02-13-2018 (Queen lrbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 6-2018 James Schneider 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-18
Site Plan No. 14-2018 Seavey Family Trust 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27
Site Plan No. 17-2018 William & Bonnie Thomas 10.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.10-1-35, 289.10-1-36
Site Plan No. 16-2018 Judkins Family Trust 10.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.10-1-36, 289-10-1-35
Site Plan No. 7-2018 Colleen M. Halse 16.
Special Use Permit 1-2018 Tax Map No. 239.12-2-66
Site Plan No. 9-2018 Ken &Victoria Giordano 24.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-50
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
,I
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
BRAD MAGOWAN
JOHN SHAFER
JAMIE WHITE
MICHAEL VALENTINE
MEMBERS ABSENT
DAVID DEEB
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting for Tuesday February 13th. This is the first meeting for the month of
February and the third meeting for 2018. We have one administrative item this evening before
we begin our regular agenda and that is the approval of minutes from our December 19th and
December 21St meetings from 2017.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 19, 2017
December 21, 2017
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 19TH AND DECEMBER 21ST, 2017, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-And also I'm reminding myself for members of the audience and members of the
Planning Board, if you have an electronic device such as a cellphone if you could silence it,
please, for the duration of the meeting and I will do that to mine, and the first four items on our
agenda are Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first being
James Schneider, Site Plan 6-2018. This is a SEQR Type II, and since this is a
recommendation there is no public hearing on this application.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. JAMES SCHNEIDER. AGENT(S):
JEFFREY DOAK. OWNER(S): 14 LADD LANE, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 14
LADD LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF A FRONT ENTRY AND IN-FILL
PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES A 58 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO DEVELOP KITCHEN AREA,
THEN A 59 SQ. FT. FRONT ENTRY PORCH WITH A 46 SQ. FT. PORCH AREA.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 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, SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE: 2017 SEPTIC ALT., RC-000678-2017 ADDITION, AV 7-2018.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC. LOT
SIZE: .27 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-050.
2
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
JEFFREY DOAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a renovation to the front entry area and an
infill on the porch. The project includes a 58 sq. ft. addition to develop a kitchen area and then
a 59 sq. ft. front entry porch with a 46 sq. ft. porch area along with that. The applicant is
requesting variances for shoreline setback and for permeability, and relief for non-conforming
structure.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome.
MR. DOAK-Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-Can you state your name for the record and tell us about your project.
MR. DOAK-My name is Jeffrey Doak. The project is an existing camp from the 1960's. The
owner has decided to renovate the camp into a four season basically camp. We've added
additions to improve the front entry, to improve the front entrance door. The current door
location is only 30 inches wide. There's a very small landing, and then we've added an infill at
the existing porch which is on the right side by the kitchen. That's 58 square feet. It's not
protruding outside the existing roofline.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the item for discussion this evening are the variances that you're
requesting as opposed to Site Plan which you would be returning if you get approval of your
variances from the ZBA. So we're looking at the variance for the shoreline setback because a
75 foot setback is required and you're proposing 69.16 square, and the other is where we have
to have 75% permeability and you're requesting a variance for 73.64 feet.
MR. DOAK-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I see that the
additions you're talking about are on the road side, instead of the lakeside.
MR. DOAK-That's correct. It's on the opposite side of the lake. The lake view is not changing.
It's on the backside. We don't anticipate disturbing the area very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let's see. So you're not further encroaching on the setback on the lake.
You're just basically here because you're already within the setback.
MR. DOAK-Within the setback. Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not much room there behind, is there?
MR. DOAK-No. There's not much room at all. Basically what we're doing is we're creating an
entry where a couple of people could gather, versus right now that entry is very small. Like I
said it's a 30 inch door to almost a three by three landing, and it's almost kind of a safety
concern with the owner.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SHAFER-Did I read where the wastewater treatment system has already been improved?
MR. DOAK-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any specific concerns that Board members feel we should pass along
to the ZBA before we make our referral, with regards to the variance?
MR. MAGOWAN-So basically what you're doing is you're squaring off the back of that building.
Correct?
MR. DOAK-We're, at the kitchen location we're infilling underneath an existing porch, staying
within the roofline, and then on the left side we're adding an entry.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then you're going to kind of cantilever the deck over the stone wall pretty
much.
3
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2018)
MR. DOAK-Yes, it's already there. Yes, we're just re-attaching it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just re-attaching, and you've got an oil tank there.
MR. DOAK-That oil tank is not there anymore. We're relocating that.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it's not there now?
MR. DOAK-No, I do not believe so.
MR. MAGOWAN-But you're going to be building a larger deck there and then re-attaching the
walkway to it. Correct?
MR. DOAK-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Yes, that reminds me of a house I used to take care of on the lake
kind of the same way.
MR. DOAK-It's very steep there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thirty inch is not a big door.
MR. DOAK-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty-four I have to turn sideways to get in some of these small places. I
mean, it's not my stomach it's my shoulders.
MR. HUNSINGER-So where's the oil tank going?
MR. DOAK-1 think they're relocating it to the right side of the building. I wasn't, I'm not involved
in that part.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's still showing on your site plan.
MR. DOAK-Yes. The leach field and stuff I believe is going down through there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you go to S-2, Laura? You have it open. Go all the way down, down
at the bottom you already have it open, down at the bottom of the screen.
MRS. MOORE-On this one?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's an oil tank, but up on top it says propane tank with wood fence is up on
top of the hill.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well I'm talking about the oil tank which is shown right near the.
MR. DOAK-The oil tank is actually above grade there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DOAK-It's been removed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's why I was saying, you're still showing it on your plan.
MR. DOAK-It's an overlay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DOAK-It's an overlay. It shouldn't be there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DOAK-This plan is an overlay of the site engineer's plan. So that's why it's still there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
4
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
MR. TRAVER-So are there any notes that we want to pass along to the ZBA in our referral?
Anything specific? I guess we're ready for a motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-7-2018 JAMES SCHNEIDER
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes renovation of a
front entry and infill porch. Project includes a 58 sq. ft. addition to develop kitchen area, then a
59 sq. ft. front entry porch with a 46 sq. ft. porch area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 19-6-
050 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, setbacks and permeability. 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. 7-2018 JAMES
SCHNEIDER; Introduced by Chris Hunsinger 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.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DOAK-Thank you very much, sir.
MR. TRAVER-All right. All right the next item on our agenda is also a Planning Board
recommendation referral to the ZBA for the Seavey Family Trust, Site Plan 14-2018. And
again there is no public hearing on this application at this stage because it is a recommendation
to the ZBA.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST. AGENT(S):
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): ESTATE OF BARBARA C. BARRY. ZONING:
WR. LOCATION: 3 GLEN HALL DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A TWO-BEDROOM 1,020 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 2,065 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA HOME.
PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, TERRACED RETAINING WALLS WITH WALKWAYS
TO NEW HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION
WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY,
FLOOR AREA AND HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE:
2006-753 DEMO OF CABIN/PORCH, AV 8-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT
SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-27. SECTION: 179-6-050 & 179-6-060
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
5
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes construction of a two bedroom 1,020 square
foot footprint and 2,065 sq. ft. floor area of the home. The project work includes site work,
terraced retaining walls with the walkways to the new home. The Area Variance relief
requested is for construction within, sorry, with reference to setbacks, floor area and height.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purposes of your record I'm Michael O'Connor. I
represent the applicant. With me is Tom Center who is the engineer for the project. This is a
50 foot lot on Glen Lake. We have been to the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health and
got his variance from them for holding tanks for the septic. So that takes care of the septic.
Basically we want to build a two bedroom house. It'll be 2,065 square feet. It's single family.
