10-17-2017 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
INDEX
Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 1.
ONE YEAR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60
Site Plan No. 70-2014 James Varano 3.
ONE YEAR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59
Site Plan No. 55-2017 Katharine Seelye 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.15-1-10
Site Plan No. 65-2017 Mary Lou & Robert Dunton 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.16-1-25
Subdivision No. 14-2017 Michael & Karen LeBlanc 16.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.64-67
Subdivision No. 15-2017
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 63-2017 Giovanone Real Estate Partners, L.P. 19.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.23
Site Plan No. 64-2017 Boguslaw Bielecki 25.
Tax Map No. 309.9-2-6
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.
Q
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu0ng Board ➢0 47/2:[71
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
DAVID DEEB
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
MICHAEL VALENTINE, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for
Tuesday, October 17, 2017. This is the first Planning Board meeting for the month of October and
the 20t" meeting for 2017. There should be some agendas on the table at the rear of the room if you
would like, if you don't have one already and you would like to see what our agenda is. I would ask
that if you have a cellular phone or other electronic device that you turn the volume off or shut it off
so we're not interrupted by that. We begin with approval of minutes from the month of August.
We have August 15" and August 22nd. 1 think we have a resolution to approve the minutes I believe.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 15, 2017
August 22, 2017
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
AUGUST 15TH,AND AUGUST 22nd, 2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and then we have two Administrative Items, both requests for extensions.
The first is Site Plan PZ 230-2016 for Legacy Land Holdings, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC REQUESTS TWO YEAR EXTENSION
TO NOVEMBER 2019
MR. TRAVER-They're requesting a two year extension to the month of November 2019. So it's
actually two years and one month. Laura, do we have any information?
MRS. MOORE-Right. So they're in the process of working with the Town Attorney on a sewer
corporation agreement and they haven't resolved that issue yet, so they're still in the middle of that
process. So that is why he's asking for the extension.
MR. TRAVER-And they think it's going to take two years?
MRS. MOORE-Potentially. I did explain that you typically, the Board typically grants a one year
extension. You could ask for two but I haven't seen you grant two.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any questions on that?
2
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. FERONE-Would we be setting a precedent by approving two years?
MR. TRAVER-It is a practice.
MR. MAGOWAN-Even though it doesn't set a precedent, they'll say well you did it for so and so,
you know what I'm saying? And it does put us in a predicament. We've never gone two years since
I've been sitting.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm not sure about that. I would have to check the record. It might be that we
have done that in the past. Because it is up to us, I wouldn't object if the Board feels they don't want
to give a two year, but I'm confident in saying, and I guess I could ask Mike for his opinion, but I
don't believe that approving this, because each application, each request is unique, I don't, I think the
likelihood for someone to come in with the identical request for this piece of property is slight. So I
don't think that even setting a practice of approving a two year for this application would require us
to then approve any other two year.
MR. DEEB-Why can't we go one year and then give them another extension next year if they need it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I would put that back to Laura.
MRS. MOORE-That's what I've seen you do in the past.
MR. DEEB-I don't mind doing that. That would solve all the problems.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, like I said, if that's the way the Board's feeling, that's fine.
MR. FERONE-Or should we give this consideration in that they are working with the Town Attorney?
We know it's in process.
MR. TRAVER-1 mean, my feeling is that likely some thought went into this request. I'm hearing that
they did discuss it with Staff and they were aware that typically it's a one year extension and yet they
requested a two year. I see no harm in giving them two, but I'm one voice. So why don't we make
a motion and see how the vote goes. That would be my suggestion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A 2 YEAR EXTENSION SP PZ 230-2017 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS
The Planning Board approved this application on November 15, 2016.
MOTION TO APPROVE A TWO YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND
HOLDINGS. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-That motion has been defeated by vote. So would anyone like to make an alternative
motion?
RESOLUTION GRANTING A 1 YEAR EXTENSION SP PZ 230-2017 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND
HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine:
And the applicant can come back for an extension for a second year.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-All right, Laura, you can inform them that's been approved for one year instead of two
and then they can certainly return and request an additional extension should they need it. Next we
have Site Plan 70-2014 for James Varano.
SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO REQUESTS ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO
OCTOBER 2018
MR. TRAVER-He is requesting a one year extension to October of 2018.
MRS. MOORE-The letter that was provided to us has indicated that they're still waiting for the closing
with Mr. John Fazio and they believe that's moving forward now. That's where he's at.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well they're more optimistic than the previous request. So any
questions on that motion?
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, this project, isn't that the one that's on Montray?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-And we've already extended it for two years?
MS. WHITE-One year.
MRS. MOORE-You've extended it twice.
MS. WHITE-Twice for one year.
MRS. MOORE-This'll be your third time.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So they were given a one year extension and they did as we were just discussing
with the prior administrative item. They came back. They needed additional and they asked us again.
Now they're asking us again and apparently they're still in negotiations.
MS. WHITE-But what's the potential that things have changed? I mean, how many times do we just
say extend it based on?
MRS. MOORE-1 think that there has been a change in this particular applicant in the process.
MS. WHITE-Shouldn't we look over that change first?
MRS. MOORE-No, I mean, not, the request is more apt to move forward this time than it was the
past two times.
MS. WHITE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-They're moving closer to a resolution.
MRS. MOORE-Things have changed in their life. So now it's more likely to move forward.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let's vote on the motion and we can discuss the ramifications of that afterwards.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 70-2014 JAMES VARANO
The Planning Board approved this application on 11-18-2014; the approval good for one year unless a
building permit has been applied for;
The applicant was previously granted a one year extension to 10-18-2017;
The applicant requests an additional one year extension to October 2018;
MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO.,
Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb.
A one year extension to October 2018.
Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2017, by the following vote:
I.
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu:ing Board ➢0 47/2:[71
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, perhaps you could communicate to Mr. Varano that he has now received
three extensions and the likelihood of getting a fourth is significantly diminished.
MRS. MOORE-1 can relay that.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. All right. Next we move to items under regular order. We
have two Planning Board recommendations. The first being for Katharine Seelye, application Site Plan
55-2017.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2017 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. KATHARINE SEELYE. AGENT[S]: DENNIS
MAC ELROY, PE. OWNER[S]: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 14
CROOKED TREE DRIVE. APPLICANT HAS REVISED APPLICATION PROPOSING A 256 SQ. FT.
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,064 SQ. FT. HOME. FLOOR AREA EXISTING 2,533 SQ. FT. AND
PROPOSED IS 2,788 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES MINOR INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. SITE WORK
INCLUDES UPDATED SEPTIC. PROJECT IS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 17943-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
EXPANSION TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. NEW PLANNING
BOARD RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR REVISED APPLICATION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 29-2001 DECK&ADDITION; SP 22-2003
& AV 17-2003160 SF ADDITION; SP 59-2007110 SF STONE TERRACE; AV 53-2017; AV 70-2017.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2017 OCTOBER 2017 (REVISION). SITE INFORMATION:
LAKE GEORGE, CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.15440. SECTION: 179-3-
040, 17943-010
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-1 would add in the way of explanation for the Board and for members of the public that
are in attendance tonight, that the circumstance with regard to the public hearing is somewhat unusual
in that we had not had a public hearing during the recommendation phase and then at one point the
public hearing was opened and left open, and since then the application has changed and they are back
for another recommendation. So we have the unusual situation which I discussed with Staff before we
called the meeting to order that although the public hearing technically is still open, we will not be
taking public comment this evening. We will be holding that public hearing open subject to the
application returning to us from the ZBA. Good evening.
MR.MAC ELROY-Good evening. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Katharine
Seelye on this application, and I'm sorry for the confusion that this has caused. When you said the
public hearing had opened, that caught me by surprise but that's because at the tabling meeting it was
still open.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-Technically this is a different application, though, and not to confuse anything.
MR. TRAVER-That would not be to your advantage, but.
MS. WHITE-Should we close the existing public hearing and re-open this?
MRS. MOORE-Other than, it's a similar application. I can't say it's completely different application.
To me a different application would be saying that the addition is on a totally different portion of the
house. That's not the case. This is adding simple square footage.
MR. TRAVER-We're discussing it again this evening. Correct.
