04-24-2018 �� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 26-2017 DDDJ Enterprises, Inc. 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.13, 208.12-1-7.2, 308.12-1-7.12
Site Plan No. 14-2018 Seavey Family Trust 2.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27
Site Plan No. 25-2018 Gerard & Peggy Bielak 13.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-46
Site Plan No. 24-2018 Jason Southwood 22.
Tax Map No. 226.8-1-8
Site Plan No. 28-2018 Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin 24.
Tax Map No 252.-1-33 (main) .252.-1-57, -56 (access)
Subdivision No. 4-2018 Clear Brook LLC 26.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6
Site Plan No. 30-2018 Adirondack Factory Outlet 32.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 & - 23
Discussion No. 2-2018 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 37.
DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 288.12-1-6; 288.12-1-8; 288.8-1-17
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.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
APRIL 24, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
MICHAEL VALENTINE
JOHN SHAFER
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board for Tuesday, April 24th, 2018. This is our second meeting for the month of April
and the 10th meeting thus far for 2018. There are some minor adjustments to the agenda I
want to advise folks of in case there are people here to hear particular applications. We do
have a couple of applications that are going to be moved or tabled. One is Site Plan 28-2018
for Randolph & Denise Bardin. They still have some details to work out. So they're going to
be tabled, and also the discussion item at the end of our agenda for Cumberland Farms has
asked to be moved to next month. They're getting some additional information to share with
us. So those two applications will not be heard tonight.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, do you still want to hear any information about the Bardin
application? Because I know the representative is here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll hear, we'll get an update before we table it. That's fine.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And then we at one point shortly will have a minor adjustment in the order of
things, but to begin with we have an Administrative Item, Site Plan 26-2017, Lot 3 West Drive,
DDDJ Enterprises.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES, INC. — REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
MR. TRAVER-They are seeking a Site Plan extension. Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has some major stormwater components that need to be
addressed yet for their project, and so they have asked to be tabled. I would table them to the
July meeting with information due by June.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and so for July we have either the 17th or the 24th. Does it matter?
MRS. MOORE-1 would do the first meeting, please.
MR. TRAVER-The first meeting. All right. So that would be a tabling motion to July 17th, 2018,
first meeting of the Planning Board in the month of July. And a June 15 submission. I'm ready
to hear that motion.
MR. DEEB-Okay. Motion to approve extension for Site Plan 26-2017 DDDJ Enterprises to the
July 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting with a June 15th submission deadline.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry I'm going to amend that completely. It's an extension. So they'll be
completed by July. I apologize for adding additional words.
MR. DEEB-So we're not tabling it.
th
MRS. MOORE-You're granting them an extension to July 17
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'u hTyY
Board it .,N ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. TRAVER-An extension to July. Okay. Thank you, Laura.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION FOR SP #26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES, INC.
The Planning Board approved Site Plan 26-2017 on May 2, 2017 for a contractor storage yard
and construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage for
contractors' yard. Project includes additional site clearing for outside storage and a new access
road from Luzerne Rd. through an easement with the adjoining lots. Project disturbs more than
an acre and is subject to a SWPPP. Project is associated with site plan modification of SP 93-
2016 parcel 308.12-1-7.2 for access. Request is made for an extension to July 17, 2018.
MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine:
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and then we move to our regular agenda. The first item of which is
Tabled Items, and the first item and the only item under Tabled Items is Seavey Family Trust,
Site Plan 14-2018.
TABLED ITEMS:
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST. AGENT(S):
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): ESTATE OF BARBARA C. BARRY. ZONING:
WR. LOCATION: 3 GLEN HALL DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A (REVISED) 1,019
SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 2,035 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE
WORK, TERRACED GRADING FROM GLEN HALL, OR WITH WALKWAYS TO NEW HOME.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15%
SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: 2006-753 DEMO OF CABIN/PORCH, AV 8-2018. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-27. SECTION: 179-
6-050 & 179-6-060
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is proposing a 1,019 square foot building. The floor area for
this building is 2,035 square feet. This project includes site work, terraced grading from Glen
Hall Drive with walkways to the new home. The project's in front of the Planning Board
because it's hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction within 50 feet of 15%
slopes. The project did receive Zoning Board approval with some conditions which I provided
to you. If you have additional questions about those conditions I think Mr. O'Connor and Mr.
Center can go through that information with the Board and I will try to fill in with any additional
information.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor. I represent the applicant
and with me at the table is Tom Center who's the engineer for the project. I think since we
were last here we have obtained engineering signoff and we also obtained variances for the
project. We were actually before the Zoning Board of Appeals twice. The second time we had
moved the building back. We have made the building compliant with the floor area ratio and we
have made the building compliant with height, and they did give us a variance. There are
certain conditions on the variance. I don't know if you've gotten them or not.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We did. We got an updated.
MR. O'CONNOR-So we're ready to answer any questions that you have.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I guess the first one that I had, you mentioned that you had
engineering signoff. Does that include the changes as a result of the ZBA discussion?
3
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. O'CONNOR-No, not that I'm aware of. I don't know that the Town felt it necessary to re-
submit.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. All right. Questions from members of the Planning Board? I
know we did have a good discussion about this. It looks like it was, there was also a good
discussion with the ZBA and the result looks to be improved from what we originally looked at.
Well, if there are no questions from the Planning Board, we do have a public hearing on this
application. Are there members of the audience that are here to discuss this application with
the Planning Board? Yes, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BERNIE GANSLE
MR. GANSLE-Good evening. My name is Bernie Gansle from 5 Glen Hall Drive. I'm the north
side neighbor, and I was one of the neighbors that was screwed last week in the Zoning Board
meeting. So I'm not real happy. The castle being proposed at 3 Glen Hall Drive is too big for
the neighborhood and it's way too big for this small lot. The Zoning Board all agreed that it was
too big for the lot, but a more reasonable size was never requested. The Zoning Board
seemed resigned that if the requestor wanted to build a house that was too big for the lot that
they had to approve it and they did approve it last week. There's no doubt that the requestor
was granted preferential treatment at my expense for my rights that I wrongly assumed would
be protected. The approved building two story castle six feet from my property line and 25 feet
from my camp. To top it off they agreed that the requestor could put the holding tanks that you
approved right in the middle of my right of way. It's not that he can't build a house there. It's
just he shouldn't be allowed to build a castle that's way too big for the lot.
MR. TRAVER-May I ask a question?
MR. GANSLE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-You attended the Zoning Board meeting it sounds like.
MR. GANSLE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And did you, was there any public discussion? Did you have an opportunity to
discuss this with them?
MR. GANSLE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Did they give you any explanation or comment at all?
MR. GANSLE-They disregarded my comments. I objected strenuously about, it was a nine foot
variance when we went into the meeting. I came out with a six foot variance. The house is six
feet from my property line.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. GANSLE-Okay. Secondly when I had my two holding tanks put in last spring, I was told by
the Town that any room that could be used for a bedroom would be considered a bedroom,
regardless of whether it had a closet. This proposed 21 square foot house is obviously a three
bedroom house, but the authorized holding tanks are only sized for two bedrooms. Based on
that, this shouldn't be approved, and I'd just like to add that if you approve this plan, I will require
you to provide an enforcement plan to prevent this house from being used as a three bedroom
house. I'd also like to add to make sure that the work plan that shows the sea wall work is
covered by a shoreline permit from the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. Thanks for
listening to my comments. I hope you do the right thing and disapprove this tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning
Board on this application?
RICHARD BURKE
MR. BURKE-My name is Richard Burke. I live on the other side.
MR. TRAVER-So you're the opposite neighbor.
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'u hTyY
Board it .,N ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. BURKE-Opposite side, 90 Hall Road. When you started this meeting there were some
amendments made at the last meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to get on the
table what you got as the changes. You made mention when we started the meeting I got this
change, that change, that change. There were five or six changes that were made at the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last Wednesday. I'd like to make sure you understand, you
say you got them, but I want to know, you know what the changes are supposedly. I want you
to confirm those changes to me. There's about five changes. There were setbacks. There
was holding tanks. I know what the changes were at the Zoning Board of Appeals. I just want
confirmation you got the same thing.
MR. TRAVER-You can be assured we have the same thing.
MR. BURKE-How do I know if you don't tell me?
MR. TRAVER-1 just did.
MR. BURKE-Tell me what they are.
MRS. MOORE-1 can read them.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. That would be fine, Laura. Thank you.
MR. BURKE-That's all I'm asking for.
MRS. MOORE-So the Zoning Board granted the approval of the application with the following
conditions: The home to be located 12 feet from the property line and six feet from the Gansle
property line. Number Two, a screening partition will be installed on the deck stairs and deck
on the Burke side of the property. Number Three, three plantings, six foot in height, to be
installed at the deck stair area on the Burke side of the property. Four, a drywell to be installed
in an area agreed upon by the neighbors near the existing right of way. Five, construction to
occur to minimize interruptions to neighbors' access to their properties and no earlier than 7
a.m. Six, well location to be evaluated based on location of the neighboring holding tanks.
MR. BURKE-The other thing I wanted to add. I'm really not that happy. I don't mind people
building house next to me but it is, basically it's only, it's 16 foot from my house. Unfortunately
my house was built back in the 1950's. It's only four foot off the property line. So we've got a
problem right there.
MR. TRAVER-And that's a common condition, as you know.
MR. BURKE-Yes, I can understand that. And we've made some accommodations moving it
over three feet, but it's an awful big house on a very small lot and there's two right of ways
behind, there's a right of way between Gansle's property and this property and there's a further
right of way up on a hill. It takes away quite a bit of the property on the back end. So it's
basically all jammed into the front part. So I just think it's too big a house and the other thing is
I wanted to make sure that the variations that were made last week were included here.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, you can be sure that when these applications go before the Zoning Board of
Appeals for review that before we see them after that process we receive all of the information
regarding what happened at the ZBA including any changes that were made, and we also have
the opportunity to review the applicant's proposal again as well.
MR. BURKE-1 just am a very skeptical person.
MR. TRAVER-That's all right. That's why we have public hearings.
MR. DEEB-These changes will also become part of the Site Plan.
MR. BURKE-1 know it's got to be in the Site Plan. I wanted to make sure that we have it right
here as part of the record of this meeting.
MR. TRAVER-We do. That's all part of the meeting.
MR. BURKE-Thank you very much.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Mr. Burke. What size house was there before it was removed?
5
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. BURKE-It was a camp, and I've lived there probably 30 years. The property's been in the
family, my wife's family, for about 50 years. It was a 600 square foot house.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MR. BURKE-And it was a camp, you know, typical camp on the lake. It was built probably
about the same time, my wife's grandparents built it, and it was 600 square foot. Basically it
was not finished on the inside, and they tore it down about 15 years ago. Didn't even have
indoor plumbing. They've still got the outhouse right next to my property. Mike saw that. He
was there the other day, but that's the kind of house it was. It was a camp, and it was one
floor, 600 square foot.
MR. TRAVER-And one of the things that we are seeing in the Town is, with these lakefront
properties that are these old camps, more and more frequently they're being turned into a year
round.
