04-17-2018 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17, 2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 25-2018 Gerald & Peggy Bielak
1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-46
Site Plan No. 24-2018 Jason Southwood 7.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.8-1-8
Site Plan No. 28-2018 Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin
15.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 252.-1-33 (main) 252.-1-57, - 56 (access)
Site Plan No. 29-2018 Mission & Montcalm RE, LLC 18.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-12.1
Site Plan No. 27-2018 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 21.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80
Site Plan No. 26-2018 Dennis MacElroy 32.
Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2018 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-17
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
MICHAEL VALENTINE
BRAD MAGOWAN
JOHN SHAFER
JAMIE WHITE
MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday, April 17, 2018. This is our first meeting for the month of April and the
ninth meeting thus far for 2018. We have one and a half administrative items on our calendar
tonight. The first one being approval of minutes from February 13th, February 20th, and
February 27th
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 13, 2018
February 20, 2018
February 27, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 13TH, 20TH, AND 27TH, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb (Mr. Shafer abstains on March 27th, 2018 meeting minutes)
MR. TRAVER-All right, and the other administrative item that we have which is not on our
agenda is we are reminded by the Town that we are to be exposed to Work Place Violence
training, and Laura has offered to present it either tonight or next week, and I had suggested
that we hold it next week. So following our regular agenda meeting next week we will have a
presentation on Work Place Violence. All right. So then we can move to our regular agenda
items, the first section being Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, and the first
application being Gerald & Peggy Bielak, Site Plan 25-2018.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO 25-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. GERARD & PEGGY BIELAK.
AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 99 SEELEY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,598 SQ. FT. ADDITION —
INCLUDES AN ATTACHED GARAGE, THEN 903 SQ. FT. OF OUTSIDE PORCH,
ENCLOSED PORCH, COVERED PORCH ENTRY AND OUTDOOR KITCHEN AREA.
EXISTING HOME IS 3,781 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND PROPOSED IS 6,629 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES LARGE AMOUNT OF GRADING FOR DRIVEWAY
AND PLACEMENT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND OTHER SITEWORK. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 O THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SIDE SETBACK. PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26-1996, BP'S 99-040, 98-722, 96-350 ADDITIONS; BP 97-131
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
GARAGE ALT.; BP 97-101 EXTEND DOCK, P 46-443 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: APRIL 2018. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .93
ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-46. SECTION: 179-3-040.
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GERALD BIELAK, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 1,598 square foot addition. This is an
attached garage. There are two stories to this. So there's a living space above this garage.
The project also includes an outside porch, which includes an enclosed porch, a covered porch
entry and an outdoor kitchen area. This project requires an Area Variance which requires a
Planning Board recommendation and it's only for a side setback on the property line to be 11
feet 1 inch where a 20 foot setback is required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski Hall
Architecture. With me tonight is Gerry Bielak, owner of the property. So the drawings that we
provided to you show the existing and proposed site plans as well as the existing and proposed
building addition. The existing setback from the existing garage to the property line is four feet
one inch, for a detached garage, and we will be attaching the garage to the house. Because the
house is askew to the property line it doesn't quite follow right straight through. So we are
asking for relief from the 20 foot setback. We're at 11 foot 1 provided. So we would need
relief for 8 foot 9.
MR. TRAVER-So it's the same variance but a decrease in the variance.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. TRAVER-One of the things that caught my eye, and I understand this is a Site Plan issue
and not related to the variance that we're reviewing tonight, but could you clarify the septic
issues? You're expanding the bedrooms, I guess. Right? And you have an existing and a
proposed system? Could you just explain?
MR. HALL-Yes. What we've shown on here is an ultimate buildout. Right now there's no
basement in the house at all and there's no storage space so Gerry intends to use the space
above the garage, at least initially, as storage space for when they move. They're moving from
Niskayuna. This is a part time house. They're moving up here full-time. They're bringing all
of their stuff and need a place to store it. So the initial up overhead is going to be for their
storage, but because it is a big, large space we've shown what could be a potential buildout.
They don't have that intent to start with. It is a proposed location of where it can go. At that
point we would expand the septic system. It's a pump system now. There's an existing onsite
septic tank, an effluent pump, and it pumps it up higher onto the hill. It's a fairly unique property
on Cleverdale in the fact that it's an acre.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HALL-So we've got plenty of room on the upper side we can expand, make a bigger pump
chamber. We would have to put in a separate, another septic tank to increase the volume
capacity, and then we can increase the size of the pump so we can force it higher up.
MR. TRAVER-So at some point this space, hypothetically, is going to go from storage to like a
bedroom.
MR. BIELAK-Maybe two.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe two. So what is going to be, for our purposes, what's going to be the
trigger that we're aware that you need to re-examine that and look at the septic again?
MR. HALL-Well our final design, our final building design will take that into account.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HALL-So that it will be part of the building package. If in fact the final layout comes to
fruition.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I'll open it up to questions from members of the Planning Board.
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-The existing garage now there will be removed. Correct?
MR. HALL-Correct, that goes away.
MR. BIELAK-If it doesn't fall down first.
MR. MAGOWAN-And in talking before with your neighbor, the stormwater around the corner,
have you come to an agreement?
MR. HALL-Well I'm not sure we've come to an agreement, but we've discussed it. There is a
concern that between the houses now it's a wet area. Because what we're doing is taking the
garage level and we're actually going to push it down into the ground about four feet. So
Gerry's side of the lot winds up being lower than the adjoining property at that point. And the
idea is to create a swale, a grass swale, vegetated swale, that runs all the way up the side of
the driveway. So everything that comes now from the other side of Seeley Road, across
Seeley Road and kind of sheet flows across all of those lots down to the lake, we would capture
it, get it into the driveway swales, bring it around the buildings, keep it in the vegetated swale all
the way down to the front and then eventually down to the lake, which is where it goes now, but
we would channel it and get it so that it's directed.
MR. MAGOWAN-Then my next question is, I mean you're going for the variances, but is there
any possibility of paralyzing that garage. I know you want to try to keep the roofline straight
and make things a little easier, but that would give you a, you know, because as it is right now
the house is 18 foot from the bathroom area, but it's a little less than 18 foot from where the
addition's going, and then you're going down to 11. Is there a possibility of changing the
garage so it's parallel which gives you more land between to keep the water guaranteed on the
property?
MR. HALL-We could take a look at perhaps lining it up with the house, sliding it over a little bit.
It affects the main entry. If you push it over the main entry right now is, we're leaving the entry
to the main house where it is. So if we do that, if we push that around, I'd prefer not to have, I'd
prefer to be at a perpendicular angle to the house,just for the rooflines. If we had to slide it over
a little bit, we may be able to move it over so that the back line of the garage is parallel with the
back line of the house.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's what I was thinking. Instead of moving the whole garage forward.
MR. HALL-Rather than turning it at an angle, I hear what you're saying, but rather than turning it
at an angle and making a valley line that then I've got to deal with the valley line in that lower
roof section, I think I'd rather just slide it over a little bit. We've got a few feet, which I think is
the difference between where the existing side yard of the house is and what would be the back
of the garage would be, and I think we can slide that over enough to make that a clean edge,
which would then increase us. I mean, if we move it three feet it's going to increase our
setback from 11 foot 1 to 14 foot 1.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I just happen to know the properties and
familiar with the amount of water that comes off, you know, across the road and down, and, you
know, you always hear we're going to keep it on our property, but if it doesn't, you know, we've
got happy neighbors not happy neighbors anymore. So I'd rather make sure everybody's
happy at the beginning.
MR. HALL-So it looks like I've got to pick up about 30 inches to make that happen, and I think I
can make that, I think we can get that out of there. I think I can get a foot out of each, the
hallway.
MR. MAGOWAN-And it also looks like you have an SUV in there with about eight feet in front of
it.
MR. HALL-His Escalade is going to just fit. We've measured that already, along with the
lawnmower and everything else that goes in front of it.
MR. MAGOWAN-But you're keeping the shed up there, 132 square foot shed. Right?
MR. BIELAK-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You put the lawnmower in that?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. BIELAK-It's in there now, and the jet skis in the winter.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 would like to see if you could do that to give us some more property.
Because if you've got the gutters and you go with a drywell and that, but it's all Iedgey up there
and we really don't know how far we can go, and like I said, I really don't want to change too
much, but then again on the other hand, too, I don't want you to come back after all the
variances and then me saying I'm not happy.
MR. HALL-Well I think we can pull 30 inches to line that up.
MR. BIELAK-I don't know what that does for the water, though. That doesn't do anything to
mitigate water.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no but it gives you more area to mitigate the water on your property
without it having to spill over.
MR. HALL-Yes, it's not going to run, I mean because we're lowering everything down, it's not
going to run uphill to get there. It's going to stay right around.
MR. BIELAK-I'm thinking of a couple of different things over there, too. If we remove the garage
that's existing there and that concrete pad that's over there, it creates more of an opportunity for
the water that's coming from Seelye Road to go from Mark's and my property basically to be, it's
now a fake channel there because there's a garage that's blocking it. So this is really giving it
an opportunity to move more north, regardless of that, because I have a lot of pooling, too, just
to the west side of the shed. It just pools and it all flows into the garage. That's why the
garage is leaking.
MR. SHAFER-Ethan, a related question, I guess. When I first looked at this, the thought
occurred to me, why didn't he put the garage, flip it 180 degrees and put it on the north side of
the house? You wouldn't need any variances. You'd lose the window to the bedroom, to the
kitchen, but the entry would be almost the same. I was just curious if you thought of that and
why.
MR. HALL-It's right where the septic tank is. The septic tank and the pump chamber are right
there and you'd have to re-locate all the plumbing inside the house and you'd have to re-locate
all of the existing septic tank and pump chamber and everything else. It's labeled as, you can
see on the existing C-1 drawing there's a vent pipe. That's the vent pipe from the effluent
pump chamber. The septic tank sits just to the lakeside of that. For us to flip everything over
and put it on that side would put us on right on top of all that pump package.