MR. MAC ELROY-And again the applicant extends her apologies, but after we appeared for a
recommendation and then in fact even appeared before the Zoning Board and received the variance
that had been requested, the owner realized that she really wanted another foot and a half in that
extension. She was talking to contractors about the project and someone planted that seed that she
5
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu0ng Board ➢0 47/2:[71
needed, an extra foot and a half would be valuable to her. So she's gone to the extent of re-applying,
delaying things and re-applying. So it was no small decision to decide to do that, but this application
for the variance requests a 16 by 16 foot addition that's one and a half feet longer than the previous
project that was, the previous application that was before the Board for recommendation. It doesn't
change the setback to the shoreline which was the subject of the variance request. Just by the lay of
the land and the way that building extension is, it doesn't change anything but Craig Brown felt that it
was important to bring it back to the Board because there was a change in what the original was. It
was a further expansion on that pre-existing, nonconforming structure.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. So other than the additional 1.5 feet that that addition is proposed
to extend, there are no other changes?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MRS. MOORE-Well, there is the one change with the, there used to be like an exterior wood shed is
the description.
MR. MAC ELROY-It was a tool closet type of thing on the back of the extension, Laura, you're right.
MR. TRAVER-And that's now removed.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. FERONE-It's pretty cut and dried except for a foot and a half.
MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, that's the dry part, I guess. The cut is they're now going to add a foot and
a half, but you're right, there's no more, there's no additional encroachment. And the wood shed or
that extra structure was, I believe, deleted after the original variance, correct? Isn't that also part of
this?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-I thought so. Well, I'm not hearing any questions. There is no public hearing on his
because it's a referral to the ZBA this evening. It is a Type II SEAR. So I think we're ready for a
motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-70-2017 KATHARINE SEELYE
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant has revised application
proposing a 256 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,064 sq. ft. home. Floor area existing 2,533 sq. ft. and
proposed is 2,788 sq. ft. Project includes minor interior alterations. Site work includes updated septic.
Project is an expansion of a nonconforming structure. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 of
the Zoning Ordinance, expansion to nonconforming structures shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. New Planning Board recommendation
shall be provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals for revised application.
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. 70-2017 KATHARINE SEELYE,
Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and
a] The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
6
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu:ing Board ➢0 47/2:[71
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following
vote:
MR. TRAVER-Any questions on that motion?
MRS. MOORE-Just for clarification the public hearing is being left open and comment would be
received the following week after the Zoning Board of Appeals. Just for clarification.
MR. TRAVER-1 thought we had indicated that in the beginning, but it's good to keep in mind. All
right. Can we have the vote, please, Maria?
AYES: Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next we have one more recommendation to the ZBA. This is regarding Site Plan 65-
2017 for Mary Lou & Robert Dunton.
SITE PLAN 65-2017 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. MARY LOU & ROBERT DUNTON. AGENT(SJ:
DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
18 TALL TIMBER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,255 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
786 SQ. FT. HOME, ORIGINAL FLOOR AREA 3,323 SQ. FT./PROPOSED 7,377 SQ. FT. PROJECT
INCLUDES ADDITIONAL COVERED PORCH/DECK AREA AND NEW SECOND FLOOR PORCH
TO AN EXISTING GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-010, 17943-010 & 179-5-020 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT
FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, SECOND GARAGE AND
SHORELINE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 9/22/93 DEMO GARAGE/SHED, 8/16/95
TWO CAR GARAGE; 2004-907 SEPTIC ALT.; 2015-320 SEPTIC ALT., AV 69-2017. WARREN
CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2017 SITE INFORMATION: LAKE GEORGE, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.29
ACRE. SECTION: 179-4-010, 17943-010, 179-5-020
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a 2,255 square foot addition to an existing 786
square foot home. The original floor area is 3,323 square feet. The proposed total ending is 7,377.
This project includes a covered porch or deck area and a new second floor porch area to an existing
garage, and the application information that you've received, the applicant has explained that they'll be
using the garage as living space until; the addition is constructed and once the addition is constructed
then that living space will be decommissioned, meaning there'll be no kitchen area in it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, Laura. Good evening again.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. For the record, Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design,
representing Mary Lou and Bob Dunton for this application that will be going before the Zoning Board
tomorrow night. The request, or first of all the project is located off of Old Assembly Point Road,
Tall Timbers Road. It is an existing residence, lakefront residence, with a detached garage. The
detached garage is a pre-existing structure. It has a bedroom in the upper area of the garage. The
owners want to add to this structure. They chose not to tear it down and re-build. They wanted to
use the unique character of the existing structure and maintain that and add additions that would be
architecturally compatible to what they have. They are a close to retirement couple. The access to
this site, if you've been there, is somewhat challenging. They feel as they age in place I guess is the
phrase that I've heard them say a number of times, they would want to have a better access and safer
access to their structure and then have a little more comfort than what has been. While not a truly
seasonal structure it's not as energy efficient as a year round structure would normally be. So they're
proposing these additions. It involves a variance in three areas. One because of the provision of
the Zoning Ordinance that requires the shoreline setback to be 50 feet or the average of the two
7
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
adjacent properties. In that particular case we're looking at a shoreline setback of 54 feet as opposed
to the normal 50 feet, and there are sections of the proposed structure as well as the existing structure
that don't meet that 54 foot setback, and we've provide a plan there that graphically shows the addition
that would fall within the setback area. So that's variance number two technically. The first is a
continuation of a pre-existing nonconforming structure that kind of goes without saying. The third
variance requested is for an additional garage. That existing structure, the garage with bedroom above,
will be retained and connected to the house as an attached garage would be the second garage, and
that goes to the whole idea of having better access to the house, directly into the house, particularly
during the winter months. Then variance four is related to a stormwater provision of Chapter 147
which says even for a minor stormwater project, which this is, infiltration devices need to be 100 feet
from the waterfront. So we have an infiltration device which receives runoff from the vehicular surface,
from the driveway. That's the difference here, is that under a minor project even runoff from a
driveway is regarded to be on your feet. I've been before this Board several times with that same
type of variance. I would note that the Lake George Park Commission which is, they are the authors
of the ordinance that the Town adopted so many years ago, they are in the process of making
modifications and this is one of the areas that they're proposing to modify is that setback thing so
that we won't be coming before Zoning Boards seeking this same type of variance in the future
hopefully. So that's what we will be seeking from the Zoning Board of Appeals and looking for your
recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-Questions regarding the bedroom or the living area in the garages. The existing garage
has a bedroom above the vehicle area, correct? And then they're talking about this proposed second
garage having another living area to be not just a bedroom but a completely set up basically living area,
and then that's to be decommissioned after the Phase II is complete and the main house is done?
MR. MAC ELROY-What they are hopeful of having and discussed with Craig about this, is that during
the construction when the main residence is under construction, they want to be able to live in that
bedroom space of the existing garage, which would mean installing some sort of kitchen. There's a
bedroom there now. They need some sort of kitchen facilities. It's shown as far as the, with the
architectural plans for the garage. So the idea is that they would have that in the interim, whether
that's a year period or so, while the other house is under construction, that they would be able to live
there, with the provision that prior to obtaining a CO on the main house that the kitchen facilities,
the kitchen components, and the Town has a policy about this, that they would remove the stove, the
counters, the things that make it a kitchen. You still can have a refrigerator and you can still have
some form of a sink, but there are certain components that need to be removed from that, from the
garage, from the living space of the garage, and that's what is certainly something that the owners
would.
MR. FERONE-But it would still be usable living space.
MR. MAC ELROY-In the future, sure.
MS. WHITE-Isn't there an existing bathroom in there?
MR. MAC ELROY-Not currently.
MS. WHITE-But this would be adding too, if you're going to be living there.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MS. WHITE-Does the bathroom stay?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it would.
MR. VALENTINE-Now you said prior to the issuance of a CO.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. VALENTINE-What happens if the CO doesn't come about when they think that it will and they've
sort of decommissioned that area?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well' they wouldn't be able to get the CO until they had the other components
removed. I mean, I've been involved with projects where that's happened previously and it's worked
out. So if it's a longer period of time before they get their CO, I mean, it's a matter of balancing
that, you know, you're close to a CO, you can get the CO.
8
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MS. WHITE-1 still don't understand the need for the second garage. There's an existing garage that's
going to connect to the new house. So why does there have to be another garage?
MR. MAC ELROY-It won't connect. It's a detached garage.
MRS. MOORE-It's a separate garage.
MS. WHITE-Then you're talking about a new garage with the construction of the new section. So
why is there need for two garages?
MR. MAC ELROY-Because that second garage will be attached. It will be an attached garage with
immediate access to the house.
MR. FORD-And how many vehicles will be able to be accommodated with the old garage plus the new
garage?