MR. BURKE-Yes, and I can understand that and I'm not opposed to that, but the problem is, I've
been there so long I can see people starting to build these monuments. They come up to Glen
Lake and they say I can't get to Lake George so I'll go to Glen Lake, the second choice, but I
want to build a nice big house on this lake, and you're going to face this problem. You've
probably faced it already many, many times and you're going to face it more in the future. How
many of these houses are you going to jam into Glen Lake? When I came there 30 years ago
that lake was much, much different than it is now, and it used to be, the houses were mostly
camps, and now you go around and you see these pretty good sized houses being built. Not
like Lake George, but people coming down to build these houses, and how many of these do
you want to jam in? How much do you want to change the character of Glen Lake? That's
what the Town's got to decide, and people on the lake have got to decide, how many changes
do you want to make? Everybody says it's for the good. Maybe I'm living in the past, but I
don't see putting these monstrous houses on these very small lots.
MR. MAGOWAN-How big is your house?
MR. BURKE-My house is 1,000 square feet.
MR. GANSLE-My house is 1200 square feet.
MR. BURKE-Basically that house that her grandparents built back in the 50's started out as a
camp, added on to it, added on to it, and it's 1,000 square feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-One or two stories?
MR. BURKE-One story and then you've got a basement that's not finished, very low basement.
You can have a workshop down there, but basically we're on one floor. It's a two bedroom
house. A big room, a great room which includes the kitchen and everything. So basically we're
a three room house with a bathroom, and that's the size house we have. It's been re-done a
couple of times.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, thank you.
MR. BURKE-Okay. Any other questions? That's it?
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Burke.
MR. BURKE-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Mr. Gansle, can I ask you a question?
MR. TRAVER-You'll need to come back to the table.
MR. DEEB-Never mind, I'll do it later.
LUCRETIA BURKE
MRS. BURKE-I'm Lucretia Burke, and I just wanted to point out a couple of things that I feel that
we as residents as well as you folks here are stewards of Glen Lake. So I'm seeing that it's
very important that we continue to care for the lake and I believe also that the house is, although
it meets the floor area ratio percentage, it still is very large. Even though it says it's a two
bedroom house, it's still at the three rooms. In fact, if you read the drawing, the den is larger
6
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
than the second bedroom but it still has three full bathrooms. So the drawing also indicates
that the tanks are sized for two bedroom seasonal. Again I'm sure that, you know, it will take
care of whatever the water is. It just is, I thought the house is so large that if I look around the
lake, either across from where I reside or go around in a boat, I don't see any other homes that
are quite as tight as what we're proposing as this fit. And so therefore it concerns me, and
lastly my foundation is a stone foundation and so as they're coming in with the bulldozers and
the backhoes it kind of makes me nervous. Because it is an old place and it does have the
fieldstone, I have a little bit of crawl space in the back, but anyway. I just wanted to point out a
couple of thoughts that I had for your consideration. So thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-No, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the
Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. So this is dated April 12th. This is addressed to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. This says, "My wife and I reside at 9 Glen Hall Drive and a
portion of our property provides access by deeded right of way to the other Glen Hall Drive
properties at the unpaved intersection with Hall Road at the bottom of our hill. Access to my
house, at the top of the hill, is by deeded right of way through the same unpaved drive that
passes through private property at 3, 5 and 7 Glen Hall Drive. This unpaved drive has been
prone to storm water run-off during severe storms that erodes the road. Prior to 2009 the Town
apparently installed two drywells on the south side of the unpaved portion of Hall Road in an
attempt to prevent the storm water from entering Glen Lake.
1) 1 am concerned about the storm water that originates from the top of the hill on Glen Hall Dr.
This storm flow has not been addressed on the revised site plan 1 storm water management
plan. The storm water flows down the west side ditch of the unpaved Glen Hall Drive, across the
3 Glen Hall property, channeling the storm water to prevent road erosion and to some extent
slow the water flow during heavy rains. After leaving the 3 Glen Hall Drive property, storm water
from that ditch then flows across my property at the bottom of the hill (i.e. still on Glen Hall Dr.)
and then crosses the intersection of the unpaved south side of Hall Rd. to two downstream
drywells (on the adjacent Johnson property). When those drywells overflow, as they did last
summer, the excess storm water crosses the unpaved road again and flows into Glen Lake via
an adjacent property driveway at 92 Hall Rd. 2) 1 am also concerned because the applicant
originally proposed a new drywell that would have picked up the flow from the ditch described
above, along the west side of unpaved Glen Hall Dr. However this drywell has now been
deleted from the latest revised site plan. The new drywell as originally proposed would have
provided additional infiltration capacity and possibly reduced the flow into Glen Lake during
heavy rainstorms. 3) My final concern is about construction equipment, delivery trucks, and
worker vehicle parking that will block Glen Hall Drive and the access to my house during the
applicant's construction. Access to the properties at 90 Hall Rd., 5, 7 & 9 Glen Hall Drive all
need to remain unblocked and maintained at all times for the residents, as well as for fire and
emergency equipment. Because of the small size of the applicant's lot, there will be continuous
issues with parking on private property and blocking access to the above properties during
construction. I would ask that if the application is approved, that a condition is included in the
ZBA motion to keep Glen Hall Drive open and access unrestricted at all times."
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we will close the public hearing and ask the applicant
to return to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-With regard to the last, the written comment, I see that one of the conditions that
was added was the effort to minimize interruptions to the neighbors. It sounds like that was
what was spoken about, but if you could address that or any of the other public comment you
heard, we would appreciate it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me address first the comments as to the holding tanks, the sizing of the
holding tanks, and the septic in general. That was submitted to the Town. It was approved by
Dave Hatin for sizing and it was approved by, later, I think the Town Engineer will serve this
property. The fellow who owns this property, someday they may sell it, but the fellow who owns
it right now lives in South Carolina That's one reason he's not here and we're here
representing him, and he's only going to be here during the summers. It's basically a summer
home, like many of the homes on Glen Lake. As to the proximity of this home to other homes,
my house is probably closer than what's proposed here on both sides. Most of the houses are,
probably a good percentage of the lots on Glen Lake, are either 50 feet wide or 50 or 60 feet
7,
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
wide. There are very, very few that meet the requirements that are presently there. On Glen
Lake you have a height restriction. You have severe setback restrictions. You have severe
floor area ratio restrictions, and this property and this project with the variances meet all those
requirements. So I think what, and it's an improvement, whether somebody feels that way or
not, it is an improvement. The septic on this property is going to be put in a holding tank and
taken off and disposed elsewhere. There's a stormwater plan that's going to be in place that's
going to take care of the stormwater on the site that's produced on the site and additionally it is
also going to take care of some of the stormwater on the adjoining properties that come down
the road. Before it gets to our property it goes through our property and then goes on to the
Burke property. When we put in the permeable pavers for the holding tanks, we had to re-
locate and park everything on the back end of the lot. So at that time the catch basin or a
drywell was taken off the plans, but if you notice the comments and the condition of the ZBA,
we've agreed to install, at our expense, a catch basin that will serve the drainage that comes
down from Mr. Mackowiak's property and Mr. Hannan. Mr. Mackowiak who is the fellow that
wrote the letter, didn't think we were going to do one, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ron.
RON MACKOWIAK
MR. MAC KOW IAK-Th at's correct. I understand that condition was put in at the ZBA. I could
not attend the Zoning Board meeting, but my understanding is there's a drywell. The big issue
is we had really heavy storms last summer. I think it was four to five inches of rain in one night.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, could you come up to the table and get this on the record? We do
take minutes of these meetings.
MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes, my name's Ron Mackowiak at 9 Glen Hall Drive. The big issue on
Glen Hall Drive is with heavy, high intensity rainfall. It tends to not only flow down the road and
erode the road, it crosses several properties. It meets the intersection of Hall Road which is all
dirt all the way. There are two drywells on the other side of Hall Road which there have been
some improvements, and my understanding is that the Town installed some time before I got
there in 2009. My concern has been right along that the heavy rainfall ultimately ends up in
Glen Lake, and that's not a good thing, and anything we can do to prevent that I believe we
should do. That's basically the comments in all of what I was talking about.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-These roads and these driveways are all private roads. They're not Town
roads. Basically this applicant has volunteered to do something that might be a municipal task
to undergo the expense of putting a drywell in which will serve other properties more than his
property. I've talked to Mr. Burke even before tonight's meeting and said we need to get
together with him and with Ron Mackowiak and locate it. That's the way that the resolution, the
condition was made. We were very willing to do that. It'll be engineered by Mr. Senate so that
it is a working drywell catch basin. So that's an improvement to the area. We also have done
stormwater management on the site, and I don't, people didn't ramble, but they went on to a
whole bunch of different points, but if you have specific comments that you want me to address,
I'm willing to address them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VALENTINE-Can I ask a question, Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Where you're talking about you haven't located that yet, you haven't picked
out a spot for that drywell to be yet, but you're considering three properties to pick up this. I
don't want to mispronounce your name. I'm sorry.
MR. MACKOWIAK-Mackowiak.
MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Mackowiak and the subject property we're dealing with.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mackowiak and then there's another property.
MR. MACKOWIAK-Seven and nine, Seven Glen Hall.
MR. VALENTINE-Can you go by names? I'm looking at the tax map with names.
MR. O'CONNOR-Hannan and then Gansle, and it goes across Gansle.
8
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then it comes to our property and then it goes to Burke, and I think Mr.
Burke's suggestion was that we put it at the intersection of his driveway and another driveway.
MR. VALENTINE-All right, near Burke's driveway and where?
MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't know the second driveway that converges.
MR. CENTER-It would be where Glen Hall Drive comes in. That area. There's a natural
channel. I was out there after the Zoning Board meeting. There's kind of a channel in the
middle of the road. If we can get that re-graded, it's a better location than we originally had
proposed to do it on Mr. Seavey's lot. This location is probably going to catch more water than
moving it up the slope where it's flatter, before it gets to those other two drywells that the Town.
MR. VALENTINE-And those two drywells are on Glen Hall?
MR. CENTER-They're on the property of Johnson, I believe. Because I believe Mr.
Mackowiak's property comes down in front of ours and Burke's and then turns into the Johnson
parcel. So this is all lands of Mackowiak and then Johnson, but we would keep the drywell
somewhere between the Burke and Mackowiak parcel.
MR. TRAVER-So that would be sited based on evaluation of the actual need. That's the best
way to do it.
MR. CENTER-We'd be working with the occupants and the neighbors and find the best place.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's basically the comments I think I need to address. Unless there's
something specific.
MR. SHAFER-1 have a question, Steve.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. SHAFER-Tom, sizing the holding tanks, there was a comment on holding tanks. The plan
says two bedroom seasonal.
MR. CENTER-That's right.
MR. SHAFER-Is it sized any different if it's seasonal or year round?
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's like you can't build a seasonal home any longer. Everything by energy
code has to be year round. Whether you're going to be using it or not using it.
MR. SHAFER-1 just wanted to get it on the record.
MR. CENTER-And that went through the Town Board of Health. It meets the Town of
Queensbury regulations. They don't recognize seasonal. It's two bedroom. A bedroom is a
bedroom.
MR. MAGOWAN-It would be sized bigger if it were a three bedroom, right?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because I'm sorry I've got a big problem with this den with three bathrooms.
