11 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010
JON LAPPER&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Under this item the applicant proposes to subdivide a 14 acre parcel into an 18 lot
subdivision with lot sizes ranging from .58 acres to 1.68 acres and in this evening's meeting, the
applicant has asked to waive the Sketch Plan Review. The Planning Board is to acknowledge Lead
Agency Status. They may open the public hearing and they may begin the SEQR review for the
Long Form and may make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record Jon Lapper. The Leuci's are right behind us in the first
row and Tom Hutchins is filling in tonight. Tom Nace had a medical issue in his family and Tom
Center is working at the fire department tonight. So I had to find the next engineer named Tom to
fill in. To begin with, I was going to ask Laura to put that up and she has it already. This was one
of the Glens Falls Watershed properties that wasn't necessary for the City and the Leuci's purchased
it, and we're here, well we will be tomorrow night if we get through tonight, seeking the density
variance because this is in the MDR which requires a minimum lot size of two acres unless there's
public water and sewer, and as you see from the picture, this area's entirely developed, other than
the Glens Falls Watershed across the street, and, you know, two acre estate lots would not be in
character with the neighborhood, which means it would not be something that was easy to sell,but
even more unique to this property is that there's the grandfathered junkyard in the backyard,
which also would make it just not economical to put in the roads to build a cul de sac for two acre
lots. So what we're proposing is an 18 lot subdivision that is in character with what is traditionally
there on Peggy Ann Road in this part of Queensbury. We feel this'll be very successful and we hope
that it gets approved. When we were at the Zoning Board, for them to consent to the Planning
Board being Lead Agency, one of the members raised the issue, which Laura mentioned in the Staff
Notes,to ask you to investigate or determine whether the issues with the drainage that were solved
about six or seven years ago now would be exacerbated by this, and that's why I want Tom here to
talk about that. Tom Nace had done that plan and that was all very far east of this, and this is on
high ground with about 12 feet of sand. So there's no issue with drainage on this lot, but it was
certainly a, you know, because it's in that general vicinity, it was certainly legitimate for them to
raise it and to ask you to look at it. So I'll have Tom get into this, but we've submitted the full
application and a Long Form SEQR because it's a subdivision. So this would require you to make a
SEQR determination and a recommendation before we can get to the Zoning Board. So if you
would just put on the record about the drainage.
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. There actually were two areas, one to the east of this parcel, where there
were some drainage issues,longer than the six years ago, I believe.
MR. LAPPER-Queen Victoria's Grant.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, Queen Victoria's Grant, and in that case they had to run an off site discharge,
and that one is, they had groundwater issues. They're about 45 to 50 feet lower in elevation than
this site, and they were in an area of groundwater. We don't have the groundwater issues on this
site, and it's similar in comparison with the Michaels Drive,which is to the south. Again,they're 40
feet lower in elevation, and they're aware there's permeable soils, but there was permeable soils.
Up here we don't have the groundwater issues. It's higher and drier, and those issues, they just
don't exist here on this site, and we don't anticipate them with the controls that they've put
together.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. FORD-You don't anticipate?
MR. HUTCHINS-We don't anticipate to have groundwater issues because we're 40 feet higher.
MR. LAPPER-The sand,because it'll absorb it.
MR. HUTCHINS-We're 40 feet higher, and there's been six or seven test holes done, to over 12 feet,
with no evidence of groundwater whatsoever.
MR. FORD-What about drainage from this to the others where they've had a problem.
MR. LAPPER-Off site.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there's almost no off site drainage from this site because of the permeability
of soils, and there will be even less, according to the models, after the project is completed. We're
able to put in stormwater controls along the road, in a fashion that the Highway Department
prefers, actually, and we drain much of the, in this case the houses will be built above the elevation
of the road. So the front portion of the house,the driveway and all that,will drain generally toward
the road across highly permeable soils, and they can be collected in stormwater controls, and
infiltrated. It's all infiltration.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. KREBS-I have a question of Staff. It says in our Staff Notes that Staff would recommend Lot
Number One be dissolved?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Is there a logic behind that,because I don't see that here.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Yes. Lot One shows, is a small lot. It has frontage on the main road and this
access road. Therefore any new additions such as a pool or a shed or any additions to the house
would probably require some other variances of some sort, and why not just remove that,that case
scenario from the application and just dissolve that in the remaining lots.
MR.TRAVER-In other words,it's too small.
MRS.MOORE-That would be my.
MR. KREBS-Well, except that compared to a lot of the other subdivisions in the area, these are large
lots.
MRS. MOORE-But this lot, if you look at it as a developable lot, you're adding constraints to it that
don't need to be there.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what we would say is that it would be more symmetric and in keeping if that
was a landscaped building lot, you know, rather than a buffer at the road, and to address Laura's
issues, what we could offer is we could covenant this that you can't have a swimming pool because
there really isn't room for it. So that would be a way to, you know, make sure that, and have a
building envelope which would certainly have a subdivision, you know, we could have some
conditions about that,that,you know,maybe no shed and no pool as a way to address that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about just adjusting the lot lines,you know, make that lot 20 feet wider and
all the way down until you get to the curve?
MR. LAPPER-Yes,well,we could do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know how much space you would need to remove those concerns. When
you get to the last end on the curve,that's a huge lot.
MR. LAPPER-I think we could do something to add a few feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-It really doesn't change your plan.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. LAPPER-No, I think that would be a good way to address it. Just add a little, make it bigger.
We could also make it bigger in the back,you know,which is where the real issues is,to turn a little
bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So we'd certainly adjust that lot to make it a bigger lot. It probably wouldn't be
necessary to move it at the road. That's where it's wide. It's the second half of the lot,going to the
back.
MR. HUNSINGER-So angle them all a little?
MR. LAPPER-Or the first three or something,just to make that,we'll certainly take care of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, I didn't think of that,just,yes,angle that line so that it's more parallel.
MR. LAPPER-With the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-With Peggy Ann Road.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-That makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that makes sense.
MR. LAPPER-And it addresses Laura's issue,just in a different way.
MR. DEEB-Jon's saying the first three lots?
MR. LAPPER-We'll have to look at it and make it make sense so it's big enough that,you know, each
of them are a similar size,but I'd say at least the first three lots,maybe the first four lots,just to shift
the second half,so we have more room for Lot One.
MR. HUNSINGER-So will you have to modify the soil in order to put septics in?
MR. LAPPER-Does it have to be slowed down?
MR. HUTCHINS-It's likely that for some of them it would have to be slowed down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-That really varies, really, on a lot by lot basis. He's indicated on there that
individual perc tests on every lot prior to construction, and if they're super-fast soils, which they
may well be,then they'll have to amend soils.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,if you get down to 15 feet before you see mottling.
MR. HUTCHINS-And they didn't see anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-And not only that, but just the upper sands are very course, and that's, I mean,
that's an issue all over that neighborhood.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-Hudson Pointe were a number of those where the soil, they perc faster than a
minute and the septic systems you have to amend. Health Department did witness his test pits,and
the Health Department will have to review it, all the septics. So it's likely that that'll be required on
some or all or on some of them at least.
MR. DEEB-Tom you just said there would be some runoff to the east and west?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUTCH INS-According to the model, yes, there's runoff to the easterly, and there's runoff now
okay, according to, I mean, these stormwater models that we do, it's a math exercise, and it takes
into account the permeability of the soils. It takes into account the rainfall event and it takes into
account the slope of the soils, and it predicts that right now there is some runoff, off this site to the
south, southerly, yes, and that's natural condition. So with, on the developed condition, we
infiltrate as much of the, of course the runoff comes faster from pavement than it does from the
sand,but it's still the same amount of precipitation falling on the footprint of the lot. We capture it
and infiltrate it before it has a chance to runoff, and actually less runs off after the site's developed
with the controls than runs off before,and that's the criteria that we're faced with on any of these.
MR. DEEB-I understand. That makes more sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? So the first draft resolution is to
waive Sketch Plan Review,if anyone would like to put that forward.
RESOLUTION WAIVING SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SUB # 2-2014 AV# 61-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a
14.8 +/- acre lot into 18 lots ranging in size from 1.46 to 0.58 +/- acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to
Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval. Variances: Relief requested from density, lot size, lot width requirements of the MDR
zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status, may conduct SEQR review and may
provide a recommendation to the ZBA.
MOTION TO WAIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The second resolution in your package is to acknowledge Lead Agency Status for
purposes of SEQR review.
MR. KREBS-Ready?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LA STATUS FOR SEQR REVIEW SUB # 2-2014 AV# 61-2014
LEUCI
WHEREAS, Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.8 +/- acre lot into 18 lots ranging in size from
1.46 to 0.58 +/- acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance a
subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested
from density,lot size,lot width requirements of the MDR zone.
WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Town Board, by resolution,
previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the
desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified
and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent;
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEQR REVIEW
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2014 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members of the Board comfortable with beginning the SEQR review this
evening?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will open the public hearing for SEQR review. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have at least one, if you could
give up the table, please. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to address the
Board to voice their concerns. Anyone wishing to speak, I would ask that you state your name for
the record, and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is
posted on the Town's website and it's also used to transcribe the minutes. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHERINE HUTT
MRS. HUTT-Hi. My name is Kathleen Hutt. I own the property directly adjacent to the proposed
development to the west. I've lived there for 27 years. I take issue with the statements that there
won't be drainage problems. Because in the 27 years that I've lived there, I can tell you that, even
where I live, and I know that there's a lot of sand there. I've lived there. The ground gets very
saturated at times. There's a lot of runoff on the road. I know the people across the street from me
suffered with water in their yard for many years until the Town put in additional drainage for them
just recently. I know that the Queensbury Forest development did have some severe water issues
for a long time,and it took, I don't know exactly how long,but it took quite a bit of time before there
was any resolution, and there were many people that had significant damage to their homes
because of the water. So I do take issue with that. I'm not an engineer, but I've lived there, so I
know what I've experienced on the street. I question why, when the property was sold, that there
was a statement made that there were only going to be six units placed on the property and now all
of a sudden it's eighteen. My house is just, my property is just under an acre, and I feel that's
adequate and to,you know,to think of having several other units as small as just a little over half an
acre, I don't think is appropriate for that stretch of land.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you show us on the map where your house is? Thank you.