We have a number of variances, but that is typical of your 50 foot lots. We've done what we
could to accommodate the Ordinance. Probably the most significant variance that we're
looking for is a shoreline setback and the house itself will be 34 feet back from the shoreline.
We have a 12 foot deck in front of that which would be 22 feet from the shoreline. Even doing
that part of the house will still be behind, if you will, the adjoining properties. If you look at the
maps that we submitted, we also show the two adjoining lots. The lot I believe on the east, or
the south side I guess, I get screwed up with the north and south on the lake, I never know what
part of the lake I'm on, but the house itself will be 12 feet back from the front line of that house
and on the other side the house is about even with the front of the house that's there. So
we're trying to accommodate the fact that this is a pre-existing 50 foot lot and the two adjoining
lots which are also 50 foot lots have residences already constructed on them. We will have,
this was pre-existing. We've got now a holding tank system which we have approval for. Tom
has done a stormwater management plan, which is better than what's there. We in fact, in
addition to what is considered stormwater generated from our lot, are going to accommodate
some of the stormwater that comes from the north, from adjoining lots, down the stone drive.
When we were there one time with the Town Board, when we were getting the variance for the
holding tanks, the neighbor on the south side of us was complaining about the stormwater that
comes down that driveway and then ends up on his property, goes past us and goes on his
property. We're going to put a drywell in the back of our property to try to capture some of that
stormwater that comes from off our lot to the north, before it gets to his. So we're going to
improve our stormwater and improve his stormwater, and we've improved the septic and we've
done what we can as far as compliance with the various setbacks.
MR. VALENTINE-Are you talking the Burke lot next door?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-To the north or south there.
MR. CENTER-Yes, it's to the south of that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Burke's lot is to the south of us. That's basically it. Tom can answer any
questions. We think that we've improved the environmental impacts of this particular lot and
project.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? It is a
difficult lot, but like you say, there are lots of them out there.
MR. SHAFER-Somewhere I saw a new well in the text I think it said lake water.
MR. O'CONNOR-There will be anew well. Right now it's 17 feet from the lake. We're going to
have to move it back. One of the engineering comments was it's got to be 25 feet from the
lake.
MR. SHAFER-So there'll be a well.
MR. O'CONNOR-It'll be a well. Okay. As the Chairman indicated, this is for recommendation
to the Zoning Board. We will go to the Zoning Board on the 28th and we will come back to you
for Site Plan Review the first week in March. In the meantime we probably are going to go
back to the Town Board for a second variance because of the relationship of the stormwater
and the adjoining two neighbors' wells.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
6
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2013)
MR. O'CONNOR-There's a separation requirement and I haven't seen it before but we get lucky
and get the first on a lot of things. We don't think we have any impact on it, but I think we go to
the, the Town Board's the appropriate Board for.
MRS. MOORE-It's new to me. So I'll have to communicate with Dave and Tom.
MR. CENTER-I'll meet with Mr. Hatin tomorrow to discuss the appropriate venue, but it is a
Department of Health regulation that the Town Engineer has brought up. We meet all the
Town Code for stormwater management separations, but this one in particular, I believe the
proper venue would be Dave's office and the Board of Health and discuss it with them. The
impact is minimal to none in regards, it's a small driveway. It's a 300 square foot driveway.
There's enough infiltration for that. We have more than 50 feet separation, plus we're not
directly down gradient for the two neighboring wells. So I think we have it covered. It's just a
matter of new regulations for existing lots.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-So the existing well is up further, right?
MR. CENTER-The existing well is closer and in direct line where it's located. We're going to re-
locate it further away.
MR. O'CONNOR-The existing well is going to be abandoned.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's the one up behind the house?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That's going to be abandoned, and then the new wells are going to
be put down near the shore?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. CENTER-And the wells in question are the neighboring wells.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So my question is, I mean there's no way of moving that house back
further? It looks like you have one, two, three tiers.
MR. O'CONNOR-It would be a much greater slope if you moved it back, and the most significant
part of moving it back, you'd be putting it in a tunnel. You'd have no lateral view down lake or
up lake. So this is trying to treat everybody equal that's along that piece of shoreline. We
actually are still setback a little bit from, initially it was further out. We looked at it and said I
think I can justify what we've got proposed, but it would be tough to tell you that we wanted the
house to be out where the deck is and the deck be in front of that. That was an initial proposal.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean as it is you're over 50% of the requirement.
MR. O'CONNOR-Counting the deck, yes.
MR. VALENTINE-You loss of views that you're saying laterally north and south are related to
the proposed house, the views from the house, not the front deck area. Because you don't
have a view either way on the deck.
MR. O'CONNOR-At angle, probably 45 degree angle, you get a little bit of view off of the deck.
The house of Burke still would block any direct view up the lake, and to the south that house
porch is a little bit further away from us. You might get better than 65%.
MR. VALENTINE-But I see what you're saying as far as if you did move the house back like
Brad was saying that it would create a greater slope for you, but even the slope that's given, the
one thing I'm looking at is the landscaping plan could wind up being used to slow some of that
water flow down there. The only landscaping that's part of the landscaping plan is that front
bed, and again, the landscaping plan will come up under Site Plan Review, but it doesn't look
like it's really sufficient here, and you're relying on maybe just lawn area to absorb, but if you're
coming in for variances for permeability, in that same regard your lawn is the only way you're
looking at to absorb any of this water.
MR. O'CONNOR-This lot is penalized a little bit for permeability because of the driveways that
serve the adjoining properties. Those actually serve this property. Gansle's property driveway
7
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/18/2018)
comes across, that's the stone driveway that comes across our property to go to his garage
area. I think the other stone drive above that goes to Hannan, Ron and Cindy Mackowiak, and
there's one other house that's in there. So we're close on permeability. I think we're 65%. If
you took out those driveways of some of the other people I think we'd probably be in
compliance.
MR. VALENTINE-In my mind I'm thinking about the velocity of that water on both sides of the
house as it comes down there. Because there's not much room alongside there.
MR. CENTER-We have, the stormwater from the hard surface is being captured and contained
from the new driveway, is being captured and contained in the infiltration trench. Anything else
would be just what would fall within the lawn and anything there is directed to those depressions
which, both top of the steps have a flatter area, very well may be more than landscaped.
Certainly something we can discuss when we come back to the Planning Board if there's an
issue there. But alongside the building we did a permeable patio and capture the runoff coming
down alongside. I think anything coming from the lawn area in the trench, stone trench check
dam type of situation and then to that permeable patio with an infiltration area underneath that
for the lawn and try to capture that before we went anywhere.
MR. VALENTINE-There may not be an issue, but it's something I'd like you to look at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you just comment on the efforts you may have taken to eliminate the
height variance?
MR. CENTER-The height variance is kind of a tricky one with location to the existing house and
the existing hole that's there is the existing foundation. So we had to go with that existing
grade, and that landed exactly where the floor lawn was. Try to keep the house in the same
location a little bit further to the east if you will, but that depression was a manmade depression.
It's not the natural slope of the land. It was the finished floor, but that's the elevation where we
had to take it, on the sides we have the height, but just in that small depression when they
excavated that existing house out, that's what created the height variance, but you have to
measure from the existing grade, the lowest, to that is a little concave there in that area.
MR. O'CONNOR-The actual height of the building structure is 26 feet 11 and a half inches, and
we get to 29.45 feet, a foot and a half above that, because of that depression being right where
the peak is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions?
MR. SHAFER-The first sheet shows, if you look at it, it shows everything being removed, all the
trees. Do the retaining walls require that fully clearing of the lot or could some of those trees be
saved? It looks like the ones around the existing wells are might be able to be saved.