All right. I'm sorry, that to me.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well you've got to look at the floor plan. If I correctly remember you have one
on the first floor level, which is natural for people that are at the lake out on the dock so they
don't have to travel through the house, and then on the second floor where you have the
bedrooms you have two up there because there's two bedrooms.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 see that, Mike, but I'm sorry, a den and two bedrooms.
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. O'CONNOR-That's an enforcement issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I feel sorry for the neighbors. Now I understand there are a lot of tight
camps up there. A lot of those camps were built like that, and you said they are tight, and we
keep encroaching on our neighbors and so someone's coming up with a seasonal and you've
got four feet on one side and six feet on the other. Would you want that on an empty lot in
between your house if it was sitting there empty for 15 years?
MR. O'CONNOR-My house is that way.
MR. MAGOWAN-It is, and that's the way you bought your camp. It's a family camp.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. I came here and got variances.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean when do we draw the line and stop? It's happening on Lake
George now we're encroaching and everything, jamming as much as we can, and I was just at a
seminar yesterday that they did on the watershed of Lake George and all that and what they're
doing to our watershed by building these houses and, yes, we're adding to the stormwater and
doing the best we can but it's still an impact, but I look at the neighbors coming and they have
1,000 square foot and 1200 square feet, and this house has got to be wedged right up on top of
them, a two story and they're all one story, and I have a problem. I have a problem with that.
Is there any way you could put that house back into that bank more, move it back up the hill?
MR. O'CONNOR-We've put it into a tunnel like position right now because the Burke property,
both of the two adjoining properties are much closer to the lake than what we propose.
MR. MAGOWAN-They've been there a lot longer.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but you take into account we've tried to adjust for them. Actually the
right hand corner of the front of the property, as you look from the lake in, is 44 feet back from
the lake. The Burke house is 37 feet. The house itself is odd because somebody one time
dug out part of the front. If you'll notice the indentation there, whether they did it for a dock or
they did it for a beach, I'm not sure what, but that exaggerated the setbacks. The variances that
we got were minimum variances, when you really look at the lot that we're dealing with, and you
say the house is very large. The house is large because you count covered porches. You
count all spaces where you've got over five feet of headroom. It's 1,019 square feet, the house
itself, two floors. So it's 2,038 square feet. Plus a porch that I think is three feet by eight feet.
That's how they get to the size of the house. I don't know if the neighbors, making a
comparison, I'm not making a comparison to them. I'm saying that we have all the variances
that are necessary. We're taking care of the stormwater. We actually moved the house in part
to save some trees. Somebody mentioned the first time we were here, we put in planting beds
in the front of the house.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're doing a nice job.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're exercising our rights that we have.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand that and I respect that, but I don't think it's fair. You've got
all these steps coming down and why it can't be moved back up in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then he would have no vision of the lake laterally. As it is right now,
particularly with the privacy fences, when we put them on the deck, you're going to have no
lateral vision from the deck to the west and that part of the lake.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well what about the neighbors? What kind of a view are they going to have
by putting up a?
MR. O'CONNOR-They asked for the privacy fence.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I understand that because it's not getting moved back further.
MR. CENTER-That was in regards to a bedroom window on their house. That had nothing to
do with the view.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we actually put only one window on the side of the applicant's house,
very much at the back of the house. So there wouldn't be any view from the house over the
line to the adjoining properties.
10
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not appeasing me, and I also have a major issue with this den on the
second floor with an undersized septic. Seasonal or not seasonal.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's not undersized.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a three bedroom.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's not. The Town has determined it's not.
MR. DEEB-All right. My comment would be, then, if you were building a one floor 1,000 square
foot home, it would blend in with the neighborhood because of the size of the other homes. It's
just you're going up to double the size of it, and that's probably because of today's standard,
building comfort and everything else. So I don't, and nonconforming lots are very hard to deal
with. We know that. So I mean I don't have a real problem with the size of the house at all. I
mean you're doing the best you can to put what you can in there, but I have to, with Brad, the
idea of the den is a little disconcerting. I mean all you have to do is throw a bed in there and
then you've got a bedroom, and we've had this issue before, a few times, and in fact we dealt
with one just a little while ago, the same thing, and I know it's been approved as a two bedroom,
but what if you had two baths instead of?
MR. O'CONNOR-Baths don't contribute to the septic at all.
MR. DEEB-I understand that. It's how many bedrooms you have, but a den can be disguised
as a bedroom, and I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm not saying that's what's going to
happen, but it does leave that open quite a bit. I mean I have a concern with that also.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments?
MR. SHAFER-Question on size. What determined the size of the house, as opposed to two
feet smaller on each dimension? What determined the size?
MR. VALENTINE-The width of the house you mean?
MR. SHAFER-The width and the length, the size.
MR. O'CONNOR-What determined it?
MR. SHAFER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well the applicant has a home like this in South Carolina, and he's trying to
build the same thing here. He's got the same floor plan and everything else, and he tells me
that's what he's trying to accomplish.
MR. SHAFER-So that's 30 by 34 as well?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe so.
MR. SHAFER-The comments also seem to relate to the size of the house. Not only by the
Board but by the neighbors as well.
MR. DEEB-I don't know about the size of the house.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we've had quite a bit of discussion on this and this is not the first
time. We reviewed this I think substantially before it went to the ZBA, and as I recall we did
make some recommendations at that time, and in the meantime the ZBA's looked at it and
made some further recommendations which the applicant has accommodated. So at this point
I really don't know how appropriate it would be to kind of, if you will, go back to the drawing
board and re-design the property when we've looked at this a couple of times already and they
have the approvals. So I understand it's an issue if you have essentially an empty lot and all of
a sudden somebody wants to put a house there. That's happened to me and I think it's a matter
of common experience, especially in Queensbury. I would much rather have vacant land all
around me, rather than, I have nothing against people, but, you know, in a way it's a kind of a
version of NIMBY, not in my backyard thing, but it is what it is, and as several have commented,
it is a trend, and, you know, it's something that we've observed. We have put down regulations
and it does require a process where the applicants have to go to the ZBA to get some
acceptance or some accommodation to the setbacks. Right now I think that's what we're faced
II
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
with. So unless there's other further questions or comments for the applicant, I think we're
ready to hear a motion.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, do you want to poll your Board members? That's something the
ZBA sometimes does.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure that it's necessary, Laura, but thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-This is a Type 11 SEQR so we have no SEQR action needed at this point. So we
have the conditions already based on the ZBA. I'm not sure if we have anything that we
wanted to add to that. I think they covered the setbacks, the screening partition, the plantings,
the drywell, which is really not for this project but for the neighborhood, and the construction to
occur to minimize interruption to neighbors. That's going to be difficult possibly at times, I
guess.
MR. O'CONNOR-On all these projects around Glen Lake they're all on small private driveways.
People have to accommodate each other. We will do what we need to do so that we don't
interrupt the neighborhood. We said that we would minimize it. We may end up parking out
on Hall Road.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think we're ready for the motion, then.
RESOLUTION (NOT) APPROVING SP # 14-2018 SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST
MOTION TO APPROVE WAS NOT PASSED BY A MAJORITY VOTE
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board, Applicant proposes a
(revised) 1,019 sq. ft. (footprint), 2,035 sq. ft. floor area home. Project includes site work,
terraced grading from Glen Hall, or with walkways to new home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-
050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and
construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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 4/24/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 04/24/2018, 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
04/24/2018;
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 14-2018 SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST; Introduced by David
Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
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;
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
1) And the conditions that were given to this Site Plan by the Zoning Board of Appeals,
including One through Six.
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
MRS. MOORE-Could I ask a question?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was waiting for a second so I could ask for a discussion, but you go ahead
first, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-It's probably the same thing. I noted that you discussed the Area Variance
conditions, those have been completed, but I wasn't sure if you were including them also in your
resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was my question.
MR. TRAVER-But they are in the record.
MRS. MOORE-They've been included in the Zoning Board resolution, but does the Planning
Board wish to have them included in the resolution of the Planning Board for Site Plan review.
MR. TRAVER-Add them as conditions to our.
MRS. MOORE-You can.
MR. TRAVER-We can certainly do that. Yes, why don't we do that. That's a good suggestion.
Even though it's already in there, we'll put it in as well. Thank you for that.
MR. SHAFER-Can I ask Laura a question?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. SHAFER-Laura, floor area ratio is what drives, they've met the floor area ratio here relative
to the house, the size of the house?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, they have.
MR. SHAFER-And that is in part because it's such a long, narrow lot, the square footage of the
lot is X and the size of the house can therefore be Y?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. Twenty-two percent of that lot determines their floor area.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the ratio is just that, the ratio.
13
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'u hTyY
Board it .,N ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right, Maria, can we have the vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-So we have four noes and three yeses, Laura?
MS. GAGLIARDI-Four noes and three yeses.
MR. TRAVER-So the motion fails. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under Old Business, and we are moving the
first two items under Old Business.
MRS. MOORE-Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Ethan was able to make it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. I stand corrected. We are going to stay with the original agenda.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-So Maria just reminded me of some of the processes when something gets,
there's not enough votes to carry. What past Boards have done, I believe, is actually made the
motion for denial and gone through that process, but again, you have to process that request
and be as detailed as possible. In the past we have done, if we've done a denial we've also
requested assistance from counsel.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay, and the applicant did not request a tabling, either.
MRS. MOORE-No, not at the same time.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the same comment we were making. It wasn't denied. It just
didn't pass.
MRS. MOORE-It just didn't pass.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is something very different.
MR. VALENTINE-So they can come back with a modified plan, then.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-That's what I was assuming. The ball's in their court now to work with you and
your Staff to come up with something that's going to be heard again.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So, yes. All right.
MS. WHITE-We've never done that before, since I've been sitting.
MR. TRAVER-This particular Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's very rare.
MR. TRAVER-Especially when we've already looked at it and made comments and then they've
gone with what we've given them to the ZBA and then come back. It's unusual for them, for us,
if you will to move the goal post and say now we've got new comments. In any case, we are
moving on to the next section of our agenda which is Old Business. The first item being Gerard
& Peggy Bielak, Site Plan 25-2018.
OLD BUSINESS:
14
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
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 OF ATTACHED GARAGE AND OTHER SITEWORK. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NOW
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26-1996, BP'S 99-040, 98-722, 96-
350 ADDITIONS; BP 97-131 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
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 1,598 square foot addition. This includes an
attached garage, an outside porch area, an enclosed porch area, covered porch entry, outdoor
kitchen area. This totals approximately 903 square feet. The existing home is 3,781 square
feet, and the proposed floor area in total is 6,629 square feet. This also includes an area above
the garage that at this time is going to be used for storage and potentially in the future to be
used as bedrooms. The applicant is aware that if it comes back for bedrooms it's subject to a
building permit and septic compliance.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you. Welcome back.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture.