MR. DEEB-I think we have to trust the engineers to know what they're doing.
MR. VALENTINE-Ethan, that little 10 foot strip on the north side of the existing property that's
White, is that just lake access you're showing?
MR. HALL-Yes, it's Jim White's lake access from across the street down to the lakefront. His
dock is actually right at the end of that walkway, too.
MR. TRAVER-So any specific concerns regarding the variance that we're referring tonight to the
ZBA? They'll be back for Site Plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I just stated it.
MRS. MOORE-Can I just ask in reference to this? So right now the width of that garage is 28
feet. Are you reducing the size of the garage or are you moving the whole building?
MR. HALL-Moving, we're just pulling it over. So that 11 foot 1 would go to 13 foot 7.
MR. DEEB-So you're improving your setback.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. DEEB-Either way you're improving your setback. You're making it better than it was.
MR. TRAVER-And that's part of the Site Plan which we'll look at.
MRS. MOORE-Also this applicant is requesting a waiver from stormwater. And I've discussed
this with the applicant that there's still a function of this that it's still in the Lake George Park.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
So it's still subject to some sort of stormwater requirement. We talked about stormwater, there
being an issue. Right now it has not gone to engineering because the applicant has requested
this waiver. As Staff I'm suggesting that we look closer at stormwater and that a plan does get
developed and that it can forwarded to engineering. So that information can be guidance to the
applicant now so the applicant's aware of it. If the applicant could put that together to forward
on to the engineer sooner than later, and it helps with your review next week.
MR. TRAVER-So if they end up getting the variance, then they should go ahead and do the
stormwater and get that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Stormwater management report.
MRS. MOORE-Stormwater management detail, enough where we know what's happening on
the site. I don't know if it's considered a stormwater management report or enough stormwater
information that says this is how much is being created, this is how we're handling it.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I did notice on two other applications up on the lake that there were two
stormwater management reports. That's why I wrote it down.
MR. HALL-The key is the amount of disturbance, and we're saying that we're at 20,000, but I
didn't take into account the footprint of the house is not being touched. I drew a line around the
outside of everything and said, look, this is our area that we're talking about. Not thinking that it
was an issue, and then Laura brought up to me, look, 15,000 is the trigger. Okay. Well I didn't
take into account anything of the existing house and the deck, and the portions that aren't being
touched. I just drew the line around the outside and said well that's the area. Okay well we're
not doing a whole bunch of this in the middle. So in talking with Laura we stepped that up.
MR. DEEB-So you're okay on the stormwater.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks for admitting that, Ethan.
MR. HALL-Like I said, I drew the line around the outside and that was my area of disturbance.
I didn't realize.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and obviously this is a sensitive area and we know there's an issue in the
neighborhood. Okay. So that would be something that they will get to the engineer.
Obviously we'll need that prior to the next stage. Right?
MRS. MOORE-We need knowledge to get it in to the engineer. If I communicate it to the
applicant, the engineering, and if there's any comments then it's up to the Board the following
week if they want to continue with the review or table that until engineering is resolved, but we
don't know that yet.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Should we make that part of our referral?
MRS. MOORE-Just enough guidance to the applicant that that, the waiver is not going to be
granted, I think for the applicant to move forward.
MR. VALENTINE-What do you look at in this? Brad had said stormwater management report
which is not what it's going to be. So what's the criteria?
MRS. MOORE-Well, the Lake George Park Commission is if it's 15,000 or more than you're
triggering the SWPPP, and in this case Ethan is indicating that it's less than 15,000. So the
stormwater management report, that information is enough detail. If you want to call it a
stormwater management report, that's fine. I know there's many terminologies behind it.
MR. TRAVER-Well as long as you're happy with it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the disturbance is less than 15,000, but if you throw in the whole house
and the addition, it puts it over the 15. Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-But he's just indicating that he needs to subtract out the part of the house that
he's not, that's not considered part of the disturbance.
MR. TRAVER-The 15,000 is based on disturbed area. Right?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. TRAVER-There's a lot of this that's not being disturbed.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. HALL-I'm saying I drew a line around, on the site.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We understand that.
MR. HALL-I just drew a line around the outside, and there's a whole bunch in that area that's
not.
MR. TRAVER-So if you can work with Laura to provide her what she needs so that our Staff are
happy, that would be good enough for us.
MR. HALL-Sure.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then do we change the thing for the variance to 13 foot 7?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-You can identify that you were concerned with the setback and that the applicant
has agreed to.
MR. TRAVER-Has offered to.
MRS. MOORE-Minimize that setback.
MR. TRAVER-Right
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, what was the understanding on the septic system, the wastewater
system, and should that be dealt with at Site Plan or not?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that will be part of the Site Plan. Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Because I count nine bedrooms.
MR. HALL-I'll further confirm that before we get back.
MR. SHAFER-And, Ethan, Department of Health guidelines talk about Jacuzzis and garbage
disposals and lofts and how to deal with those.
MR. HALL-Including in that, yes. We have all those items in there.
MR. SHAFER-All right.
MR. DEEB-What was the setback after you moved the garage?
MR. HALL-Thirteen foot seven. So we'll need six foot five inches of relief.
MR. DEEB-How many feet are you going to move the garage?
MR. HALL-Thirty inches.
MR. MAGOWAN-Two foot six.
MR. DEEB-Which way?
MR. HALL-To the north. All right. I think I've got it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-23-2018 GERALD & PEGGY
BIELAK
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,598 sq. ft.
addition — includes an attached garage, then 903 sq. ft. of outside porch, enclosed porch,
covered porch entry and outdoor kitchen area. Existing home is 3,781 sq. ft. floor area and
proposed is 6,629 sq. ft. floor area. Project include large amount of grading for driveway and
placement of attached garage and other site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for side setback. Planning
Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2018 GERARD &
PEGGY BIELAK.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
1) Stormwater management report to be submitted to the Town Engineer for review.
2) The variance will be set at 13 feet seven inches requiring 6 feet 5 inches of relief
upon the
garage being moved 2.6 inches to the north.
Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the
following vote:
MR. DEEB-The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern: Stormwater management report to be submitted to the Town Engineer upon approval
of the variance.
MRS. MOORE-So instead of wording it the stormwater report being submitted as part of the
variance approval, stormwater report is to be submitted for review. Don't leave it contingent
upon the variance.
MR. DEEB-All right. Amend this, stormwater management report to be submitted to the Town
Engineer, and the rest is the same.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. BIELAK-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we have another Planning Board recommendation, and this
one for Jason Southwood, Site Plan 24-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 24-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. JASON SOUTHWOOD. AGENT(S):
JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
388 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN ALREADY
CONSTRUCTED ENCLOSED SECOND STORY 240 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION. THE
EXISTING HOME IS 1,446 SQ. FT. WHERE THE FLOOR AREA WAS 2,112 SQ. FT. AND
NOW IS 2,352 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 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, FLOOR AREA SETBACKS
AND HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 93128-1132 DEMO; 93273-3287
SF W/GARAGE; SP 51-2012 DECK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA, APA. LOT SIZE: .12 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.8-1-8.
SECTION: 179-13-010.
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JASON SOUTHWOOD, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant requests to maintain an already constructed enclosed second
story porch. This is a 240 sq. ft. porch addition. What existed before was an open porch and
the applicant has enclosed that which increased the floor area underneath the structure and
also increased the setbacks, variance relief sought for setbacks, floor area and height.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, Jason
Southwood. This is obviously an after the fact request which is unfortunate. I want to explain
how Jason got here and the mistakes that were made and then talk about the nature of the
variance. So Jason and his wife bought the house last year in 2017. It had a leaky porch
which was an open porch, as Laura said, and he felt that a solution was to cover the porch.
Obviously that violated setbacks, but he looked at it and just figured that the setbacks weren't
changing from what was already there. He was just putting a roof on it, but obviously that's
wrong. It requires relief. So in terms of what he did by putting a roof on it, the neighbors have
sent in letters. Everyone feels that it looks good, but he obviously didn't do it the right way. So
it's no worse than what's there. He was very careful to have VanDusen & Steves do the
measuring. Laura had asked us to be very precise, and it turns out there's a one inch height
issue just because we had to measure it from the ground. It's no different than the height of the
existing roof that it's attached to but it's just because the ground goes down. The lake setback
is 36 and a half feet rather than 50 because that's where the porch was. It was a way to
address his water problem, enclose the porch, but he obviously should have been here. So
Jason's here to answer any questions. I think we'd argue that the end product came out nice,
but it wasn't done the right way.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I would ask Jason, you're Jason, right?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Have you had applications before the Town before?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Not residential, but commercial, yes. I own Benny's Deli, that building on
Route 9. 1 had to come for a variance for that because I was getting, I was re-doing the front of
the building and I was coming four inches closer to the road. So I needed to get that, I guess it
changes the setback, and that's why, but this is residential and I haven't done any residential in
the Town before, but I wasn't getting any closer to my neighbors and I wasn't getting closer to
the lake and I didn't go above the existing roof that was already there. So I'm like, well, how
could you need a variance, I'm not getting any closer to the lake.
MR. TRAVER-And who did the work for you?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 did it myself.