MR. CENTER-Well, with having the 20 inch oak and the 12 inch maple within that proximity of
the house, the re-grading that we need to do to create the landscaping, it's going to be very
difficult to keep the trees and trying to keep anything from the middle section down, there's a
few poplars. Certainly we can look at it when we're in the process of laying things out and try to
save any trees, but with the amount of grading that we had to do to create these walls and
material and to get construction vehicles equipment in and down, I think it would be difficult.
MR. SHAFER-Yes. I don't care about poplars, but around the lake, the oaks, there's a huge
oak tree.
MR. CENTER-1 certainly can take a look at that and see if that can be maintained.
MR. SHAFER-Would you take another look at that, please.
MR. CENTER-1 will take a look at that.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So there are a number of variances that they'll be discussing. Are there any
specific comments that the Planning Board would like to pass along to the ZBA as they consider
this on the 28th?
8
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, with the removal of those trees, what's the possibility of maybe adding
some trees in with the.
MR. CENTER-The stepped retaining walls?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the stepped retaining walls.
MR. CENTER-Certainly we can discuss that with the client if there's a concern there. I would
imagine that's something that they'd view down the road, but if that's, you know, a part of
moving forward with the project I can discuss it with them.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just thinking, I mean, you know, like I said a lot of times what happens, you
might wait too long and you could eventually you could do it, but if there's nothing you can save
there, I'd like to see what we can do to grab some of that absorption.
MR. O'CONNOR-From the lake because of the elevation distance between the front of the lot
and the back of the lot there is a canopy that's still there and will be there, even with where
we're going to put this structure. I imagine the first thing they'll have to do is build some type of
roadway right down through the middle of that lot so they can get a well driller, rig, down near
the lake and drill the well and get that rig out of there, like they did on Robbie Little's house on
the Point where I live. The first thing they did. They're still working on it.
MR. SHAFER-For example, the 35 inch oak down by the lake, turns out to be halfway between
the planting bed and the deck.
MR. CENTER-1 did look at that, but it is very close to the front of that deck. It's, when I laid it
out, I think it was within 10 feet of the deck, 35 inch tree canopy deck.
MR. SHAFER-Concerned about the canopy?
MR. CENTER-Concerned about, yes, the tree and the canopy, the two of them interfacing and
their height. I mean it's not like this is a lower building. It's not because it's a walkout. It's kind
of got to be right at the same level, but I think there's something we can look at with the 29 inch
oak and the 24 beech and the 17 inch oak in that area to see if we can come up with something
in that terraced section.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can look at that and see if we can trim as opposed to remove it.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and again those are Site Plan issues, but you're well aware of our concern
regarding the vegetation and not only for the absorption but also for the view shed. So, yes,
that would be helpful if you could look at that. So again reviewing our mission tonight with
regard to the variances, are there any specific comments that we wish to pass along to the ZBA
as they look at this?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 think they had good explanations for their requests.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean the variances kind of speak for themselves.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And they'll be coming back to us for Site Plan. Okay. Well I guess we're ready
for a motion, then.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-8-2018 SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of
a two-bedroom 1,020 sq. ft. (footprint), 2,065 sq. ft. floor area home. Project includes site work,
terraced retaining walls with walkways to new home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-
060 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and construction within 50
ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for setbacks, permeability, floor area and height. Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
9
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
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. 8-2018 SEAVEY FAMILY
TRUST;
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger 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. That the Planning
Board has requested that the applicant take a look at retaining as many existing trees as
possible and that we will be reviewing the landscaping plan during Site Plan Review.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Mr. Chairman, you've identified that the Planning Board would like
additional information on plantings for the shoreline. That's something the Zoning Board would
take up also, and probably give you the same comment back. So I think it's worth mentioning
that you're requesting the applicant for additional information on shoreline plantings.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 think he was talking about planting on the parking area.
MRS. MOORE-Or site plantings.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's very little room by the shoreline to do.
MS. WHITE-And I think also our concern is the conservation of existing trees.
MRS. MOORE-Versus saving trees and the planting scheme that's going on, whether you're
saving trees or not. I think that should be included in your resolution.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. How does the Board feel about that suggestion, that we make mention of
the desire to preserve possible existing trees, particularly the hardwoods and so on and that
we've requested or anticipated Site Plan Review information around the area of plantings and
so on.
MS. WHITE-1 would like to see that.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll amend the motion to include the following language. That the Planning
Board has requested that the applicant take a look at retaining as many existing trees as
possible and that we will be reviewing the landscaping plan during Site Plan Review.
MR. MAGOWAN-Second the amended motion.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have an amended motion made and seconded. Any further
discussion? Maria, can we have the vote please?
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have actually a couple of related applications. The first
being William and Bonnie Thomas, Site Plan 17-2018 and I would note for the audience these
10
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2013)
also are recommendations to the ZBA regarding variances and therefore there's no public
hearing at this stage.
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM & BONNIE THOMAS.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 9 GENISTA LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10% SLOPES AND TO CONNECT
THE DRIVEWAY TO THE ADJOINING LOT (289.10-1-36). PROJECT WILL ALLOW ACES
TO PARCEL 289.10-1-36 THROUGH PARCEL 289.10-1-35. DRIVEWAY EXISTING IS
152,160 SQ. FT. AND AN ADDITIONAL 875 SQ. FT. TO BE ADDED TO TOTAL 3,035 SQ.
FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY ON A SLOPE OF 10% OR MORE SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT
FOR PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 1991 REPLACE DOCK; AV
13-2018; SP 16-2018 & AV 12-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .25 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-35, 289.10-1-36.
SECTION: 179-6-050 & 179-6-060.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So there's two projects going on. In regard to the Thomas application,
it's creation of a new driveway area that is greater than 10% slopes. The driveway area will
actually connect to the Judkins' property and it's in for relief for the percent permeability for the
site of Thomas. Do you also want me to read the Judkins or do you just want to focus on
Thomas first?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well they both kind of go together, don't they?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-You do. Okay. So let me read Judkins' application also.
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST. AGENT(S):
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT
& WILLIAM & BONNIE THOMAS (DRIVEWAY). ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15
GENISTA LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF A 550 SQ. FT. (1100 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA) HOME TO CONSTRUCT AN 832 SQ. FT. (1664 FLOOR AREA) HOME.
WORK INCLUDES HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND OCCURS
WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PROJECT INCLUDES RE-WORKING DRIVEWAY ON
APPLICANT PARCEL AND ADJOINING PARCEL PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 &
179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50' OF 15% SLOPES
AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS
AND ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 99273 REBUILD
DOCK; AV 12-2018; SP 17-2018 & AV 13-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-36 & 289.10-1-35.
SECTION: 179-6-050 & 179-6-060.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-So for Judkins, it's the removal of a 550 square foot camp area to construct an
832 sq. ft. footprint which is a 1,664 sq. ft. floor area new home. The work includes hard
surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. The project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The
variance relief is for setbacks and road frontage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I'm Michael O'Connor from the law
firm of Little, O'Connor & Borie, and I represent the applicants, Dr. Judkins and Dawn Judkins
who are here at the table with me. The engineer for the project is Lucas, and basically we have
two neighbors who have a shared driveway right now, and the part of the project where the
Judkins are going to demolish their existing home and re-build a home, want to improve that
driveway. That's why we have the Thomas' application here before you. The both
applications they looked at separately require variances. If you looked at them combined
,r ,r
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
there's probably less variances that they would need, but we've submitted them as though they
were separate standalone projects if you will. There is no new construction on the Thomas
property except for the new driveway. The driveway itself will improve the grade of the existing
driveway, and it may very well improve a little bit their areas for parking. Again you're dealing
with 50 foot lots on the portion of the properties that are closest to the lake. The Judkins did
buy additional land behind their lot which is to the benefit of the environment because that's
where they put their septic system, are putting their new septic system.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and looking at the Thomas, the first one, the Thomas related application
the variance issue there that we're dealing with this evening is the permeability of 41% where
75% is the Code.