MR. MAC ELROY-With empty garages used solely for parking, I would say four, two and two. The
existing one is a two car garage.
MR. FORD-That isn't a three that's being added?
MR. MAC ELROY-No. Two car garage.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I've got a not so good fuzzy feeling on this one. Right now it's a two
story wood frame garage with a bedroom up above.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-And they want to put in a bathroom and a kitchen and live in it while they're doing
the renovation onto a rather small house to a rather gargantuan house, and then afterwards, they're
going to decommission the kitchen, but they're going to leave the bathroom.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's the plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That to me is an apartment then. I can see having a garage and a
refrigerator because that's what I have in my garage, but I don't have a toilet.
MR. MAC ELROY-It's a function of convenience really. It's a remote bedroom is what it comes
down to.
MR. MAGOWAN-So what kind of septic system do we have here?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's an approved system that was done actually the first thing that we did. We got
a permit for an advanced treatment system with a new field that's now up by the garage so it's a better
location than currently it's in the 50 to 60 foot area away from the lake. So that's a vast improvement
over what currently exists with the existing house.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but like I said, now we're adding a bathroom into the garage. Was that all
figured in at the time?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and in the design that is part of the site plan package, the site plan application.
MR. FORD-So actual expansion of living space from current to proposed is how much?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well,the figures that Laura read are somewhat, I won't say that they aren't accurate,
but they don't represent, the 786 figure, it doesn't include the living space that's required to be added
or that's reflected in the garage space also. So there's a certain, if you're talking floor area ratio space,
then.
MS. WHITE-Because the resolution is going up to 7377 square feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's, yes, that's floor area. That's floor area.
MS. WHITE-Of both the buildings.
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct,yes, but the original or the existing is the 3,000. So there is an expansion
certainly, yes, 3323 is the existing floor area and going to 73.
MR. FORD-It's more than doubled.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Now as far as floor area, which includes all the areas of the garages, both
floors of the existing, I mean you're certainly familiar with the floor area determinations and floor area
definition of what's included. Covered entries, covered porches are all part of that as well. So there's
a certain amount of that, and it adds up, yes. So it's 4,000 feet more of floor area, not footprint
area, but floor area.
MR. FERONE-Is the intent to park vehicles in both garages?
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly the new attached garage.
MR. MAGOWAN-George, that's a red flag.
MR. FERONE-1 know. That's why I'm asking the question.
MR. MAGOWAN-You know. They're retiring, and I know my parents are down to one car, all right.
I don't like this. You're adding a bathroom and a kitchen, decommissioning it, turning it around. It
could be rented out as a seasonal cottage. All right.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It can be closed off and done overnight. I don't have a problem with them using
it, all right, while the construction is going on, and then I think it should be removed, the whole thing,
the whole building. You're asking 4,000 floor area ratio addition onto the lake.
MS. WHITE-And two garages.
MR. MAGOWAN-And two garages, in Queensbury, and we don't like two garages in Queensbury.
MS. WHITE-1 know, I hate to be, but we have declined extra garages in the Town of Queensbury that's
not even on the lake. So I guess I have a hard time justifying, I don't hear a justification for two
garages on this property and the extra square footage.
MR. TRAVER-One justification is a place to live while the house is being renovated. Plan B is to leave
it in place. That's, I think, what we're really talking about.
MS. WHITE-Yes, leave it in place and don't put an extra garage in the new place.
MR. MAC ELROY-And what if it became storage space, though, as opposed to technically a garage, if
you change the garage doors?
MR. MAGOWAN-How do you decommission all that stuff? Put a plug in the pipes that go into the
ground?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, but that's all factored into the design of the system. It's a bedroom.
MR. MAGOWAN-But it's giving us an opportunity, I mean, that's 26.2 by 24 foot 2. What's the
square footage of that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't think the concern is the capacity of the septic. I think the concern is the
number of bathrooms, and bathrooms being in a separate living space implies.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not even the bathrooms. I'm looking at two separate living spaces.
MR. FORD-Right. The potential for one to be an apartment or a guest suite or rental space.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well the only difference between what exists there now and what would be proposed
in the future is having the bathroom in that structure.
MR. TRAVER-And the second garage.
Q )
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Nani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. MAC ELROY-The only difference of that structure I should say. It's currently living space. It's
currently a bedroom. It doesn't have a bathroom in the building but that doesn't increase the number
of people, and wastewater flow is based on number of bedrooms because that's what can generate
people.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but right now anyone staying in there is sharing the main bathroom, whereas if
they have their own, now we've got a private.
MR. MAC ELROY-I understand your point, and I guess where I'm coming from, having worked with
these owners, that's not anywhere near their intent.
MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe not them, but they are getting older, and what happens if they sell and
these people say, hey, we can afford this because we can rent out this? We'll just close off this garage.
MR. MAC ELROY-What would lessen your concern? I've heard tearing down the building, which I
don't know is anything that they ever thought of or considered, to removing the kitchen, which is
obvious and would be required as part of this plan moving forward.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now you say removing. When I say removing that's fill it with concrete, capping
off the tank, the bathroom and the kitchen sink.
MR. MAC ELROY-I hear what you're saying. That's not what is being suggested or thought of that
they would still have the bathroom.
MR. MAGOWAN-It still can be changed over into extra living space above and beyond, and so now
the property, I don't like it. I'm sticking with tearing it down.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that's certainly a concern.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's just a red flag to me. I don't like it, and they're asking for a variance on
the front footprint there from the lake.
MR. DEEB-Brad, are you okay if the garage stays or no? Turn on the, and just leave the garage?
MR. FORD-A four car garage?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, if it's going to stay just as a bedroom with no bathroom and no kitchen in it,
but how do you make sure that, you know, if they're going to put a bathroom and a kitchen in it,
how do you decommission that so it can't be turned overnight into a rental property or the next
people that come in?
MR. TRAVER-That's an enforcement issue.
MR. DEEB-Like you say, just raze the whole thing?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I say raze the whole thing.
MR. DEEB-The whole building?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. You're more than doubling the size of the home and putting in a garage.
Like I said, it's nothing against the owners, and they're intention might be nice, and I don't have a
problem having the grandkids, but if they're going to this size addition on the home wouldn't you
want the kids with you in the home and not sleeping up above the cars? I mean, to me it's just, it's
just a red flag. The intention is there, but it could be, in my opinion, changed over too easily into an
income property where they can rent it out for the summer. They could have people come up from
Saratoga that rent out their house for big bucks and people come up and give you five grand a week,
you know, and they can rent it out for the summer.
MR. MAC ELROY-So what if the transition back to what is there involved not only removing the
kitchen but removing the bathroom?
MR. MAGOWAN-Let me think on that.
MR. DEEB-So just have it as a garage, right, Dennis, and nothing else? That's what you're saying?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well you'd still have the bedroom that's there that they've had.
H
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-Unless they made the garage, they took the floor out and made it a vaulted ceiling or
something. Well they have the one bedroom.
MR. FORD-They could stick with a two car garage instead of accommodating four cars.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, or change the garage door so that it doesn't meet the definition of a garage.
MR. TRAVER-And I've known people in new home construction that have simply rented an RV and
stayed in the RV while their house was being built. I know for them that may not be the ideal solution,
but there are alternatives to building a structure, building a temporary house, but in any case.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that conversion is, it's something obviously, it takes something. It's changing
the floor plan in that second floor that currently exists.
MR. DEEB-It's just an intricate plan. It's so cumbersome to build a separate building just to live there
until they can get the other one built.
MR. MAC ELROY-You may partition a wall and have things in there. Yes. I will tell you that I've
been, I've had that experience with properties that that can happen. I realize each case is different.
MR. MAGOWAN-Why can't they stay in the house?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, when the house is under construction that was the plan that was presented
to me. That would give them a place to be and that would be the first.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well they're living in the two story stucco house now, right?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Correct. Yes. So how much disruption is there or whatever to be able
to be in that garage space?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean the applicant proposes a 2255 square foot addition to an existing 780 square
foot home. The home is only 780 square feet but the footprint is 3323?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, the footprint is 786.
MR. TRAVER-Currently, yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we understand.
MR. MAC ELROY-And all those numbers are well within the floor area ratio that would support,
would be supported by this lot.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we certainly are noting and will pass along the concern pointed out by
Mr. Magowan and discussed by a few of us on the Board about the existence after Phase I of this
auxiliary structure. Are there other concerns related to the variance that we want to communicate to
the ZBA as they look at this tomorrow night?