MRS. HUTT-I'm not tall enough,but I'm right here. I live there, I'm the adjacent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. So do you have problems with water in your basement or
anything like that?
MRS. HUTT-I have. I mean, it's not severe,but I definitely have had wetness in the basement, and I
have just as much sand on my land as there is going to be on any other development.
MR. DEEB-When's the last time you had problems?
MRS. HUTT-Last year.
MR. DEEB-Big storm?
MRS. HUTT-Just through the winter,mostly,just the runoff in the Spring.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. HUTT-Thank you.
MR. FORD-How do you accommodate the water in the basement now?
MRS. HUTT-How do I accommodate it? I just have to try to vacuum it up and just dry everything
out.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. FORD-You don't have a sump pump?
MRS. HUTT-I don't. I may have to if it doesn't get better. It's not every year. I'm not going to tell
you it's every year, but there have been times where there's been water, and to think that there's
going to be, you know, 18 units that's going to be creating more runoff, especially with the
pavement,is something I'm not comfortable with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. HUTT-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Were there any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-What Tom just said to me when we were listening is that it can't be groundwater
because we know groundwater is beyond 12 feet deep. So it could be snow melting or pooling,
there could be grading issue, in terms of whether their stuff is graded away from their house. We
don't know,but it's certainly not groundwater. Do you want to comment on that?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I'll take a shot. I mean, I started looking at this a few days ago so I'm not as
familiar with it as the actual design engineer is, and you folks all know that,but I have been through
all the documentation, and I see no evidence that there's, that there can be any groundwater issues
within that upper 10, 12 feet anyway, and that's just because that's as deep as they went. I suspect
it's considerably deeper than that, but I don't know the precise depth to groundwater, but it's
greater than 12 feet. I have been through the design in detail. It is consistent with what has been
done in very recent residential subdivisions within, with those types of soils in the Town. The
standards have been upgraded. The sizing has been increased from projects of some years ago, and
what's been done over the past five to ten years have been very successful and there haven't been
issues with this methodology. The Town Engineer has looked at it. They did have some
comments. None of them were really significant or what I would see as errors or things that were
missed in the design. They seemed relatively straightforward. So I'm not sure about issues in the
neighborhood. I haven't seen them.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we do have a letter from the Town Engineer with a number of questions.
MR. HUTCHINS-Ten or eleven,yes.
MR.TRAVER-So in effect,Tom,you're kind of a second opinion,in looking at the original design.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I am.
MR.TRAVER-And you're not seeing,based on, as you say,you looked at it for a few days,you're not
seeing any issues with groundwater?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. I mean, I've been through the tests. I've walked the entire perimeter.
There's,based on the data,there's no evidence of groundwater. Based on a complete walk through
of the project,there's no evidence of, certainly, runoff from the site. So your statement is accurate,
yes.
MR. TRAVER-And in addition the Town Engineer is going to have to signoff on your project,
indicating that there's no stormwater leaving the site. Correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. The stormwater design is in accordance with standards.
MR. LAPPER-No more than is leaving the site today. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Additional comments,questions from the Board?
MR. DEEB-Did we do Lead Agency?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-We did,we did do Lead Agency.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you're going to do SEQR tonight or not?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that's what we're working on.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know,that's why I asked the question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was my next question to the Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Sorry.
MR. FORD-So the runoff from this site will be no worse,and could be an improvement?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It will be,the criteria we have to meet is a reduction in runoff, runoff rate and
volume from this site for the developed condition versus that for the pre-developed condition. So,
yes,less runoff,less rate,less volume.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Is there a huge height differential between the two properties?
MR. HUTCHINS-I don't believe there is. I'm going from memory, but, no. As heading west on
Peggy Ann Road, once you're up to this property I believe it's, that property is at about the same
elevation we're at.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks as though it's higher,or it's lower, I'm sorry.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's actually a little higher,yes.
MR. LAPPER-The neighbor's lot is higher.
MR. FORD-By approximately how much?
MR. LAPPER-A foot.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to proceed with SEQR, I mean, we know that there's the potential
for an issue with at least one neighbor, but that could certainly be addressed during the design
phase.
MRS.MOORE-Could be mitigated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-And we also don't know why that neighbor is necessarily getting water in their
basement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-It could be for a lot of other reasons other than elevation relative to the property next
door. So, it could be the fact that when the basement was put in, it wasn't put in correctly.
Therefore it's allowing water to flow into the basement. I mean, I don't know,without inspecting it,
you can't say that, but, I'm just saying there may be other reasons other than just elevation of the
property,because it's a foot higher than the adjoining property.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my point is, you know, there is a concern there. So we certainly can't
ignore it. It's on the record and we will need to address it and consider it as we move forward. Is
that,is the Board comfortable with that?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think, again, it's going to require a signoff in terms of the engineering. So if
there is an issue, it will be unmasked during that review process and have to be addressed before
any development takes place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments or questions from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,the only,with the SEQR, is the lot sizes. I was just trying to get a comparison
of the lot sizes on either side.
MR. LAPPER-Laura's map is pretty helpful. It's the coversheet that we have on the subdivision.
MRS.MOORE-I'm sorry,what information were you looking for?
MR. LAPPER-A comparison of the lot sizes in the vicinity,on either side.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean,except for,obviously,the super large ones,you know.
MR. LAPPER-The cul de sac lots.
MRS.MOORE-Yes. I don't have those drawings up.
MR. HUTCHINS-We didn't have lot sizes, I don't think.
MR. LAPPER-You can take a look at the coversheet,but it doesn't have numbers.
MR. MAGOWAN-No,it doesn't.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean,it's basically what's up on the screen.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, if you count down the lots on one side, there's basically six, and we're
talking nine. So, you know, if you're looking at the lines in the back, I was just trying to get a
comparison of how much smaller they would be.
MR. LAPPER-The proposed lots are a lot deeper. So,size wise,they're going to be bigger lots.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, they're deeper and skinnier and longer, but, I mean, without any numbers,
how do I.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's our next step is to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
They won't hear it until we give them a recommendation.
MR. FORD-We have to do SEQR before we do that?
MR. HUNSINGER-We do. The question is whether we had to do SEQR before our recommendation
to the Zoning Board,and we do.
MRS.MOORE-You do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because the Zoning Board can't take action unless SEQR is conducted.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we've got to do SEQR and a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. So this is a SEQR Long Form, and I don't know when the last time we
did one on the new forms that was a Long Form. I think it might be helpful to walk through each of
the items,if you don't mind, Don,just the headings. There's, I think,ten.
MR. LAPPER-Part II starts Page One of Ten.
MRS.MOORE-Do you want me to read through those,the titles?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure,if you don't mind. Yes.
MRS.MOORE-Okay. You have them on a little cheat sheet.
MRS. MOORE-I do have the cheat sheet. Okay. The first item under Part II that the Board would
consider is Impact on Land, and the examples here are Proposed action may involve construction
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. Some of the items that you
would consider relevant, small impact, or moderate to large. You can choose different selections
here. The first example here is A. The proposed action may involve construction on land where
depth to water table is less than 3 feet. You know that's not the case in this proposal. Do you want
me to give additional examples for you to consider?
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like most everyone's on the form. Certainly the proposed action may
involve construction that continues for more than one year. This is just the construction of
individual houses.
MRS.MOORE-So you would be answering yes,but is it an impact that is a small impact?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,small impact.
MRS.MOORE-Okay. All right. So the answer to One is yes,and it's considered small?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Correct.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you. The next item is Impact on Geological Features The proposed action
may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual
landforms on the site (e.g. cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves), and examples under the small
impact or moderate to large would be action may affect adjacent geologic features or registered
National Landmarks or if there's other items that you've identified.
MR.TRAVER-No,there's none on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's a no.
MRS.MOORE-Question Number Two would be no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Item Number Three is Impact on Surface Water. The proposed action may affect one
or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g.stream,rivers,ponds,or lakes)
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. MOORE-Number Three is no. Number Four is Impact on Groundwater. The proposed action
may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce
contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would say no.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Item Number Five is Impact on Flooding. The proposed action may result in
development on lands subject to flooding.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don't know. Wouldn't we, by virtue of the stormwater management
report,almost have to say yes because the goal is to have less runoff now or after development than
what currently exists. So we would be modifying the existing drainage patterns.
MR.TRAVER-This is referring to lands subject to flooding.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This isn't flooding.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're right.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR.TRAVER-So the answer would be no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-The next item is Number Six, Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a
state regulated air emission source.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS.MOORE-Item Seven, Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of
flora or fauna.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR.TRAVER-Yes and no,there's no threatened or endangered species.
MRS. MOORE-Eight is Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact
agricultural resources.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. MOORE-Item Nine, Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are
obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the
proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS.MOORE-Item Number Ten, Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. MOORE-Item Eleven, Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result
in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any
adopted municipal open space plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. MOORE-Item Twelve, Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be
located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area known as a CEA?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Item Thirteen, Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a
change to existing transportation systems.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Item Fourteen, Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the
use of any form of energy.
MR. KREBS-No.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Item Fifteen, Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an
increase in noise,odors,or outdoor lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Sixteen, Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on
human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Seventeen, Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not
consistent with adopted land use plans.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Eighteen, Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is
inconsistent with the existing community character.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS.MOORE-That completes all the questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-So now you can make your motion.
MRS. MOORE-And you would be doing Part Three if there was any evaluation of magnitude,
importance of project impacts. You can identify that during discussion, that there was a question
about the water being, whether it's surface water or ground water potentially being a problem, but
through the project's design, the intent is to mitigate any runoff off the site. I think there's
probably a better way to word that,but.