MR. O'CONNOR-Permeability is 34.1%, or 66%.
MR. TRAVER-Sixty-six percent. Yes. Laura, can you take a look at the Staff Notes?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I have the permeability as 40.9% where 75% is required.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's what we.
MR. O'CONNOR-Our site data, though, shows 34%.
MR. TRAVER-Which is actually a greater variance.
MR. O'CONNOR-Of impervious.
MR. TRAVER-Impervious.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So it's a swap. So you did hard surfacing versus the green space.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So essentially, but the bottom line is we're looking at the issue as far as
the variance before us this evening is the permeability.
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. It doesn't change greatly from what was existing because the
impermeable area on Thomas was 25.88%.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's actually improving it.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, impermeable.
MR. TRAVER-Impermeable. Okay. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're increasing that by 8.22, okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Gotcha.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that, as I said, if you look at it alone, is requiring a variance, but then if
you take a look at the Judkins' parcel, they actually have almost two percent greater than what's
required on their parcel, and the driveway serves both parcels. So the net of that is you're
looking at about a six percent difference between the two parcels.
MR. TRAVER-And you're also pointing out that there's improvements in terms of the, in the
Thomas application with the driveway regarding slopes and so on.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there is. So that's the Thomas application. On the Judkins' parcel we
pretty much are maintaining the footprint of the existing home. The front shoreline right now is
20 feet and they're maintaining it at 20 feet. If you went up and looked at the property, the
property beyond that 20 feet is very steep going down to the lake.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Again that's characteristic of that area.
MR. O'CONNOR-That particular area has a very high bank if you will. One side yard presently
is 15 feet. That's being reduced to 10 feet. That's the same side that the Thomas' property is
on, the common property line and made it part of this application. So they have no objection to
that setback being decreased. On the other side the existing is 3.8 and it's going to be 7.8. So
you'll increase that a little bit to the west side, and the permeability is within a percent of what, it
was in excess of 75 feet, 75%, it's going to be now still in excess of 75%, but only by 1.99%.
12
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/18/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Height wise I think the Judkins' structure does meet the requirements. We
now have a stormwater management plan in addition to the better grade on the driveway. The
septic system is adequate for the Judkins' home. So we really don't think there's any
environmental impact, and this is an arrangement between two neighbors as to trying to make
an improvement to both their parcels.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Lucas, I have to say once again you pulled it off.
MS. WHITE-Is there a written agreement between the two properties?
MR. O'CONNOR-There will be.
MS. WHITE-There will be something in there?
MR. O'CONNOR-As to the shared driveway? Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, you'll need a right of way or something.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't think there is one now.
MS. WHITE-Having experienced shared driveways in the past, that can always change.
MR. O'CONNOR-Pardon me?
MS. WHITE-You know, the potential for that to change is there.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 had a meeting with both the Thomas' and the Judkins' and I've said that we
will have to do an agreement.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SHAFER-Lucas I didn't see any data for test pits and so on for the septic. Did I miss that
or can you talk about that for a minute?
MR. DOBIE-No, with the timing, with the winter coming on, Mr. Shafer, we were not able to get
equipment to the site, but we're quite familiar with the Glen Lake area and we can see from the
bank that's somewhat exposed it's the Glen Lake cobble where it's more cobble than sand. So
it's very typical around the north side and the east side of the lake.
MR. SHAFER-And it was designed for three bedrooms?
MR. DOBIE-Three bedrooms.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's very little sand around Glen Lake. If you've got a shovel, you've got a
problem if it doesn't have a machine hooked up it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It's all glacial moraine I assume, right? It's a basin. That whole lake is a
basin. More so on my side of the lake, well, over by David's place, his is the same. I think it
doesn't level out all the way up to the Casino, I guess, or what used to be the Casino. Even the
north, the west end of the lake, there's a bank up there, too. There's very few places where
you've got level entry into the water or into the lake. St. Mary's Bay maybe and that's about it.
It's the same gravel throughout the whole thing.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well it's really one project, but we have two applications for
variances that we need to separate for the purposes of referral to the ZBA. So if we start with
the Thomas application for the driveway where the variance requested is for the change in
permeability, do members of the Planning Board have any specific comments that they want to
pass along that might be a concern to the ZBA as they consider that variance?
MR. HUNSINGER-The changes are pretty minor.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well then why don't we take a resolution on that first one which
would be 17-2018.
13
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-12-2018 WILLIAM & BONNIE
THOMAS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a
new driveway greater than 10% slopes and to connect the driveway to the adjoining lot (289.10-
1-36). Project will allow access to parcel 289.10-1-36 through parcel 289.10-1-35. Driveway
existing is 152,160 sq. ft. and an additional 875 sq. ft. to be added to total 3,035 sq. ft. Pursuant
to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction of driveway on a slope
of 10% or more shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for permeability. 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. 13-2018 WILLIAM &
BONNIE THOMAS; Introduced by Chris Hunsinger 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.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-All right, and then the companion application to that, of course, is for the Judkins'
home, Site Plan 16-2018, where they're removing and constructing a replacement home on the
same footprint. So they do have a setback issue with regard to the shoreline, although they're
not expanding upon that. They're building on the same footprint, and the side setback we've
had some explanation for that. One of them to include the neighbor that's part of the
application. So do we have any, and then there's a setback regarding road frontage.
MRS. MOORE-Their access from their site is not from the physical road frontage
MR. TRAVER-Is not on a public road, but again, that's a pre-existing condition.
MRS. MOORE-Once they tear it down it becomes new.
MS. WHITE-But there's not really an alternative.
MR. TRAVER-And that's the ZBA's problem anyway. All right. So are there any specific
recommendations in regard to the variances that we're looking at this evening that we want to
pass along to the ZBA on the Judkins project?
MR. MAGOWAN-That wood deck on the front patio, the patio, was that 406 and a half square
feet. So that's open?
MR. DOBIE-That's essentially a deck over some stone.
DAVID JUDKINS
DR. JUDKINS-It's just a treated deck over crumbling old patio blocks. It's not connected to the
house.
14
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-Those old crumbling patio blocks, is there anything we can do to make that a
little bit more permeable?
MR. DOBIE-Well, Mr. Magowan, in reality that's going to get trashed during the construction for
the most part. So we showed re-shaping, tightening it up and a new patio, no closer to the
lake, actually a little bit narrower and just cleaned up, and then plantings around that, shoreline
plantings.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, well, I didn't really see anything under it. You're removing the old wood
deck. Right?
MR. DOBIE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's going to be a typical wood deck with the separation of the boards. It's
going to be like a trex material and ground, native soil.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well here's it's labeled as a patio. So is it a patio or is it a deck?
DR. JUDKINS-Well, it's kind of both. There's old cement blocks, you know, basically 20 by
almost 20, and they're just crumbling to pieces and then there was a patio deck, the decking put
on that that you could literally pick up and move. It's not attached to the ground or anything.
Just made it easier footing, and that'll be removed, the old blocks will be taken out and there'll
be a deck put there.
MR. TRAVER-So it'll be a deck in the sense that it'll be on footings and so on?
MR. O'CONNOR-It'll be ground level. Ground level with the necessary blocks or something to
level it off.
DR. JUDKINS-There's nothing dug into the ground at all, no plans.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it really is more of a patio than a deck. It's just a wooden patio I
guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it's more pervious than a patio.
MR. O'CONNOR-Than what's there now.
DR. JUDKINS-It is more pervious.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I was asking. It's labeled a patio on the plan.
DR. JUDKINS-Probably the reason for that is there technically is an old patio underneath it, like
a deck on a patio.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're still going to have to put footings down below the frost line. You
can't put a deck right on top of a frost line. Ten years from now your deck is going to be up and
down. So you're going to have to have some form.
