11-13-2018 [Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOâ–º/EMBER 13,2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 71-2014 David Hartmann 2.
Tax Map No. 239.12-1-15
Site Plan No. 67-2018 Curtis D. Dybas 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-32
Site Plan No. 71-2018 Melissa Freebern/Artisan Ink 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14
Site Plan No. 69-2018 The Addictions Care Center of Albany (ACC) 8.
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-42
Site Plan No. 68-2018 Justine Dobert 27.
Tax Map No. 309.10-2-28
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES [IF ANY]
AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
JOHN SHAFER
MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board meeting for Tuesday,November 13t",2018. This is the first meeting for the month of November
and the 23" meeting for 2018 for this Board. We do have a couple of Administrative Items. First
I'll ask, and remind myself, if you have an electronic device please either turn it off or turn the ringer
down so it doesn't interfere with our business this evening. There also are agendas on the table in
the back of the room if you haven't gotten one and you're curious or if you don't know about our
agenda there are agendas in the back of the room that you can look at. You'll notice that we have
some illuminated exit lights in the building and if we lose power, there's some kind of an emergency
and we need to leave the building, please look for those lights and leave in a safe and orderly way in
case of emergency, and with that we will begin our agenda with approval of minutes of September 18"
and 25t". We have a motion for that.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 18t", 2018
September 25t", 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 18TH & SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Jaime White:
Duly adopted this 13" day of November, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer [on 9/18"]
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-So, Maria, did we have sufficient members present for the 18t"?
MS. GAGLIARDI-I don't think so because I think there were two abstentions on the 18"
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MS. GAGLIARDI-So, no.
MRS. MOORE-So you can move it to the next month.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. Thank you for that.
2
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MRS. MOORE-Maria, do you need a reso to do that?
MS. GAGLIARDI-No.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria and Laura, and we have two additional Administrative Items. Go
ahead, Mr. Secretary.
MR. DEEB-Okay. Motion to accept the Unapproved Development Committee Report and referral of
the report to the Town Board for their consideration.
MR. TRAVER-We have a motion before us this evening that Staff are recommending that we follow.
Recall that we established a committee to review unapproved development. We met with some subject
matter experts, a couple of members of the Town Board and so on, Lake George Water Keeper, and
expressed some concern about some environmental and other impacts that the Town experiences as a
result of unapproved development and as promised I wrote a letter in the form of a report as a follow
up to that meeting and I did send it to all of you and all of those who were in attendance at our
committee meeting and I sought some feedback from all of you, and I did get some comments, some
constructive comments from John. Thank you for that, and so at this point what Laura is
recommending is that we pass a formal resolution which empowers John Strough to receive my report
and discuss it with the Town Board. So she prepared a resolution accordingly for us this evening and
that's what David will be reading. So if you don't mind doing it again.
MR. DEEB-No.
RESOLUTION RE: UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
The Unapproved Development Committee seeks acceptance of their committee report and requests it
be forwarded to the Town Board for their Review.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT AND
REFERRAL OF THE REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. Introduced
by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; seconded by John Shafer:
Duly adopted this 13" day of November, 2018 by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-And note that Brad did arrive.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2014 DAVID HARTMANN REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION
MR.TRAVER-All right. So we have another Administrative Item. A letter that we received regarding.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Mr. Hartmann's in the audience if you have further questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you want to just give us a brief overview? Personally, I mean, I haven't had
a chance to read the letter. I understand what he's asking.
MRS. MOORE-I'll let Mr. Hartmann speak because he's here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. By all means. Good evening.
DAVID HARTMANN
MR. HARTMANN-1 got in over my head.
MR. TRAVER-State your name for the record. This is for our minutes.
3
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. HARTMANN-David Hartmann, 51 Assembly Point Road. I'm requesting an additional extension
on my variance because I just, like I said, I got in over my head and financial issues have slowed me
down a bit and I don't have much else to say.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this is your first request?
MR. HARTMANN-No, it's not. I've had three.
MS. WHITE-This'll be the third, right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-This is the third. Okay. I see.
MS. WHITE-There's no changes.
MR. TRAVER-No design changes.
MR. HARTMANN-No changes to the property at all.
MR. TRAVER-So design details and making sure that you're happy with your financial support for the
project. Anything else? Okay. I don't personally have a problem with that. Is there anybody that
has any questions for the applicant?
MR. DEEB-If you run into problems, you run into problems. You've got to deal with them.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. All right. Well we do have a motion, a draft motion prepared by Staff. If
there's no discussion or questions for the applicant, I'd entertain a motion to read that resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 71-2014 DAVID HARTMANN
Applicant proposes to demolish existing single family home and construct a new 3,795.5 sq. ft. (total
floor area) single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction
within 50 ft. of slopes in excess of 15% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The
Planning Board approved Site Plan 71-2014 on November 20, 2014. A one year extension was granted
on November 15, 2016. An additional one year extension approved on November 14, 2017. An
additional one year extension is requested by the applicant.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 13" day of November, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. HARTMANN-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That concludes our Administrative Items. We now move to our regular agenda.