RESOLUTION RE: SEQR NEGATIVE DEC FOR AV# 61-2014 SUB # 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI
The applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.8 +/- acre lot into 18 lots ranging in size from 1.46 to
0.58 +/- acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance a subdivision
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from density,
lot size, lot width requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency
Status,may conduct SEQR review and may provide a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject
to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2014&
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And then lastly, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Well, I guess
it's up to the Board. I kind of feel like we should mention to the Zoning Board the concern of the
neighbor.
MR. TRAVER-I think we can mention that the engineering is going to be particularly critical with
regards to runoff because of the nature of the neighborhood and historical issues with runoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then there was also the issue about adjusting the lot line.
MR. LAPPER-To make the first lot line larger.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,we should put that in there.
MR. LAPPER-And that would be something we'd talk about at the Planning Board, after the Zoning
Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to the Zoning Board tomorrow night?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they won't see these minutes? Okay.
MR. LAPPER-No,they will.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Will they?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We'd agree to that as a condition, but we'll just work that out with you guys, in
term of what the lot configuration should be.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 61-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a
14.8 +/- acre lot into 18 lots ranging in size from 1.46 to 0.58 +/- acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to
Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval. Variances: Relief requested from density, lot size, lot width requirements of the MDR
zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status, may conduct SEQR review and may
provide a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-23-2014:
The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
The Planning Board has 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:
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
The Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with
the current project proposal,but the lot line to make Lot Number One larger is requested. Two,the
Planning Board is aware of the stormwater issues in the area and will be evaluating that further, in
accordance with the Town's Engineer.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-The lot line to make Lot Number One larger is requested. Two, the Zoning Board to
make sure they investigate potential runoff to adjacent lots.
MR. LAPPER-Would that be the Zoning Board or the Planning Board?
MRS. MOORE-I would re-word it a bit saying that the Planning Board is aware of the issue about
stormwater from the past,the area surrounding, I can't think of the right wording,but the Planning
Board is aware of the stormwater issues in the area and will be evaluating that further, in
accordance with the Town's Engineer.
MR. LAPPER-During subdivision review.
MR. KREBS-Okay. So I'll correct that and say that the Planning Board is aware that they will
investigate the potential runoff to adjacent lots at a future time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura said it better.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Well,we'll use Laura's version,then.
MR. MAGOWAN-Per Laura.
MRS.MOORE-Maria,do you want me to repeat that?
MS. GAGLIARDI-No.
MRS.MOORE-You've got it? Okay.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the neighbor's information, the Zoning Board will have a public
hearing as well. There'll be an opportunity for you to address the Zoning Board, and assuming it
goes through the Zoning Board, during Site Plan Review, we would also have an additional public
hearing. So there'll be two more opportunities for comments. Okay. You're all set.
MR. LAPPER-I'm on last. I'll see you in a little while.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 61-2014, which is also a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SITE PLAN NO. 61-2014 SEQR II FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 43 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 17-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY, FRONT AND
SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 69-2014
WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA & NWI
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-
010
FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes removal and reconstruction of a garage addition. The Site
Plan is in reference to expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA, and the variance is relief
requested from minimum permeability, height, front and rear setback requirements of the
Waterfront zone.
MR. STEFANZICK-Hi. Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. STEFANZICK-My name's Fritz Stefanzick. What I'm seeking is your positive recommendation
or approval for me to reconstruct and upgrade an existing garage that I have. From one of the
sketches that I've provided,it's a hand sketch,what I'm seeking to do is, I have a 536 sq.ft.structure
right now. It's basically sitting on a parcel that's 24 by 24 feet with the exception of a corner, about
40 sq. ft. that's off on a diagonal. What I'm looking to do is knock down half of that structure and
then re-build on that same footprint and square it off, and now I have a solid square, 24 by 24
structure, that I could then build and add a new roofline. So what I'll be ending up doing is using
the 40 square feet, addition of 40 square feet to square off the existing property. The property has
been in non-conformance and that's why I'm going to go to the Zoning Board tomorrow for an Area
Variance, but once I reconstruct the garage, it's all for personal use. It's going to enhance the use
that I have right now for storage,have a two car garage instead of a one car garage and so forth.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions,comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the height on a,is it 18 feet or is it 20?
MRS. MOORE-In the Waterfront zone the height allowance is up to 16 feet, as an accessory
structure.
MR. STEFANZICK-Right now the existing structure is 16 feet and 4 inches right now from the
property.
MR. FORD-The proposed is?
MR. STEFANZICK-Is going to be 23, 9.
MR. FORD-And the rationale for exceeding what is called for in that zone is?
MR. STEFANZICK-What I'm looking to be able to do is have a two car garage, so I can put two cars in
but upstairs I need some storage. I want to have some storage where I could have headroom,
where I could walk up there, put my equipment, my tools, seasonal equipment, all of that, and to get
that, I need to have that height.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why you want the dormers.
MR. STEFANZICK-Well, I wanted the dormers also to have some light up there also.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,you wouldn't have any headroom.
MR. STEFANZICK-You have no headroom,that's true. My main house has no attic and no basement.
So I have absolutely no storage for anything.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You probably should put a shed dormer instead of.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and part of the reason for the taller height is, as you look on the plan there,
the land drops off on the one.
MR. STEFANZICK-There's two fixed points. You're absolutely right. There's two fixed points that I
have to work with. The road and then my property, and the way it's designed is that using those
two fixed points, that first floor, the ceiling of that garage is at minimum height for me to be able to
open up the garage door, and then from there I work up, so I have enough headroom to get up the
stairs.
MR. KREBS-This unit is significantly away from the lake anyway. I mean, if you know Hanneford, I
owned property on that road once, and,you know,you've got a very large drop off in the front part
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
of that property. So,you know, the height is not going to make a significant difference, and there's
very little property beyond the front side,there's very little property on the back side.
MR. STEFANZICK-Absolutely, and the way it's positioned with the houses across the street, they're
off to the side,so when they're looking out,they still have a direct view of the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-So are you confident that the existing foundation will be strong enough to hold the
new structure?
MR. STEFANZICK-Absolutely. It's a solid foundation, solid cinderblock structure right now. The
part that I'm going to remove will have a new foundation put in, and then that foundation will be
joined up to the existing foundation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was actually pretty interesting. I was out there today and ran into one of the
Zoning Board members who was also doing site plan reviews,at the same time.
MR. STEFANZICK-On this property?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was about one o'clock. Any concerns with the proposal, other than the
height that we discussed? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 69-2014 FRITZ&MARY STEFANZICK
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes removal and re-
construction of a garage addition. Site Plan: Pursuant to 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning
Ordinance expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from minimum permeability, front and side
setback requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall make 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 NO. 69-2014 FRITZ &MARY STEFANZICK,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
The Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with
the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. STEFANZICK-Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2014 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2014 SEQR TYPE II PAUL
DESLAURIERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION WINCOMA
DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,475 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
DWELLING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FILLING AND
HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE (WETLAND) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT HAS OBTAINED A.C.O.E. PERMIT
AUTHORIZATION FOR DISTURBANCE OF A PORTION OF THE WETLAND. PER CHAPTER 94
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FWW REVIEW REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET
OF A REGULATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-14, AV 46-14, BOH APPROVAL, SB
5-65, SECT. 3/4 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-45 SECTION 179-6-050,
CHAPTER 94
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PAUL DESLAURIERS, PRESENT
MRS.MOORE-Do you wish me to read the information into the record?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,please.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant's project still remains as the construction of a 2,475 square foot
single family home. The Zoning Board has granted a front setback relief at their September
meeting and then at their July meeting they granted relief for the shoreline setback and height
relief. The applicant is requesting filling within 50 feet of a shoreline, which is subject to Planning
Board review, and Freshwater Wetlands permit for disturbance within 100 feet of a regulated
wetland.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DESLAURIERS-Paul Deslauriers.
MR. HUTCHINS-And Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. This project's been before you in the
past for recommendations to the Zoning Board. It's actually been through quite a process. We've
had input from DEC's wetlands group. We have a permit from the Corps of Engineers to work
within the wetland. We've been to the local Board of Health, the Town Board, requesting a
variance for a wastewater system. The Town Engineer was involved and reviewed the project at
that point in time, and we've been before this Board and we've been to the Zoning Board. We had
requested a 40 foot setback from the wetland for the rear setbacks from the wetland from the
shoreline, from the Zoning Board of Appeals. They asked us could we re-look at the design and see
if we could make it work with that at 50, which we did. However, in moving the building closer to
the road, we asked for seven feet of relief for the front porch, and that variance was granted from
the Zoning Board. So we have relief for, or we have approvals for the wastewater system and
variances as presented, and we're back before you for site plan. Again, this is Lot 58 of the Rolling
Ridge Estates subdivision approved by this Board, what, 1981, a long time ago. What we're
showing is essentially, I do have that subdivision map. The whole subdivision was done on one
sheet, and the location of the house, the location of the wastewater system are pretty much, they
are where they were indicated on the original subdivision map. Obviously we've been through a
process of re-location and moving and improving, and for various reasons, and we believe we have
a workable concept, and we're asking for your support, and we'll take questions, and anything you
want to add, Paul?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR.TRAVER-We certainly looked at this.
MR. DEEB-Yes,pretty thoroughly.
MR. HUTCHINS-I'd like to add, I just want to add one other point. We did ask for that seven feet of
relief from the 30 foot front setback. This property is a little bit unique in that the right of way is a
long ways from the edge of the road, or the road isn't centered in the right of way, whichever way
you want to look at it,the edge of the road is 23 feet from the right of way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. HUTCH INS-Normally with a 20 foot pavement, if it were in the center, it would be 15 feet. So
the house will be 46 feet from the edge of the road. So, again, normally, with the road in the center
of the right of way,the house, at the front setback,would be 45 feet from the edge. So,yes,we have
a variance for front setback relief. However,from an appearance standpoint,the house is not going
to look like it's closer to the road. It's just because the right of way is a long ways from the road
that a little bit unique on this property.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. KREBS-It's also not exactly a high traffic area either.