MR. FERONE-1 think we've touched on the fact that they're going to be 41 feet with the new porch.
Fifty feet is required.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that's one of the variances that's required.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, 46.5 feet.
MR. FERONE-And the stormwater device is less than 100 feet from the shoreline. How far is that?
MR. MAC ELROY-That's shown to be 45 feet.
MR. TRAVER-That's for the rain garden, right?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It's an infiltration device that receives runoff from the driveway.
Q2
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-And I can remember at some point in the past you having a discussion about whether
a rain garden was an infiltration device. Yes, I mean I think that's been resolved in any case. Yes,
well, those, I think those variances in a way kind of speak for themselves. I mean, I don't have any
specific concern on that. I mean, that's the kind of thing that the ZBA typically looks at in any case.
But I do recognize and appreciate the concern, considering the age of the applicant and the, I mean I
understand they want to invest in their property and that's fine, but I think there's a legitimate concern
that there needs to be some finality to this phase, first phase of construction.
MR. MAC ELROY-So would that affect your recommendation moving forward on variance three then,
really the second garage definition or the use of that moving forward? Because I don't know how
that fits into the actual variance.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well it's really, we are communicating, I think our motion is communicating, we're
communicating areas of concern. And I think what we're identifying, I mean without, the application
in its totality is what the ZBA is going to be looking at, which includes all of the variances. I think
our area of concern certainly that I'm hearing is this idea of the sort of phase I where they're
constructing this living area with the appropriate facilities for them to live independently of where
they're living there while the current living area is completely re-built, and then what happens to that
space following Phase I when they now have this new much larger structure to move into and the
application as it stands before us is some limited decommissioning of, some conveniences in that living
space are being removed but not all, and I think that's what.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I guess I'm wondering how that's structured as in it's not really an objection.
It may in essence be an objection to the second garage.
MR. TRAVER-It's an area of concern and that's the language.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's what it translates to.
MS. WHITE-Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way, but I mean the Town of Queensbury has a.
MR. TRAVER-Well there is the general concern about a second garage.
MS. WHITE-A second garage.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, indeed.
MR. VALENTINE-And the Zoning Board has made that clear just within the last couple of months.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they certainly have with a much smaller request a lot further away from the lake.
MR. MAC ELROY-The idea or the use, the transition use and then returning to its current use isn't
really a variance issue so much. If that idea was taken away, of using this Phase I building it so they
can live there, if that went away.
MR. TRAVER-We would have a different application in front of us.
MR. VALENTINE-You'd still have an application for a second garage though, correct?
MR. DEEB-You'd still need the two garages which I think is the problem.
MR. TRAVER-Correct, but you wouldn't have the living space. So it would be a different project.
MR. MAC ELROY-It still is living space, though. I mean that space exists currently. So the, I guess
the essence of it is the point of procedurally it's the second garage. It's being a second garage. How
it's used is sort of muddles the thing a little bit, but.
MR. DEEB-It doesn't make a difference. It's still a second garage.
MR. FORD-It is what it is.
MR. MAC ELROY-In terms of a concern that, it's the Zoning Board that has the say over that.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
Q
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. MAC ELROY-They would share that and take that action.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's still a second garage with a square foot bedroom upstairs.
MR. FORD-Living space.
MR. MAGOWAN-Living space on top, you know, you're changing this small little house. You've got
four bedrooms now, and then, you know, and the garage is about the size of what they're living in
now. Give or take a few square feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-Not quite because there is a second floor main house that's not included in the
footprint.
MR. MAGOWAN-How many bedrooms are there now?
MR. MAC ELROY-There are three in the main house and the bedroom in the garage
MR. MAGOWAN-Four bedrooms.
MR. MAGOWAN-They can't be big rooms.
MR. FORD-And the final project that'll move from four bedrooms to how many?
MR. MAC ELROY-Five.
MS. WHITE-Plus the one in the garage.
MR. MAC ELROY-Including the one in the garage.
MR. FORD-A two car and a four car.
MR. MAGOWAN-It really is a beautiful addition. I do like it. I just don't like the second garage.
MR. DEEB-Based on the Zoning Board's past actions we can send it, but don't be too optimistic.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if we can move to a discussion of preparing our areas of concern to make a referral
to the ZBA. Mr. Ferone, our secretary, is working on how to express clearly our areas of concern.
MR. FERONE-Let me throw this out and see if everybody agrees. So the concern will be that our
concern is with retaining the second garage after Phase I and the living space with bathroom in the
garage. Is that correct?
MS. WHITE-Pretty much.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes, because you have four variances and three of them are really more
commonplace that you see.
MR. FERONE-Or is our concern just with the fact that the garage is going to be maintained after?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that we could use, we could, if the Board wishes, we could use the language
that in addition to the existing variances being requested, we're particularly concerned.
MR. TRAVER-With this.
MR. MAGOWAN-With the second garage and the living space with such a large addition onto the
home.
MR. FORD-Yes. Adding 4,000 plus square feet.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are there any other areas of concern that members of the Board feel should
be added to this recommendation or are we ready to hear the proposal?/
MS. WHITE-We're ready.
MR. DEEB-Well, one question, have you got, the septic system is updated you said.
H.
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-Forty-six versus fifty.
MR. DEEB-I just wanted to make sure that the wastewater and the septic were going to be fine for the
new addition. It's such a big addition.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. DEEB-I'm sure you did your homework on that. All right, and the stormwater you said was
going to be sent from the driveway to the rain garden.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's the device.
MR. DEEB-And that's not within the setback that's needed, but you're getting a variance for that.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. If we could, Mr. Secretary, let's hear the motion.
MR. FERONE-Motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for Area Variance Number 69-2017 for Mary Lou and Robert Dunton, Introduced by
myself. The Planning Board based on a limited review had identified the following areas of concern.
With the retention of the second garage after Phase I along with the living space with bathroom in the
garage.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion, do we have a second?
MR. DEEB-Second.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion?
MRS. MOORE-Just for clarification that the requested variance is for a second garage that is attached
to the current home, and the existing garage is to remain.
MR. FERONE-Well, the second garage being the existing garage.
MRS. MOORE-The second garage is the attached garage that's being constructed, the new addition.
MR. DEEB-That's what the variance is for.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the existing garage is the separate garage.
MR. FERONE-So the clarification to the motion would be the retention of the original garage with the
living space?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, that's one of my clarifications.
MR. FORD-The word expansion, because they're doubling.
MR. MAGOWAN-We can't say anything about having it removed after the construction?
MRS. MOORE-That would come back to you as the Planning Board. You've expressed.
MR. TRAVER-If their variances were denied, presumably they would either have to accept the denial
and re-design their application and then we would hear it again. Or if the variances were granted it
would come to us for site plan.
MRS. MOORE-Right, where you would be discussing, potentially, that living space other than it's been
clarified that that living space is not, there's no floor area issue with that. You're questioning the idea
of having a bathroom in a different building than in the main building I guess.
MR. TRAVER-Potentially, yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
�Q:.iieensbi.iiry Hanu0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. FERONE-So can I modify the motion with the concern that, the concern we have is with the
retention of the original garage?
MR. TRAVER-The original detached garage.
MR. FERONE-The original detached garage.
MR. TRAVER-And the addition of a new.
MR. FORD-And the addition.
MR. FERONE-With the living space and the bathroom in that garage.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I just want to make sure, there's two garages. The second garage issue.
MR. FERONE-You're correct. The second garage really is the new garage is being built for the home.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I don't know. Once you have a kitchen and a bathroom, how can you call it a
garage?
MRS. MOORE-Because there's vehicles stored in it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-And it has a garage door width. That is called a garage.
MR. FORD-Could we hear that motion again, please. The revised motion.
MR. FERONE-From the beginning.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-69-2017 DUNTON
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 2,255 sq. ft. addition
to an existing 786 sq. ft. home, original floor area 3,323 sq. ft./proposed 7,377 sq. ft. Project includes
additional covered porch/deck area and new second floor porch to an existing garage. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-4-010, 17943-010 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming
structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for
expansion of a non-conforming structure, second garage and shoreline setback. Planning Board shall
provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board
to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both
Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2017 MARY LOU & ROBERT
DUNTON. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and
b] The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
1] With the retention of the original detached garage along with the living space and bathroom
in that garage.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following vote:
MR. FORD-In addition to that I'm concerned about expanding it from two cars existing to four cars
in the final project.
MR. FERONE-A garage is a garage. I assume that that's a given.