MR. TRAVER-You did the whole thing yourself?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And this isn't for this specific applicant, but there has been a bit of an
increasing issue in the Town and particularly with these properties on the lake where these after
the fact applications come in, and again this isn't, I'm not necessarily making a reflection on you.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-It's totally my fault. There's no one else to blame but me. I should have
come. I just really didn't think I was, you know, they always told me, well, if you get closer to
your neighbors or closer to the lake you're definitely going to need a variance, and I said well
I'm not. I actually probably got further away from the lake because the old one used to
overhang a little bit. So I actually probably got it back a little bit. Regardless, yes, I should
obviously have come here.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it is, like I say, it is an issue, and it's a matter of sort of common knowledge
sometimes I guess that it's easier to get forgiveness than it is approval sometimes, but we have
had, over the long history of the Town and the lake, there've been a number of issues that
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
we've, you know, it's almost been a process of going around putting out fires where we see a
kind of a loophole or there's an issue or we need to implement some policy to protect the lake,
to control what people do around the lake, and this I think has become, and again, this isn't a
reflection on your specific application, but just the idea in general that in some cases people, we
like to think that it's unconscious or out of ignorance or whatever, but in some cases it may not
be, and I think because basically the planning and the construction is basically done for this
particular project, in terms of passing something along to the ZBA, what I would like to suggest,
and I'm interested in thoughts from other members of the Board, and again, not to reflect on this
individual application, but I would like to charge both this and the Zoning Board and the Town
Board and Town Counsel and so on to get together and try to figure out some process or look
into the process where the consequences of an after the fact application are so onerous that all
of the counsel, engineers, contractors in the area, homeowners, are going to avoid it, just like
they do some of the other issues that we've addressed since the 1800's because the
consequences are just not worth it. So that's what I'd like to charge in our conversation with
the ZBA. Basically say that it's not a reflection on this application but in general, there have
been an increase in the number of after the fact requests and we would like to work with
whoever we need to to try to come up with a solution, and maybe there isn't one. I suspect that
there is.
MR. DEEB-Well, we've had this discussion before.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DEEB-And we've come across this several times, and we keep coming across it again and
again, and it's not, I'm saying, it was unknowingly done. I realize that.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 came before the Board before and I thought you guys were fair.
MR. DEEB-And we have to, as a Board for the Town of Queensbury, come up with something.
I think what you're saying is probably a good idea.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it's not up to us, it's not up to the Zoning Board. It's not up to the
Town Board. It's up to all of us. Whether we lock ourselves in a room with Counsel and
Planning Staff and we figure out if anything can be done and if so what and decide how we're
going to go about it, but that's what I would like to refer to the ZBA on this application this
evening. I mean it's a project that's completed and appears to be well done. There haven't
been complaints from the neighbors. So I think the issue is not so much the individual
application, but that it's another of the, yes, it's not a micro issue. It's kind of a macro issue that
as a Town we need to, and as you pointed out, David, we've talked about it before but we
haven't acted on it. So I think we need to charge all of us to say let's act on it. Maybe what I
can do between now and our next meeting Tuesday is work on some kind of a draft of a letter to
all the parties involved so for tonight maybe just, you know, to that effect a letter is forthcoming
or whatever, strong letter to follow or however you want to put it, but basically that we recognize
that though not directly attributable to this individual applicant, that it's an issue that needs to be
addressed.
MR. DEEB-Well, my question is then we can still send it on to the Zoning Board to look at.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-But from that point I'm saying that the letter could be separate.
MR. TRAVER-It will be.
MR. DEEB-It doesn't have to be in the resolution.
MR. TRAVER-No, we're not putting a letter in the resolution. I'll prepare that separately.
MR. DEEB-All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 have a question, though. Jason, did you get a building permit for this?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-No. I know I didn't have a building permit either. The only reason I even
found out was Dave Hatin got a hold of me and said you need a building permit for that.
They're good guys. I've dealt with them before, John and all the guys. They're good guys, but
there's an existing roof there, and I also got probably some bad advice that said, well, if you're
throwing a roof on, just doing a roof you don't need to do it, you don't need any permit, and
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
that's kind of not the same thing now that I'm thinking about it. There was a roof there that was
leaking, but this is.
MR. MAGOWAN-IT was a little railing, a flat roof, and then it came down the side.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-It was a hipped roof with a porch inside, and that floor was actually a
rubber roof with, and when it was originally built, they built it, the sliding glass door that walked
out on it, was built flush, instead of a step like this. So every time it rained or snow or ice
backed up all the way into the house went down into my living room. I've got a garbage can in
the middle of my living room catching water, hoping sheetrock doesn't fall on my three year old,
you know what I mean.
MR. TRAVER-Not anymore, though.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Not anymore. No. Now we've been through almost a whole year and it's
held up to some pretty big snow storms and a lot of wind coming down that lake. So I'm pretty
confident.
MR. VALENTINE-If this is the end result of a leaky roof, I do not want you talking to my wife.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I want to just answer that to address Brad's question. I didn't explain in the
submission, but part of what you got, the architectural plans, and before we got here Dave
required an architect to design this so we had a set of building plans, and so now Dave has that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I saw that.
MR. SHAFER-So the architect did the plans after the fact as well?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-The Town required that when it was discovered.
MR. SHAFER-That answered my question. Somebody looked at, you're putting a second floor
on. Obviously the first floor has to be built strong enough to support the weight of the second
floor.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, he looked at all that. It goes right down to the ground, right to the
foundation. Yes, I mean, it's solid. It goes right down there.
MR. LAPPER-After we get through the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, we still need a
building permit.
MR. SHAFER-So the architect did look at that structural question?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-He stamped the plans.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, there's stamped plans.
MR. LAPPER-After the fact.
MR. VALENTINE-Steve, to your point, it may be worthwhile another point, and I don't want to
throw anything on Laura's shoulders, but it may be worth spending Staff's time just to make, and
I've done it before myself, to call other municipalities, or even outside the County, what do you
do yourself? Because they've done this.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree, that sounds logical as part of the process, but I think right now
there isn't a process.
MR. VALENTINE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-And what I'm advocating is that we agree, as a Town, that there should be a
process. Then we'll go about, we'll have to scope the issue and what is the issue.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. VALENTINE-There's got to be other towns around, municipalities that are growing as much
as, and have gone through this.
MR. TRAVER-1 would think so.
MR. MAGOWAN-Pay a huge fine or tear it down.
MR. DEEB-We've got to look punitive action. We have to look at punitive action from now on.
It can't keep going on.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think Jason just made a huge point here for the Town of Queensbury that,
you know, get by by the skin of your teeth because you came in with a good lawyer.
MR. TRAVER-And to the good lawyer point, I must say, Jon, when I read your letter, there was
a leak in the roof so we put a second story on. You are a wonderful attorney. That made me
laugh out loud when I saw that.
MR. LAPPER-If he had come to me first, I met Jason after this happened, we would have been
here first.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-I've actually seen him in action here before.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, as have we.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean, the addition did come out nice, and once you get the building
permit obviously you're going to be re-assessed and you're going to be paying the penalties for
the rest of the time you're paying your taxes.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Lucky me.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and perhaps part of the legacy will be that you will have helped us resolve
an issue that has been a growing issue. So, all right. So as far as our referral to the ZBA,
clearly we discussed the concerns with the applicant, the construction and the after the fact
review by the architect and by the Town seems to be adequate, and that if the Board is in
agreement, I would like to charge ourselves and the ZBA and whoever else, Zoning
Administrator and the Town Board, or whoever, to work together, agree to work on a process for
alleviating this issue.
MR. DEEB-I'm all for that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second it.
MR. DEEB-I don't think we should put it on the resolution. This is not what we're dealing with
here.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MR. DEEB-This is a totally separate issue. It's tied to this, but.
MR. TRAVER-It is what we're dealing with. What we're dealing with is an after the fact
application, and the applicant has explained, and we have accepted the explanation, but, above
and beyond that, in order to reduce, because not all applicants are going to have as good an
explanation, nor are they going to be as well represented.
MR. TRAVER-Also I think we need to have.
MR. DEEB-That's what the letter will do when you send the letter to the applicable parties. I
mean, I don't see where it's going to make a difference on the resolution.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, let's ask. Board members, do you think that we should add to, any
additional comments in the resolution to the ZBA tonight that we want to charge the Town as a
whole, and the various appropriate parties to work on this issue in general?
MS. WHITE-No. I feel that they're two separate issues.
MR. TRAVER-Really? Okay.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. VALENTINE-No, I agree. I think the minutes of this will reflect later on, as far as.
MR. DEEB-Right, absolutely.
MR. VALENTINE-Because we will have others before us.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Hopefully we will have a policy.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let's see. I will do my best to have a draft letter before the Board
next week.
MS. WHITE-1 think Laura has a comment, though.
MR. DEEB-Laura, were you going to say something?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-1 think we just resolved it by not.
MRS. MOORE-You did resolve it.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a quick question? So although this was done prior to,
we, as a group, would we still want to evaluate plantings, stormwater runoff after the fact?
MR. TRAVER-If they get their variance they're going to come back to us for Site Plan review.
My point was not that it wasn't subject to additional review, but it's been constructed. So there
might be some, if we see. I didn't, myself, see any specific issues that were environmental, I
guess, in nature, but, you know, we can certainly, when we discuss that at Site Plan, we can
certainly can, if there needs to be additional mitigation or whatever, I'm sure the applicant would
be willing to do that, but, yes, we will be, my concern, and my thought and effort for tonight, was
to try to recognize that this is possibly a turning point in terms of how we address these, not for
this particular applicant specifically, but just in general it's a huge donut hole in regulations
around the lake and with the Town, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for it, other than
the fact that we haven't decided as a Town that we're going to commit the resources to close it.
MS. WHITE-And I don't disagree with you. I just think that this should be presented separately.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's fine, and I'll work on a draft letter and I'll have that for the Board next
week. Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 have one more question. Where did that drain go that used to be on top of
that little cupola type porch?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 eliminated it. It's gone now, but it used to just come right out onto the
lawn.
MR. MAGOWAN-It just came out onto the lawn.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes. There's a retaining wall. It sits in front, and you'll see that you can
put a PVC pipe in it and it goes like into a gutter and went out there. So it's actually, there's
nothing there now.
MR. MAGOWAN-So actually, you've actually ended up bringing the water back further on your
valleys coming down.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, because it was a hipped roof, I eliminated a gable in front, so it
eliminates that whole gutter and rainwater coming off the roof that way.