MR. HUTCHINS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing
scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board?
Okay. We do have at least one taker,if you could give up the table,please, a couple. Okay. Ma'am,
did you want to be first? Just in case people weren't here before, I would ask anyone who wishes to
address the Board to state their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone and
to address your comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
BONNIE MAC LEAN
MRS. MAC LEAN-Well I just want to clarify, the wastewater system that sounds so pristine isn't
really a wastewater system. It's their septic system, which doesn't meet the covenant of Rolling
Ridge along with several other covenants.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,ma'am,could you identify yourself.
MRS. MAC CLEAN-I'm sorry. Bonnie MacLean, I live in Rolling Ridge. I also brought an aerial
picture. This is from 2011, and this is the lot in question, and those were the trees that were on
that lot. It's my understanding that DEC requires a 100 foot buffer to protect the wetlands. He
clear cut this lot,and it was on July 4th and 5th. It was a holiday. We spoke to the people who were
cutting, and they say, oh, yes, we're getting, you know, we're getting extra work today. The last
meeting that we had about the variances for this property was, I think, on September 11th. At that
time they were going back and forth about the square footage of the house. They were told that the
house's footprint was too big for the lot, and so the 2500 feet has now come down I see tonight to
2475,but this lot is clear cut. This lot has had dumping in it. All of these things are against the 17
covenants that go with Reid's Rolling Ridge. So I don't know, the last meeting I gave a list of the
covenants,the original ones from the 1950's. I don't know if you have that. I turned it in as Exhibit
A. Does this Board have that?
MR. KREBS-No, but we wouldn't be responsible for enforcing the covenants of the subdivision.
We're only here to administer the Zoning Ordinance of the Town.
MRS. MC LEAN-Well, I was interested in what you were telling them about the property that was
being divided up for a subdivision, about the covenants. That doesn't wash with what you're
saying.
MR. KREBS-No,we weren't talking about covenants.
MRS. MAC LEAN-Yes. You were talking about covenants with the people who wanted to divide the
lot up into 18 building lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision regulations.
MR. KREBS-Subdivision regulations.
MR. KREBS-Not covenants.
MRS. MAC LEAN-Okay. These are covenants that run with the land, and it's for this subdivision,
Rolling Ridge.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.MAC LEAN-Okay.
MR. KREBS-But just for your edification, usually those covenants are to be enforced by a
Homeowners Association.
MRS.MAC LEAN-Right.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. KREBS-Not the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not the Planning Board.
MRS. MAC LEAN-Okay. Several people got together and researched what was going on, and the
exhibit that I gave the Board on September 11th was an exact replica of our covenants. In other
words, he's building on a wetlands. He was supposed to build within six months and it was
supposed to be complete within a year. People have lost money, myself included, years ago,
because we didn't build within a year, and so you lost your deposit, and that was it. He's tried to
sell this lot for eight years. Contractors have come and spoken to us and said we wouldn't touch
this lot with a 10 foot pole. It's wetlands. Now because he has clear cut the lot and has had
dumping going on on the lot, those are against the covenants, and we had the meeting on a
Thursday night and on Monday morning another crew came in and took the rest of the trees that
were there down. So I don't know what to say. The water that is going to come from the running
stream that goes through there and the wetlands is going to have to be taken care of in his
basement somehow. The sump pumps will be running 24/7 and they'll be discharged into the
wetlands, which is not allowable. So, you know, I don't even know where the well is going to go
here because there's not a lot of room. The aquifer that runs underneath Rolling Ridge supplies all
of our wells. If there's a lot of fill pressed in,it will affect the aquifer,it will affect the way the water
is going to run. If his experimental septic system fails, I don't have to tell you what that's going to
mean. It's going to affect our water quality. Maybe we'll have another Love Canal there. I don't
know. We have a nice subdivision. We try to keep the properties up. Everybody has invested.
Everybody pays their taxes. This is ridiculous. We have rules, and somebody has to be the
conscience for the Town. As an aside, I noticed today, I was going down Quaker Road, where
Meadowbrook Road crosses, I think it's somewhere near where the Heidelberg Inn is. You'll notice
that there are four real estate signs, and the real estate signs are right in wetlands. Take a look.
You see the cattails and everything else. So I'd like to give you this. I've labeled it 2011 Aerial
View, and I don't know how people are supposed to protect their land. This subdivision has been
going since the 50's. Everybody walked in, bought the lot, built their house, had to adhere to this
covenants. Now you have somebody coming in, holding on to a piece of property,trying to turn it
over for eight years, and making all kinds of variances. If there was no problem, why are we here
to often? Why are we getting variances for every aspect of this building. I don't know. You're
more experienced with this than I am. I'm just a homeowner. I'm just trying to protect the
environment and my home value. So would you like this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you can start it right down there, and we'll give it to Laura at the end for the
record. Anyone else? Yes,sir. Good evening.
GEORGE HAGERTY
MR. HAGERTY-My name is George Hagerty. I built a home at 10 Linden Road, which is, we go
through Wincoma to get to Sheraton to Wincoma, very close to the project site in question. We
built in 1984, and I had all of the Combs and Reid, Dr. Reid, Robert Reid and Clifford Combs had this
map, Rolling Ridge development. It was dated somewhere around 1956, and they had,yes I had a
list of the covenants as to the minimum square footage that we were developed to, and the septic
system was defined on the map, and when we built in 1984 of course the Board of Health had
requirements for septic systems that would supersede something that was state of the art in 1956.
So of course we built to what was required, and I think it was Mac Dean maybe that came and
inspected that. Further,a little bit north of us,maybe six,eight hundred feet,going north on Linden
Road, you go downhill, and there's another wetlands area. There's a gentleman and his wife that
built a home there, Matt Hummel,and he was close to wetlands,and he had to put in a similar waste
treatment septic system as to what was approved on this one by the Board of Health. He's been
there for over five years, and I talked to him tonight, and his system was working fine, and he also
had to conform to the different wetlands requirements. Now, my position is, is that I looked over
the documents, the two inch thick pile of documents in that file, and my opinion is that with the
current Board of Health approval, and with the Army Corps of Engineers approval with respect to
the wetlands, that the applicant has done everything right in his follow up work, and it's easy to be
against something, but I'm here to stake in favor of the project because I think he's done things
right. Also, there's a little bit of emotion. All of us who live in Rolling Ridge, we leave Ridge Road,
we drive into this canopy of trees. In the Autumn it's really fantastic. There have been two other
homes north of this applicant's proposal, two other homes, Stockwells and Facto built within two
more homes in the last 20 years, on that side of the road, off the shoulder where they had to bring
in a lot of fill. Their backyards are on these same wetlands, and we still have our canopy of trees.
The new homeowners that take on land on Wincoma maintain the trees better than what Mother
Nature does because we have storms and we have to wait for limbs to get cleared off the road to
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
drive in. So I have a belief that the canopy of trees will still be there for entrance, and when trees
are taken down,there's sunlight for new growth when new trees are planted. So I'm in favor of this
project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
MICHAEL SPIELBERGER
MR. SPIELBERGER-My name is Michael Spielberger. I live at 11 Sheraton Lane South in Rolling
Ridge, and I think that this all started back in 1981 when the Board that was here made that lot a
residential lot, which it should never have been. So now we've come all this time, and the
Deslauriers and the residents in our neighborhood and the Board and everything all got wrapped
up into this quote disagreement over this property, and it is a wetlands, and there are some issues
that I have concerns with as far as maintaining the water table and the wetlands in that area,
especially since, on another topic, the airport expansion is going to affect that same area to some
degree. I think that the Deslauriers have done everything they possibly could in following the rules
required by the laws. I just think it was a bad idea, and I think they were given bad advice by either
the seller of the property originally, and the real estate agent who sold them the property because
that property sat vacant for a very,very longtime,and there was a reason for it. If this project goes
forward, and it was a mistake, we're all going to pay for it in the neighborhood, to a certain extent.
The project doesn't go forward,the Deslauriers are going to pay for it in the long run. It's a no win
situation. So of course we're going to, I feel we should,you know,you guys are going to be making
the decision on this, and I don't think it's a win for anybody in this, and it's a shame that this lot was
sold in the first place because it's really not a really good lot to build on, and hopefully if they do
build on it and their home is, they don't have water issues and there is no water issues associated
with it,but we won't know until that's done. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-I'd just like to reference, though, one of the things that's different, in 1981, I sat on this
Planning Board, okay, haven't been here all that time since, but the number of regulations that we
had to use to determine whether or not a subdivision got approved were probably one twentieth of
the regulations that exist today.
MR. SPIELBERGER-Okay. Well, you know, with all the building that we have in our neighborhood,
it's a much bigger neighborhood now.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SPIELBERGER-But,you know,it's a difficult situation. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No other takers? Do you want to come back to the
table.
MRS.MOORE-I do have public comment that was from June 26th.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask if there were any written comments.
MRS.MOORE-And I can read it into the record. I don't believe it was read into the record in June.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-And this is from Joan Reid,and I don't know if Joan Reid's in the audience and that she
would like me to continue reading this, and I don't see any faces pop up. So why don't I just read it
for the record's purpose.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was this, I'm sorry,go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is actually, it was received in the office on June 26, 2014, and it was
addressed to the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury. "It has come to my attention, a little
over a week ago, that Paul DesLauriers is applying for a variance to build his home and septic
system closer to our wetlands than required. I have a big concern about this. For 51 plus years, I
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
have lived next to these wetlands. My father owned this land and started Rolling Ridge being very
aware that the wetlands were precious to our environment. The original survey was very careful
to stay away from the wetlands so people would not build there. In 1982 or 1983 my father
received a letter from the Town saying that they were designating many of his acres of land to be
town wetland, including right next to Paul's lot, to have sufficient designated wetland acreage for
our town. This was at the time of the Earl town proposals and the peat moss farm which was being
planned south of the airport. Because this land Laakso, Macri and Eastwood wanted to develop
was the town's designated wetland area,they now needed to replace it with other Queensbury land.