Q6
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu:ing Board ➢0 47/2:[71
MR. FORD-It's an additional garage. It's a second garage.
MR. DEEB-That's what the variance is for, Tom, the second garage, the attached garage. That's what
the variance is for.
MR. FORD-And we're expressing concern about that?
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-We are, indeed.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. TRAVER-And of course they will be looking at the application as we have. All right. We have a
motion. Do we have a second?
MR. DEEB-I second it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion made and seconded. Can we have the vote, please, Maria?
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thanks very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to the next area of the agenda which is Old Business. The
application before us next is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 14-2017 and Final Stage 15-2017 for Michael
and Karen LeBlanc.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 14-2017. SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 15-2017. SEAR:
TYPE UNLISTED. MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANTS.
ZONING: MDR W/MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. LOCATION: 34 WARREN LANE. APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 2.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2.57 ACRES AND 0.23
ACRE (100' X 100'1. MAIN LOT, 2.57 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN. NEW
LOT,0.23 ACRE, HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT WILL BE REMOVED TO PLACE A DOUBLE-
WIDE MOBILE HOME. NO CHANGES TO SITE PROPOSED, A SLAB AND SEPTIC TO BE
INSTALLED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF
LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: 1992 SEPTIC
ALT.; SUB SKETCH 13-2017,AV 55-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 2.8 ACRES.
TAX MAP NO. 308.64-67. SECTION: CHAPTER 183
MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals at last
month's meeting from a 2.8 acre parcel to divide it into two lots of 2.57 and 0.23 acre lot. The
applicant proposes to remove the existing garage on the .23 acre lot and to place a double wide mobile
home. The Zoning Board granted that and they understood that if there was ever a replacement
system needed for the septic system that would be allowed on the adjoining lot through easement with
the current owners.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. Hello,again. I know we've had significant
discussion on this application and you did get your variance approved. As a result of your visit to
the ZBA, were there any changes to your proposal that we should be aware of?
MR. LE BLANC-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MS. WHITE-No.
Q'7
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-This is fairly, I mean, we've reviewed this one pretty extensively. All right. So, that
being the case, I guess I would just ask you, do you have anything tht you want to say before we
proceed? Okay. The variance was granted last month and so the next aspect of our procedure, well
we do have a public hearing as well this evening. So we will open the public hearing and ask if there's
anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any
written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and proceed to consider the
SEQR resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any concerns regarding the environmental impacts with this application? I
know that it's odd with subdivisions, basically a line on the ground, but it does require, under the act,
a SEAR. I'm not hearing any concerns. So we'll look for a motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB #115-2017 LE BLANC
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acre (100' x
100'). Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acre, has an existing garage
that will be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. No changes to site proposed, a slab and
septic to be installed. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be
subject to Planning Board review.
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 Unlisted 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 Short / Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 15-2017
MICHAEL & KAREN LEBLANC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 17" of October, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and then next we move on to the resolution regarding Preliminary Stage for
the subdivision.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB. # 14-2017 LE BLANC
Qui
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu0ng Board K)/➢'7/20[7]
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acre [100' x 100'].
Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acre, has an existing garage that
will be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. No changes to site proposed, a slab and septic
to be installed. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject
to Planning Board review.
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;
The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning
Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 09/26/2017 & 10/17/2017;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 14-2017 MICHAEL & KAREN
LEBLANC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and last but not least we have a resolution for Final Stage. This contains the
standard conditions, and I don't believe, I have not heard any additional conditions that have been
raised by members of the Board. So I think you can go ahead with the standard resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 15-2017 LE BLANC
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acre [100' x 100']. Main
lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acre, has an existing garage that will be
removed to place a double-wide mobile home. No changes to site proposed, a slab and septic to be
installed. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to
Planning Board review.
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;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 09/26/2017 & 10/17/2017;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 15-2017 MICHAEL & KAREN LEBLANC,
Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption.
1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and
the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
2. Waiver requests ranted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
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. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
V9
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu:ing Board K)/➢'7/20[71
a] The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any
site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
7. 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.
8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You are all set. Good luck.
MR. LE BLANC-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to New Business. And first we have Site Plan 63-2017, Giovanone
Real Estate Partners.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 63-2017 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS,
LP. AGENT(SJ: NACE ENGINEERING, PC. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
CLI LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING
VACANT LOT WITH 21,497 SQ. FT. GRAVEL AREA FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF UPS
VEHICLES AS NEEDED (TYPICALLY WINTER MONTHS) AND OVERFLOW STORAGE FOR
POOLS FOR CONCORD POOLS (YEAR ROUND). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW STORAGE YARD USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-2003. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
OCTOBER 2017 LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.174-23.23 SECTION: 179-3-040
TOM MACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to maintain an existing vacant lot with a 21,497 square foot
gravel area as well as allowing a temporary storage of the UPS vehicles during winter months. What
happens during the winter months is the applicant leases space to UPS. They have a unit that comes
on site and allows for other UPS vehicles to back into it and load and deliver Christmas inventory and
then the applicant is also requesting additional opportunity to store the pools that they're selling and
then this location would allow them to place them there and then deliver them as they are sold.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So essentially we're seeing this because it's a new use for storage.
MRS. MOORE-It's a new use. It has been ongoing but the applicant has been asked to come before
the Board sort of a, not Stop Work Order, but it's a violation that they have been using this lot without
approvals. So they're in before the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Good evening.
20
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. MACE-Good evening. For the record Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Tom Brians of Concord
Pools. What we're proposing here is, again, as Laura said, continuation of an existing use that has
been there for some time now. I think originally nobody realized that a permit was needed for the
UPS use. What happens is they've got a box trailer that is set up and they bring in with a conveyor
on the inside of it. Supply trucks with bulk packages back in to the end of the box trailer. They're
unloaded onto the conveyor. The delivery trucks pull into doors along the side of the box trailer
where the parcels are taken off the conveyor and loaded on to delivery trucks for distribution. It
occurs primarily during the holiday season and activity around the trailer, loading and unloading, occurs
at night. I don't know what else I can tell you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I hear we may be getting a new Amazon facility down by Rensselaer County.
So the UPS business may be picking up somewhat. So okay, well, any questions or comments by
members of the Planning Board? This is an affirmation of, basically an affirmation of an existing use
of what otherwise is a vacant lot.
MR. VALENTINE-1 have a couple of questions.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead.
MR. VALENTINE-The lot sizes of 1.84 acres, how much disturbance is there to get this gravel parking
lot in there?
MR. MACE-The gravel's already there. If I remember right the gravel is something less than a half an
acre.
MR. VALENTINE-Tom, your e-mail last week to Laura, it just struck me as the use of words threw
some vagaries in here. In your e-mail, this was dated October 5t", there were three points in response
to Laura's e-mail. The second response says all trucks generally stay within the gravel area. So I
wanted to come back to that one. The next one says that the overflow pool storage is generally kept
within the gravel area. The owner anticipates a maximum of 10 to 15 pools to be temporarily in there.
I wonder if you can address the use of generally in both of those. Because you're showing a gravel
area. That's why I was wondering how much disturbance there was in there, and there's nothing shown
here for a layout on here for gravel to show where these trucks are, where that conveyor system is.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we've got kind of a hand drawing.
MR. VALENTINE-And where the pools would be stored, you know, I'm just wondering if that, it says
are the trucks, and I don't know why generally. Do they stay in that gravel area?
MR. MACE-The gravel was placed, was put down where the tire paths are for the trucks. So they do
stay within the gravel area. I can't guarantee you that some driver won't go outside that gravel area
because it's all at grade.
MR. VALENTINE-In the winter months the use of this, if you don't have frozen ground, is there a
problem with the soils around that?
MR. MACE-No. It's 40 feet of sand. It's been used by the trucks up until last year without any
gravel and it's not been a problem.
MR. VALENTINE-So there's no tracking of mud off site?
MR. MACE-No.
MR. VALENTINE-And there is room enough on here you're saying, then, for both the pools to be
stored and for the movement of circulation of trucks in here and the operation there?
MR. MACE-The UPS set up is a temporary portable set up. It was brought in just for the November
and December period. So that it's not on site when they're storing pools. Maybe Tom can talk to
what the pool storage is.
MR. BRIANS-Yes, the pool is basically just an overflow, which temporarily, you know, it would be
springtime, summer. So the pools that are sold that are, it's a staging area.
MR. VALENTINE-So you're talking different times of operation for both of these things?
2,
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[71
MR. BRIANS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-What about, in your e-mail, what about issue number one regarding the merger of the
parcels?