MR. O'CONNOR-They may put in a four foot cone things.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, just footings and post up so it's pretty much going to be a deck, just
above the ground, and then you'll have the natural ground underneath.
MR. TRAVER-And the old patio that's under the new proposed wooden patio, is it like a
concrete type thing?
DR. JUDKINS-No, individual pavers.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, and they'll be removed.
DR. JUDKINS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So are there any comments relating to the patio/deck that we
want to include in a referral to the ZBA on the Judkins application?
1�
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think it should be clarified so that they understand that, because that's
where I was confused and I really didn't see, you know, I'm looking at patio, you know, and I'm
thinking patio. Could it be a concrete porch, impermeable, but it didn't really state what it was.
MR. TRAVER-So just maybe request that the applicants point out and clarify the nature of the
patios they're proposing on the proposed plan. Because it's really kind of a hybrid deck/patio,
which I think merely requires the explanation you've given us this evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because it becomes more permeable than what is there now, the blocks and
that. Like I said you're going to have a natural soil underneath, the water's going to be able to
go through the deck. You're actually making it better. So I just want to make sure that's
clarified.
MR. O'CONNOR-We might even put in there permeable pavers
MR. MAGOWAN-Well that changes everything.
MR. O'CONNOR-It does, but it might make it simpler. It might make it simpler. They want a
level area in front that they can use and one that's not going to disintegrate of some nature.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think our concern is just that we clarify that we're not talking apples and
oranges, like permeable versus impermeable, deck versus patio.
DR. JUDKINS-Whatever it is it'll definitely be more permeable than what's there now with the
old pavers.
MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right. I guess we're ready.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-13-2018 JUDKINS FAMILY
TRUST
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes removal of a
550 sq. ft. (1100 sq. ft. floor area) home to construct an 832 sq. ft. (1664 floor area) home.
Work includes hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes.
Project includes reworking driveway on applicant parcel and adjoining parcel. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50' of 15% slopes
and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and road frontage. 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. 12-2018 JUDKINS FAMILY
TRUST;
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger 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. The applicant is to
clarify the lakefront patio on the plan.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
16
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/18/2018)
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda this evening we move into New Business, and the first
application we have is Site Plan 7-2018 for Colleen Halse. This is a SEQR Type II and there
will be a public hearing on this application.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2018 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED.
COLLEEN M. HALSE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
25 BRAYTON LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLASS A MARINA FOR USE OF TWO
EXISTING DOCK SPACES AS RENTALS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10 & 179-10-070
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLASS A MARINAS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1374, AV 97-2001, AV 47-
2013, 2002-024 RES. ALT., 2013-459 DEMO SHED, SP 48-2013 GARAGE, SP 55-2001 RES.
ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC.
LOT SIZE: .13 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-66. SECTION: 179-10; 179-10-070.
COLLEEN HALSE, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The application is actually Unlisted and so currently I have the project as
applicant is proposing using two existing dock spaces as rentals. The application is for Site
Plan and Special Use Permit. The applicant is working with the Lake George Park Commission
and their requirements in reference to everything that's on the water side of things. This Board
is reviewing this application in reference to the things that are on the land and I apologize Mr.
Shafer and I had an earlier discussion. We talked about navigation and that is not under the
purview of the Planning Board. So it's definitely everything that's on the land side of things.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MS. HALSE-Good evening. State my name?
MR. TRAVER-Please.
MS. HALSE-Colleen Halse.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you want to tell us about your application?
MS. HALSE-Sure. I have a U-shaped dock, you can see it there to the left, and I keep my boat
in the center, and I would like to rent both spaces on either side on the outside of my dock.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. In your application you discuss and review the various
requirements regarding restroom facilities and you're not doing a quick launch and all of that
kind of thing. This is not a pre-existing, in other words, you haven't rented dock space prior to
this. Correct?
MS. HALSE-I did one, yes, last year.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought I saw that in there somewhere. But did you have a permit at
that time?
MS. HALSE-I had the Class B.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So you're looking for a Class A this evening.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because you went over two boats.
MS. HALSE-I just have two other boats plus my boat.
MR. MAGOWAN-So Class B you're only allowed two. Once you go over the two you have to
go to the Class A.
,17
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2015)
MS. HALSE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-We don't have a B+.
MS. HALSE-1 know that.
MR. MAGOWAN-We're working on it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Did you have anything, in addition to what you've submitted in your
application, you wanted to share with the Planning Board on your application?
MS. HALSE-Just that they have to abide by the rules that I set, which again is always keep the
lake pristine. They're each allowed one car to be parked. They have to come, get on their
boat and then leave. They don't stay there overnight and they're just two older couples, and
probably the most amount of time they'll be there through the summer is probably four or five
times total, maybe a night or two during the week, but they live down in the Albany area. So it's
about an hour drive.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. A night or two during the week. So they might be, what, staying
overnight on their boat at your dock?
MS. HALSE-No, they might just come up for a couple of hours. No, no one is allowed to stay at
the dock.
MR. TRAVER-1 thought that's what you said. Okay. All right. Questions, comments from
members of the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-Yes, where would the parking be for the two cars?
MS. HALSE-In front of my garage I have two parking spots there, and then next to the garage I
have an area that's stone and grass. They can park there, and then in front of the house
there's an area fenced off and there's two parking spots in front of that fenced area.
MR. SHAFER-To the side of the house it's 14 feet from the edge of the driveway to the property
line and there's cedar tree right in the middle. Would that have to come out, the cedar tree?
MS. HALSE-No, there's no. That doesn't interfere with any of the parking at all. That's to the
right and that's not on my property.
MR. SHAFER-The cedar tree is not?
MS. HALSE-No. That is not. Actually National Grid took that tree.
MR. SHAFER-Well I went by today and there was a cedar tree.
MS. HALSE-Yes, that's just to the right of my property. That's not on my property. If you're
looking at the lake and you're looking at the garage, the tree to the right, correct?
MR. SHAFER-Right.
MS. HALSE-Right.
MR. SHAFER-It's only about four feet from that line.
MS. HALSE-No, no, no. That's all, that's all stone and grass right there, and there is like a rock
border and that's on the property of the people next door. That right of way, I believe that's 15
by 60 feet. It does not interfere with any parking. I've had people park there. I can park three
cars very comfortably there.
MR. TRAVER-For members of the Board and the audience, I introduced this as a SEQR Type 11
and I was incorrect. It's actually a SEQR Unlisted and we will be doing a SEQR review on this
application.
MS. HALSE-What does that mean?
18
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2018)
MR. TRAVER-It's an environmental review, State Environmental Quality Review Act, where we
need to take a look at any potential environmental impacts related to your project.
MS. HALSE-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-You put a new garage on your house.
MS. HALSE-Yes, you people approved it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Did Joe Roulier do it?
MS. HALSE-Yes, Joe Roulier did it.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 remember that.
MS. HALSE-So I followed all the rules, put the permeable pavers in, the lights that did not cause
light pollution.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good for you.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you followed those rules so well I'm sure you'll be following the Class A
Marina rules.
MS. HALSE-Yes, I will.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing
or hearing any. Laura, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-1 do have a written comment.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is addressed to the Board. It says, "I am an adjacent property
owner to the property above - not listed by the applicant." I'm not quite sure why that statement
is in this letter, but it says, "I am quite opposed to this project to allow a marina at this location
because: it would totally change the character of the small cove away from the quiet residential
state that currently exists." And this individual has provided some drawings and I'll pass those
along.