With me tonight is Gerry Bielak, owner of the property at 99 Seeley Road. We were here
obviously last week. We spoke to you briefly about it. We made a couple of modifications to
the plan in conjunction with talking to the neighbor to the south to increase the side yard setback
from what we had originally requested. We increased it by two and a half feet. So we
increased out to 13 foot 7 inches from our side yard setback, requesting six feet five inches of
relief, which was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. We further talked about some
landscaping and some things that are going to be done to that portion of the south to mitigate
the stormwater on its way down to the lake by doing some terracing and providing some
additional plantings along there to slow that water as it's coming down the backside. I've
spoken with Laura in the last couple of days. One of the requirements that you folks had asked
for the first time when we were in here was a stormwater management report. Trying to pull all
that together in a week just isn't possible. So we will provide that. I spoke with Laura about it
today. I've spoken with my civil engineer. He is going to pull that together. I've gone back
and re-visited the total area of disturbance. Like I said I have just drawn a line around
everything. If I go back and actually look at it my actual area of disturbance is 15,560 square
feet. So I'm 560 feet beyond that line. I think I could probably tweak it and get it under 1500,
but at this point it is what it is. So we'll go forward with that, and as a condition, you know,
hopefully a condition of approval we will be providing a stormwater management report.
MR. TRAVER-Well that's also a condition to get engineering signoff.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Which you need for approval. So in our discussion as you pointed out the first
time around you did adjust the building somewhat.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And were there any other changes in the plan from what we discussed as a result
of your process through the ZBA?
MR. HALL-No.
MR. TRAVER-No. Okay. All right. Very good. Then I'll open it up to the Planning Board for
questions and comments. We did look at this fairly thoroughly the first time around.
MR. MAGOWAN-Were you able to get any, I don't want to say test pits but did you do some
probing up there?
15
Board ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HALL-We have not yet. We're waiting to get Rubin Ellsworth on site to dig us a hole and
poke around a little bit, but that will obviously be part of the stormwater management report.
That all has to get done as well.
MR. SHAFER-Remind us of the timing from five to eight or nine bedrooms.
MR. HALL-It will not take place immediately. Again, it's the same issue that you had with your
past. If we had just shown an open space above it and called it storage, somebody would have
said, hey, that can be bedrooms. We'd rather come in and tell you it's going to be, show you it
can be bedrooms and tell you it's going to be storage. We understand that if that action takes
place at some point down the road that the septic system has to be modified for that. There's
plenty of room on the site up above where the existing septic is to do that. It's a matter of
upsizing the pump station and putting in a larger septic system.
GERARD BIELAK
MR. BIELAK-I have to have a conversation with my kids and whether or not they ever have
grandchildren. Right now we don't have that.
MR. SHAFER-So now it'll be just open space?
MR. HALL-Right now it's just storage. There is no basement to this building at all. There's a
very small crawl space under a front portion of it, but beyond that it slips right back into the dirt.
So there's no basement storage. So this space above the garage is all storage.
MR. TRAVER-As I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong from our original discussion, this is almost
a staging area for the moving process. Right?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-You were going to move things into there and then move in, and when that was
done, when it was empty, or it will probably never be empty, at least my storage has never been
empty, but at some point then you need to say are we just going to leave it as storage.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-That's what I thought I remembered.
MR. MAGOWAN-So with the addition, how many bedrooms are you adding?
MR. HALL-With the total there would be four added above the garage with this plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's if you change over, but as of what you have now, your septic now is?
MR. HALL-It's the same number of bedrooms. We're just moving things around.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're moving bedrooms.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-I just, I don't like the idea of, kind of like we just went through with the den.
And I'm hoping that and, you know, I know you would. You would come back and face
because you know penalties will come, but I mean what can we do to maybe, while we're doing
all this construction and digging and everything, wouldn't it behoove you to?
MR. HALL-We can make that, you can make that contingent. We will show the design for the
full size. There's just no sense in putting it in now if it's not necessary. I mean there's no
sense in upsizing the septic, upsizing the pump station, if there's not additional bedroom space
there now. We can certainly show it on the plan. I have no problem showing the septic calcs
for what's going to be required to do that. We know there's plenty of room on the property to do
it. It's just a matter of going through and doing the calculation.
MR. TRAVER-As I recall this is one of the larger lots in the area.
MR. HALL-It is an acre. Yes, it is one acre on the waterfront. It is one of the larger lots in
there. We purposely did not go any farther forward towards the lake. All of our work is being
done behind it. The deck expansion stays within the 50 foot buffer.
16
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. SHAFER-And the current wastewater system can handle five bedrooms?
MR. HALL-Yes, it is designed to do that. It is a pump up system and it comes into the septic
tank behind the house, goes from there into an effluent chamber and is pumped up towards the
top of the lot, and there's enough room beyond that to increase the size of the existing two-fold.
So we can make it double the size that it is now.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you're not really going further out toward the lake, but you're going to
have on your stormwater plan to contain and nothing going east.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or south.
MR. HALL-Or south.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we open the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the Site Development Data Sheet, Page Three of the
application. You show the proposed maximum height of 31 feet 6 inches.
MR. HALL-You weren't here when we discussed it the first time.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I wasn't.
MR. HALL-Yes, the proposed is shown as 31' 6". When I initially made the application, if you
look at our elevation, I had measured from lowest point on existing grade to the highest point of
the proposed structure, and that winds up at 31 feet 6 inches. In talking with Craig and Laura,
because we dropped everything else down, we've dug it in, they're considering existing grade at
the existing garage not at the front of the existing lot. So we dug it down, dropped it down and
are 28 feet to the top of that. I corrected it verbally when we were here the last time. We spoke
about it. You still have the paperwork that shows it at 31 feet 6 inches.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are
there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I see one hand. Yes,
sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK MC COLLISTER
MR. MC COLLISTER-Good evening. I'm Mark McCollister. My wife Linda and I own 103
Seeley Road, which is the property immediately to the south. As I mentioned in the last
meeting we're also concerned about stormwater management and I think most of my concerns
probably will be addressed by that, but my principle concerns are what has been talked about a
drywell, but I, (lost words) semi permeable asphalt drive. Again, I don't see anything in the plan
about that. It has been talked about gutters on the south side of the property line and there's
nothing in the Site Plan about that, but I'd like to see those addressed if possible. Perhaps that
will come up in the report that was submitted to you. When that report becomes available, will
that be available to the public and how will we know when that's been completed?
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-That information will be available through FOIL request. In this case depending
on what occurs with the Planning Board review, a decision process tonight, it may be placed on
the applicant, on the laser fiche, public access to the website, and just calling Staff as to when
the report is submitted.
MR. MC COLLISTER-I guess I'd like to have some confirmation that these concerns have been
addressed, or at least well considered. The other item is with regard to the septic. I know that
the septic has been deemed compliant. In talking to Laura, the architect is able to make the
determination. Back in 2004 we had a small addition on our house, 40 square feet. It
triggered a septic inspection and it was determined that our septic, which is well back of the
property towards Seeley Road, at least as far back at Bielak's, was not sufficiently above
groundwater level to pass and we had to put in an elevated septic field. It was about 40 inches
I think, but my concern is has that testing been done? Have the test pits been dug and perc
1.71
Il, ir'u ir'u a ir'u h"Y Board ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
tests been taken to determine that this is compliant from the standpoint of number of bedrooms?
So how do we get that kind of information?
MR. TRAVER-Well, we'll hear from the applicant, Number One. The other thing I would offer
just in general as to your concerns and questions is that the application does require a signoff
by the Town Engineer that the issues that you've raised, not necessarily the specific design that
you might be advocating, but that with regards to stormwater that stormwater meets the criteria
required by the Town. Septic is a Board of Health as you probably know from your own
experience. That also has to be demonstrated to be satisfactory before a Certificate of
Occupancy and so on can occur, but the applicant really will address your public comments.
MR. MC COLLISTER-I'm not having any (lost words). I'm not having just telling you what we
experienced. And we're basically at the same elevation, same grade as they are. We had to
elevate it 40 inches. Maybe I put too much faith in putting in a new field. I didn't have a choice
at the time, and the other item came up tonight that I hadn't even thought about that is a
concern, we just haven't talked about it is interruption during the construction period. Being
right next door a major part of this construction is going to take place close to our property line,
and I think if I recall the submission said the project would run from like September 3 to April of
next year. I presume the parking can be contained within the property and not be out on
Seeley Road. I don't know what hours can be limited in terms, but if they're starting at 6:30,
7:00 o'clock every morning with heavy equipment and power tools, that's an inconvenience to
say the least.
MR. TRAVER-Well we can certainly address that.
MR. MC COLLISTER-I appreciate that. That's all I had. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on
this? Yes, sir.
JIM WHITE
MR. WHITE-My name's Jim White and I live across the street from the Bielak's at 104 Seeley
Road, and I have an adjacent piece of property that goes right straight down alongside his
property to the lake. I own that piece of property where I dock my boats. I've been, I came to
that area in 1974 when I first stepped onto the Bielak property with one of the original owners.
I've seen the street develop over the years and I just want to make one statement before I talk a
little bit more about Gerry's project. I have found in the last 10 years the houses that have
been re-done have been re-done in such a high engineering efficiency that the stormwater has
been improving. The septic has been improving, and probably the real problem are the older
camps that haven't been done, and the new technology and septic systems that's available to
the Town and the Town engineering and the way they design stuff, it really is helping the lake.
As for the lake itself, yes, we have had a problem since I ended up in the lake in 1974 I've seen
changes in the lake, but I mean people buy properties, they want to improve them, and I'm
really happy with the Town and the Zoning Board and their engineering department the way
you're looking at these projects and approving them. The engineers do a good job. The Town
Engineers do a good job. The Building Inspectors do a good job. You guys are doing your
due diligence and approving this stuff when it needed to be approved an asking the appropriate
questions. Specifically the Bielak property, I've loved it. I've had an opportunity to buy next to,
two houses down when it was an empty lot, two houses down the other direction when it was an
empty lot. I'm across the street and I've stayed across the street. I have a nice home and
believe that Gerry, with the drawings that I've seen, are going to be, it's going to be a beautiful
asset to the neighborhood. Right now we have three other projects, two other projects that
they're working on on Seeley Road right now and they will also be very nice projects that'll help
improve the quality of the water of the lake because of the upgrading of the septic systems and
the people that are moving into those areas are people that want to be on the lake and are
concerned about the lake. So I'm really excited that these properties are getting fixed up and
the people are enjoying them at what's necessary for a nice community to have good people
living on your street, and the Bielak family's a wonderful family. They'll be an asset to our
neighborhood and I'm really excited that they're actually going to be spending more time not
less time in their new home. Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. White, you had a letter to be read into the record.
MR. WHITE-My wife's letter?
18
Board ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want me to still read that into the record?
MR. WHITE-You can read it.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-First let me ask if there's anybody in the audience that wanted to address the
Planning Board on this project. I'm not seeing anyone. So, Laura, I suspect you already have
some written comment.
MRS. MOORE-1 have some written comment. So I have this one addressed to the Queensbury
Town Board. This was written on April 15, 2018. "We are writing in strong support of the
Bielak project on Seeley Road in Cleverdale Jerry and Peggy are very good neighbors and
good friends. We know their home on Lake George is important to them and their close
extended family. Their planned improvements will enhance their year-round enjoyment of their
home and of the neighborhood. We are fortunate to have a number of year-round residents on
our street. It creates a strong sense of community and safety which does not exist in other
lakeside areas. Jerry has been training for the past two years as a volunteer firefighter. We
are grateful for his commitment to the community through his service. Their planned property
improvements will bring the former Boy Scout Camp Lodge back to life. We hope you will
endorse their thoughtful planned renovations, as we do. Sincerely, Jim & Beth White 104
Seeley Road" Another letter dated April 8th. This is addressed to myself. "I'm writing this
letter to support the Bielak project. I have been a neighbor of the Bielak's for the past 10 years.