The first section of the agenda is on Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The first item being Curtis D. Dybas, Site Plan 67-2018.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 67-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. CURTIS D. DYBAS. OWNER(SJ: SARA N.
KELLY. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 CLIFF HOLLOW ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 711 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO THE MAIN FLOOR FOR A NEW BEDROOM.
ALTERATIONS TO HOUSE ALSO INCLUDE KITCHEN AREA EXPANSION, 2ND FLOOR
BEDROOM CEILING TO BE RAISED AND REMOVAL OF TWO PORCH AREAS. ADJACENT TO
NEW BEDROOM ADDITION TO BE A 211 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH. EXISTING FOUR
BEDROOMS TO REMAIN FOUR BEDROOMS. MAIN FLOOR BEDROOM CONVERTED TO
4
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
AUDIO VISUAL WITH NEW GREAT ROOM AND KITCHEN AREA EXPANSION. PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 17943-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE: AST 0438-2018 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2018.
SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.184-32. SECTION:
17943-010.
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CURT DYBAS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes several alterations to an existing home. One is a 711
square foot single story addition to the main floor for a new bedroom. Alterations to the interior
include kitchen area expansion, a second floor bedroom ceilings to be raised and removal of two porch
areas on the exterior. The adjacent to the new bedroom area will have a new 211 square foot screened
in porch. The house does remain as a four bedroom and under the Nature of Variances, the applicant
proposes, the setback issue from the shoreline is 64.8 feet where you're required to be 75 feet and I
explained that this is a particular zone that's in the APA as part of the 75 foot setback and in regards
to height we require a 28 foot maximum height and in this case the applicant is raising the roof to 30
feet six inches which is the existing roofline of the current house.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MR. DYBAS-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the record Curt Dybas and
Lucas Dobie from Hutchins Engineering with me tonight, representing Sara Kelly and her husband
David. They purchased this home, it was built in 1983. It was formerly Dr. Doetzer's house and they
wish to add expensive alterations and addition of a master bedroom on the first floor, obviously to
age in place, and one of the things for the correction the raising of the ceiling is of the living room
not the second floor bedroom. The second floor bedroom would remain as a guest room, but we
are punching out one wall for the kitchen and the dining room expansion. As I said we're raising a
portion of the living room ceiling. The outside will be completely re-sided and for the record the
house is staying within the existing footprint, the additions and everything. We are removing decks.
The additions are within the footprints of those decks. We have removed some decks from the
property, and the height of the existing house is 30 foot 6 inches, which will remain unchanged, and
I'd ask you for the recommendation for that height, and we have an over one acre lot. So FAR is not
a problem. The septic system is existing, so we're going to upgrade the septic tank. The tank, those
arrows are 1,000 gallons, which has been there since the house was built. So we're going to change
it out to 1250, and Hutchins Engineering is working on the septic and stormwater and raingardens and
all that other stuff. So we're here to ask for a recommendation to the ZBA.
MR. TRAVER-So basically these variances are sort of, it's a pre-existing, nonconforming structure
basically.
MR. DYBAS-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, I'm sorry, I didn't hear what the new size of the septic tank was going to be.
MR. DYBAS-1250.
MR. TRAVER-1250.
MR. DYBAS-Which will be compliant for the four bedroom.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DYBAS-1,000 gallon is in there. It's going to be 35 years old. We just said, while we're at it,
let's just change it out while we're on the front of the building.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. DEEB-The setbacks are the same?
MR. DYBAS-The setbacks are the same. I think the east one is a little bit better.
5
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. DEEB-Okay, but nothing.
MR. DYBAS-Nothing dramatic. We cannot comply because of the existing structure. It's an
interesting point. The existing survey from 1983 shows a 75 foot setback from the lake. I don't
know what, the shoreline didn't change. I don't know why the discrepancy.
MR. TRAVER-There are a couple of engineering comments, and understand tonight we're not
addressing Site Plan, but hopefully you got that letter and you can take a look at those issues. They
don't appear to be significant to me but they do need to be addressed because you will need the signoff
from the engineer as you know.
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I have questions on the wastewater system. Is that going to be for
tonight or?
MR. TRAVER-Please, absolutely. Yes, go ahead.
MR. SHAFER-I think you mentioned four bedrooms. I looked at the plans and counted six. Where
did I go wrong?
MR. DYBAS-It is currently a four bedroom house. There's one in the basement and there's two on
the main floor and the master bedroom is on the second floor, and the one bedroom that's on the
first floor that's off the living room, we're going to open it up and make it an audio room and we're
adding the new master bedroom on the first floor. So the bedroom count still remains four.
MR. SHAFER-I see one on the basement. Correct?
MR. DYBAS-The basement.
MR. SHAFER-Two on the first floor.
MR. DYBAS-Two on the first floor.
MR. SHAFER-That's three. I don't understand these drawings.
MR. DYBAS-There's a loft on the second floor that is open to the living room, to remain.
MR. SHAFER-I see what I did. Another question. The text talks about pump tank and disposal field
will remain. I didn't see those on the drawings. Where are those?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Shafer. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering.