MR. MAGOWAN-So in your defense, you've made stormwater better.
MR. DEEB-Which we'll address next week.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it's not a reduction in the volume, but it might be mitigated in terms of its.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean do you have gutters up on there now?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And your downspouts. So if you could, when you come back, let us know
how you've.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 tied them right into the existing ones that are there. Because that roof
comes along like this and then there's the valley here and the new gable that comes up. I just
tied it right into that one.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and then where do those?
MR. SOUTHWOODO-That goes down into the ground. There's a PVC pipe sticking out of the
ground and it must weep somewhere in the ground there. I don't know. I didn't build the
house obviously, so that was there when the house was built in I think '91.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you could do just a little investigation to kind of see if it is a weeper or
the pipe goes directly into the lake underneath that you don't see.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 know it doesn't go into the lake. I know that because I've never seen a
pipe coming out into the lake and I pulled up the deck boards before and looked and I've done
some repair on the seawall there. There's no pipes that come into the lake.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, part of your punishment there. Can you give us a little more information
when you come back?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, how will the ZBA know that we've had this lengthy discussion on
the issue of after the fact approval?
MR. TRAVER-1 suspect that they would be aware from the minutes.
MR. SHAFER-So they look at the minutes?
MR. MAGOWAN-Not before tomorrow night. Unless Maria's typing them up now.
MR. DEEB-Laura, you could say something.
MRS. MOORE-Generally when I communicate with the Zoning Board, I relay if there's a major
discussion, or a discussion item that is highlighted, I relay that information to the Zoning Board.
MR. DEEB-So they will get it.
MR. TRAVER-And there may be a letter, if the Board approves my draft next week, if I get my
homework done and it meets with the Board's approval, then that will be passed along, not only
to them, but to the other parts of the Town. So what do we have for the resolution?
MR. DEEB-We did have an area of concern, the area of concern being after the fact projects
coming in. I could just generalize that on this, if you want.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the other area of concern, where's the gutter pipes.
MR. DEEB-Well that's stormwater, that will be for Site Plan review.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right, Site Plan.
MR. DEEB-That will be us next week.
MR. MAGOWAN-Jason, if you get your hands on a little camera, you might be able to just set it
down there. IBS has those snakes and cameras, you can get an idea. I don't want to see you
dig up your yard. Maybe they go into a little drywell. I don't know, but if they're weepers.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 believe it does. There's a concrete, if you're facing the gable end of the
house, the new part of the house, you're facing away from the lake, to the left there, that's
where it looks like that pipe goes and there's a concrete pad there and it's got a really, really
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
heavy lid on it that it takes like three guys to lift it, but I think that's the drywell and that's the
direction that pipe's going. I can't guarantee you that it's going there, but it's got to be going
there.
MR. TRAVER-What other purpose would that?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-That's what I mean.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like I said, like IBS would come up and run a camera down, if you could
just let us know and maybe get it on the Site Plan that that is a drywell.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-20-2018 JASON SOUTHWOOD
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant requests to maintain
already constructed enclosed second story 240 sq. ft. porch addition. The existing home is
1,446 sq. ft. where the floor area was 2,112 sq. ft. and now is 2,352 sq. ft. floor area. Pursuant
to Chapter 179-13-010 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, floor area, setbacks 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;
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. 20-2018 JASON &
REBECCA SOUTHWOOD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
1) After the fact the application without proper permitting needs to be addressed.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
MR. DEEB-The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of
concern; after the fact construction without proper permitting needs to be addressed.
MR. TRAVER-It's after the fact permitting, not construction.
MR. DEEB-Well, all right, after the fact.
MR. TRAVER-Permitting.
MR. DEEB-Is that better? She's thinking.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, because it's not constructing. Normally people construction after the fact.
MR. DEEB-All right, construction without.
MR. TRAVER-1 think if you just say after the fact application.
MR. DEEB-Okay. After the fact permitting without proper.
MR. VALENTINE-Or after the fact application without proper permitting.
MR. DEEB-Okay. After the fact application without proper permitting needs to be addressed.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds good.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So the last item we have under recommendations is Randolph &
Denise Bardin, Site Plan 28-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. RANDOLPH & DENISE BARDIN.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
LC-10A. LOCATION: 97 WOODCHUCK HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 2,755 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME ON AN 18.81 ACRE VACANT PARCEL.
PARCEL IS ACCESSED THROUGH A SHARED DRIVE ACROSS TWO SOUTHERLY
PARCELS AT THE END OF WOODCHUCK HILL RD. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES
DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION, UTILITIES, WASTEWATER & STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LACK OF ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 18.81 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO. 252.-1-33(MAIN) 252.1-57, -56(ACCESS). SECTION: 179-6-060.
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DENISE BARDIN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a new single family dwelling. The
footprint is 2,755 square feet. This is an 18.81 acre vacant parcel. The project actually goes
through two other parcels before it has access to Woodchuck Hill Road. The variance relief is
sought for lack of road frontage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board, and for the record Lucas
Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and with me Denise Bardin, one of the applicants. Randy, Jr.
is home with the kids tonight. So I decided to bring Denise along for support. Pretty
straightforward project. it's a nice single-family home right out in the woods, and southerly
neighbors is Randy, Sr. and Junior grew up in the area and had an opportunity to buy the parcel
last summer. It came together really well. They're looking to move the family up here and
hopefully the kids can start school in the fall and they're hoping to be in the new house hopefully
around Christmas time if all goes well. Some extensive site work as you can see. We're
looking at about 60,000 feet of disturbance in total, but that counts re-constructing about 550
feet of what's now a logging road across the southerly parcel to bring it up to standards, and so
we included that in our disturbance, and that put us over the one acre threshold, thus the DEC
whole SWPPP program along with the Park Commission's major stormwater program but our
soils are surprisingly good for a mountainous area. We found on the highlands six feet of good
sand which is quite shocking for this area what we're accustomed to. In total the driveway
length and new power to run is about 1,000 feet. So it's quite extensive as we said. Randy, Jr.
is a professional surveyor and works with a good size local excavating firm. So we're really
happy to have good guys on the project and our driveway slope we shaped it around to get a
section at 12% which we don't like to go more than 12.
MR. TRAVER-Even that's pretty steep.
MR. DOBIE-We don't have any switchbacks on the little bit of curvature. It helps to match the
terrain, and natural terrain ranges from generally 15 to 18%. So it's been a lot steeper and
we've got good soils. We're confident we can have a really nice project, and our only variance
is the lack of road frontage. The Woodchuck Hill Road right of way ends at his folks parcel, the
southerly most one, and so it's either a yes or no variance. We'll hopefully get that tomorrow
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
night. Hopefully back with you folks next Tuesday to keep the project moving forward. Thank
you for having us and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the road frontage issue seems pretty self-explanatory. I'm not sure what
the alternative would be on this particular project. I did note that there were, under the Staff
comments, if you noted there were some clarifications and additional details that were
requested primarily for Site Plan purposes, elevation drawings, the garage. Did you see the
Staff comments?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-I was able to do a building height worksheet if you will last week showing a section
to show we're right at 32 feet of building height from the median grade. So we've got three feet
to work with there. With respect to the garage, I don't have anything at this point. I can get on
the architect again to scramble for that, and probably the other area you want to talk about with
Staff comments is the wetlands, which I superimposed from the GIS. We are tickling that 100
foot threshold, and we do have a wetland consultant coming out hopefully Thursday or Friday
and he'll hang his flag, shoot it immediately and see if we need that 100 foot Freshwater
Wetlands Permit or not, respond accordingly, and I have an appointment with the Park Agency
for May 8th to also come down and verify it if need be, but we're confident in our consultant and
we have a surveyor in house to shoot them immediately.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well it sounds like you're on top of all that.
MR. MAGOWAN-You've got quite a homework list.
MR. DOBIE-Yes, I do.
MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say, this is one long beautifully designed driveway. I hope you have
a plow truck because you might need it by next Christmas.
MR. VALENTINE-Will you be providing, on the plan note this as an easement, cross easement?
MR. DOBIE-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-It says 40 foot right of way, but will that be, it's going to be an easement
across that property?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, that's correct, Mr. Valentine. He'll file the, when all is said and done, prepare
a map for filing and the legal agreement with his folks.
MR. VALENTINE-So there'd be a maintenance agreement?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. We'll need a stormwater maintenance agreement also as part of our
application.
MR. SHAFER-Is everything to the southeast of there public road?
MR. VALENTINE-It goes to the other. It goes to Woodchuck.
MR. DOBIE-It comes out to Woodchuck Hill Road, Mr. Shafer, which effectively ends at Chris
Crandall's shop, the estimating company up there. I believe that's where the Town ends the
maintenance of it, as I understand it.
MR. SHAFER-Well my question is, if this is a legal right of way, whether or not you as a
homeowner would have legal right of way over all of that roadway to get down to Woodchuck
and/or Bay Road?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. In our deed, I refreshed that today, it's described as a right of way over the
southerly parcels of what used to be Stone Schoolhouse Road, which is an abandoned Town
road, I couldn't tell you when, and the Old Stone Schoolhouse Road is that road to the east that
you can see, or that's what it used to be, which is essentially his parents' driveway, and so it
says in our deed that we have right of way across that, and then Randy shows on a survey map
this proposed center line right of way off their existing right of way. So there's some more
filings to be made, we have amicable parties at this point to get it all taken care of.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-So that's what you'd consider as a double right of way.
MR. DOBIE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-All off Woodchuck Hill, right?
MR. DOBIE-Correct.
MS. WHITE-So it does note that there's two southerly parcels. Both parcels are owned by the
father?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, that's correct.
MS. WHITE-Okay. All right, but both parcels will need to be included in that legal agreement for
future potential change in ownership? Okay.
MR. DOBIE-Certainly. We'll certainly want to cover ourselves for the future.
MS. WHITE-1 just kept hearing you refer to one, and so I wanted to make sure they were both.