My father was told he could not build on this land, or in a sense, do anything with it that would hurt
our precious wetlands. In light of this, my father eventually gave this land to Queensbury, with the
understanding that this was indeed designated wetlands for our Town. The Town Laws were
created to help protect wetland boundaries,water tables, natural drainage and wells. The DEC has
been involved and has drawn boundaries to ensure our water safety, making requirement for
Property, Wetlands, Buildings, and well setbacks. Changing these laws is not for our health and
well-being. I understand that the proposed Presby Enviro-septic system is "supposed" to be good
and research has shown many states that have approved it. there are also many states that have
looked into this experimental system and realizes some of it has flaws, so these states have not
approved it. Even the Presby Enviro-septic system web site lists some of the defects they are
working on to fix, and possible areas to be cautious about. I am enclosing a copy of web
information about this septic system, and including a couple website addresses for you to check for
more information. As states in Paul's application, #13 page 2 of 4......They will "Discharge Fill
material into approximately 2560 Square Feet of Wetlands to facilitate construction of a single
family home." There is a reason the DEC's original boundaries are where they are. Wet lands do
fluctuate as the season becomes dyer or wetter. Looking at the original maps show DEC lines to be
15-20 feet from the proposed Leach field. The "new Core of Engineer lines" (created just this year
April 2014) are smaller, and in an area that does dry up some during the summer months. Also the
newer lines on the proposed map are at an angle, not directly toward the wet lands. Were these
wetland lines changed this year to accommodate a new house? These lands are wet and moist
most of the year. As of Monday of this week, you could see standing water from the road. I took
Photos. If you look at the vegetation,you can see the edge of the cattails,which are a wetland plant,
and, where the goldenrod grows. Goldenrod does not grow in wetland. One does need to stand
and observe to see this because goldenrod has not flowered yet. We have to save our wetlands
and protect our water. I have a well and am concerned about how this would affect my drinking
water. Since there are more houses around me now, since I built my home, I have seen a change in
the water tables and drainage in this field. Another point is, almost all of the Trees have been
cleared from His property. I am concerned about the run-off and especially what happens during
construction of such a large building. I understand Paul wants to get another variance to build his
house taller than the law states, and wants even another variance to fill in and build his house 35
feet closer to the wetlands. A Larger house, Building his leach field into the protected boundaries
of our wetlands, and building his house 35 feet closer, again, into the wetland boundaries is not OK
with me. the weight of the fill and the large house can change the water table for many of us in this
neighborhood. Look at what happened to our historic Half-way brook which is now a drainage
ditch. I worry about our precious wetlands and what will happen to this water if the Enviro-septic
system fails, if the house being built is bigger and lots of fill has to happen so it too can be built in
our wetland boundary area. I met Paul. I believe him to be a nice person. Why does he need 3
different variances to build his home. If that is the case, this is not where he should build. I
recommend him building his home within the required boundaries, and having a holding tank for
his septic system. Another solution would be to do what his neighbors did and put his septic in
front of his home, so it is not in the wetland protective boundaries. Again, I have lived on the edge
of these wetlands for many years, and Paul's proposed leach field and home are a danger to our
wetlands. I would like to see an environmental impact statement about this project,which includes
what will happen as this wetland is continued being filled in 13 feet here, and 2500 ft. there. How
will this and the wetland areas such as the Airport proposal affect our Town of Queensbury
designated wetland areas. When will this Stop! This shows a disturbing trend. Once these
ecosystems are compromised, it is very difficult to go back and repair them...or impossible. I
would have attended this meeting,however, I was not aware of this meeting until noon today when
a neighbor called and let me know. Also, this issue is not listed on your website agenda. thank
you for reading my letter and considering what I've said. Joan Reid 627 Ridge Road, Queensbury,
NY 12804"
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the only one, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Yes,that is the only one.
MR. HUTCHINS-Was that the one from June?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MRS.MOORE-This is from June and it was never read into the Planning Board record.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have any? Yes,go ahead.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I'll comment. Well everybody knows we're here because the rules have
changed and as you mentioned there are a lot more rules than there were at the time that this lot
was approved. It's not unique. I've done it many, many times before. I've been here, and it
happens in particular with wetlands. Now these wetlands, DEC was there, Jed was there
delineated them. He was there a couple of times, delineated them himself, and then they were
located by survey. The Corps wetlands, Roberts Environmental delineated. The Corps verified
them and they were surveyed in. They issued the permit based upon that. As far as the septic
system, we'd like to think, it's fully in compliance. It's over 100 feet from the wetland. It meets
the setback alone. There was no variance with regard to wetland setback. We had originally
asked for that, frankly, to save some trees, and as the process evolved, we decided that, at the
request of the Board of Health we made some revisions to the location of the septic system, and it
cost us some more trees. This is not an experimental wastewater system. I have done at least five
of them in Queensbury and a number more in other towns. It is not, it's a little different than a
conventional system. In fact it's an enhanced treatment system. We did it because it's a very good
system. We didn't do it because it was an experiment, and I probably could have eked a
conventional system in here, but this, in our opinion, it's a better system, in Paul's opinion it's a
better system, and frankly he choose it, and that's the system. He wanted to go with it. I agreed
with him. I don't know, I think we've looked at countless options here, and with that, I'll turn it
back over for questions., Anything you wanted to hit on?
MR. DESLAURIERS-No.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. I just would make the comment, because people keep doing this, that it's
time consuming and it's a little annoying, but time moves on, and when we talk about technology,
things in the development,like the wastewater systems and whatever, it's what's the most modern,
what's upfront now,not what happened in the 50's and 60's. We could careless. It's what's going
to happen with the applicant now, and is he using good judgment. Is his engineer giving him good
advice and has he got the latest. These comments about homeowners associations,that doesn't cut
anything with us. We go by the Town Code, and as Don pointed out, there are so many changes in
the rules over the time, and he's been here for a long time. You've got to go with the latest. I think
we've done that,and I think we've probably discussed this project longer than I want to discuss it.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that was made by one of the neighbors was whether or not
you'd need a sump pump in your basement, and I was just wondering if you could comment on that.
Do you anticipate the need for one? Have you engineered one or plan to have one?
MR. DESLAURIERS-The cellar is a walkout basement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DESLAURIERS-I see no reason to have to have a sump pump.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DESLAURIERS-Since the land outside is going to be lower.
MR. TRAVER-One comment also that concerned me a little bit was the concern that we wouldn't
know the full impact of this project until it was constructed, and my understanding of the review
process is that in terms of the engineering and the impact, in fact we do know and have to get
engineering signoff on this project before construction begins. Is that not your understanding?
MR. DESLAURIERS-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from members of the Board?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. KREBS-Well, I'd just make a comment, and the comment is that when we're looking at any
subdivision, not only this subdivision, we're looking, generally, at vacant land. The water flows on
those vacant lands can be high absorption because of all the trees that are there, then you have,
people but up the lots. They build homes, they get rid of the trees. They have lawns. The
absorption factor is not as great. So therefore then sometimes it actually creates additional
wetland that didn't exist at the original time of development. So, I mean, I think a prime example of
this is just look at Quaker Road. Before Quaker Road was in, most of that land along both sides of
Quaker Road was farmland, and now it's all wetland. Why? Because all he drainage paths were
restricted by Quaker Road. So,you know,there's a lot of variations. I'm just explaining why,when
we approved that back in 1981, there wasn't a problem. Now there may be. I don't know. It
doesn't look to me like there is one.
MR. DESLAURIERS-I would like to state, when we bought the property, we bought it because, the
same as anyone else, it's a beautiful road. When I cut down the trees, nobody was any less happy
than I was. I hate cutting down trees. It is our intent to replace a lot of those trees along the road,
you know, in our front lawn area where we can, as well as on the back area outside of the wetlands.
We intend to put some fruit trees out there, blueberry bushes, the whole the nine yards out there.
One of the things we want to do is to put in some lupines out there, to amend the soil and bring in
some lupines, which hopefully will attract that Corman butterfly so that I can see it. Small, but big
to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have comments, Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD-I just have a question. One of the people who made a comment raised the issue of the
leach field. Tom, could you address that,please.
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. The absorption field is the Presby system. It's located basically at the front
property line, which absolutely maximizes the distance from the wetland, and it's an enhanced
treatment system. It is subsurface. We have to be subsurface on a residential situation, but it
provides primary treatment and a sand filter element outside the typical, or above and beyond the
typical wastewater system that has had very good results in controlled analysis. After the system
analysis of the wastewater,it provides a very high degree of treatment prior to discharge.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Well, if there's no other
questions or comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is a Type II SEQR. Unless there's something else from the Board, I'll
entertain a motion.
MRS.MOORE-Could I just clarify something?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-You talked about having additional engineering review. This project was not subject
to an engineering review. So just so you're clear. The wastewater system was, and that was
handled at the Department of Health,or the local Board of Health.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Ready?
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, Laura. There's a letter dated July 16th, which is essentially a signoff
letter from Chazen.
MR. HUTCHINS-That was.
MR. HUNSINGER-On the septic system.
MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to the septic system.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-The Board of Health referred it to the Town Engineer when they were doing the
septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm sorry. That confused me when you said that. Yes. Okay. All right. Go
ahead.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#40-2014 PAUL DESLAURIERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,475 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Site Plan: Pursuant to
Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance filling within 50 feet of a shoreline (wetland) shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant has obtained A.C.O.E. permit
authorization for disturbance of a portion of the wetland. FWW: Per Chapter 94 of the Zoning
Ordinance FWW review required for disturbance within 100 feet of a regulated wetland.
SEQR Type II -no further review required; Town Board of Health approved a septic variance on 7-
21-14;
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 6-17-14 & 8-19-14; the ZBA approved the variance
requests to 7-23-14&9-11-14;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6-26-14 tabled to 7-22-14&8-19-14&9-23-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2014 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2014 PAUL
DESLAURIERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Pursuant to relevant section of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2. Waivers granted: lighting, signage, landscaping, traffic, alterations new construction details,
construction disposal and snow removal.