They have been upstanding citizens and I am lucky to have them as neighbors. They have
discussed their plans with me and have my full support. Their project to renovate will be a real
plus. I believe this project will enhance our community and will be a benefit to the entire
neighborhood" This is Joel Daly. And then the next one is addressed to myself also. "My
name is Todd Mahony. I live at 87 Seeley Road in Cleverdale. We are out of town and unable
to make the Planning and Zoning meetings next week. The Bielak's have been kind enough to
share their plans with my wife and I are we are in full support of the improvements that they
want to do to their property." And this is Todd Mahony, 87 Seeley Road.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Is that the end of the written comments?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing, then, and
welcome the applicant back to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-You heard some public comment. There was a lot of concerns expressed to sort
of verify if you will the engineering plans. Can you make any comment on that?
MR. HALL-Yes. Absolutely. We are willing to provide our stormwater report to the neighbors
so that they can see a copy of it. We can certainly let them, you know, give them copies of
everything that's being provided to the Town so that they don't have to go chase it down not
knowing when it's going to be there. We can certainly provide that to them and discuss it with
them. We have no problem with that. As far as hours of operation for construction, the
Bielak's don't want to start this until after this summer season. They want to be able to enjoy
the camp and not have it disrupt anybody else. So starting it in the fall after the season's kind
of started to slow down, the days get shorter, you can't start quite as early as you could in the
summertime. So I think the hours of operation, the noise restrictions that the Town has in place
can't start before 7:30, 8:00 o'clock.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure if we have noise regulations, but if you want to offer that construction
would not begin before 7:30.
MR. HALL-Yes, we're good with that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That takes care of that, and then what time in the evening? What about?
MR. HALL-Again it starts getting dark fairly early. Five o'clock?
MR. TRAVER-Five o'clock.
MR. HALL-7:30 to 5. If I could get all contractors to work like that.
I")
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MS. WHITE-There was a question in relationship to parking as well.
MR. HALL-There's plenty of room on the upper side of the lot for that. We're not really
disturbing a lot of that space as they come in. I know that down on the corner of Seeley where
they've done that big project that's out on the point, there were times when all the contractors
were there that it got a little tight going through there. Again, I know for the year round
residents it's more of an issue. In the summertime obviously there's a lot more traffic, but after
Labor Day a lot of that slows down. So there's plenty of parking up above, away from where
our space is going to be. So you can make it a condition that we won't park on the road.
MR. TRAVER-One thing I would just point out to put on your many lists of things to do is if
you're going to be parking on the site during the off season you want to make sure that you've
made plans for snow removal so that you have some place. Otherwise you're going to end up
parking on the road.
MR. HALL-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And as far as septic confirmation, in talking to Gerry while this was going
on, Gerry's agreed we'll do the septic design for the total of the building as part of this. So we
will provide that as part of this, rather than wait.
MR. BIELAK-We're going to dig a hole and do whatever we've got to do.
MR. HALL-Size the system now, get it sized.
MR. TRAVER-For the five bedroom.
MR. HALL-For the nine. We'll get the septic system installed for the whole thing.
MR. TRAVER-Nine.
MR. HALL-We'll get it sized and installed for the whole thing.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay.
MR. HALL-So that way it'll be significantly oversized for what they're planning to put in, but we'll
take care of it so that it's not a question in the future.
MR. SHAFER-And that will deal with the neighbor's issue of seasonal high groundwater.
MR. HALL-Yes. We have to take care of that anyway. We've reviewed all the pump outs.
We've reviewed the pump station information and all of the information that was put in when the
system was installed. We've been through all that and met all the criteria.
MR. SHAFER-And I think there was a comment about driveway type of material. What is the
permeable?
MR. HALL-We are planning on it just being straight asphalt, but we do have a catch basin
drywell that we're picking all that up and getting it into the ground rather than allowing it to
runoff.
MR. TRAVER-And the stormwater will address that.
MR. HALL-The stormwater report will address that, yes.
MR. SHAFER-Regular asphalt as opposed to?
MR. HALL-Regular asphalt as opposed to permeable. Yes. Our issue with permeable
pavement is if it's not maintained properly it doesn't work and it's a constant maintenance, and
our site coverage doesn't, you know, we're not over our site coverage. If we were close on our
site coverage that would be something that we could discuss, but the site coverage isn't, we're
not getting close enough to the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you talk at all about the generator?
MR. HALL-The existing generator?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is that a propane generator?
"0
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. BIELAK-It is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was just wondering if there were any concerns from any of the
neighbors about where it's located because it's so close to the property line. You did a great job
with getting it away from your house, but maybe not such a great job of getting it away from your
neighbors.
MR. HALL-Yes. It's behind the shed and behind the adjoining neighbor's shed. So it's really
kind of inconspicuous. It's kind of behind everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well if your neighbor's not concerned about it, that's why I brought it up.
MR. HALL-Yes, it's away from the house and up towards the top and behind the shed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because they can be noisy, you know. And you have the garage and the
shed to buffer it from your own house, but I didn't know if the neighbor had that same buffer.
MR. HALL-Yes. It's buffered by their shed and there's actually a smaller one in front of it. I
don't think it's been an issue with anybody, and it's not a huge generator.
MR. TRAVER-In a way it's kind of counterintuitive because when the power goes out and I
actually hear the generator it's a reassuring sound. I don't want to hear it all the time, but when
I do hear it I go, it works.
MR. VALENTINE-Ethan last week I asked and you told me that a Mr. White spoke, that's an
access easement for lake frontage for him.
MR. HALL-Not an easement, he owns it.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes. Okay.
MR. HALL-Yes, it's an access way.
MR. VALENTINE-Your topo, your proposed topo's tied in on your lot as far as what's existing.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-But it does show a swale running down his little 10 foot, I'll call it a stem there.
You'll have fencing going around during construction?
MR. HALL-We don't actually get over onto Jim's property with our grading.
MR. VALENTINE-No, I know that. That's what I'm saying.
MR. HALL-Yes. There'll be construction fencing to keep people from getting down on there
MR. VALENTINE-Your grading comes down, as you get closer to the lake it goes into the corner
closer to his little 10 foot strip.
MR. HALL-Yes, we're close. We're probably 10 or 15 feet off the line. Yes, but, yes, there's
going to be not only silt fence on the property but we'll put up a construction fence along that as
well. Owner safety. Absolutely.
MR. VALENTINE-One more question.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, go ahead.
MR. VALENTINE-Can you describe, I may have missed this, the groundwater elevation issue.
You haven't done test pits out there yet?
MR. HALL-We've not.
MR. VALENTINE-But you won't know until that point what that groundwater elevation is.
MR. HALL-Correct, and we'll take all that into account in the stormwater report.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. All right.
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
MR. TRAVER-Let's see. We've closed the public hearing. This is SEQR Type II. Anything
else from the Board before we read the resolution? Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #25-2018 GERARD & PEGGY BIELAK
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board. 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.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/24/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 04/24/2018, 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
04/24/2018;
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 25-2018 GERARD & PEGGY BIELAK; Introduced by
David who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the
building and site improvements;
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
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
1) Stormwater management report to be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer.
m) Construction not to begin before 7:30 a.m. and will end by 5:00 p.m.
n) Septic design will be submitted for final design plan including nine bedrooms.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under Old Business we have 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. CROSS REFERENCE: 93128-1132
DEMO; 93273-3287 SF W/GARAGE; SP 51-2012 DECK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
MARCH 2018. SITE 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-So this applicant requests approval of an already constructed 240 square foot
porch addition used as a sunroom. The applicant received relief for floor area setbacks and
height relief at the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Jason Southwood.
With your recommendation we went to the Zoning Board. After beating Jason up a little bit they
did grant the variances as was appropriate. You had asked us last week to come back with
some photos of the existing drywell and that's what Jason has. He has the existing drywell
boxes there and he has the additional pipe going into it from the new roof. So that was the only
information that you had asked us to supply in addition.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you for that. Your variance was granted. As a result of your
interaction with the ZBA, were there any changes required in your plan?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-The only one I have is what did we learn here?
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Come to you guys first.
MR. MAGOWAN-Good answer.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, good answer. If there are no other comments before the public hearing,
then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
k':k"3
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
audience that wanted 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's no written comments in the Planning Board file. There were written
comments of support that the applicant supplied to us at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I
apologize I don't remember all their names. I'll just ask Jason to relay those names to us.
MS. WHITE-All positive comments?
MRS. MOORE-They were all positive. Yes.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-My neighbors to, my direct neighbors to the south, Bill an Ann Mathers.
They're in support of it. John Markert and his wife Margaret, neighbors to my north, 390
Cleverdale, they're in support of it, and Freddie Alexy. He's further away in the point he was in
favor of it, too. They were all in favor of it. I actually have neighbors across the street also that
are in favor of it.
MR. TRAVER-Good. It's better to have people writing in favor of it.
MS. WHITE-The photographs should go back to Laura for the file.
MR. TRAVER-We'll go ahead and close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-For SEQR consideration this is a SEQR Type 11 so no further action is required.
Any further comments from the Board before we hear a motion? I'm not hearing any so I guess
we're ready to go.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #24-2018 JASON SOUTHWOOD
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 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.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/24/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 04/24/2018, 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
04/24/2018;
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 24-2018 JASON SOUTHWOOD; 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.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. SOUTHWOOD-Thank you.
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The last item under Old Business is Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin which we
anticipate tabling, but we'll receive some additional information this evening.
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. 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 received their approval for road frontage at the Zoning Board of
Appeals the other night. The applicant did a site analysis with others, delineated the APA
wetland boundary and come to find out it is within 100 feet. It's actually 82 feet from the
wetland. So that triggers our wetland application process. So the applicant needs to complete
the wetland permit and come back to the Board because we need to re-advertise that
information, noting that there's a wetland issue. So in turn tabling. We can potentially put this
application in the first May meeting if the Board would like to do that. I think there's additional
information the applicant would like to share with the Board.
MR. TRAVER-So that would be, I'm sorry you said the first meeting in May/
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So that would make it the 15th. Tuesday, May 15th. Good evening.
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board. Thank you, again, for having us. Lucas
Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and with me one of the applicants, Denise Bardin. As Laura
said they had a good week last week and got our lack of road frontage variance, and pursuant
to our discussions with this Board we mobilized the wetlands biologist specialist, Nick Basile,
who's the Vice President of Environmental Solutions and Innovations, which is a pretty
impressive company once I researched them. He's a local guy out of Gansevoort and he's the
Vice President of the company, and a friend of the Bardin family and he was able to get up there
on Friday and delineate our wetlands which are in green that Randy, her husband, land
surveyor located them. We mapped them up Monday, and as Laura said we came up just a
touch short right in this portion. So it amounts to about 850 square feet within that 100 foot
adjacent area. We've talked about re-locating the driveway and it would mess up our road
grades a little bit through there. We'd have more cuts into the side. We'd prefer to keep it
where it is, and just keep chipping away at this project and attack our engineering comments
and as Laura said if we do have to table it we'd like to come back as soon as we can so we can
keep the process moving.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DOBIE-We've got some engineering work to do. We're going to tighten things up a little
more, and we can bring our stormwater a little closer to the house and maintain a further
separation to the wetlands. So just if I could have just a couple of clarifications. The main thing
is would the Board like us to re-submit our plans if we're able to update the things for the
Chazen comments this week? Would the Board like to see the latest and greatest plans before
the next meeting or how would we like to handle that?