MR. TRAVER-One owner, yes.
MR. SHAFER-Lucas, you've shown a 40 foot right of way. Why is it that wide for a 12 foot
drive?
MR. DOBIE-Just to allow for our ditches, maintenance, that sort of deal there. That's just to
give us enough room to work and maintenance in the future if it's under different ownership.
MR. MAGOWAN-Plus they'll probably cut back the trees a little bit more because a little bit of
shade on the driveway.
MR. TRAVER-As far as our referral, are there any specific issues with the variance road
frontage?
MS. WHITE-Like you said, it's not like there's any alternatives.
MR. TRAVER-Right. No alternatives. Okay.
MR. SHAFER-Chazen will deal with those by next week?
MR. TRAVER-Those are Site Plan issues. Did you see the engineer's report?
MR. DOBIE-1 did and we have certainly some work to do on that, but I think the most significant
was they're talking about stormwater mitigation on the southerly parcel. So we've got some
work to do there. Yes.
MR. DEEB-I'm sure you'll come in here with Chazen's. You'll have to for signoff.
MR. TRAVER-Right, for Site Plan. Okay. Are there any other issues that we need to address
in our referral? I didn't really hear any. I guess we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-26-2018 BARDIN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a
2,755 sq. ft. (footprint) home on an 18.81 acre vacant parcel. Parcel is accessed through a
shared drive across two southerly parcels at the end of Woodchuck Hill Rd. Project also
includes driveway construction, utilities, wastewater & stormwater management. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and
driveway greater than 10% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Relief is sought for lack of 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;
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
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. 26-2018 RANDOLPH JR &
DENISE BARDIN. Introduced by David Deeb 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 Jamie White. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck with the ZBA.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much. We'll see you next week.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under New Business. We have three
applications under New Business, all of which have public hearings, two of which are SEQR
Type II's and we have one Unlisted. The first item is Mission & Montcalm RE, LLC. Site Plan
29-2018.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MISSION & MONTCALM RE, LLC.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
WR. LOCATION: BARBER ROAD & HALL ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT AN 1,865 SQ. FT. HOME AT A 3,290 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA ON AN EXISTING
1.56 ACRE PARCEL. SITE WORK INCLUDES GRADING AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. 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 17-1998. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.56 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-12.1. SECTION:
179-6-060.
LUCAS DOBIE & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a 1,865 square foot home. This is a
3,290 square foot floor area on an existing 1.56 acre parcel that is currently vacant. Site Plan
Review is required for construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves and Lucas Dobie with
Hutchins Engineering. We're representing Mission Montcalm RE and also Carol of Mission
Montcalm is in the audience if you have any specific questions. This property is up on Glen
Lake on Barber Road and Hall Road Extension, kind of sandwiched in between the two roads.
The reason we're here is because of any construction on slopes of within 50 feet of 15% or
greater, but if you look at the grading plan that Lucas has done, and I'll let him answer any
specific questions that you may have regarding the engineering, but there isn't a lot of grading
on the lot. It just happens to be that the lot is at the top where we placed the house and then
slopes back down to the north and to the west towards the lake, but there isn't a substantial
amount of disturbance. The disturbance I think was 14,024, but if you look at the grading,
there's not a substantial amount of grading. Because we're not forcing the house into the site.
We're actually having the house fit the site, having a walkout to the north and west. So we did
not try to cut into the grade. On the house plans you have it's just mirrored so the garage is on
the higher side where it should be and again, you're not forcing the house to fit the site. You're
using the site and fitting the house into it. Again, it's the only reason we're here. There's
obviously no variances that are necessary. It's a pre-existing lot. Soils are real good, and
we're just here for the Site Plan to build the house.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2013)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Talking about the soils, there was a comment in the engineering that the
soil tests had not been performed yet?
MR. DOBIE-That's correct, Mr. Chairman. And again, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering
and when we did the project it was right in the middle of winter and we did the subdivision
across the road for Sherwood Acres Construction some years back on the other side of Hall
Road and we saw some exposed soils on this lot. We're quite familiar with the area. We're
comfortable we're going to have the Glen Lake cobbles with a little bit of sand. Certainly re-
verify that. We're putting the septic on the lower, flatter ground so we'll certainly do our test pits
for our building permit submission if we make it that far.
MR. TRAVER-Well, you will need that signoff. I just noticed that, and then again with Staff
comments like another application we had before us, there's some clarification on building
height and some detail on the walkout basement that I'm sure you can provide that.
MR. STEVES-And again, we apologize. You're looking at this trying to decide exactly how the
house plan is drawn up. It isn't necessarily just like my home that I built that I got a house plan
from the original architect and I mirrored it and then had the roof drawn.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Questions from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's one of the best houses that I like because you can utilize that
basement and have a walkout in the back, and it is, it's a primo lot. Definitely no problem with
the septic, really shooting out of the tank going down the hill into the leach. So you don't see a
problem there with the soil.
MR. STEVES-The key is we do not like to force the site to fit the house. We'd rather have the
house fit the site.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. STEVES-And this is an optimal location for that type of thing.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I applaud you all for doing such a great job placing that with minimal
disturbance.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Anything else?
MR. SHAFER-1 noticed there were a couple of instances where the limit of disturbance went
beyond the property line and into the highway right of way. I assume that means you'll have to
get a highway work permit to do that?
MR. DOBIE-You're absolutely correct, Mr. Shafer, and we'll certainly need to get the Highway
Superintendent's blessing. That's more to show how it's going to be totally built, not cutting a
corner on it and we're probably going to be disturbing out there for the culvert outfall. I have a
culvert and I want to show that in our disturbance.
MR. STEVES-Like Lucas said, we show everything, because on any house site you build on,
your right of way line to the highway bounds is about 12 to 13 feet off the asphalt. So no matter
what you do you're disturbing into the municipal property, so therefore you get your curb cut
permit with the Highway Superintendent and make sure it's done correctly, but a lot of that is to
not show that disturbance, but yet it is a disturbance that we've put into our calculations.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Very good.
MR. MAGOWAN-That pipe will be low enough, too, because you know most of those pipes that
are underneath, especially on Quaker Road going into NAPA. Well NAPA didn't fix theirs, but
that freeze, with that pipe being open all winter, will push that up. So that's the only concern for
the build. So as long as it's deep enough.
MR. STEVES-It will be plenty deep enough. We have enough slope on that road.
MR. VALENTINE-No slope on the pipe, though.
MR. DOBIE-Not much.
MR. VALENTINE-Nothing, from invert to invert.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. DOBIE-That's a typo. It should have a least a foot of pitch over that. It's got to match the
roadway.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else on this application? Any additional conditions? It
sounds like we're moving towards an approval. We just need to clarify the resolution if there
are any additional conditions. Obviously again we need the engineering signoff. It sounds like
all of that is underway. The design seems excellent.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman you still need to open the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm not seeing anything. So, yes, we'll open the public hearing on this
application. Is there anyone here who would like to address the Planning Board on this
application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And I guess we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #29-2018 MISSION & MONTCALM RE, LLC
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to
construct a 1,865 sq. ft. home at a 3,290 sq. ft. floor area on an existing 1.56 acre parcel. Site
work includes grading and stormwater management. 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;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on, and continued the
public hearing to, 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;
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 29-2018 MISSION & MONTCALM RE, LLC. Introduced
by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) No waivers were requested.
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
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:
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
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 Jamie White. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. VALENTINE-Laura, this one's not applicable, but when you have a dual road on that, is
there anything that has to be written in somewhere when you do approvals to say that you don't
use the other access?
MRS. MOORE-I've seen the Board do that.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay, because the slope would prevent this altogether.
MRS. MOORE-But there have been times when the Board has said access is only from this, the
entry point as proposed on the plans.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting. All right. Next we have Cumberland Farms, Inc. Site Plan
Modification 27-2018. This will also have a public hearing.
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 27-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. CUMBERLAND FARMS,
INC. AGENT(S): BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 110 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN LIGHT UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING GAS STATION.
UPGRADES TO THE LIGHTING INCLUDE CANOPY, POLE LIGHTS AND WALL LIGHTS
WITH NO CHANGE IN NUMBERS, ONLY BRIGHTNESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-
020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
SV 95-2001, SP 49-2001 & AV 94-2001 DEMO OF BUS. THEN CONST. OF CONV. STORE
W/GAS PUMPS, SP 38-2001 MOD. FOR RE-BRANDING, AV PZ-119-2016, SP PZ 121-2016.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2018. TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80. SECTION: 179-6-
020.
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has already installed new light fixtures under the canopy and
on the site. This came in to the Planning Staff, Code Compliance Officer, as a complaint or an
interested inquiry from a neighbor who said I have a problem with a new upgrade in my
backyard. So the applicant, Stefanie and I have communicated and we've gone back and forth
with some additional lighting information, and before you tonight she has a new revised plan
where the canopy lighting has actually been further reduced and then there's additional
information about the pole lighting. So we've gone back and forth a little bit to try to get it into
more compliance with what was originally approved.
MR. TRAVER-So to clarify, is it reduced from what we have in our Staff Notes?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, even further.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-I'm going to start by handing out these new plans because from my experience it's
easier to look at it with the foot candles I'm talking about.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now you're aware we've had a change in after the fact now.