3. 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.
4. 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&
Codes personnel.
5. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
6. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
7. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 53-2014 SEQR TYPE II THOMAS KUBRICKY AGENT(S) ERNEST STANLEY
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT,T. HORRIGAN,JOAN CAMP,KELLY HORRIGAN ZONING WR
LOCATION 53 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15 X 30
(450) SQ. FT. DECK TO AN EXISTING 360 SQ. FT. CAMP. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 67-14,
BP 14-342, BP 12-035, BP 10-220 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2014 APA, CEA,
OTHER L G PARK CEA,APA WETLANDS,NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
227.13-2-24 SECTION 179-6-050
TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to construct a 450 square foot deck to an existing 360
square foot camp. The project is subject to Site Plan Review for filling or hard surfacing within 50
feet of the shoreline.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KUBRICKY-How are you doing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. How are you?
MR. KUBRICKY-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you state your name for the record,please.
MR. KUBRICKY-Tom Kubricky.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have anything you wanted to add?
MR. KUBRICKY-No. We went through it there the other night with the other people.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I'll open it up for questions,comments from the Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We went through it the other night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no questions or comments,we do have a public hearing scheduled.
Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see any takers. Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-I do have a public comment from the Lake George Water Keeper.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Hunsinger. "The above referenced Site Plan Review
application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the
Lake George Waterkeeper. The Town of Queensbury recognized the importance of shoreline
vegetation for the protection of water quality to minimize or eliminate non-point source pollution,
filter nutrients and sediment, promote infiltration and provide a stabilizing transition between the
water and land. The Lake George Waterkeeper recommends the Planning Board consider the
requirement for a complete shoreline buffer as required under §179-8-040.B for the above
referenced site plan, especially in light of the recently granted shoreline setback relief to allow an
expansion to the structure. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its
watershed. Thank you for your consideration." And this is from Chris Navitsky, the Lake George
Water Keeper.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Do you understand what that was about?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. KUBRICKY-He wants some shrubbery.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KUBRICKY-Dick Meade's going to plantlike 69 arborvitaes there. He's running them down the
sides on the,both sides and in front, and he's, 72 of them he's planting actually. We'll definitely see
that,what he's asking for.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You may not find your house when he's done.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes,it's going to be camouflaged.
MRS.MOORE-I do have another public comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. I'm sorry.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated September 15, 2014. This was also read into the record at the
Zoning Board. So this was addressed to Steve Jackoski, the Zoning Board Chair, and Mr. Chris
Hunsinger,the Planning Board Chair. "Since I will not be in the area on September 17, I stopped at
the office on September 12, and talked with Craig Brown who suggested that I write my concerns
addressed to both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I am the adjacent neighbor to the
south of property on 53 Rockhurst Road. My first question is: who owns the property on 53
Rockhurst Road? There are 3 names on the deck application and only 1 name on the new wharf
application. It is my understanding that this application was requested before throughout
previous years and was denied because the specifications did not meet the requirements. (This
was told to me by Joan Camp and Kelly Horrigan - two of the owners) • What are the required
setbacks from the water mark? (I can see another variance being applied for next year to enclose a
new deck structure). •What are the legal footprints beyond the existing structure of this camp for
new construction (LARGER THAN EXISTING CAMP). • Congestion and Parking - With a
coniferous hedgerow, as per diagram, it shows that parking can very well be a problem. • NOISE
POLLUTION Many camps and docks have become rental units. The close proximity of the camps
creates this problem in the AM & PM. • SEPTIC With the increase of usage of this camp and docks
will there be a potential problem of the septic system? I have enclosed several photographs of this
camp located at 53 Rockhurst Road and please note, I have written my concerns on the back of the
photographs also. I respectfully ask that this area have an ON SITE inspection also. Thank you,
Sincerely, Margaret Colicino" That's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. No other comments?
MRS.MOORE-No other comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. Any additional comments or questions
from the Board?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. If there's nothing else, I'll
entertain a motion.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think I've got one. Tom, are you coming in with a full crew there? Do you have
the estimated project duration? Six hours?
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you doing it just like piping?
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's my boy.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes,it's small. It's not going to take long.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 53-2014 THOMAS KUBRICKY
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 15 x 30 (450) sq. ft. deck to an existing 360 sq. ft. camp. Site
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance hard-surfacing within 50 feet of the
shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II;
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 9-16-2014; the
ZBA approved the variance request on 9-17-2014;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-23-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2014 THOMAS KUBRICKY, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: k -topography, m -land use districts, n -transportation, o -new and
existing construction details,q-soil logs and s -snow removal.
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. Thank you guys. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 58-2014 SEQR TYPE II ANDREA GRAY OWNER(S) SUSAN BAYER ZONING
NR LOCATION 224 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING
SITE AND BUILDINGS FOR PERSONAL USE - WELLNESS SERVICES. A PORTION OF THE
BUILDING WILL REMAIN AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,
179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERSONAL SERVICE USES IN THE NR ZONE SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE WARREN
CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 1.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-11
SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-040
ANDREA GRAY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a personal service use in the NR zone, requiring Planning
Board review and approval. The operation is for a wellness facility. The applicant has identified
the buildings on the site and the usage where the main building will be used for client treatment on
the first floor and the second floor will be used as the owner's home. The existing garage is for the
private use of the owner,and the shop is to be used for seasonal personal service use,and the Board
may consider the waivers requested within the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. GRAY-Hi. I'm Andrea Gray.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us about your project?
MS. GRAY-I am proposing to provide a personal service. I'm looking to buy the property at 224
Queensbury Avenue. Do you need more information?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,whatever you want to say.
MS. GRAY-Okay. I'd like to have a place for women to come for respite, perhaps have some day
retreats. I also am an energy practitioner. So I would have my practice there. I'm hoping to put
some gardens in the back so people could have, you know, walking paths and a place for reading,
just like a safe place for women to come. As far as people and how many, I'm not really sure. I'd
like to have perhaps some support groups going on as well. I'm thinking six to ten women, maybe,
at a time,something like that,and it wouldn't be everyday. That would be just on occasion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MS. GRAY-I can't think of anything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds like a nice project. We're actually looking at an application that's
going to greatly improve the landscaping and the appearance of the property, in addition to
whatever benefits her personal service can provide to the community.
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of parking,how many parking spaces do you have?
MS. GRAY-I believe there's eight there, at the moment, and I know there is quite a bit of land there.
I mean, I'm not really planning on adding any parking spaces, but that would probably depend on
the need,and at that time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's why I asked the question.
MS. GRAY-I would just ask you how to handle that, I guess. I know that I could probably fit two or
three cars in the barn as well,to help with that.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not going to be like an everyday thing.
MS. GRAY-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Occasionally you might have an influx of people.
MS. GRAY-Yes. Mainly just for women to come if they'd like to spend the day, if they need a quiet
place to stay or a couple of hours or whatever. Anything organized, maybe like once a month for a
day retreat where I could have more women at a time coming. That's about it. I'm not really
anticipating huge crowds of people because that really isn't what the model would be. It would be
more for peace and quiet.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're not trying to have an epic party there every day.
MS. GRAY-No,no parties. No wild parties.
MR. FORD-Thank you for bringing a need oriented.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. DEEB-I don't know if it's pertinent. How does this differ from Reiki?
MS. GRAY-It's similar to Reiki. It is energy medicine, but we're trained to use specific techniques.
We work off of diagnosis, either a doctor's or a veterinarian, and we have a strong code of ethics
that we follow,and we also are certified.
MR. DEEB-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the certification?
MS. GRAY-Healing touch.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments?
MR. KREBS-Not negative or positive, but all I know is that my brother happens to be very heavily
involved in kinesiology and applied physiology and the results they get are just absolutely amazing.
I had the experience, myself, of falling off a ladder and after six weeks of therapy at the hospital, I
still could not raise my hand further than this, and my brother worked on me for 45 minutes and I
could put my hand up like that with no pain. It's a matter of relaxing the muscles.
MS. GRAY-Exactly. Working off the energy feel of the body.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MS. GRAY-Yes. I've seen some wonderful things happen.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just women alone? You don't take like people that are, you know, in touch with
their feminine side?
MS. GRAY-Women,men,children. I even do animals.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Well,we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board? I see no hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I did receive a phone call from someone that received a notice, and I think she's
answered this question,that the public person asked if there were any overnight stays,and the type
of rehab facility that it would, the question was would it be something to help people get back on
their feet like an overnight rehab center, and so that was her question, and I understand that it's
not. It's a day operation,and it's,the program that she's designed in the application materials.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what would the typical hours of operation be?
MS. GRAY-I'm not really sure at this point. I know it won't be seven days a week. Because I
wouldn't be able to do it myself seven days.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. GRAY-So I'm kind of looking to base it on the need, like, you know, would there be a limit to
what you would suggest or recommend?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,the question was whether or not it would be overnight.
MS. GRAY-Yes, it would just be during the day. I'm sorry, I thought you meant how many days,yes
just during the day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. GRAY-On occasion I may stay there, or,you know,there was a possibility that I thought perhaps
if someone did need a place to stay, but I don't know if I'm going to be doing that or not,you know,
if women need a safe place to be somewhere. I mean,there are two bedrooms upstairs.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. FORD-Will you be the sole service provider?
MS. GRAY-Yes, and I may have some women come in to speak, maybe, lead a group once in a while.
Something like that,but it'll be mainly myself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions.
MR. MAGOWAN-So if it takes off,would you probably end up getting an associate or?
MS. GRAY-Yes,probably,if I couldn't handle it all myself,yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. MAGOWAN-I think it would be a great addition to Queensbury to have a healing retreat.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So there's no SEQR review required. And unless there's
something else,would you like to make a motion?