MR. TRAVER-Depending upon what you have available I would work with Laura on that. I
would say, and I'm just speaking for myself. I think I can speak for everybody, we do prefer to
have the accurate information for the subject at hand. So if what we're looking at does not
represent changes that you've made, if you could provide those changes to us in advance, that
certainly would be very, very helpful on our part, but I would work with Laura's office with regard
to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I imagine your question on that is mostly because of the application
deadline?
MR. DOBIE-Correct. I didn't want to show up at the last minute with fresh plans and offend
anybody.
MR. TRAVER-1 would just keep your lines of communication open with Laura. She'll provide
you with guidance on that.
MR. DOBIE-And then just our other thing. Once I dug deeper through Chapter 94, the
Freshwater Wetlands Permit, I was unclear whether that 100 foot adjacent area applies within
the Adirondack Park because it's a little unclear under Section 94-18. So we asked that to
Staff, Laura or Craig, and I'd like to just ask Laura if she could explain that so I can
communicate it properly.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Chapter 94, there's a language in there that says if it's jurisdictional APA
wetlands, you're doing work in that wetland, then there's no jurisdiction. The local community
wouldn't have jurisdiction. I understand that if you read a little bit further into that section
there's, where the APA grants those entities that have an approved land use plan grants them
review authority. In this case we have the review authority of work within the adjacent area to
the wetland, not the work within the wetland.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything else?
MR. DOBIE-No, and just I didn't know if you were going to open the public hearing. I don't
think there's anybody here to comment on it, but if there was we'd like to hear that. Thank you
very much.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we will. Any comment, questions from members of the Board?
MR. VALENTINE-Just one. With the permit area, is that going to be a cut or a fill area where
that?
MR. DOBIE-That is just a touch of fill just for the edge of the road and then a culvert outfall.
"6
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? And we do have a public hearing on this application, though it is
going to be tabled. We will open the public hearing and ask if there is anyone here that wanted
to address the Planning Board? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-So I guess what we will do is leave the public hearing open pending the tabling
and we do have a tabling resolution and we're looking at a May 15th date to hear this applicant
again. So I guess we're ready for that motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we go back to the question about submission dates, is there a concern,
Laura/
MRS. MOORE-I deliver packets sometime next week. I was going to work with the applicant to
see what the status was. There's, I have final agenda this week. So I'll work with the applicant
to determine if it's this Friday or sometime probably Tuesday or Wednesday of next week may
work. So it's really if it's this plan, that information can be shared with the Board. If there's
some more technical detail, that may be a later date item that the Staff could work with the
applicant.
MR. DOBIE-Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman, that I forgot on my list?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DOBIE-With regards to the delineation of the wetlands, we don't do a lot of wetland work in
the Town. Is that acceptable having a professional consultant? I'm very comfortable that we
show. I just didn't want to get here at the last minute.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Because there was a variance associated with it the whole project is
sent to the APA and they'll have their review process, their required review process will kick in
for the project. I don't foresee any issues, but if they have any outstanding issues with the
delineation they would see it at that time.
MR. DOBIE-Okay. Very good.
MR. SHAFER-Laura, isn't there an educational and/or experience requirement for being able to
designate wetlands?
MR. VALENTINE-Well, there is certification, but you're saying professional?
MRS. MOORE-They're a certified entity.
MR. TRAVER-I would think so.
MR. DOBIE-I believe it's certified. I don't know if it's a true licensed professional.
MR. VALENTINE-No, there isn't, but certification.
MR. TRAVER-So, Jamie, we're going to be looking at a motion to table this until the May 15th
meeting. So we're ready to entertain that motion.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP #28-2018 RANDOLPH, JR. & DENISE BARDIN
The applicant has submitted an application 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.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 28-2018 RANDOLPH JR. & DENISE BARDIN TO THE MAY
15, 2018 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Whereas, the application is subject to further review for a freshwater wetlands permit.
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'u hTyY
Board it .,N ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in a few weeks, I guess.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move under New Business. The first item being Clear
Brook, LLC, Subdivision Sketch Plan 4-2018.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 4-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. CLEAR BROOK, LLC.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EXCESS LAND LLC. ZONING:
WR. LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 15 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION OF 148.6 ACRE PARCEL WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FRO 2.28 ACRES
TO 48.8 ACRES. PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF NORTHWAY OVERLAY
ZONE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF
LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION:
NORTHWAY OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE; 148.6 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6.
SECTION: CHAPTER 183.
TOM HUTCHINS, DENNIS PHILLIPS, & GEORGE STORY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 15 lot residential subdivision of 148.6 acres with
lots ranging from 2.28 to 48.8 acres. The project is within 500 foot of the Northway Overlay
Zone which requires all residential development to be outside that 500 foot boundary line. The
applicant has provided some drawings that you have in place that shows the boundary that this
is triggering is actually the Northway rest stop area which is the physical Northway itself. So
there's some additional information I've provided in the Staff Notes about variances that may
also be triggered for this project, but I'll let the applicant go through the subdivision at the Sketch
Plan stage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So just to clarify, it says Sketch Plan, but in our packet it talks about a
SEQR resolution and a Planning Board decision.
MRS. MOORE-There's not either. I apologize.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just to clarify. All right. So we are at pure Sketch Plan stage. Good
evening. Welcome.
MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips and to my left is Tom Hutchins who
I'm sure you all know, and to my right is George Story who is involved with the LLC that is the
applicant in this case. So we are looking for a sense of the Board relative to a plan that involves
the Northway Overlay district, and Tom Hutchins is going to talk about the plan to begin with
and then I'm going to talk about the Overlay district. So I'll turn this over to Tom at this time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-What we've put together at this point is a concept plan. We're here for Sketch
which shows 15 residential lots over the 145 acre parcel, and again this is a WR zone which this
is a little bit of an unusual parcel for a WR zone.
MR. TRAVER-I'll say.
Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HUTCHINS-We've shown the 15 lots ranging in size from 2.9 acres to 45 acres and they're
compliant for width. We're able to identify a building envelope on each lot although we haven't
shown them at this point. We've identified a building location on each lot. They're compliant
for width. We're able to meet boundary setbacks. Our soils are supportive of residential
development. There's actually a, this is in the Queensbury water district. This is our parcel.
There's a water line coming right down through and it actually goes across this parcel and under
the Hudson River to the Town of Moreau. So that water line runs on an easement across this
parcel. So there's Town water. There is fire protection and certainly anything we're going to
do is not going to impact the easement that the Town water line runs across. There are lots,
and, Laura, can you put up the one with the? Our lots are, initially starting at the northwest
corner of the parcel, our lots are 150 feet wide or wider. They are long lots. Again, this is a
two acre zone. Most of those long lots are in the six acre range, five and a half to six acres,
and 150 feet wide or wider, and then as we get down in this area we've split the leftover lots into
much larger lots. There is an area in there that's floodplain of the Hudson River, and that has
been mapped by elevation. There's a fair amount of land that's within the floodplain and that
will ultimately require a little bit more detailed study and where precisely in that area we end up
with a building site will be determined at a later phase in this, and if we keep moving forward.
Now the Northway boundary that, really the reason we're here is to get some input on this
Northway boundary, and this line that you see right there it's kind of, it's arched on both sides, is
a 500 foot offset from the right of way of the Northway and that right of way of the Northway
takes a, we call it the bulge. It takes a bulge out around what is the rest area of the Northway.
The original right of way of the Northway is shown right here before the rest area, and it runs on
the Northway side of the road. So were the rest area not there we wouldn't have this issue.
With the extended right of way we have an issue being able to maintain the 500 feet to that, to
that right of way which is this line here, and again the Ordinance says no residential subdivision
within that 500 feet. We've identified building sites that are outside that 500 feet, but.
MR. TRAVER-Isn't the 500 foot issue related to automotive fumes and that type of thing? Isn't
that the reason originally behind it?
MR. HUTCHINS-That's some of the intent that's mentioned in there, and again the 500 feet
from the original right of way or the travel lanes is just on the Northway side of the road. So
we've got a little bit of a quandary with regard to that overlay district and we intend to request a
variance from that stipulation of the Code. However in order to ask for a variance for a
subdivision we're in a position where it would come to this Board first anyway and we're just
looking for a little bit of feedback before we initiate a fairly extensive effort to get an answer to
that question.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, understood.
MR. HUTCHINS-And with that, Dennis, anything you want to add?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. I just want to mention the Ordinance, because, you know, the Ordinance
addresses residential development that would be in close proximity to the Northway, and in this
case I would distinguish a little bit between subdivision and development in the sense that the
subdivision actually would be putting lines through this Overlay district, but for the most part with
the exception of a couple of lots as they've been initially laid out, the development would not be
within the Overlay district. It would be beyond the Overlay district, and I thought that because,
in a case like this, where you can separate the subdivision versus the development, we're
probably within the spirit of the Overlay district anyway in the sense that living quarters and
development would not be unsafe and unhealthy. You look at Big Boom Road as being kind of
the natural barrier. You look at Big Boom Road as being kind of the natural barrier anyway
because everything would be to the east of Big Boom Road, which is already there, and then as
far as the noise issue, the hydrocarbon pollutant issue, the dust issue and the other particulate
issue, there will be a buffering, not only because of the Northway rest stop, there's a lot of
natural vegetation at the rest stop and Big Boom Road, and then once you come on to this
property's side of the road, there would be even more buffering. It's a wooded area right now.
So we think that, although we have this bulge issue, nevertheless if we did a subdivision here
with lines through the setback with development beyond the setback in the qualifying area, with
the exception of maybe two lots which remains to be seen, we would be within the spirit of this
Ordinance.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Questions, comments from the Planning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you anticipate that people that would develop these lots would put
their house closer to the river and have a 1200 foot driveway?
MR. PHILLIPS-Tom, why don't you talk about that.
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HUTCHINS-1 thank that's, in some of the lot cases that may be the case. We may look at
shared driveways, if that were the case, along some of the longer ones, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So my initial impression on the subdivision is personally I'm not too
concerned with the 500 foot setback as much as I was the lot layout. I don't like the lot layout,
long skinny lots, and if you're sort of acknowledging that the development is going to much
further down towards the river, wouldn't it be much better to come up with a plan that would
recognize that, maybe take that into account. I mean I'd rather see more lots and have the lots
wider than these long skinny ones, but that's just my own opinion.
MR. VALENTINE-In looking at it the thought is that it's an easy way to develop. You've already
got the road frontage. You just drop lots off and you go. It brings into question when you do
develop it that 500 foot really doesn't come into play because if you're developing some of those
waterfront lots, the houses are going to go back towards the waterfront anyhow. So there's no
need, I'm not saying to not consider, but the Overlay doesn't come into play really.