MS. BITTER-1 heard. I have to go to the Jon Lapper threshold. There was a leak. So they
changed all the lights. I know that your eyes are better than mine. And then this is just a letter
from Red Leonard as to the safety efficiency. So just for the record let me state, Stefanie Bitter,
local counsel for Cumberland Farms, and as Laura indicated we're seeking a modification for
110 Main Street due to the lighting fixtures there were installed unfortunately before receiving
approval from the necessary Boards. What they had done is they had installed LED lights with
the idea that they'd be more energy efficient, and what everybody sees as the benefits of LED
lights, not considering the foot candle increase. I'm not sure if you folks visited this store on
Main Street, but it's on my way home. I visit it often, and it never stood out to me to be
something that looked like very bright compared to what it was before. So I appreciate why
they were coming. The easiest way for me to describe this is in three pieces. The canopy
lights, the wall lights, and the pole lights because each of them are being modified with what's
being proposed. As Laura had mentioned, when I submitted on March 15th the proposal was to
maintain the existing conditions, which just to give you a number was averaging at 53.4 foot
candles. Those lights are right underneath the dispensers, and again if you've been at the
canopy, there are 16 dispensers. So there would be 16 fixtures in that canopy. The original
plan that Laura has up there, the original plan that was approved in 2001 showed an average
canopy of 29.83, okay. So that's the number to keep in mind.
MR. TRAVER-29.8 was what the original was?
MS. BITTER-The original number was 29.83 average canopy foot candles.
MR. TRAVER-And I'm sorry, what is it now?
MS. BITTER-It's now 53.4. Okay. What I just provided to you is going to be a further
reduction in the dispenser lighting. They're going to remove the four corner fixtures and that will
reduce it to 12 fixtures in the canopy and that will bring it down to 32.21.
MR. TRAVER-So what we have before us for that section of the project would go from 29.83,
which is approved, up to 32.21.
MS. BITTER-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-So then the next part is the wall lights. The wall lights are if you're driving on Main
Street there are these gooseneck lights that exist there today. What we are proposing, and
those gooseneck lights are also on, when you enter from Ryan Avenue on that drive aisle,
they're on that side of the building as well. Those foot candles are 12.66 foot candles existing
today. What we're proposing is to remove those gooseneck Iightings and present a flat fixture
which will be flush against the wall. It won't have obviously the wall below it because it won't be
gooseneck. So it'll be actually reflecting off of the brick to reduce the impact, and that'll reduce
it to between six to ten foot candles. So it will actually bring that number down, and if you're
looking at that big, large plan, it's not as understandable if you're looking at the drive aisle, but if
you're looking on Main Street you see that there's no foot candles that go onto Main Street. It
shows a zero. So it doesn't increase the pollution. Next are the poll Iightings. Those have
already been modified. I actually went to the site myself to look because there was a question
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
that was presented about the shielding. You'll see on the original plan it talks about shields to
come down which you could physically see them. Because they're LED there's what's called
eyelet filters that are actually on the light which I have a picture of it in the file. I already
submitted it to Laura, which is already included in the LED light. So I couldn't necessarily put
another shield on it because it doesn't have the same impact as the lights that were originally
approved in 2001, but what's proposed with this new plan is to change the grade of that and put
the pole closer to the building by five percent, which then that will have the reflection more on
the drive aisle and less on the adjacent neighbor who's the one on Ryan Avenue. So the
numbers that you have on that show those foot candles reducing on that property to zero, so
that we can have that zero foot candle reflected on her parcel which is adjacent, which she was
the one that had concerns. So to re-cap, the canopy area will remove the four existing fixtures
on the corner, reducing the foot candle average to 32. Replace the gooseneck wall lights with
flat fixtures and tilt the poles along Ryan Avenue by five degrees so that I can get zero foot
candles on the adjacent landowner. What I had submitted to you just now is that letter from
Red Leonard, because obviously I understand that what the Code currently says is 10 foot
candles. We're obviously reaching for what was originally approved in 2001 and we just want
to show it's not just because we want to but there is a benefit that is necessary for a gas station
because there's obviously a safety feature. What's being done under that canopy is a very
protected task, not only because they're handling fuel and the hazard of handling the fuel, you
want to make sure that it's proper lighting to see what they're doing, but obviously as we all
know we're pulling out our pocketbooks, our wallets and we're in a position that we want to have
as much light as possible for safety reasons.
MR. TRAVER-And we hear that argument all the time.
MS. BITTER-1 know. That's why I presented the letter, because I'm not a lighting expert.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. No I understand. Understand as well that a couple of issues for us, in
addition to, you know, that's kind of the, I don't really want to call it an excuse, but that's the
presentation that's frequently made of why it needs to be so bright. The issue that we have
really is two-fold. One is we have a dark sky policy in the Town where we're trying to reduce
light pollution, which really becomes an environmental issue, and the Code is intended to reflect
that, but we also have an issue that's a bit of a kind of a me too, I hate to use that terminology,
but when you have a particular location or a garage elevate their lighting, you tend to get a
response from the neighboring facilities that also want to boost their lighting, and that was I
believe part of the initial thinking of having a cap on what the lighting would be. So one of our
concerns is, you have responded, by this opportunity to change the lights out to the newer LED
certainly makes sense. A lot of folks are doing that, but by also jacking up the lighting, although
I appreciate very much the effort you made to try to mitigate that, but it does put some pressure
ironically on some of the surrounding businesses to try to do the same type of thing. So it's
kind of a, you know, sock the mole type of problem for us because we're really trying to avoid an
increase in the total amount of light in the Town. So with that, questions, comments from other
members of the Board?
MR. VALENTINE-On your coversheet, where on this street layout was the complaint coming
from?
MS. BITTER-Ryan Avenue, which if you're looking at the store, the store's on the corner of Main
Street and Ryan Avenue. So it's behind the pole lights that I was talking about tilting.
MR. TRAVER-And that was with the new fixtures but they weren't altered by the five degrees.
MS. BITTER-Right. They haven't been altered yet.
MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify, they're tilting them.
MR. DEEB-You said down to zero.
MS. BITTER-Right, yes.
MR. DEEB-So that's a problem that you solve.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-All right. The convenience store itself wasn't blocking the light from?
MS. BITTER-Here, let me show you. I'll show you. This one right here.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MS. BITTER-The property that is the first on Ryan, I think it's actually 1 Ryan Avenue.
MR. VALENTINE-All right. I was thinking that you were looking across the street.
MS. BITTER-No, I mean because it is Main Street. So it is, obviously you have the street
lighting. So there's lights being reflected whether or not they're from a commercial entity or not.
MR. DEEB-Well I did drive by there the other night and I was looking at your remark about
looking into the pocketbooks and I was thinking about it and I'm looking up at the light and I'm
thinking my God you could film a movie under this thing. You don't have to worry about
lighting. A thief could look into your pocketbook to see what's there if they wanted, 10 feet
away.
MS. BITTER-And they're going to reduce it by half of that, too.
MR. DEEB-And I also went around to other area stations and yours by far was the brightest and
was overkill, but you have reduced it. You haven't done it under the canopy yet.
MS. BITTER-Right. No.
MR. DEEB-So I haven't seen what it looks like yet, but I'd be curious to see how, I mean you're
reducing it significantly.
MR. TRAVER-We have to be careful also about that. We haven't seen what it looks like,
because the other tactic that's been used is people will bring in photographs and they'll say well
here's what we think it will look like. I prefer to actually see the numbers.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. DEEB-That's what I meant. You have to have the numbers.
MS. BITTER-This has been a very educational experience for me, too, because to look at foot
candles.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you done, ma'am?
MS. BITTER-Yes, I apologize.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. A couple of things. I spent a little time also out at 149, and these
canopy fixtures are kind of the same fixtures that Toby has, and they're pushing out 29 foot
candles, and I actually had a light meter and I went around to the surrounding businesses just to
get an average, but one thing that I did notice on these fixtures, Stefanie, and since you haven't
done these canopies yet, which made a big difference, because I'm standing there at the
parking lot and I'm looking at Stewart's, you know, and Adirondack Bar & Grill, but one thing that
I noticed, they're a surface mount light, but the light sticks down, and you actually, that's what's
irritating. You go over to Stewart's you don't see that because that's recessed in. Those
LED's are up in the soffit. So you don't see the light. You see the light. You follow what I'm
saying? You see the fixture which is more piercing to the light then you look over at Adirondack
Bar & Grill and you can't see anything at all because those things are pushing 58, 60 foot
candles.
MR. TRAVER-And we have a lot of places in Town that are old and not in compliance but they
haven't been back before us yet.
MR. MAGOWAN-But that's one thing that I did notice. So I did talk to Toby about, let's see
what we can do, and he's going to go after, because he did ask for the ones like Stewart's and
he's working on that with the lighting people, but that's one thing that you might want to bring up
to your client on this one is that fixture is a, you know, like a surface mount. So it's just like
looking at that speaker there. You see that speaker stands out of that ceiling quite big, but you
look over there where that one's flush, it doesn't look as noticeable, but that's what you see is
that big bright light up there. Over at Stewart's you don't see that big bright light up there, but
you see more of the light on the ground, the light around where you have to work, and they go
up into the panel. So that's what I would recommend over that, because you can change these
and put these DM mounts. I mean they call that a flat lens and then they have a drop lens, but
if they can get that light up flush with the soffit it's not as piercing to the eye as seeing the light
fixture.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. TRAVER-More diffuse, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, more diffuse I guess you would say, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I don't know how I feel about the foot candles. We're down to 29 under the canopy,
29.83 from.
MR. TRAVER-It's an increase of like four foot candles.
MR. DEEB-Four foot candles. Which is a lot better than 53.4 that's there now.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well we're making the other client there has 29 and we want him down to 20.
MR. TRAVER-Well he's going to come back with a lighting plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right, but we asked him to get it down to 20, and now you're up at 50 and you
want to bring it down to 29. So we've got to have a standard I would say here.
MS. BITTER-1 was basing it on the original. Toby's is new construction.
MR. DEEB-What was the original?
MS. BITTER-29.
MR. DEEB-29.
MR. MAGOWAN-But since you're changing it, then that changes everything.
MS. BITTER-1 understand that, but it puts it in a better, because it was an existing feature. I
know that it's being increased, but it was existing at the time.
MR. DEEB-So you have approval for 29 now.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-All right, are there any other? Let's see, we do have a public hearing on this
application as well that I don't believe I opened yet. Dennis, did you want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DENNIS MAC ELROY
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, do we have any written comment?