MR. MACE-That was a misunderstanding. That should have occurred when the boat and RV project
was finished, and it didn't get done. It will get done now.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would you recommend that be a condition of approval, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-You can recommend it as a condition. It's been in the past one and I really was just
following up on information that I didn't see in our real property system. The last time I saw, I saw a
document that said that it was to be merged, and then when I looked in real property it hasn't been
done. So I think it's a matter of filing the paperwork, and I apologize, I'm not certain, but I think it's
just turning it in.
MR. TRAVER-Literally just filing paperwork. Okay.
MR. MACE-It's consolidation of those two existing lots.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions on this application? I guess we're ready for a motion.
MR. FERONE-Do you want to do SEQR first?
MRS. MOORE-You need to have your public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. We have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Any
written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing and we will move to the SEQR resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any environmental concerns? This is a pre-existing use. I'm not hearing
any.
MS. WHITE-It's appropriate to the area.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP 63-2017 GIOVANONE
The applicant proposes to maintain an existing vacant lot with 21,497 sq. ft. gravel area for temporary
storage of UPS vehicles as needed (typically winter months) and overflow storage for pools for Concord
Pools (year round). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage yard use
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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 Unlisted 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 Short / Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, 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
22
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu0ng Board K)/➢'7/20[71
environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 63-2017 GIOVANONE
REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LP. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and then next we hear the Site Plan approval motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 63-2017 GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, L.P.
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to maintain an existing vacant lot
with 21,497 sq. ft. gravel area for temporary storage of UPS vehicles as needed (typically winter months)
and the temporary overflow storage for pools for Concord Pools (year round). Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage yard use shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning
Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the
Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration —
Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/17/2017 and continued
the public hearing to 10/17/2017, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/17/2017;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 63-2017 GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LP.
Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic,
commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition
disposal and snow removal.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
23
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
C] Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
fJ As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2017 by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-Any questions on that motion?
MRS. MOORE-1 do have one. In the motion that's prepared they mention that the storage of pools
is on a year round basis and he just mentioned that it's possibly not a year round storage situation.
And I just.
MR. BRIANS-Yes, I mean, I would prefer it not be. I'm planning to use it strictly in the summer.
Only because that's not a gated area and I'd rather have them in my facility that is gated.
MRS. MOORE-So maybe the wording is, there's two seasonal uses, and maybe that wording may need
to be amended. I don't, I'm trying to think of a better verbiage to put in that, because right now it
says year round.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess my thought would be, and I'm sitting on the other side of the table I
suppose in a sense, but my sense would be if we're approving both uses without restriction with regards
to the time of year, that reduces the likelihood that they would have to return to use should business
from the pool industry boom and he needs space in the winter to store pools that are awaiting sales
in the spring or some such thing, or should UPS need to expand beyond the two month period that
we're discussing during the holiday season, and I think as I see it what we're looking at is re-affirming
the existing use, not regulating the time of year that it's being used, but that's just me.
MR. VALENTINE-Well,there's reference in the application materials for a time period that was in there
that specified.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-So I guess if anything you could say without reference to that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Well, I'd be concerned, and I apologize for continuing, is that if you're saying that the
UPS vehicles can operate at a different time period,that's not what this is for. This is strictly a seasonal
use for the UPS vehicles, and if it were to go beyond that then there's potential that the applicant
would come back for some other review because it would be more of a permanent basis versus
temporary.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess what I'm saying is our resolution is approval of what's before us. So I
wasn't certain that we needed to elaborate.
MRS. MOORE-So if you look at the first part of that resolution, that's why I'm asking you to look at
it, is that it says year round, and it actually has the terminology year round. I don't think that's wat
the applicant's asking for. I would ask you to look at that and potentially change that wording or
remove it completely because we are talking about a seasonal reference, and in the resolution I have
the word year round. I think that's inaccurate.
MS. WHITE-So if we change that to seasonal, that word, just change year round to?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, in that first paragraph where it says following Concord Pools in parens year round,
if we change that to seasonal.
MR. FORD-We need to define seasonal.
21
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MS. WHITE-Temporary.
MRS. MOORE-Or temporary.
MR. TRAVER-Temporary. Okay. That's fine with me.
MR. FERONE-Well, UPS vehicles are typically winter months. Do we want to say Concord Pools
typically summer months?
MR. TRAVER-Either one works for me.
MR. FERONE-It's vague enough that I think if there's overflow that's fine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, we're saying typically not restricted to. Right. That works for me.
MR. FORD-1 agree.
MR. DEEB-Looking at the resolution it says UPS vehicles as needed typically winter months. You're
saying for November and December because of the holiday season, but we can define it with November
and December.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm not sure that we need to do that as long as we're clear that they're two separate
uses, seasonally based. One being typically winter months and one being typically summer months.
MR. DEEB-But it says Concord Pools year round
MRS. MOORE-And that's what I'm saying.
MR. TRAVER-But we're talking about amending the motion to change that.
MRS. MOORE-Literally take out the word and insert what you just suggested is typically summer
months.
MR. TRAVER-Typically summer months.
MR. DEEB-I thought we had discussed that. Didn't you just say that in the future?
MR. TRAVER-Well that was my concern.
MR. DEEB-I don't see pools jumping out in winter, being sold tremendously.
MR. TRAVER-Well, no, not to be sold, but just to have inventory capacity, but we did discuss that
and the sense that I got was the feeling let's keep the application as proposed and this is really just a
clarification which was not intended by the applicant with regard to the Concord Pools. They didn't
intend to have language in there that said year round. They intended to have language that said
essentially typically summer months.
MR. BRIANS-Well, I mean, I want to have the ability, if it's February, if I need to unload a pool and
stage it there, you know.
MR. DEEB-And that's what I'm saying. I know that's what you wanted and that's what it says.
MR. BRIANS-1 don't want to be confined from June to August.
MRS. MOORE-Then use the word temporary. Because that's temporary, so if the applicant ever, if
our Code Enforcement Officer goes out there and continually sees pools in that front yard, that would
be more of a permanent use. If he sees them on occasion there,that clearly defines them as temporary.
That's what I'm trying to get at, because I don't want Code Enforcement going out there and saying,
they're here in the summer, or they're here in the winter and you were told not to have them here in
the winter. I don't want that to occur.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, I hate to extend this debate, but if we use the word temporary then
doesn't that require us to define what temporary is in terms of the time period?
25
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hanu:ing Board K)/➢'7/20[71
MR. DEEB-Well, you're looking at temporary in terms of storage for UPS vehicles as needed, and
overflow, you say the temporary extends to overflow storage for pools for Concord Pools, then it
says year round.
MRS. MOORE-Remove the word year round.
MR. TRAVER-That's the original motion, which has already been made and seconded.
MR. DEEB-Why are we removing year round?
MR. TRAVER-He's saying that the possibility exists that he might need overflow storage, because as I
can imagine, I'm not in the pool business. I can't even swim, but I can imagine if I decided to go into
the business of selling pools, I might have more inventory in February and March than I might have in
the summertime because I'd be kind of gearing up to hopefully sell a lot of pools in the spring.
MR. DEEB-Isn't that what our resolution says?
MR. TRAVER-It is. It is, but then we got into a discussion of why is that year round when he doesn't
really need year round.
MR. DEEB-You're saying you would like to have it year round.
MR. MAGOWAN-I've got a question. What color is the gravel?
MR. FERONE-Can I make a recommendation on the motion?
MR. TRAVER-Please.
MR. FERONE-The original motion will stand, with the modification that, in the first paragraph of the
resolution that starting with the third line, that the gravel area for temporary storage of UPS vehicles
as needed typically winter months and the temporary overflow storage for pools for Concord Pools
would be the use of the property.
MR. VALENTINE-Without reference for when they're stored for the pools.
MR. FERONE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended.
MR. DEEB-Okay. That works.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So do we have a second?
MR. DEEB-Second.
MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended motion made and seconded. Any additional discussion on that
resolution? May we have the vote, please, Maria?
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. BRIANS-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. All right, and next under New Business we have Boguslaw Bielecki. Site
Plan 64-2017.
SITE PLAN NO. 64-2017 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. BOGUSLAW BIELECKI. AGENT[S] GAVIN
VUILLAUME. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 120 LUZERNE
ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO MULTIPURPOSE
MANUFACTURING/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING TO BE 15,400 SQ.