MR. MAGOWAN-It is a tight little cove.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the one drawing or photo says note three boats docked prior to
application, two vehicles parked in driveway blocking garage exit, Brayton Lane pavement not
wide enough for vehicles to park along edges, and then the other one is referenced to distances
on the water side and again as I said we don't have purview, jurisdiction over things on the
water. So that's something that maybe this individual may share with the Lake George Park
Commission.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and while Laura's sharing that with us, this is under review by the Park
Commission as well. Correct? And we're in a sort of Catch 22 situation where they're looking
at us to grant approval and of course your final approval is dependent upon their approval as
well as any potential approval from us as well.
MS. HALSE-That's correct. I did get a letter from them. They asked for a couple of things.
The time, I had given it months and they wanted to know, you know, from April or May until
October. They wanted to know like during the week or evenings or whatever. So I have to
provide that.
MR. TRAVER-Dates and hours of operation.
MS. HALSE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
10
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2018)
MS. HALSE-I'm a homeowner that's just renting two dock spaces to two small boats. So I
really don't understand the complaint. The people are very quiet. They get on their boat, they
leave.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and you did explain the rules that you have explained to your rental people.
MS. HALSE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. T RAVE R-Appa rently you've identified some people to rent the slips to that you're already
familiar with.
MS. HALSE-Yes. They're good friends. Yes.
MR. SHAFER-What has been your communication with the Park Commission?
MS. HALSE-1 filled out all the forms for them and they have required that I have my septic
inspected, which I did. I have that information. I have to provide that to them tomorrow. They
also wanted to know about the parking. They went and looked at the site, and another form
that I tried to print off today but I could not, and I can't recall exactly what that entailed, but it's
an environmental form stating that I'm not polluting the lake or anything like that.
MR. SHAFER-So they haven't approved this application yet?
MS. HALSE-They have to wait upon, their policy is to wait upon your approval.
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I would raise the question as to why, I guess, and I don't
understand. If you recall the last time we approved something the Chairman of the Lake
George Park Commission was very critical of us having done that in the newspaper. I don't
understand the sequence of why we would do this now, since it's clearly a navigational issue.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well I think the example, and I'll ask Laura to comment in a minute, but I
think the example you raised, referenced in the paper, had more to do with the decision that we
made based on what turned out to be additional information that we I don't believe we had at
the time, not a procedural question. The issue before us this evening with regard to the, we,
as a Planning Board, versus the Park Commission, is really just a procedural matter that they
want to understand that the Town doesn't have an objection before they, as a State entity,
would give any potential final approval, but, Laura, do you have anything you want to add?
MR. SHAFER-Just one thought on that, and that is my interpretation of the article was we tied
their hands by virtue of approving the Special Use Permit before they actually had their say in
determining it a Class A Marina after we approved it. We didn't know it was going to be a Class
A Marina.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We approved the building, not.
MR. SHAFER-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Because that was, again, whether it was a marina or not was under their
jurisdiction, but again I would defer to Laura to.
MRS. MOORE-We're not tying their hands. That's their rules and regulations. They have their
jurisdiction over what their project criteria is and we have over our local concern. In this case
as I mentioned earlier and maybe I didn't say it clearly enough was the Planning Board has
jurisdiction on land items. We don't have jurisdiction on the water features such as navigation.
So that's where the Lake George Park Commission would take over in reference to the
navigation issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, the project that Mr. Shafer's referring to, the Lake George
Park Commission was very critical of this Board in the press, and when I say very critical I mean
very critical. I was shocked at some of the comments that were issued by that board,
especially since none of them have ever been here, none of them reviewed the project for the
criteria that we reviewed it by, and it was, I just felt it was pretty out of order. So I share that
concern. I certainly share that concern that we don't want to be put in that position again.
MRS. MOORE-So there's obviously the Park Commission Board versus Park Commission Staff
and all along during projects that we work with that are under the jurisdiction of the Park
Commission Staff and our Staff we are in constant communication, either by phone or by email
and sharing information that an applicant has shared with us. We're definitely open to, we
20
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2018)
share the information that's been provided so that we clearly know what the applicant's
requesting and don't get surprised.
MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe the issue was more of the Board and their own Staff than with that
Board and our Board.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-So have you had communications that it looks like this will be approved?
MRS. MOORE-1 know that the applicant has supplied information. They've notified us that the
application is in their hands.
MR. SHAFER-Well those two maps that were just sent around make the point that they have to
deal with, which is this is a very tight harbor, and three boats, the two properties on both sides
that the docks come this way, where the rental docks, maneuvering boats would not be easy in
this case. I could see them having a problem with the navigational aspects of this application.
MS. WHITE-We're not supposed to take into consideration that one person does this now
doesn't the neighbor think they can do this and then the next neighbor thinks they can do this
and then I'm looking at that picture, but we're not supposed to look at that? We're not
supposed to take that into consideration?
MRS. MOORE-You're taking each individual application at its merits.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean the neighbor could certainly make an application and it's certainly
possible that either we and/or the Park Commission having been aware of what the pre-existing
situation is, it could begin to have an impact on any approvals that may or may not be granted.
MR. VALENTINE-So it's very similar to looking at a Site Plan on a State road where you get
cumulative impacts of the curb.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly right, but I think, and we've been in, unfortunately, many situations like
this and we kind of have to, in a way we have to remind ourselves we can't speculate about
what we might have. We have to deal with what we've got. So we have to look at this
application for this application as we would should the neighbor or multiple neighbors or
whatever submit applications as well.
MS. HALSE-1 can, if I may make a statement.
MR. TRAVER-Certainly.
MS. HALSE-1 know who that's from and even one of your Board members said oh I know who
that is, because I said there was a complaint, and I believe she called also the Park
Commission as well and he said that she'll complain of something that's even across the lake.
So all of us in our little bay, I know neither of my neighbors on either side would have any
complaint. They have not, but know she would complain about anything and everything.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is this one happy that juts out there a quarter mile?
MS. HALSE-Yes, they're fine with it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because it's not really a deep bay.
MS. HALSE-No, no, I know that.
MR. MAGOWAN-And really that dock is out there really that far.
MS. HALSE-That dock is actually on my property. That dock was grandfathered in and you
could cut off a number of feet at the end of that dock. If you look out from where they surveyed
from that, if you just stand there and look out, it could cut that dock just about in half.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well see unfortunately your property ends at the water line. Nobody owns the
water.
MS. HALSE-Correct. Exactly.
21
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/10/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-And the sight line, but I mean if they're happy, I see nothing on the other side.
The other side you've got a nice canopy.
MS. HALSE-There's nothing on the other side. That's Canantucci's, that whole wall there.
There's no one on that side. And again they know that it's shallow. You have to go under five
miles an hour to get in there. People are very respectful of that.
MR. TRAVER-We have had, just so that you're aware. We have had applications occasionally
where the applicant like yourself if they do have support from neighbors will actually get letters
of support to submit to be considered as part of the public record as well..
MS. HALSE-So a decision is not made today?
MR. TRAVER-Well we're going through that process right now.
MS. HALSE-Okay. All right. I mean if letters are necessary from my two neighbors.
MR. TRAVER-It is not required, no.
MS. HALSE-All right.
MR. TRAVER-1 mention that only because you have heard a, evidently a neighbor or someone
who lives nearby provide a written concern and there have been applicants, particularly if they
suspect a concern from someone in the neighborhood that is concerned on the other hand they
know there's also support, they will ask those neighbors to say, you know, would you consider
writing a letter supporting my application. You don't have to do that. I'm just mentioning that
because you're still going through the process, not only with us, but also with the Lake George
Park Commission.
MS. HALSE-If you look at any of my neighbors on either side, one in particular as you're looking
north to my left, they did a lot of things last year. When they bought the property they had to
put in a septic system. They had to put in a well, and this woman complained also. So if you
go back in your records you'll see that she complained just about every, the Cantanucci's, the
same thing. One time she complained that the boat, she didn't like the way that the boat was
faced.