MRS. MOORE-You do have a written comment. This is addressed to the Zoning Administrator,
Craig Brown. "As you are aware, I am the owner of 1 Ryan Avenue. My property abuts the
Cumberland Farms store at 110 Main Street which is on the Planning Board agenda for
04/17/18 with respect to a lighting upgrade. This public meeting is after-the-fact, as the
upgrade was done months ago. I contacted you at that time with my concerns regarding the
brightness and my concerns have not changed. The increase in the brightness is enormous
and totally unacceptable. Reading a book anywhere in my backyard or even my neighbor's
backyard would be possible, as even with the deflectors in place the brightness spills a great
distance. Please keep me informed of the status of this situation. Sincerely, Kathleen Ringer
1 Ryan Avenue, Queensbury, NY 12804"
MR. TRAVER-Wow. Well hopefully we've addressed that.
MS. BITTER-And I didn't realize. I was going to meet with her but she just submitted the
comment today. So I didn't want to reach out to her until I had some, and obviously today I
wasn't able to.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a quick question then?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DIXON-Based on that letter there. Were those street lights that are next to the house, I
mean obviously there's not much clearance between those and the adjacent property. You're
talking about tilting the poles about five degrees.
MS. BITTER-And changing the wall fixtures. So the wall fixtures are within that drive aisle. If
you see her house, that's the drive aisle. So those wall fixtures are what's contributing together
with the pole lights to that area, as well as canopy.
MR. DIXON-You're going to replace all the wall fixtures as well?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. DIXON-Because I know there was still plenty of light there with one of your fixtures with
one light bulb in it. So I don't think you'd probably need all of that light over there, but on the
light pole itself are you able to reduce the height? What I did is I drove down the road and as
I'm coming back to Cumberland Farms I can see where that resident will have issues with the
light. It's a tough corridor. It's a commercial corridor, but I don't know if there's anything more
that can be done, at least with those two light posts.
MS. BITTER-Well and that's why I talked extensively to Red Leonard because as the shielding
was a serious concern of Bruce Frank's. So I wanted to make sure I understood myself. And
they showed me pictures which I sent to Laura today, which, again, I didn't have the opportunity
to have a personal conversation with this woman, but when I saw the pictures, there's obviously
high vegetation there, too, and I wasn't standing in her backyard. I didn't have permission to do
that. So I'm relying on the foot candle as well, and those modifications are going to produce
those changes. Because you can't do the pollution.
MR. DIXON-Some of your vegetation there, I think you've got at least one tree that's half dead
or damaged.
MS. BITTER-And I can check into that. The pictures I showed, I don't know if you have them
there, but they show evergreens right along, and they're obviously taller because they were part
of the project in 2001.
MR. DIXON-1 think one may have met its maker at some point.
MS. BITTER-All right. I will definitely look at that if that's the case.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions, comments?
MR. DEEB-What about Brad's comment about the lights being put into the soffit? How are we
going to deal with that?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm not sure that would address the total foot candles. That just addresses
the aesthetics of it, right?
MR. VALENTINE-That was a comment that came up at the meeting that we had on 149 was
because that light carries out. So for traveling public going by, they're not just looking at the
light that's underneath the canopy.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. That's right. It's not the light that's underneath the canopy, it's the light
itself.
MR. DEEB-It's the light itself. It's just glaring.
MR. MAGOWAN-It just beams at you.
MR. DEEB-It does, it glares at you. Is that something that can be addresses, Stefanie?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MS. BITTER-Well, I could actually look at pictures of how those are reflective. The only
response I can have to that is he's taking off the four corners, okay, so he's capturing the light
so it's being contained. So in the sense of measuring foot candles, it's not coming off the site.
So it is actually being directed down. I mean the proposal here is to maintain the lights that are
existing. That's why they're just literally plucking the ones out to reduce the foot candles, but I
understand what you're saying. So I think this is a means to the reduction, so that it's capturing
it within.
MR. MAGOWAN-If they have any, drive by a Stewart's, you know, and like I said, you'll see the
difference.
MS. BITTER-That they're recessed as opposed to flat.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not that they're recessed, but the light is flush with the ceiling. These come
down and then it's got the little, you know, globe on it, and like I said, that's what you see. That
is the irritating part. So I talked to him about, I said, you know, well bend a piece of metal all
the way around, give it a shield where you don't see that light this way, but you get the light this
way.
MS. BITTER-And I'm just trying to think, because literally I went to the site and I stood
underneath the canopy to look up to see where the lights were. It wasn't as if I was standing in
the drive aisle and couldn't see them.
MR. MAGOWAN-When you're coming up to it, and that's what I noticed being up at 149 last
week in the dark, and I said that is what. Now there's two different types. There's a drop lens
and then there's the flush lens, the flat lens and then the drop lens. I believe this is what you'll
see.
MS. BITTER-That's in the canopy, but you're right. It is the drop type.
MR. MAGOWAN-That is the drop. It's not the flush or the flat lens?
MS. BITTER-Well, this is the picture that I took. I didn't get up there and measure it but I did
look at it.
MR. MAGOWAN-They're the same fixture, but the only difference between the drop lens and
the flat lens, so the flat lens would probably do better.
MR. TRAVER-Could they just change the lens and leave the original?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,just the, well they'd have to change the fixture.
MS. BITTER-All right, which would obviously bring us back.
MR. TRAVER-That's an issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-Let's just say that there was a light bulb on the end of that fan. These lights
don't bother you, you get the light this way, but that one light bulb is going to stand out like a
sore thumb. So the flat lens, if they can't get it recessed up, at least with the flat light, then you
won't see the light coming out the side. It will just be down.
MR. DEEB-That's going to alter the site.
MS. BITTER-That's going to alter the entire site, though, but I will, I'll use that in my 149 Site
Plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're coming back here for Toby?
MS. BITTER-No. Oh, the other one.
MR. TRAVER-The discussion item that we had before. All right. Anything else/
MRS. MOORE-1 do have a question in regards to the lighting that would occur, these light poles.
So there's three light poles. Are these three light poles angling five degrees?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-And those are the only light poles that are angling five degrees?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MS. BITTER-Yes, those are the only ones because of the impact they had to that adjacent
property.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. And these gooseneck lights are being replaced by?
MS. BITTER-The wall fixtures.
MR. TRAVER-The flat wall fixtures.
MR. MAGOWAN-That light up the brick.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MS. BITTER-Correct.
MRS. MOORE-So just to point out, in the Code, the idea behind lighting in the Code is defined
is that it should be a cut off fixture, meaning that angling it upwards is not the standard, and
definitely the Board should have a discussion about that because it is changing its orientation,
whereas you traditionally see lighting at a cut off, or a 90 degree angle.
MR. VALENTINE-Which is what we went through with the car dealership.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean that's quite a few lampposts for that little aisle there.
MRS. MOORE-1 don't know. Is there a way to either eliminate those light poles and use only
the fixtures on the wall?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean that's three light poles. And what, do we have them in here?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they're in the new plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MRS. MOORE-The Board changing the light fixture completely so that it is clearly a cut off
fixture.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, those are the area lights.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, so what's the difference of making a change of three fixtures?
MR. VALENTINE-So if you change them to a box straight down it's not going to be impacted
that much because the wall lights are bright enough already.
MRS. MOORE-Right. I don't know if there's opportunity to eliminate those three.
MS. BITTER-So you can't angle them?
MRS. MOORE-It's not that you can't angle them. The Board needs to discuss it because the
Code is suggesting that all light fixture be 90 degree cut off.
MR. DEEB-So that's not going to meet Code.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MS. BITTER-So that would require a waiver as well.
MRS. MOORE-It's definitely a discussion with this Board. It's not a waiver. The Board should
be clear on it that there's three fixtures that are being asked to be at a different angle than 90
degrees.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any way they can just be eliminated? I mean it seems like there's plenty
of available light there.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. DEEB-Or how about what Laura suggested, just change the fixtures themselves to a
downward directed fixture, and that wouldn't be that expensive. Right?
MS. BITTER-We're just talking about the pole lights, right?
MR. DEEB-The pole lights.
MS. BITTER-1 think they are. That's the part I'm confused about.
MR. MAGOWAN-Five degrees isn't much.
MS. BITTER-Because they are downward directed light.
MR. MAGOWAN-Do we have that picture?
MS. BITTER-No, but I can get it to you.
MRS. MOORE-So right now the way that downward fixture is and it has that awkward shielding
on it.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-There's still a back light that occurs with that fixture.
MR. TRAVER-So it's not completely cut off is what you're saying.
MRS. MOORE-Currently it's not completely cut off. So it does have a back lit portion to it that
is higher than what was originally approved. What I understood is you couldn't put a shield on
that one to the back of it.
MS. WHITE-So if it's angled five degrees it's taking the light away from the neighboring, but it's
actually going to be reflecting more upwards.
MRS. MOORE-Potentially, and I don't know that. I'm not a lighting person. I can only
visualize. Does that potentially interfere with any other visualization on site from traffic entering
or pedestrians walking? I don't know that.
MR. MAGOWAN-And five degrees isn't much. I mean that's, five degrees is only like that
much.
MR. DEEB-Yes, but it's still not.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not much at all. I would like to see more like, you know, 33.9 degrees.
MR. TRAVER-Or a Code compliant cut off fixture.
MS. BITTER-And I'm not a lighting expert, but I asked this question because I saw the shields. I
understand exactly what Bruce was asking. He said, no, the shield is already contained within.
MR. TRAVER-Well there must be a cut off, a Code compliant fixture available because we have
others in the Town that are compliant.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So I mean really the simplest thing to say is it needs to be Code compliant, just
those three poles.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, but I think the point was it could be Code compliant, and Stefanie's even
saying this, downward directed is Code compliant, but you still have the issue.