MR. KREBS-Sure. I was just going to say, too, that Queensbury Avenue is kind of a mixed area
anyway.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 58-2014 ANDREA GRAY
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to utilize existing site and buildings for personal service use-wellness services.
A portion of the building will remain as a single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-140, 179-
10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance personal service uses in the NR zone shall be subject to Planning
Board review/approval;
SEQR Type II;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-23-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2014 ANDREA GRAY, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: H -signage, I utilities, J -stormwater, K -two foot contours, L
landscaping, M -land use districts, N -traffic, 0 new construction/alteration details, Q -soil
logs,and R construction demolition
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MS. GRAY-Awesome. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2014 SEQR TYPE II RUSS FADEN OWNER(S) SARATOGA PRIME
PROPERTIES ZONING CI LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN WHICH IS THE ADDITION OF SIX (6) PARKING
LOT LIGHTS - EACH LIGHT POLE WILL BE 16 FEET. PROJECT INCLUDES ACCENT LIGHTING
FOR THE BUILDING (SUBWAY&MR. BILL'S CAR HOP). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-020,
179-9-070 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALTERATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SV 48-14, SP 52-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 1.99
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.4-58 SECTION 179-6-020; 179-9-070, 120
RUSS FADEN, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant requests approval of items that are currently under construction that
amends the approvals of the previous site plan. This includes six light poles to be installed and
some building accent lights. In addition, the applicant has shown on the revised plan an area, a
play area to the rear of the building, and the Board may consider the waivers that have been
requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FADEN-Good evening. How are you doing? My name is Russ Faden,and what we're looking to
do is to put six parking lot lights along the perimeter of our parking lot. Right now we have no
lighting there, and we think it's a safety concern. We also like to put three goose neck lights on the
south side of the building, and then potentially next year what we want to do, if it requires it, is to
add on our parking lot, also have a little play area, maybe a swing set or like a pirate ship or
something like for the kids to play at, and put some picnic tables at the back of our property. That's
what we're looking to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? So was that a grand opening today?
MR. FADEN-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I happened to drive by around noon and saw a big group of people outside.
MR. FADEN-Yes,it went well. We had a good turnout.
MR. HUNSINGER-No questions or comments? One of the questions I had, I tried to walk out back.
On your site plan it shows a stream and it looks like maybe runoff from the Northway,too.
JERRY LA BART
MR. LA BART-It is. It's a runoff,and it goes down under the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Are there two streams that come together or is it one?
MR. LABART-There's one.
MR. HUNSINGER-There's one?
MR. LA BART-Yes.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-I tried to walk out back there but it was very, it's all thickets, you know, you'd
really have to plow through it. I was just wondering if you could comment on that,you know,what
kind of issues it causes you,if any, and that kind of thing.
MR. FADEN-We haven't seen any issues as of yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LA BART-But, you know, according to the tenants it doesn't, it's just a runoff in the winter,
when it rains it does come down. I haven't see it very high.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,sir,could you identify yourself for the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,yes.
MR. LA BART-Yes. I'm Jerry LaBart from Mr. Bill's.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the only question I had was about that,just because I couldn't see
it,you know,and I can see why you need lighting.
MR. FADEN-Yes,it gets dark at night there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you planning to be open year round?
MR. FADEN-Yes.
MR. KREBS-How do you access that area that's going to be in the back of the building for the play
area?
MR. LA BART-They go in the back of the building,the parking lot,it's all grass.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I was wondering if you had to go to Weeks Road and then comeback.
MR. FADEN-Yes,it's all open back there.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled on this project as well.
Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS.MOORE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were
received.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is a Type II SEQR as well, and unless there's a final comment or question
from the Board,we'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 59-2014 RUSS FADEN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan which is the addition of six (6) parking
lot lights - each light pole will be 16 feet. Project includes accent lighting for the building (Subway
& Mr. Bill's Car Hop). Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-020, 179-9-070, 179-9-120 of the Zoning
Ordinance alteration to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval.
SEQR Type II;
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-23-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2014 RUSS FADEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: J -stormwater, K -2 foot contours, L -landscaping, M -land use
districts, N -traffic, 0 -new construction/alteration details, P -floor plans, Q -soil logs, R -
construction disposal,and S-snow removal.
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. FADEN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it was nice to see someone finally move in.
SITE PLAN NO. 60-2014 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,000 SQ. FT.
STORAGE AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (I.E. TRUCKS, ENCLOSED TRAILER). A
NEW GATE AND FENCE ARE TO BE INSTALLED FOR SECURITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-
3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY USE IN A CLI ZONE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-13
WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-
16 SECTION 179-3-040
NICK DAIGLE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant is assisting a buyer with the development of the lot as a
construction storage area. The parcel is 15,000 square feet, and 5,000 square feet is to be utilized
for a storage area for materials and equipment for a roofing business. The Board may consider the
request for waivers and the Staff would suggest the Board confirm the following: the interior of the
fenced in area, whether it be gravel or dirt, and, Number Two, vegetation to remain or installed on
the remainder of the property with reference to vegetation around the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DAIGLE-Good evening. My name is Nick Daigle.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us what you want to do?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. DAIGLE-Actually I have an interested party to buy the lot. He's looking to be able to house his
roofing company's trailers, ladders, things of that nature. So he has a safe place to store his
equipment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. DAIGLE-No, I don't have anything else to add.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions?
MR. DEEB-Gravel or?
MRS. MOORE-The interior of the fenced in area that he's holding the roofing. Is he going to gravel
that.
MR. DAIGLE-I don't know that I can say for sure that he is,but I'm assuming he probably would put
some gravel in at the, you know, construction entrance type gravel at least. So he can have some
traction to get up and out of the site with the soils,but I can't speak for his intentions on that.
MR. DEEB-Dirt's going to raise a lot of dust with all that stuff going in.
MR. DAIGLE-He's a small contractor, someone that's going to go in there and out probably once or
twice a day,you know,throughout the week.
MR. DEEB-Do you know how much equipment he's going to put in there?
MR. DAIGLE-It's my understanding he has a dump trailer and an enclosed trailer, some scaffolding,
things of that nature, ladders. I guess he is in agreement that he may want to put a small 10 by 10
or 10 by 12 shed to be able to house like nails and things that he doesn't want to be exposed to the
weather.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does he plan to use it year round?
MR. DAIGLE-I would imagine he's going to use it year round to store his equipment, yes, but the
roofing businesses are going to slow down in the winter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. DAIGLE-So I think it's going to be low impact in the winter months.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking how you would remove the snow inside the fenced area to use and
access his equipment.
MR. DAIGLE-I'm assuming he would use a snowplow to maintain the area, I would think. Once
again, this is a piece of property that he's interested in buying for this application and he just
wanted to make sure it was an approved use. So I'm not really prepared to say exactly how he's
going to remove the snow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions?
MR. DEEB-I guess I would have liked to have seen the other person here,too,to address some of the
questions.
MR. DAIGLE-Like I say, I have the property for sale, I filled out the application to see if it was an
approved use. I don't know that he was aware that he should. He was invited, but he's kind of a
small contractor. I don't know if he understands the impact of not being here, but I would have
preferred he was here as well. Like I said, he's intending to buy the property, and I can't steer him
any further than that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Mr. Daigle, would you like to call him and wait and have Jon Lapper come up
and finish up and then see if you can get him here?
MR. DAIGLE-No, I'd rather not do that. Thank you very much, though, Brad, for your suggestion. I
appreciate your suggestion. As far as the issue with the gravel, I mean, if that's a contingency to,
I'm sure he would comply with that,if you want to make that a contingency of the approval.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. DEEB-I'd like to see it,but I don't know how the Board feels.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it makes sense,don't you?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-I mean, I think it would enhance the property,make it,you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DAIGLE-I mean,if that's a contingency, I'm sure he would oblige you with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then of course the other comment was,you know, some sort of vegetation to
provide a visual border. I mean, it just kind of makes sense, I mean, it's fairly wooded now, but,
you know,maybe we can have him maintain a buffer or something,as a minimum.
MRS.MOORE-There's only one residence that borders it,or two?
MR. DAIGLE-I believe there's two.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the Board can discuss whether to, there already is an existing border that
we discussed when the applicant came before the Board about developing the site, and Mr. Daigle
has said that he's going to maintain that, and I apologize, I don't remember what the exact distance
was , but I'll look it up, but it was a distance so that the, either side, those neighbors did have some
vegetative buffer of some sort.
MR. DAIGLE-Right, he doesn't intend to clear the lot any greater than what was previously
approved.
MR. DEEB-And there's a fence there now.
MR. DAIGLE-There's an old fence that is there along the three sides. In the front that's pretty run
down. He plans to put a gate for more,you know, to keep noisy folks out, and approved, whatever
the, I think it was a six foot chain link fence is what he applied for, but the balance of the fencing
that's there is going to remain.
MR. HUNSINGER-So he wasn't planning to cut any of the vegetation outside of the fence anyway, is
what you're saying? Okay.
MR. DAIGLE-No,correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to make that a condition,you wouldn't be opposed to that.
MR. DAIGLE-That he could not cut any of the vegetation outside of the fenced area?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DAIGLE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing
scheduled. Did either one of you want to address the Board on this project? No? Any written
comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS.MOORE-No,no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were
received. We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is actually an Unlisted action.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MRS.MOORE-It should be a Type II.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was going to ask,yes. No SEQR review is required.
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So did you look up the information you were looking for?
MRS. MOORE-I did. I don't see it on the plans from previous. Yes, I don't have enough information
to say. So if the Board says that he needs to maintain a five foot buffer along the property border
lines on either side where there's residents,then I believe that would be sufficient.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what they've said is he doesn't plan to cut any of the vegetation that's
outside of the fenced area. So that's greater than five feet.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Any time that he does chose to cut beyond that fence line, then he'd be back
before the Board for a modification.
MR. DEEB-Right. That would be fine.