MR. TRAVER-1 see.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes they had to replace that whole floor system in there, too. It was so close
to the ground and moisture. I was there when they were doing test pits for the new septic
system.
MS. HALSE-Right, and they did everything right. That young couple did everything right and no
one else complained, and that woman complained and held up their project for two weeks. And
that was really a shame because they followed the letter of the law. I mean, everything you
asked of them to do, they did.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you for that.
MS. HALSE-Again,just to give you an overview of what we're dealing with.
MR. TRAVER-Some context, yes. I appreciate that. Thank you.
MR. SHAFER-Where is the person that submitted these?
MRS. MOORE-So, I can, it's from Sally Carey.
MS. HALSE-Sally Carey? She doesn't even live there anymore. And she submitted it? She
lives in Ohio with her daughter.
MR. HUNSINGER-What address did she put on the letter?
MRS. MOORE-She didn't provide an address.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. HALSE-She's never there. That's the property that's right next door.
22
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/18/2018)
MR. TRAVER-So it's a camp or something.
MS. HALSE-No, no, it's a right of way. That's all that is. She lives up in the woods. So she's
not even there. She lives up in the woods up on Brayton Lane.
MR. TRAVER-But she no longer lives on Brayton Lane.
MS. HALSE-She never did. It was a camp that they had up in the woods and what's next to me
is a 15 by 60 foot right of way.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha.
MS. HALSE-You couldn't even build anything on it.
MR. TRAVER-And what's on the end of the right of way, a dock or a beach?
MS. HALSE-No, no, no. It's just the water and I'm a little annoyed right now because I would
let her and her family come and go in from my steps into the water because that's very rocky in
there and a lot of debris and leaves come up into there and you really don't like little ones going
into the water from there. So when they're there, not even her, but her son and his family come
and I've said, you know, come over on my property by way of the steps. So I'm a little annoyed
that she was the one that did that. I really thought it was someone else.
MR. SHAFER-This aerial photo shows three boats at the docks.
MS. HALSE-There might have been just someone there for the day.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well you said you did it last year.
MS. HALSE-Yes, I mean, and people could come in for the day.
MR. SHAFER-It says 2018.
MS. HALSE-How could it be 2018?
MR. MAGOWAN-It must have been photo shopped.
MS. HALSE-2018 the lake is frozen.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any other written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No, there are not.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We do have a SEQR review that we need to conduct on this application because
it is an Unlisted Action. Are there any environmental concerns that members of the Board
have?
MR. MAGOWAN-I don't really.
MR. TRAVER-And there's no change in the dock.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP #7-2018 SUP # 1-2018 HALSE
The applicant proposes a Class A marina for use of two existing dock spaces as rentals.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-10 & 179-10-070 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A marinas 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;
23
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short 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 POSITIVE DECLARATION OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
SITE PLAN 7-2018 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2018 COLLEEN M. HALSE, Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Shafer
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So next we move on to consideration of the Use Permit and Site Plan.
We've heard public comment concerns about the use of the waterway and some about parking,
and we've had some considerable discussion on that. How do folks feel about moving forward
on this Special Use Permit and Site Plan? I guess we're ready for a motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 7-2018 SUP # 1-2018 COLLEEN M. HALSE
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 a Class A marina for
use of two existing dock spaces as rentals. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10 & 179-10-070 of the
Zoning Ordinance, Class A marinas 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 02/13/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 02/13/2018, 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
02/13/2018;
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 7-2018 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2018 COLLEEN M.
HALSE; Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
2
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
1) Waivers request granted:
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,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and
Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Shafer
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck with the Park Commission.
MS. HALSE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is Ken & Victoria Giordano, Site Plan 9-2018. This is a
SEQR Type 11, and there will be a public hearing on this application.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. KEN & VICTORIA GIORDANO.
AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 119 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 635
SQ. FT. GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME — 6,477 SQ. FT. (3,042 SQ. FT.
FOOTPRINT). PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR PERMEABLE PAVER DRIVEWAY
AREA, NEW WELL, NEW SEPTIC AND RAIN GARDENS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-
6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 31-1997, P2004-935 DOCK REPAIR, 95578-4487 GARAGE, DEMO 12-
2017 & 13-2017 HOME & BOATHOUSE, AV 6-2017 LOT LINE ADJ. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .89
ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-50. SECTION: 179-6-060.
DENNIS MAC ELROY & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, here with
Curt Dybas, project architects, representing Ken & Victoria Giordano for this application for Site
Plan Review for their new residence, the property at 119 Seelye Road, that's the Warner Bay
facing base of Cleverdale. This lot which is approximately nine tenths of an acre is basically a
vacant lot. I'm not sure the history here before this Board but it was created, I think subdivided
or boundary line adjustment of the property to the north, Mr. Kaidas' property. There was some
adjustment of a house location or a gazebo location that he then captured and put within his
property.
25
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/18/2018)
MR. TRAVER- He had a lot line adjustment in 2017.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. So this property has been sold as basically a vacant lot. There is an
existing garage that remained on the property. The Giordano's had purchased this in 2017 with
the plans to move forward to construct a house, a year round residence on that property. They
hired Curt to design a house that is compliant, and I give Curt a plug for this because he knows
what the regulations are and he designed the house to be compliant. So I'm not sitting here
asking the ZBA for height variances or some other type of variance. We were compliant in the
design of the house with all the necessary setbacks and building height, floor area ratios and
what not. The reason we're before the Planning Board is that there are areas of the property
that are more than 15% slope. So that's what triggers Site Plan Review. So the house is
located at a more than adequate setback. The setback, the shoreline setback in this area is 50
feet. We're back at approximately 71 feet at the closest, although I will say that it is one of
those properties that, again, is the average of the two adjacent properties, but that puts it in the
high 50's as far as where that average setback is and we're at 71, and one of the reasons for
that was just, again, the effort to try to make the house design compliant with building height
and just the lay of the land or whatever it worked out better that the house was setback a little
bit further. So that's a little bit of that history. Along with this obviously is a new wastewater
system that will have a pump system up to the nice grassy area on the high side of the property
that much further. It's probably in the order of 260 feet or so from the lake in that location. So
it's a good opportunity to get that wastewater system disposal area that much further from the
lake and there is also stormwater management that's provided for the impervious area on the
property. The driveway area itself will be permeable block pavers. So we gain a little credit
there as far as permeability computations and that takes care of that stormwater management in
that area as well.
MR. TRAVER-We did receive a copy of a letter dated February 7th, 2018 from Chazen this
evening. Did you see that?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I received that last week and this is typical. We respond to those
comments and really there's, well there's three numbers, there's really only one comment that is
in that and we're in the process of working that out. I don't see any issue there that can't be
resolved.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I guess from my read of this it looks as though it may require some
changes in your site plan because there's talk about infiltration devices would potentially need to
be re-located and so on.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I don't believe that will be the ultimate resolution having to move
anything, but I think the way they're reading certain things and interpreting things to be
wastewater devices that receive runoff from the driveway or the parking areas. Otherwise
we're meeting necessary setbacks. Just a Minor Stormwater project. There's a difference in
what's required in runoff from the roof areas, those impervious areas, versus that which comes
from vehicular areas.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm looking in particular about the Department of Health regulations that talk
about the, it says quote surface wastewater recharge absorption constructed to discharge
stormwater from parking lots, roadways or driveways, surface wastewater recharge absorption
system with no automotive-related wastes. When these are located in course gravel or are
located upgrade and in the direct path of drainage to a water well, the water well shall be
located at least 200 feet away from the closest part of these sources. Both the southern
vegetated depression is within 100 feet of the southern neighboring (Grillo) well and the
permeable pavers appear to be within 100 feet from the proposed well, southern neighboring
(Grillo) well, and northern neighboring (Kaidas) well. The Applicant to revise accordingly to
demonstrate compliance with the noted standards.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. The permeable pavers in that driveway application, I know that
Chazen makes this comment periodically or regularly, but the Town Staff does not interpret
those as being infiltration device. So that it really doesn't apply in that case, and that would be
one of the responses that I'll make to those comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, did you have any additional comments to make on it?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Anything else at this stage?