MR. TRAVER-But they're not cut off.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So that's not Code compliant. So it's kind of, Code compliant is Code compliant.
So if they have to be cut off fixtures, and they are available. I mean I understand that maybe
your lighting guys are saying, well, no, they're really not.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MS. BITTER-And it could just be with that fixture that's there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-It's a matter of, you know, you can't put a hat on this fixture. I don't know the
technical term.
MR. DEEB-The three pole lights we're talking about. They'd have to be Code compliant.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DEEB-And that would be it.
MR. TRAVER-That would be it.
MR. DEEB-That's a pretty simple solution.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but make that one of the conditions of the resolution. And then we have the
reduction of the foot candles as presented in the.
MS. BITTER-4/4/2018 plan.
MR. TRAVER-4/4/2018 plan. And those pole lights are to the east. Right, Laura?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, those pole lights are on the south.
MR. TRAVER-The south. Okay.
MS. BITTER-Yes, the south, definitely. Because the Northway is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the three on the south side.
MR. DEEB-To be made Code compliant.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DIXON-As we're talking about the light poles, the ones that are behind the old Subway,
when I was there I don't recall seeing them on, but that may have just been an oversight on my
part.
MS. BITTER-It could be because the use is no longer existing. It's vacant. I didn't go behind
there. I was more worried about the Ryan Ave. side. So I can look into that, but I think that's
the purpose, because they do recognize that on the foot candles.
MR. DIXON-Because I would think we'd want that to apply to those lights, too.
MS. BITTER-Well that is commercial. It's all surrounded by, it's next door to the U Haul.
That's why that wasn't as big of a concern. And hopefully that building will come before you for
site plan.
MRS. MOORE-Can I also suggest that it looks like, the fourth light that's here on this property
as well. These look like they abut the U Haul. Is that correct?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-And so that's a fourth light.
MR. TRAVER-Are they the same type pole?
MS. BITTER-Yes, they all are. The angle wasn't being suggested for the others because it was
only the purposes of benefitting that 1 Ryan Ave.
MR. MAGOWAN-Good pick up.
MR. TRAVER-So we need to make them all Code compliant. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-At least these four because these abut this one single family residential home.
This one abuts the U Haul property. These two are U Haul property.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. TRAVER-So it's not three anymore.
MRS. MOORE-It's four.
MR. MAGOWAN-Four.
MS. BITTER-Right. I'll talk to Laura about this.
MR. DEEB-Adjoining what?
MS. BITTER-The 1 Ryan Avenue is the address.
MR. VALENTINE-Well that's the three lights.
MR. DEEB-Those are the three lights.
MS. BITTER-But the fourth one is off Ryan Ave. as well.
MR. DEEB-All right. So you've got three poles on the south side to be made Code compliant.
Is that correct?
MS. BITTER-Right, and one on the west of 1 Ryan Ave.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's the old Subway.
MR. DEEB-All right, and the amended Site Plan to be used is the one dated 4/4/2018.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. We're ready to hear a motion.
MS. GAG LIARDI-Actually, Mr. Chairman, you have to do the SEAR, too.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We've got to do a re-affirmation, and I think with the lighting, unless other
members of the Board disagree, I think with the amended lighting plan we're not seeing any
newly introduced environmental issues. So I'm thinking, at least I'm comfortable with a re-
affirmation. Are other Board members comfortable with proceeding with that?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And we can do that SEAR.
RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEG. DEC. SEQR SP MOD # 27-2018 CUMBERLAND
FARMS
The applicant proposes to maintain wood carving business and relocate a 160 sq. ft. shed, with
a 40 sq. ft. porch on the shed. Project includes relocation of display areas and to add landscape
lighting to shine on sculptures/displays. Project still includes exterior tree art business, removal
of chain link fence to install rope and wood post fencing along with use of barn area for
storage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to
an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP 49-2001, on 03/19/2002 adopting SEQRA
determination of non-significance, and
Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need
not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
(MODIFICATION) 27-2018 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan;
Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. We're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 27-2018 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to maintain light
upgrades to an existing gas station. Upgrades to the lighting include canopy, pole lights and
wall lights with no change in numbers, only brightness. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-020 of the
Zoning Ordinance modifications to an existing site plan 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 04/17/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 04/17/2018 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
04/17/2018;
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 MODIFICATION 27-2018 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC,
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requestrg anted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
3) Three pole lights on the south side and one pole light on the west side of Ryan Avenue
to be made Code compliant and the amended lighting plan dated April 4th, .2018 be part
of the Site Plan.
Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the
following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Did you say waivers were granted?
MR. DEEB-Do we have waivers?
MRS. MOORE-There's waivers that, in reference to stormwater and signage and.
MR. DEEB-Okay. Yes, waiver requests are granted.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and the last item that we have on our agenda this evening is Site Plan
26-2018 Dennis MacElroy, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2018. This is a SEQR Type II and
does have a public hearing.
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2018 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2018 SEAR TYPE:
TYPE II. DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 103 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN APPROVED
SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND AREA.
SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS APPROVED BY LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH IN APRIL 2017.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 95 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 99746-8167 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN
CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2018. LOT SIZE: 3.4 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-17.
SECTION: CHAPTER 95 & 179-3-040.
DENNIS MAC ELROY, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant received approval from the local Board of Health on April 2017
to install a septic system and on further review it was noted that it's within 100 feet of a
designated wetlands which actually triggers the Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands
permit with the Planning Board. So the applicant is before the Board for doing work within 100
feet of a wetland.
MR. TRAVER-So the Board of Health approved the septic, but they don't deal with the context
of where it's located,just with the equipment itself? Okay. I see. Good evening.
MRS. MOORE-1 mean not in reference to wetlands.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing
my family in this application. Just to clarify, the Board of Health variance was for this setback to
the wetland. So they did act in the capacity of granting a variance from the 100 foot standard.
MR. TRAVER-But in addition to their approval, you need ours as well.
MR. MAC ELROY-A Freshwater Wetlands permit is required.
MR. TRAVER-Because they can't give you a permit for that.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and because a Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required, Site Plan
Review is required.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-There's two separate applications here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-Again, this is a second step in my effort of having a replacement wastewater
system ready to go, and the Board of Health variance was the first step. It runs with the
property, that variance. It doesn't expire. The Site Plan, I don't now about a Freshwater
Wetlands Permit if that expires, but at least the Site Plan does definitely. So in a year if we
haven't done anything, unless in this motion it can be put out to two years, for instance, if it isn't
done. I just don't know what the time frame.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure we can do that, but it's not unusual for an Administrative Item that
you ask for an extension, without having to go through the entire process again, unless there
are changes. So that can be done administratively should it be needed. Are you expecting it's
going to be more than a year?
MR. MAC ELROY-It could be. I mean, this is sort of secondary, but just in this week our whole
emphasis of maintenance has changed because our dock got totally obliterated with the ice.
MR. TRAVER-With the ice, yes. It was windy today, too.
MR. MAC ELROY-A lot of different docks in the ice have totally moved back to that shoreline.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 was just up in Dark Bay and one of them was right in. It's not unusual that it
happens. We've had a couple of years off.
MR. TRAVER-Well the whole ice out this year has been kind of unusual. I mean I grew up on
the lake as a kid and the process that the, the way the ice went out this year, if you will, is
different than normal, because it didn't melt the way it normally does, and usually it turns into
kind of a honey comb which just disintegrates when it hits stuff, but this time it stayed, of course
the weather has been a factor, but it's stayed much more solid.
MR. MAC ELROY-It still is, and it's still out there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-And there's still a lot of ice.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's in the southern end now, because it blew right out of the north.
MR. MAC ELROY-And now with today's winds it blew it right back to the shoreline. There's
more damage today than there was yesterday.
MR. TRAVER-They were actually, I think it was a couple of days ago, they were actually
running the Saint tied to the Steel Pier lashed down with the engine going full blast trying to
push the ice away from the Steel Pier. It's really bizarre.
MR. MAC ELROY-Anyway, so that affects our timeframe of when we want to make these
improvements.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, well, I don't think it would present a problem if you do need an extension.
If there are any other changes it's really just an administrative thing. All right. So questions
from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I have to say, I want to thank you, and I know it's not a cheap thing to do,
but looking at the existing to what you propose and moving it more away from the wetlands. I
really think it's a great improvement. I would have no problem giving you an extension to get
through your dock and get it done.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions? It seems pretty straightforward. It's really almost
just an administrative. We do have a public hearing on this. I see there is no one in the
audience. Do we have any written comments on this septic, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type 11 so there's no environmental review required and I think
we have a draft motion. If there aren't any additional questions from members of the Board,
we'll go ahead and read that motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #26-2018 FWW 1-2018 DENNIS MAC ELROY
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install an
approved septic system that occurs within 100 ft. of a designated wetland area. Septic system
was approved by local Board of Health in April 2017. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter
95 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 100 ft. of wetlands 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;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/17/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 04/17/2018, 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
04/17/2018;
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 26-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2018
DENNIS MACELROY, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requestrg anted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 was talking to a gentleman that was over in the Assembly Point area and
they were out there rods and that breaking the ice until it broke up enough where it got around
his dock and then it locked in and then it helped, but it still shifted his dock.
MR. TRAVER-It's just a bizarre year. It didn't honey comb the way it normally does.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, instead of honey combs it's icebergs coming down, and that wind it's a
locomotive. You're not stopping it.
MR. TRAVER-Well I can remember as a kid when it was like that. The ground would shake.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 was just up on Cotton Point. It's all open, as I'm coming down, when you
get almost to the village you see the ice building up out there south of Diamond Island.
MRS. MOORE-You still need to adjourn your meeting.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Do we have any other business before the Board this evening? Then
we can make a motion for adjournment.
MR. DEEB-So moved.
MR. VALENTINE-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 17th,
2018, Introduced by Michael Valentine who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2018)
Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. See everybody next week, and recall that we'll have
Workplace Violence training.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
37