FT. (FOOTPRINT]/24,800 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) FOR A TOTAL OF 30,800 SQ. FT. FRONT
AREA IS TO BE A THREE STORY OFFICE, REAR BUILDING IS TO BE TWO STORY. PROJECT
TO INCLUDE SITE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE AND INCLUDES STORMWATER,
LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
26
�. :.iieensbi.iiry Hanu0ng Board K)/➢'7/20[7]
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1999, DISC 7-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER
2017 LOT SIZE: 12.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-2-6. SECTION: 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant is constructing two multi-purpose manufacturing/office/warehouse
buildings. Each building has a footprint of 15,400 square feet and a floor area of 24,800. What
happens is the front half is the three story office building. The middle portion of the complex is the
warehouse, and the rear portion of the complex is another two story office, light manufacturing
business.
MR. TRAVER-Welcome back. I remember discussing this in early summer I think it was.
MR. HALL-Absolutely. We were here in June.
MR. DEEB June.
MR. HALL-As a discussion item.
MR. DEEB-You brought an army this time.
MR. HALL-At that point we had just the concept information done. Since then Environmental Design
has come on board and they've gone out, done the site engineering work. We've worked through
the stormwater management. We've worked through the layout. We did some additional test pits
on the site and found out that the deeper we got into the site the worse the soils and materials got
the closer we got to the lake with that. This site was a site that was filled a lot during the, it was
excavated out and a lot of the material that was excavated out was used to build the Northway and
then they filled the site back in with a lot of the debris that was left over.
MR. TRAVER-That lake in the back is actually artificial, right?
MR. HALL-It's man-made.
MR. TRAVER-And if I remember someone had mentioned that there are actually fish in it.
MR. HALL-There are big fish in it.
MR. TRAVER-Really? No kidding?
MR. HALL-There are big carp back there. Snapping turtles too, as we found out. So we've started
to make the design. We've pulled through and done all of the layout and the stormwater design. We
do have a response or a review letter from the Town Engineer and I know that the folks at EDP have
started looking at that. So really we're just kind of here to work our way through the next step and
to find out what questions you have based on that.
MR. TRAVER-It doesn't appear, from what I've seen, that it's substantially different from what we had
as a discussion item.
MR. HALL-No, we did take 50 feet out of the building. We took 50 feet of the middle warehouse
building just to make it more compact and to keep it a little closer to the front. As we said, the
further we went back the worse the soils got. So in an effort to have to not disturb a lot more and
to keep ourselves under the five acres of total disturbance we pulled 50 feet out of the building and
left it there. So the area in the back where the back parking is is where we start getting into the worse
stuff, and we can deal with that under a parking area. We can't deal with it under a building.
MR. TRAVER-Well it's very unique. I mean, it's, I can see it being kind of an incubator for some
developments.
MR. FORD-What's the total disturbance now?
MR. HALL-Four point 73 acres.
MR. FERONE-1 had a question. So it says total floor area 49,600. How much of that is office because
I know there's warehouse building.
2
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Nani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. HALL-Pretty much the front, the three story portion in the front is going to be the office area.
The warehousing will be in the middle of the building, and then the back portion may be a combination
of some office and light manufacturing. We've got higher ceilings in those areas in the back. So it
looks like we're about, just under 32,000 square foot.
MR. FERONE-And so the point I wanted to get at was, how do you calculate the size of your septic if
you don't know like what size company and the number of employees that might go in there? You
just calculate for the total amount that you can maybe fit in there?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It would be based on a projection of use and a flow rate per employee per
square footage.
MR. FERONE-Well, how many bathrooms? Do you know how many bathrooms will be used?
MR. HALL-At this point we don't know that.
MR. MAC ELROY-And again, to go back to my other application, it's not bathrooms, it's not fixtures,
necessarily, although flow rates can be determined. There's some methodology that allows you to do
fixtures, but generally it's the number of people that are going to occupy a space.
MS. WHITE-And just to go back, you were talking about the area of disturbance. Just to note that
Chazen Company has noted 5.348 acres of disturbance. Just different than what you just said.
MR. HALL-Yes, I think some of that had to do with the space for the stormwater management area
which would be done first and then stabilized and we'd back out of that.
MR. FORD-So which is it? Or is it somewhere in between?
MR. HALL-I think our total disturbance area is 4.78 acres.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's the number I recall.
MS. WHITE-Is that important that Chazen has?
MR. HALL-Well five acres puts us into a different SWPPP.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and you still have some, you're still working things out with the Town Engineer as
well. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, that's a discussion.
MR. HALL-Yes. I spoke with them earlier today and we've started working our way through this list.
We just got it the tail end of last week. So we're going to start working our way through this list.
MR. TRAVER-Some of those issues could affect our SEQR review.
MR. FORD-Disturbance.
MS. WHITE-SHPO.
MR. HALL-It's actually the very first one that says proposes to disturb 5.348 acre and I don't know
where they're coming up with that number to be honest. Because ours does not show that much.
MR. FORD-Who is the "they".
MR. HALL-The Chazen letter says 5.38. That's not what our drawings show.
MR. TRAVER-Well, what I would like to offer to members of the Board for consideration, and we've
done this with our projects as well regarding the engineering considerations, is to have the applicant
work with the Town Engineer and work out all these issues and make sure that there are hard numbers
and have them come back only after they have basically all of the issues resolved with regard to the
engineering. That prevents us from going back and forth and trying to deal with engineering issues
that we may be uncertain or the applicant may be uncertain.
MR. FORD-But we've identified one area and there may be others that need to be addressed.
28
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry HaniOng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly.
MR. VALENTINE-A question in that regard. You've got a site that's 12.92, which just puts you three
acres over becoming a Type I, but recognizing you're saying you can't develop anything on the rest.
I'm just wondering if there shouldn't be a note right on the plan to say based on soil explorations or
whatever that you can't use the rest of that. Because otherwise maybe looking down the road some
time later on saying okay this triggers into 10 acres and then it changes.
MR. TRAVER-You could be dealing with segmentation. Good point.
MR. HALL-I'm just looking at our erosion and sediment control plan, and that does say that the
clearing limits, that's drawing number seven of thirteen, clearing limits should propose grading is 4.7
acres. So I'm not sure where they're coming up with the 5.34.
MR. TRAVER-Well, you can certainly work that out. I mean, that's one of a number of things on a
project of this scope, you know, you're going to want to work out, and it's worked well for us in the
past for us to have you work with the Town Engineer and basically resolve those issues so that when
you come in with us you have pretty hard numbers. Then it really just becomes literally the site plan
issues. It's a lot easier and I think quicker for all of us because you would have, I think probably,
fewer visits before us.
MR. HALL-Yes, get that worked out. So, Mike, the one issue that you're talking about is just some
kind of notation on the drawing regarding.
MR. VALENTINE-Just in this area where you show your limits. You've got your shoreline setback
from the pond and then you've got the, that we've already delineated as approximate edge of old fill.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-And you're saying right here before us in the application you're not going to
develop the rest of the property. You can't, you know.
MR. HALL-Well, I don't know that it's can't. We can't do it economically.
MR. VALENTINE-At some point the land may have value because it's open land and there may be no
other land around there so then it does become.
MR. TRAVER-And that's exactly the history in the Town. We have even residential projects coming
in that, properties that were not developed in years past because it wasn't practical and now new
engineering techniques, particularly septic systems, have come in that enable re-visiting those.
MR. HALL-Dennis brought up a point. I mean a solar array. If somebody wanted to go out there
and put a bunch of solar panels out there. Yes, we can't build a building on it but it would be easy
to put a solar array. So as we said, it's not developable to actually put a building on economically, but
land is the only thing they're not making any more of.
MR. TRAVER-And that would trigger another review in any case.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. TRAVER-You'd have to come back for a modification because of additional development. It
would be before us anyway. I don't feel, it doesn't seem to me that we need to be concerned with
that, with this phase, but the engineering is such that.
MR. HALL-If we put a notation on the site for this phase, for this project, development of the back
part of the.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't know that that's necessary because it is what it is.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. TRAVER-What you have before us is what's before us.
MR. HALL-Right.
29
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-And you're not proposing any development. Should any development be proposed in
the future you would have to, and we would have another set of these and another discussion about
what this development was and all of the impacts.
MR. HALL-Sure.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, I think just the discussion in the minutes is recognizing that there is potential
beyond what is on here right now.
MR. HALL-Yes, at some point down the road. I agree with you.