MR. TRAVER-Well it doesn't because it can't touch the subdivision line, according to the strict
reading of the regulation.
MR. DEEB-It's still there.
MR. VALENTINE-You could separate it off. You could do a conservation subdivision at some
point.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I see what you're saying. Other comments?
MR. SHAFER-Tom is the Northway Overlay thing a Town Code issue?
MR. HUTCHINS-That is a Town Code.
MR. SHAFER-Not State code. Not DOT.
MR. HUTCHINS-That is a Town Code. That was, I believe in 2011 that was in the
amendments of the Town Code in 2011.
MR. SHAFER-Would you envision docks along the river on these lots?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That would be feasible. In fact I've walked back there. If you look
across the river you can see a number of residences and camps.
MR. SHAFER-Do you have a set of plans for the rest area re-construction?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 do not.
MR. SHAFER-1 mean it's under construction now.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's under construction.
MR. SHAFER-And there will be trucks there idling all night long as they always have, probably,
and I don't know whether they have, some of the rest areas have places where the diesels can
plug into, and it's not as environmentally bad as just trucks idling all night long obviously.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well a lot of companies now, everything's all GPS and it's all tied in to a
dispatcher and, you know, my son's a truck driver and the idling is becoming less and less and
less.
MR. SHAFER-And some places have signs not to idle.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean also trucks will shut off after a certain amount of time.
MR. SHAFER-Tom, there were two 14, 15's on the set of plans that I had.
MR. HUTCH INS-I'm sorry. There were what?
MR. SHAFER-Lot 14 and 15 on the west side of the canal, then the two big parcels on the.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but there's fishhook lines connecting them.
30
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HUTCH INS-They're the same lot, yes, it's hooked across the canal.
MR. SHAFER-Thanks.
MR. VALENTINE-Did you look at what the potential is for the development, say the buildout of
this is 15, I mean your maximum number of lots that you can get with this zoning?
MR. HUTCHINS-Not in terms of density. It would involve, obviously would involve some
additional infrastructure, either roadways and utilities.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, that's what I was getting to was eventually will a road pay for itself with
the better design than just 15 or 13 spaghetti lots?
MR. DEEB-As far as the matter of development versus subdivision, it's a matter of
interpretation, which I'm not sure we'd be qualified to get into at this point. That could be a
slippery slope, and something has to be specific. So if there's other ways around it, I think
you're probably better off.
MR. HUTCHINS-We didn't see a way around even with a different layout, if we put a cul de sac
in the middle.
MRS. MOORE-If it's being developed for a residential then there's no alternative. The Overlay
district lands on this property. So if it's being developed for residential it'll trigger a variance.
There's nothing that can be done with that. Just a note, how this is laid out, remember that it's
148 acres and it does meet the lot width. So truly when you're looking at it, you're looking at,
and we talked about this in conference, is that, yes, it looks like a bowling alley lot, but does it
really look like a bowling alley lot? When you do at a field investigation you're looking at 150
foot lot width. That's pretty big. So I don't know. I mean looking at it straight on, yes, it looks
like a bowling alley, but.
MR. MAGOWAN-It would be a lot of long driveways.
MRS. MOORE-Potentially but I'm just thinking out loud that when you're in the field it's 150 feet.
It truly meets the intent of the Code.
MR. DEEB-You're right. Anywhere else it would be.
MR. VALENTINE-Well that comes back to the point what Brad was saying or John was asking
about the floor area ratio. What size house do you get because of the size lot you've got?
You've got five acre lot is almost the minimum here. You can get one heck of a house here,
you know.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, those are roughly 1500, 1600 feet in depth from road to shore.
MR. TRAVER-Other comments? So I'm not sure that we've helped you much, but you've
certainly heard some different ideas.
MR. DEEB-And, Laura, you said it might trigger a variance.
MRS. MOORE-It does trigger a variance.
MR. DEEB-So we're going to have more steps to go through.
MRS. MOORE-They're aware of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just for point of argument, could they subdivide off the land within the
Overlay district as one lot and then develop behind it?
MR. VALENTINE-And get a variance for the one lot within 500 feet.
MR. TRAVER-Although if there were no house, no, it would still be a subdivision, though. So
you'd still need a variance.
31
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HUNSINGER-To me that doesn't seem fair, because I mean seriously you've got 140
acres, right and they have a small portion of it that's within this Overlay district. So you can't
divide the rest of it outside of the Overlay district?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. That's what it's read as, yes.
MR. TRAVER-But I think that increases the likelihood that that argument would give them a
variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. PHILLIPS-So a comment on that is that if that were to be done, it probably would require a
road of some sort to otherwise access these lots, and the thought was that if we get into Town
road type construction, that's going to be more disturbing of the area than if we don't do that.
Whereas the idea of perhaps shared driveways would be a better application in this particular
case, and I think that probably the point is a good one that with property like this the tendency
will be to build closer to the river because the water has the value for these lots. That's what
makes it an economic project. So that pushes the residential development farther away from
the bulge as we call it, the bulge zone, which is what creates the difficulty.
MR. TRAVER-One of the things, too, we have to remind ourselves in Sketch Plan, is that
because it is at Sketch we're looking not only at what you can do, but what you're allowed to do.
So whether this is something that you can go ahead with or not is not necessarily what we're
talking about. We would tend to be getting into a discussion where we're saying well, did you
think about this and did you think about that. It doesn't mean that you can't do this. It's just
that we begin looking at this in terms of, and remembering other projects and thinking of
different ways of developing it. That's just a natural, unfortunately I guess it's human nature for
Planning Board members. We take this and run with and say well yes you can do that, but
have you thought about this, have you thought about that. Especially when you have
waterfront on a beautiful river.
MR. PHILLIPS-And so I think that what we're looking for tonight, you know, obviously we're not
looking for any kind of a formalized decision. We're looking at possibly the sense of the Board
as to whether a development that draws lines through this setback area with very limited
development in that setback area is something doable before we spend a lot of money putting
together the formal plans for you to look at.
MR. TRAVER-Well of course as you know we can't grant the variance. You've heard a number
of comments made by the Board that this Overlay district is there, but particularly if you're
talking about the actual dwelling and so on being outside of the area especially it seems, I don't
want to use the word unfair, but it does seem as though it's a burden, an undue hardship that if
we were in a position we would advocate that perhaps you get some relief from, but we're not in
a position to actually grant that relief. I'm sure you understand that.
MR. DEEB-I think the project is a worthwhile project. It's got a couple of variables you have to
depend on. If we send it to the Zoning Board then you're going to have to rely on the Zoning
Board to give you that variance. As Mike said undue hardship is a reason for a variance. We
can't say yes, no.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, but ultimately if we put together that variance application it would come
to you folks first for recommendation.
MR. DEEB-Absolutely.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I wouldn't have a problem recommending it, you know, passing it on, to
me because it's actually not the highway but it's bumped out because of the rest area. I don't
consider that the highway. So I wouldn't have a problem with making a recommendation.
MR. VALENTINE-Tom, what's the canal? Whose ownership is that?
MR. HUTCHINS-That's within this parcel. It runs across this parcel.
MR. VALENTINE-That's part of the ownership?
MR. HUTCHINS-Part of the parcel, yes.
MR. SHAFER-What is the history of that, Tom? How did that get there? Any idea?
3 k'"
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know. Do you know, Dennis? George?
MR. PHILLIPS-George knows.
MR. STORY-Historically the property was used for log storage when they had sawmills in Glens
Falls and this bay here at the southern part there where the canal goes into, they would store
logs, bring lots in through the canal and store them in that bay, and then in the summertime
when they needed the logs they'd go in there and sort them and take them through the canal
and down to the mills.
MR. DEEB-That is interesting.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. STORY-And it was owned by Glens Falls Paper Company and then it was sold to Finch
Pruyn and International Paper around 1910 or 12, and then Finch bought out IP in the 50's I
think it was, and they haven't used it for log storage in decades. Because they went to pulp
instead of sawing, actually sawing logs. They just use pulp, and the pulp they can store
outside. They don't care if it cracks or checks. So they don't have to store it under water. So
this was actually underwater storage for logs.
MR. VALENTINE-So then in fact you don't need the fishhooks for 14 and 15 then on either side
of the canal. They're continuous ownership of the parcel.
MR. PHILLIPS-They are, yes.
MR. STORY-It's a real nice canal. It's five, six feet deep or eight feet in places wide. You
could take a boat right through it. It's really nice.
MR. TRAVER-Any other comments from members of the Board? Anything else you'd like from
us?
MR. PHILLIPS-Nothing else on this side, but we do appreciate being on again, and thank you
for your comments. I believe they'll be helpful as we try to help design the subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for sharing your plan with us.
MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Let's see. Next on the agenda we have Adirondack Factory Outlet, Site Plan 30-
2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
CI. LOCATION: 1444 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 13,675
SQ. FT. BUILDING AT FRONT OF ADIRONDACK AND TO CONSTRUCT NEW 12,706 SQ.
FT. BUILDING ON SOUTHWEST CORNER. PROJECT WILL HAVE BOTH BUILDINGS 75
FT. FROM FRONT PROPERTY LINE. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES NEW FACADE AREA
FOR EXISTING BUILDING, SITE WORK GRADING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER
FOR NEW BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 3-2009, SP 37-2015, MANY
OTHERS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2018. LOT SIZE: 4.64 ACRES & 2.29
ACRES — 6.93 ACRES TOTAL. TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 &23. SECTION: 179-3-040.
JON LAPPER, TOM HUTCHINS & LAURA COLES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant is removing a 13,675 square foot building at the front of
the Adirondack Outlet and to construct a new 12,700 square foot building on the southwest
corner. The project renovation for the existing Adirondack Outlet will cause that to be a 75 foot
setback and the construction for the new building will also be a 75 foot setback.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening, again.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with the project engineer
Tom Hutchins and Laura Coles and we have Dave Kenny, one of the owners. So this is a
33
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
reconfiguration. It's kind of a unique project where they're removing a building. They're
replacing it with parking and removing parking and replacing it with a building. It moves both
buildings back to the 75 foot setback. Nobody does that, and it just makes for a better space for
their existing tenant. So it's an upgrade all around and good for the Town with the additional
setback and visibility, and a brand new building and a brand new fagade on the existing building
to improve an older front section. So that's sort of a synopsis. I'd ask Tom to walk you through
the Site Plan and then we'll answer any questions.
MR. TRAVER-1 know, too, that a lot of your time and effort has been invested in discussing this
with the Town and planning for this application. So that's appreciated as well.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Once again Tom Hutchins. The first sheet you have is
a demolition plan. It basically shows that this building off the, well the west side of the building,
this being Route 9, this building which is a timber frame building, it's partially two stories, this
would be removed. This area of parking would be removed, and a new building would be
constructed. There it is. Parking would be constructed where the timber frame building was.