26
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
MR. MAC ELROY-Not other than any questions that you may have.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. VALENTINE-The two side yard setbacks, are they right at 20 feet? Is the structure right at
the setback distance? Is that the overhang or is that the structure itself?
MR. DYBAS-That's to the structural wall, and you have about four inches of clay and the overall
width of the building. It's there. I mean, we have a bit of wiggle room but not much, but Town
of Queensbury requires that we're going to have to have a survey done anyway, and what we
will do is when the footings are poured we'll get the footings pinned prior to setting the forms so
we know we're there. I've done them to an inch. Twenty feet's the number.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-And the Town's interpretation of setbacks doesn't include an eaves, or a
normal eaves.
MR. DYBAS-Town of Queensbury doesn't.
MR. SHAFER-A normal what, Dennis?
MR. MAC ELROY-Eaves, roof eaves. It's to the wall of the building.
MR. TRAVER-That's interesting. I wouldn't have thought that.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's amazing, because on Route 9 a commercial building, when you put a little
bit of an overhang on, and that, they count that, you know, for the commercial building, but not
the house eaves. It's interesting.
MR. VALENTINE-But there's no variance that would be necessary?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, we had meetings up front with Craig and Laura regarding this
and Curt has designed the structure so that we were compliant.
MR. DYBAS-That's why we ended up with the house front that's 85 feet from the shoreline, and
we're able to make all the grading work with the existing, with the roof ridge is measured from
existing grade. That's that 334 number. And I actually did the ridge height mathematically. I
didn't put a scale on it. So I know I've got about three inches of height to play with, too. You
have to give yourself something.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I have to say to the both of you, kudos for working together and coming
up with something that is so close.
MR. DYBAS-Well you should have been up there the day we staked it out in the wind and the
cold.
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that would like to
comment on this? Yes, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JERRY BIELAK
MR. BIELAK-Jerry Bielak, 99 Seelye Road. Just to the north. I think it's a great project. I'm in
favor of the project, and I'd like to support my neighbor. Welcome to the neighborhood.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Anything else?
MR. BIELAK-No. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Any written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-If I may, let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
27
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2013)
MR. TRAVER-And then by all means, go ahead.
MR. SHAFER-The lot is 371 feet away from the lake by 100 feet wide. Did you consider the
shape of the house being in that same relationship? In other words, did you get the largest
dimension of the lot, of the house going cross wise out of the lot on a 100 foot lot? Is this why
you've had to maximize or take full advantage of the 20 foot setback? I guess did the client
demand this big a house on the lot?
MR. DYBAS-The house was actually larger, and we've cut it back smaller and then we ended
up with a happy medium. Basically you have this 100 foot wide lot, give or take, and you want
to maximize your exposure, and that's what it came down to.
MR. SHAFER-Exposure to the lake?
MR. DYBAS-It's the width of the lake. The relationship to the lake.
MR. SHAFER-It just seems to me to be so out of proportion for the shape of the lot and the size
of the lot. A local neighbor, for example, had mentioned to me about in addition to being an
outrageously oversized house, that there's ponding and heavy rains somewhere in the middle of
the lot. Dennis, did you run across that when you were there at all? Other than the wintertime.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. The area between the wastewater system and the house location I
have heard that there is ponding that occurs in the spring in that area. I'm aware of that.
We've addressed some of that by having a curtain drain on the uphill side of the wastewater
system for instance.
MR. SHAFER-Will it be re-graded?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-1 noticed there are currently three docks that abut the property?
MR. MAC ELROY-There are two simple piers on this property.
MR. SHAFER-The gazebo that's under construction is not part of this?
MR. MAC ELROY-That's correct, no, that's part of the Kaidas property.
MR. SHAFER-So the garage on the south side is within two feet of the property line it looks like.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SHAFER-And then the house on the north side is, I can't read the number but it also is very
close as you visualize it.
MR. MAC ELROY-16.2.
MR. SHAFER-So this house is going to be 50 feet wide, with almost no dimension between the
buildings on the lot to the north and the lot to the south.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well it'll have the 20 foot side setback that's required.
MR. DYBAS-1 want to clarify. The way the minutes are written, it says 3500 square foot
footprint. The house itself, the living area of the house, is just, is 3500. This, that gross number
that you see of 66,000 something, that includes the garage, the attic above the garage, all the
mechanical room and storage in the basement. That is a gross number. The actual living area
of the house is 3500 square feet, but you have to remember it's also a five bedroom house.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Any other questions? Any other questions, comments from other
members of the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-1 do have one other. Dennis, somewhere in the readings, in the test pit, I think, it
was three feet to mottling. Are you able to get three feet from the leach lines to that mottling
elevation?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That's the lower of the two. That's the lower of the two test pits, that
we pushed that system up on the slope this much and as well place a curtain drain on the uphill
28
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
side. I think it's really a case of not a high seasonal groundwater situation, but a perched
situation, because as, with depth that soil gets tighter. So in the spring when there's upland,
the upland area above Seelye Road to the west, that runoff inevitably is making its way to the
east, probably gets held up in that area and also part of that ponding that was referred, if you
heard that. I heard that as well when I talked to neighbors and what not.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, we've heard that comment in that neighborhood in
general from some other projects. That there was seasonal high groundwater.
MR. MAGOWAN- I don't know what you call Seelye mountain there. What is the name of that?
I mean that's pretty big. I don't want to call it a hill, but you can't call it a mountain, but it's quite
large. I was up there many, many years ago.
MR. MAC ELROY-There's that ridge that runs along Cleverdale Road, which breaks east and
west, and this is the east facing side of that. So there's a bit of a water shed above any of
those properties along Seelye Road.
MR. SHAFER-So with the two docks you'll be back for a Class A Marina permit at some point?
MR. DYBAS-1 don't think so. I'm just kidding. His joke was after they purchased the property,
the first time I met them in the Fall up there was I guess I have to buy a boat and I don't have a
boat. I don't think they need a marina.
MR. TRAVER-They probably wouldn't want to deal with the other requirements to maintain a
marina, in terms of access to bathrooms and stuff.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. This is a couple that have been looking for properties. I have been
working with them for probably two or three years now looking at probably four different
properties around Queensbury and Fort Ann, and this is one that they ultimately settled on.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments from the Planning Board? Are we, do we feel
that we can move on this application at this stage? There are the engineering comments that I
referenced earlier but they do need signoff for ultimate approval. So not hearing any other
specifics I guess we're ready for a motion. We don't have a SEAR.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 9-2018 KEN & VICTORIA GIORDANO
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to
remove existing 635 sq. ft. garage to construct a new home — 6,477 sq. ft. (3,042 sq. ft.
footprint). Project includes site work for permeable paver driveway area, new well, new septic
and rain gardens. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within
50 ft. of 15% slopes 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 02/13/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 02/13/2018, 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
02/13/2018;
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 9-2018 KEN & VICTORIA GIORDANO; Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
29
(Queen lbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioaird 02/13/2018)
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the
building and site improvements;
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Any other business before the Board this evening? Hearing none, I guess we
can entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY
13, 2018, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 13th day of February, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, folks. We'll see you again next week for two
out of the three.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
30
(Cueen lrbuiry IPllannling Il:Ioair ' 02/10/2018)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
31