MR. TRAVER-We also have a public hearing for this application tonight. So let's go ahead and open
that public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this
application this evening? Are there any written comments thus far?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then we'll close the public hearing for this evening but we will keep it open
as we move forward. Are there other issues? One of the specific things that we want the applicant
to.
MR. FERONE-Well, I had a question. I took note on, they're recommending some ornamental lights
that usually we receive pole lights with down lighting and those types.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. There were two different heights too.
MR. FERONE-This is a project in progress, but if we wanted to make some kind of a recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Certainly anything that Board members want to communicate. I mean, I think
that we will, by the nature of the unresolved primarily engineering issues before us, we will be moving
for likely a tabling motion for this, but if there are other issues that members of the Planning Board
have identified or have concerns about or want to communicate, this is sort of like a discussion item.
MR. HALL-Workshop.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, workshop.
MR. TRAVER-That we would like to communicate to the applicant as they further refine their
application. It would be a good time to communicate that to them, and that's a good point with
regard to lighting. As you know we are very sensitive to light pollution in the Town, as it should be,
and I do remember seeing somewhere in the application there was I think two different pole heights
and I wasn't sure what all of that was about. Just be wary of lighting.
MR. HALL-Yes. The initial intent was that we were going to have some pole mounted lights on the
outside, around the outside of the property, lighting the driving and parking areas, and then light
bollards around the interior where the sidewalks and things are. That's, I think accounts for the two
different heights.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HALL-The ones that you're talking about around the perimeter, on the outside would be typical
pole mounted downcast fixtures which are lighting the ground, and then of course the bollard lightings
are just lighting sidewalks to and from the parking lot, things like that. There will be some lights on
the buildings themselves at the main entryways, and probably where the loading docks are there'll be
some lights over the loading docks. Again those will be wall mounted fixtures that are all downcast
fixtures. Especially if you've got a truck backing up, you don't want a light shining right at the guy
trying to back up.
MR. FORD-Please just make sure they're Code compliant.
MR. HALL-Yes, they'll all be downcast fixtures with cut off shields on them so they're lighting the
ground.
MR. TRAVER-And the metrics, you know, we are sensitive to the metrics. As you know.
30
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. HALL-And I think Laura's looking for that.
MRS. MOORE-So this one's here, but the bollards are not.
MR. HALL-Okay. So that may be something, I'll confirm that with Gavin.
MR. TRAVER-1 think that we may need clarification because you mentioned on building lighting
because I almost think I saw somewhere that there needed to be clarification on that. So we'll want
the cut sheets and all of that on those, if they're a part of your plan.
MR. HALL-Sure. Yes, most of the ones that are on the buildings themselves are going to be at the
doors and they'll all be recessed fixtures at the entry doors that are just going to shine down at the
entries, and then of course where it's required by Code that we have to have lighting n the exterior of
the building for egress purposes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're not going to have the red and green blinking lights there at the loading
docks, are you?
MR. HALL-I don't know that that's a requirement for loading docks.
MR. MAGOWAN-Those catch my eye and distract me when I'm driving.
MR. HALL-But those are really for where you've got a big turnover of trucks. I know Pruyn's has
them. Pruyn's has them all over the place. I know Angio has them as well for when you've got a lot
of trucks coming and going. I don't see that being this type of facility. I see this as a place that needs
loading docks to get stuff in and out, but I don't see it, you know, generating that kind of traffic.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay.
MR. VALENTINE-In the application material that came in there, the site remediation information that
was packaged in here, that's not on this side of the Northway and I was wondering why it was in here.
Was there a concern that because of the fence? That NiMo property that surrounds this triggered
my question.
MR. HALL-In the EAF it triggers that, and I just provided the list of, okay, here's everything in the
Town and it's not on our site. I just wanted to make that, you know, because it does trigger, as a
response it triggers, yes, it's near a remediated site. Okay well here's all your remediated sites in the
Town and it's not ours. So I provide that list. It's just something that I throw out there when I do
those just to say.
MR. VALENTINE-Well knowing that the issue came up, and it's always connected with NiMo and
NiMo's on two sides and I'm saying, geez, have you got anything on this site.
MR. HALL-No. All the ones that were listed were stuff that were mostly with the capacitors, the
capacitor coils and all that stuff. Yes, the one at Mount Trashmore on the other side of the Northway
when they did all of that remediation over there. That was one. It's the only way I know how to
refer to it. I'm sorry. I'm dating myself.
MR. MAGOWAN-Remember when that caught fire and burnt Hidden Hills there?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. FERONE-1 had just a suggestion. Mr. Bielecki, I'm hoping that with this building that you do get
a big company. You said 30,000 square feet. You could maybe fit 200 people in there. I know
I've got a building 66,000 square feet and I put 400 people in there. One of the things I found with
that building was, when you put all those people in there you end up with folks that want to smoke
and they want to go someplace. So then you have a gazebo. After the building was all done I had
to come back to the Town and ask for permission to put two gazebos in. So it's something to think
about it if you want to have it on your plan. This way you don't have to come back afterwards.
MR. TRAVER-Designated smoking area. Yes.
MR. DEEB-Unless you allow no smoking in the building.
3
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[7]
MR. TRAVER-On the grounds.
MR. FERONE-You saw what the County went through, and that didn't work out.
MR. HALL-No, that's a good point.
MR. FERONE-I'm trying to save him from having to come back for another application.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So with all of that said, and all of that discussion, how long do you think it
would take, if you know at this early stage, before you'd be ready to come back for further discussion.
MR. MAC ELROY-Today's the 17tH
MR. HALL-So it would be a November submission deadline. We didn't see anything in here that we
thought was, that was going to take us any great amount of time. So I'm thinking we'll be able to
turn it around by the November submittal, which would put us into December.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So then we'd be looking at, and, Laura, is there any, I'm just thinking
about the calendar. Is there any wiggle room? How are we looking for November? I know it's very
early.
MRS. MOORE-November is very light.
MR. TRAVER-And December?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't have anything for December yet.
MR. HALL-Well you have one.
MRS. MOORE-All right.
MR. TRAVER-And we have the 19" and the 21" potentially. So we would probably want to schedule
this for the 19t". Right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I would.
MR. TRAVER-Of December, in the possibility that on the winter solstice on the 21" we wouldn't have
anything. All right. So then we'll do a tabling motion for the 12/19 Planning Board meeting, and we
need to think about conditions for the tabling. We want to say resolution of outstanding engineering
issues, careful evaluation of lighting, and rather than be specific on the smoking area, maybe we want
to say something like.
MR. HALL-Investigation, consideration of, yes I like consideration of. I think it's a good point.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree.
MRS. MOORE-1 also have one more. You mentioned in reference to the SWPPP program, there's
supposed to be SHPO and endangered species. My guess is that's already in the works or did that?
MR. HALL-Yes, that's already been started.
MRS. MOORE-So those signoffs along with engineering.
MR. FERONE-What's the other one?
MRS. MOORE-It's endangered species.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, SHPO.
MR. HALL-State Historic Preservation Office.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I think we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 64-2017 BOGUSLAW BIELECKI
32
�Qi.iieensbi.iiry Hani0ng Board K)/[7/20[71
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to construct two multipurpose
manufacturing/office/warehouse buildings. Each building to be 15,400 sq. ft. [footprint]/24,800 sq.
ft. (floor area) for a total of 30,800 sq. ft. Front area is to be a three story office, rear building area
is to be two story. Project to include site disturbance of more than one acre and includes stormwater,
lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.64-2017 BOGUSLAW BIELECKI, Introduced by George Ferone
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the Planning Board meeting of December 19, 2017. Conditions are resolution of the
outstanding engineering comments, consideration of lighting, and approval of SHPO.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. We shall see you gentlemen in December.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much. Appreciate your input tonight.
MR. DEEB-Thanks, Ethan.
MR. TRAVER-Before we adjourn this evening I do have one housekeeping business for the Planning
Board. In view of the unfortunate loss of our secretary, Mr. Ferone, to higher office, I am creating
a sub-committee or a search committee for a secretary for next year for 2018, and I'm appointing Mr.
Ferone to Chair that sub-committee with the charge that he recruit members of the Planning Board or
others as he sees fit to come up with a nominee or nominees to be reported back to me by the second
meeting in November which would be the 28t". And we don't need a resolution for that because I
just did it.
MS. WHITE-Per your changes.
MR. TRAVER-Per the By-laws. Yes, and if we have no other business before us this evening, we can
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. FERONE-So moved.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did somebody second that?
MS. WHITE-I'll second it.
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER, 17
2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
33