MRS.MOORE-Okay,and at that time,it may be because he's doing further development on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was going to say, I can only speculate,but I wouldn't see a need for him to
cut anything outside of the fenced area unless he was planning to change the site.
MRS.MOORE-Right,comeback in for a review. Okay. That would satisfy me.
MR. DAIGLE-Just so I make sure I understand this. He's able to continue to develop the land as was
pre-approved,with the original site plan,correct?
MRS. MOORE-What he's saying is that he purchases the property. He puts in 5,000 square feet of
gravel and fences it. The outside of that fence,the vegetation remains as is,and no cutting.
MR. DAIGLE-So you're making the assumption he's putting a fence just around the 5,000 square
foot area. The existing fence that's on there,which is on the property line, on the two sides and the
rear,they're going to remain. The only proposed area is the fenced area is across the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I misunderstood you.
MR. DAIGLE-I didn't understand your question. I'm sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm looking for the site plan. I was just basing those comments off the
drawing that was here. I understood these hatched lines to be a fence that was being proposed.
MR. DAIGLE-No, not necessarily. That was a boundary of where he would be staging his
equipment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DAIGLE-In that area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is 15, well, the total lot's about 15, 000 so this is about 5,000 square feet.
Okay.
MR. DAIGLE-So he does plan on clearing some of the trees as per the agreed previous site plan
review. There's a few trees that are remaining to come down to open that area up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are they outside of the 5,000 square feet?
MR. DAIGLE-I think there's a couple that are,yes,but they're not within 5 feet of the property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Code requires more than a five foot buffer.
MRS.MOORE-For residential?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Between commercial and residential.
MRS. MOORE-Well, it's in an industrial zone. I'll look it up,but I believe the Board has discretion to
come up with a value that is acceptable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Am I the only one here that has that issue?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because if I'm the only one.
MR. KREBS-We need to specify some distance.
MR. FORD-How about 15 feet in from the property line?
MR.TRAVER-So essentially a 15 foot buffer?
MR. FORD-Yes,a no cut zone.
MR. TRAVER-I'm thinking, for some reason, that the residential is 20. We'll know from Laura in a
minute,but looking at the property,as Laura has tried to display, I think 15 would be adequate.
MRS.MOORE-It says 50 feet.
MR.TRAVER-Fifty?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-That's between commercial and residential.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS.MOORE-The use itself.
MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously the lot's not big enough to handle that.
MR.TRAVER-Right. That's right.
MR. DAIGLE-I don't believe there'd be a problem with 15 feet. It's essentially taking 30 feet out of
the total equation,right?
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. DAIGLE-And that would be across the front as well? Or just between the two?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,it's between the,it would be really the sides.
MR. DAIGLE-Just the sides.
MR. HUNSINGER-IF the rear is.
MR. DAIGLE-Not developed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Unless we wanted to specify the rear as well, but there's nothing back
there.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. DAIGLE-Yes,that still leaves him 70 feet to work with. I think that's acceptable. That's kind of
what he was looking to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Fifteen foot buffer on each side.
MR. DEEB-I mean, I would go three sides,back and two sides.
MR. HUNSINGER-Back and two sides?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Fifteen's pretty conservative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-The back of the property,too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,rear and two sides. Okay.
MR. KREBS-Ready?
MR. HUNSINGER-Ready.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 60-2014 NICHOLAS DAIGLE
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 5,000 sq. ft. storage area for construction equipment (i.e. trucks, enclosed
trailer). A new gate and fence are to be installed for security. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance Construction Company use in a CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval;
SEQR Type II;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-23-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2014 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff:
1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2. Waiver requests granted: E -structures, F -site information public rights of way to
landscaping (the drawing submitted shows the area of storage and the vegetation to
remain), G -lighting, H -signage, I utilities,J -stormwater, K 2-foot contours, L-landscaping,
M -land use, N -traffic, 0 new construction or alteration details, P -floor plans, Q- soil logs,
R construction disposal, S-snow removal.
3. And we are adding: a 15 foot no cut buffer will be required on each side and the back of the
property.
4. 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.
5. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
6. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. DAIGLE-Thank you very much.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1988 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED - REAFFIRM PREVIOUS
SEQR CYNTHIA MORRIS SUPRENANT AGENT(S) JOHN WRIGHT, B P S R OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANT; KATHY NAATZ & OTHERS, WM. HAVERINEN ZONING MDR LOCATION 3
FOUNDERS WAY; 660 CORINTH RD. & OFF CORINTH RD., 27 HONEY HOLLOW RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION: SUPRENANT:
EXISTING 1.98 ACRES; PROPOSED - INCREASED TO 6.06 ACRES THEN DECREASED AFTER
CONVEYANCE TO HAVERINEN NAATZ: EXISTING 6.68 ACRES; PROPOSED - DECREASED TO
3.66 ACRES NAATZ: EXISTING 3.37 ACRES; PROPOSED - DECREASED TO 2.18 ACRES
HAVERINEN: EXISTING 1.05 ACRES; PROPOSED - INCREASED TO 1.61 ACRES PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SB 13-88 BEDFORD CLOSE,SECT. 6 LOT SIZE 7.0, 3.3, 1.98, 1.05 +/-ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 315.6-1-37,45,48; 308.18-1-14 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes several lot line adjustments associated with an approved
subdivision of Bedford Close. The project involves four parcels where, I will not go through each
individual, but there's a conveyance of, Suprenant existing is 1.98, proposed or increased to 6.06
acres, then decreased to 5.5, given to Havernin; Naatz, which is an existing 6.6 acre parcel,
decreased to 3.66 acres; a second Naatz parcel is existing 3.37, which will decrease to 2.18.
Havernin which existing is 1.05 will be increased to 1.61.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. Again, for the record, Jon Lapper. Cynthia is here, as well as Ms. Naatz and the
Havernins. So we're all here. I'll give you the late in the evening,very simple explanation. Laura
went through the numbers,but essentially the Naatz's property has frontage on Corinth Road and is
a large, otherwise developable parcel that could have a number of houses on it,and Cynthia and her
husband always had the desire to make sure that the meadow and the woods behind their house
stays the way it is. So this is a proposal to avoid development. So, at the same time the Havernins
had a pool that's very close to the property line. So this is a way to convey property to them,
approximately a half acre, to give them more of a buffer, to protect Cynthia and Mike's house, and
the Havernin property is still what's left, some good sized lots along Corinth Road, and that's really
the whole thing because Bedford Close is, of course, an approved subdivision. It requires Planning
Board approval to modify the subdivision,basically to add this property to those other two lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is the goal basically to take an existing lot and make it not developable?
MR. LAPPER-No, it's to own it, to make Cynthia's lot bigger, so it just protects her that she, you
know, owns more woods and meadow behind her house. She has a bigger parcel. I mean, that
could have been developable in terms of somebody bringing a road and a cul de sac from Corinth
Road, and it just eliminates that possibility and gives the Havernins more of a buffer to their
property as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I'm getting a headache trying to decipher this.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We saved the most unusual
project for last tonight, I guess.
MR. LAPPER-It was a pretty interesting night to get to listen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled, obviously. Does anyone
wish to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MRS. MOORE-I do have record of a phone conversation. Jim Thatcher, who is the homeowners
association president,called to tell me that the association has reviewed this and they're supportive
of the proposal as modifying the lot lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. We can simply re-affirm the previous SEQR. Unless
there's any other questions or comments,we'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB # 13-1988 MODIFICATION CYNTHIA MORRIS SUPRENANT
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a modification to an approved subdivision: Supernant: Existing 1.98 acres;
Proposed -Increased to 6.06 acres then decreased to 5.5 acres after conveyance to Haverinen;
Naatz: Existing 6.68 acres; Proposed -Decreased to 3.66 acres; Naatz: Existing 3.37 acres;
Proposed -Decreased to 2.18 acres; Haverinen: Existing 1.05 acres; Proposed - Increased to 1.61
acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an approved subdivision
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9-23-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-1988 MODIFICATION CYNTHIA MORRIS
SUPRENANT, (Bedford Close Section 6), Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code.
2. The application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary.
3. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
4. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. That was pretty quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. Before we consider a motion to adjourn, I just
wanted to let everyone know, I will not be here for the October 21St Board meeting. Jamie will be
sitting in,and is there anything else that needs to come before the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did anybody want the address for the Fund for Lake George, for the project? I
have it here if somebody wants,needs it. Or you can go on the Internet.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I found a link somewhere. I did find a link somewhere and I did look at it.
Must have been from a newspaper story or something.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,it was a newspaper story.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Thursday is the Planning and Zoning forum. Is everyone going? In Lake
George.
MR. MAGOWAN-I have to go to Massachusetts.
MR. HUNSINGER-Registration is eight,and it's from eight thirty to twelve thirty.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where is it?
MR. HUNSINGER-The Fort William Henry Conference Center. Laura and I both play important
roles.
MRS. MOORE-I did hand out the stormwater tradeshow. We do have some funding from the Soil&
Water Conservation District. So if there are people that wish to attend, then that registration is
waived. I just need to know who. So that information is, I handed out earlier.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that designed more for engineers,though? I mean,if a Planning Board member
were to attend,would it?
MRS.MOORE-You'd get something out of it,yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We're not smart enough to understand what they're talking about?
MRS. MOORE-No, I would say that you'd hear some interesting features and new products and
things like that. So they're always looking at different projects across the State, and to bring that
information. Last year they spoke about re-using the stormwater on the ice rink at the On Center
in Syracuse,which is very interesting. So it was an interesting project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would they want to re-use it?
MRS.MOORE-They re-use it,the rainwater,the stormwater,they actually surface their ice with it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Off the roof that's got salt in it?
MRS.MOORE-It all goes through a huge filtration system.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It costs more than just putting the water in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MRS. MOORE-It actually costs less. They have a huge savings cost, but that's, you know, those are
things that interest me. Those are the items that I had for tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right.
MR. DEEB-Motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23.
2014, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 231d day of September, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-See everybody in October.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/23/2014)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
42