The new building would be constructed here which would match the facade of the existing
structures. It would hold the 75 foot front setback, would allow for thru transportation across to
the northerly property and would clean up the buildings and give a little bit more usable space,
and that basically summarizes it. The site is, of course there's all utilities, water, sewer, natural
gas and stormwater would basically be, we'd be putting stormwater, infiltrating stormwater
through drywells which is the current practice there. It works well. It functions. Soils are
amenable to it.
MR. TRAVER-1 like that it encourages less necessity for driving around. That people can kind
of park and then walk around. That's, I think, a plus.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we're showing sidewalk here which would connect to this sidewalk to
encourage some pedestrian as well. They can park once. This area here would be green
space, and there's a little bit of new parking here to get us up to our parking requirement, but
essentially the limit of work is right there.
MR. LAPPER-And it's all conforming. No variances. It meets the Code.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Very good. Anything else at this stage?
MR. LAPPER-No. We're hoping that we can get an approval tonight so that they can get
started.
MR. MAGOWAN-They're digging tomorrow?
MR. LAPPER-Thursday.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-Tom, I have a question. The dimension between the two buildings where the
cars have to go into the back parking area. I don't see a number there. That looks pretty
narrow.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right here? That's going to be 60 feet. I may have a little bit more there
because we're going to have 20, 20 and 20, or 24, 18.
MR. SHAFER-You've got the two parking spaces. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-So that is only, what, 20 of?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, it would be 24 road. It would be a 24 foot aisle. Let me scale it.
MR. SHAFER-It is 24 between, that's traversable?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It's actually 30, from this curb to this curb.
MR. SHAFER-And the parking spaces are 20?
3,1
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-It looks a little tight.
MRS. MOORE-The parking spaces are probably 18.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it depends on how you figure. If you've got 20 foot parking spaces, you
use a 20 foot aisle. If you've got 18 foot parking spaces you use a 24 foot aisle.
MR. TRAVER-Depending on how you stripe it, right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions?
MR. SHAFER-One more.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. SHAFER-Can a motorist get from this property to the property immediately to the north and
to the south, without going onto Route 9?
MR. LAPPER-To the north, yes, but to the south there's a big grade change. It goes down a
hill. So that wouldn't be possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-I assume that's part of why you're doing this, so you can traverse without
going out onto Route 9.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that's a big benefit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-This didn't have anything to do with Cumberland Farms, did it?
MR. LAPPER-It's not going to be a gas station.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just helping them out. A little less congestion.
MR. LAPPER-What Dave is saying is that if the State wanted to improve that section of Route 9
with turning lanes or an additional lane, by going 75 feet back, which nobody else is doing, it
allows that.
MR. TRAVER-Good point.
MR. MAGOWAN-Good thinking, but it also ties into the new one that's under construction.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions before we open it up for the public hearing? I'm not hearing any
at this point. All right. Are there members of the audience that want to address the Planning
Board on this application this evening? I'm not seeing any. Laura are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted. So we do have a SEQR review. The engineering
comments, the comments are just that. They seem to be engineering in nature which I assume
you can.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. They're.
MR. LAPPER-Minor.
MR. HUTCHINS-I feel that they're very manageable.
35
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'u hTyY
Board it .,N ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they appeared that way to me, and not unusual either. Is the Board
comfortable moving ahead with SEQR review?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-We have a draft resolution in our packet. Do any members of the Planning
Board have any concerns regarding the review questions that require us to go into detail
regarding this SEQR review? I'm not hearing any. Then I guess we're ready for a motion.
MR. DEEB-There's no stormwater management. That's not going to change.
MS. WHITE-It's already existing.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's already existing.
MR. LAPPER-It didn't require stormwater review.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 30-2018.
The applicant proposes removal of 13,675 sq. ft. building at front of Adirondack Outlets and to
construct new 12,706 sq. ft. building on southwest corner. Project will have both buildings 75 ft.
from front property line. Project work includes new fagade area for existing building, site work
grading, landscaping and stormwater for new building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 30-2018 ADIRONDACK
FACTORY OUTLET, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Let's see. Next we have a draft Site Plan resolution, which includes conditions.
Does any member of this Board feel that there is a need for any additional conditions to be
placed on that draft resolution?
6
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'uhTyY
Board it .,N ..u.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
MR. VALENTINE-Let me just throw a question out that Mr. Kenny alluded to. When you get a
County road or a State road in some cases, as we've done before, is ask an applicant if he's
willing to set aside 10 or 15 feet of the property, with a caveat that at some point if the State
should ever look at, just as you said, turning lane or improvements, that there's that strip of land
that would be deeded to the State for such improvements.
MR. LAPPER-Mike the way it works is this section of the Town there's this Travel Corridor
Overlay. That's why the setback is 75 feet. So the State still has to require it, but it's available
for that because of that Travel Corridor Overlay.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So it's built in to the zoning basically. It's under review. Correct?
MR. KENNY-Yes, I don't know what stage it's at. They're doing that whole stretch of 9.
MR. VALENTINE-Well there is an existing Exit 20 Corridor Study, existing.
MR. MAGOWAN-There's actually three of them, and now we're going for a fourth one.
MR. VALENTINE-No, but I'm just looking at, you've already got it. You've already stated it, but
my thought was, just as you had stated, recognizing that it may call for improvements
somewhere along the line, and I didn't know about that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Apparently it's been accommodated by the design. That's a good
question, because certainly at some point it's inevitable that there will need to be improvements.
That's a particularly bad area as we know.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 almost hate to ask the question, but we didn't talk about lighting at all.
MR. HUTCHINS-We did show a lighting plan, and we've added building mounted lighting on
the.
MR. HUNSINGER-On the new building.
MR. HUTCHINS-We've added building mounted lighting, three sides of the new building. We've
added building mounted lights here.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the new fagade of the old building, will that be similar to what's existing
there now, the lighting?
MR. LAPPER-The buildings will now match with the fagade.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 drove in there last night just to look at it, when it's dark. Quite frankly the
way that the building lit, the downcast lights. It looks really good.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-These stay. We've just got building mounts for the new. This exists and it
will stay. It's in an island now.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there's no new poles or anything on the new, the space that's vacated by
building.
MR. HUTCHINS-There's no new poles. There's no new poles in here, no. They're building
mounts.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there are street lights.
MR. HUTCHINS-There are street lights across there, yes, the globe that run the whole, yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? I think we're ready for a motion. I haven't heard any
additional conditions, though.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 30-2018 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET
37
:; .Diir .,N ..u.. !r"..I/`:"C..uIa. )
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal
of 13,675 sq. ft. building at front of Adirondack Outlets and to construct new 12,706 sq. ft.
building on southwest corner. Project will have both buildings 75 ft. from front property line.
Project work includes new fagade area for existing building, site work grading, landscaping and
stormwater for new building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new
commercial construction 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 04/24/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 04/24/2018, 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
04/24/2018;
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 30-2018 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET; Introduced
by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the
building and site improvements;-
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
38
�� : Il, ir'u ir'u ii ir'u hTyY
Board it .,N ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Question, just quickly. What about the new building that you got approved for a
while ago? Is it going to happen?
MR. LAPPER-They're all going to match.
MR. KENNY-It's going to be 160,000 square feet.
MR. DEEB-You've being innovative, that's good.
MR. KENNY-That's what they want. They want the 21St Century. We have a lot of interest.
MR. LAPPER-1 just want to mention one thing. We're going to be back with a different
ownership next month. We've submitted. The Clarion Inn has that old restaurant and that's
going to come down as well and be replaced with a modern matching fagade retail building.
So we'll be back here next month to talk about that.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. All right. We have a few more items before us this
evening.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
DISCUSSION 2-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI.
LOCATION: 3 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING ICE
REAM/SNACK BAR BUSINESS AND REPLACE WITH A 5,275 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE
STORE. APPLICANT HAS UPDATED INFORMATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-
040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE
REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: (-8) UV 1377 1988; DIS 9-
2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 4.25 ACRES TOTAL. TAX MAP NO.
288-12-1-6; 288.12-1-8; 288.8-1-17. SECTION: 179-9-040.
Next is we had a discussion item or we have a discussion item for Cumberland Farms
scheduled this evening. You might recall they were before us as a discussion item for the 149
and 9 gas station they were talking about developing and they were on the agenda to discuss it
with us further this evening but it turns out that they have some new information from DOT that
they want to put together and they're going to be coming back to visit with us on I believe it's
May 15th. So, Laura, you had a.
MRS. MOORE-1 can read the letter that they requested. It's addressed to the Chairman, Mr.
Traver. "As you're aware our law firm represents Cumberland Farms, Inc. with regard to its
proposal to develop the above mentioned property. Due to our interest in furthering our
discussions with NYS DOT relative to the proposed access points for this Project prior to
returning to the Board, we would request that tonight's discussion be tabled to a meeting in
May. Thank you for your attention to this matter." So it's a discussion item. There's no
motions typically made for discussion items. So if the Board understands it'll be moved to a
May meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's going to be re-scheduled, just so everyone's aware. Thank you
for that, Laura, and then we have two other items before us. One very quickly. You should
have received an e-mail from me. As promised I worked on a draft letter regarding unapproved
development applications that we receive. I'm not asking that we act on that in any way this
°r)
Board ..0.. ! :"..I/`:C..0 I a. )
evening. What I'm asking is that you, and some of you already have, look at my draft, and
comment on it. Send me, feel free to edit, wordsmith it, send it to me. What I will then do is I
will take your recommendations and develop a new draft and I will circulate that and then when
everyone is in agreement that it's something that people feel represents a reasonable position
by us and not just me, I will distribute it accordingly. Anyone have any questions about that?
MS. WHITE-Can I just give you that?
MR. TRAVER-Sure, yes. You can just give it to me or e-mail. Whatever. Did everyone have
a chance to read the letter, the draft? Okay. Well, I haven't been able to look at some of the
suggestions that were submitted this evening, but I will, and I will submit an update, and then I
don't think there's any deadline to do this. I'd like to get it in work, but I will keep at it until we're
all in agreement and then we'll send it out.
MS. WHITE-1 appreciate the work you did on the draft.
MR. TRAVER-Well thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, thank you for doing this. I mean one of the things I thought about as a
penalty is putting an amount on, you know, a fine, and I kind of thought in my head 20% of what
the total project would cost.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's an intriguing and clever idea. So I'm not sure what the process
would be. I would hope that maybe the Town Board, if they decided to look into this. We're
not asking for anything specifically. We're just asking for them to try to address it like they have
all the other issues that have been dealt with in the past. This is just another loophole that
needs to be plugged. So I would, I mean, if it were me I guess I would try to put an ad hoc
group together that would include people that were interested in participating from both this
Board and the Zoning Board, maybe developers, certainly Town Board members, and lock
everybody in a room and say what are we going to do about this, and go from there, but we will
see. The first step is, you know, we'll try to see if we can get the concept that it's an idea worth
pursuing out there first, and then we'll see what happens afterwards. So that's all I have for
that this evening. Hopefully I'll have more homework for you next time on that, and the last
thing on our agenda is, as Laura warned us last time, we have to do Workplace Violence
training.
MRS. MOORE-You can actually close your meeting. It doesn't necessarily need to be
recorded.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. It's not going to be in the minutes. Okay. All right. In that case we'll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. VALENTINE-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 24th,
2018, Introduced by Michael Valentine who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
40