The field is a mound system up towards 9L. You'll see on the survey there's a symbol that says "S"
on our site plans with a circle. That's indicative of that's where the D Box is for the mound system.
So we're several hundred feet off the lake.
MR. SHAFER-I don't have the drawings.
MR. DOBIE-We could have shown that better with maybe a cloud outline or something, but it's pretty
apparent in the field that it's in that location. It's approximately 60 feet off of the front property line
if you look right in the middle of the parcel.
MR. SHAFER-Is that an "S"?
MS. WHITE-That's an "S". Is that it?
MR. DOBIE-That is, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. SHAFER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We don't have public hearing for this as this is a recommendation. At this
point, are there any other questions, comments, anything that you want the applicant to be aware of
as they presumably return for Site Plan at some point? Hearing none, okay, then we're ready for a
motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-73-2018 CURTIS D. DYBAS
6
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 711 sq. ft. single
story addition to the main floor for a new bedroom. Alterations to house also include kitchen area
expansion, 2" floor bedroom ceiling to be raised and removal of two porch areas. Adjacent to new
bedroom addition to be a 211 sq. ft. screened porch. Existing four bedrooms to remain four bedrooms.
Main floor bedroom converted to audio visual with new great room and kitchen area expansion.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and
height. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board
to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both
Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2018 CURTIS D. DYBAS.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13" day of November, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much.
MR. TRAVER-The next application is also a Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA. The applicant
is Melissa Freebern/Artisan Ink. Site Plan 71-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MELISSA FREEBERN/ARTISAN INK.
OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 928 STATE ROUTE 9.
APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING 113 +/- SQ. FT. EXISTING PORCH AND
HANDICAP LIFT AND PLANS TO RECONSTRUCT A 213 +/- SQ. FT. HANDICAP RAMP AND
LANDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9420 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 18-2009, SP 28-2009, AV 70-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
NOVEMBER 2018. LOT SIZE: .34 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13444. SECTION: 179-9420.
MELISSA FREEBERN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes removal of an existing 113 square foot existing porch and
handicap ramp and plans to re-construct a 213 square foot handicap ramp and landing. Installing the
new ramp and landing there is a setback issue to Sweet Road as well as to Route 9. There is 22.5 feet
from Sweet Road, and the other value's in my zoning file. So it's something like 72. It's not very
much further.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MS. FREEBERN-Hi.
7
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Your project, you're basically, it's an access issue. So you're replacing a lift with a ramp.
Is that correct?
MS. FREEBERN-Do I have to say my name?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, please.
MS. FREEBERN-Melissa Freebern, owner of Artisan Ink. I'm looking to remove the existing porch
that's there in order to have room for this ramp because the ramp has to be 30 feet long, and with it
being 30 feet long and having to have a span of five feet wide, the whole porch has to come off and
the lift because the lift is not functioning.
MR. DEEB-The lift doesn't work anymore.
MS. FREEBERN-No, it does not, and I can replace the lift, but I'm looking at $8,000 to have it be in
the same condition it's in right now, which is, they didn't make the lifts for weather permitting. So
the ice and snow and snow, the ramp would be more feasible.
MR. TRAVER-Well certainly accessibility we recognize is an issue for folks in the community. So we
appreciate your concern providing that area. Questions, comments from members of the Planning
Board?
MS. WHITE-It actually sounds like it would be an improvement.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Indeed it would.
MS. FREEBERN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well there is no public hearing for this. This is Unlisted SEAR. Laura, we
don't do SEQR before ZBA, right? So we don't need to deal with that tonight. That's at Site Plan.
So I guess we're ready for the resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-70-2018 MELISSA FREEBERN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes removal of an existing
113 +/- sq. ft. existing porch and handicap lift and plans to reconstruct a 213 +/- sq. ft. handicap ramp
and landing. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved
site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks.
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board
to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both
Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2018 MELISSA
FREEBERN/ARTISAN INK. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13"day of November, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
8
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MS. FREEBERN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next we move into New Business, and the first item under New Business is The
Addictions Care Center of Albany [ACCA], Site Plan 69-2018.
SITE PLAN NO.71-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. THE ADDICTIONS CARE CENTER OF ALBANY
(ACCAJ. AGENT[S]: BBL-JOHN KELLOGG OWNER[S]: PRIME GLENWOOD, LLC. ZONING:
Cl. LOCATION: 79 GLENWOOD AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE AN EXISTING
TWO STORY STRUCTURE FOR A HEALTH RELATED FACILITY — A WOMEN'S RESIDENTIAL
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT AND RECOVERY SERVICE. THE EXISTING BUILDING
IS 4,357 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NO EXTERIOR CHANGES TO THE
BUILDING OR SITE. ALL PARKING, GREEN AREAS AND LIGHTING TO REMAIN AS IS.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW USE FOR HEALTH
RELATED FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 32-88;AV 1412-21815;2006-439&2012-551 COMM.ALT.;MULTIPLE SIGNS
& PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION: WETLAND.
LOT SIZE: .83 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 296.194-42. SECTION: 179-3-040.
KEITH STACK &JOHN KELLOGG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. DEEB-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to recuse myself from this one as I am a neighbor in that
neighborhood.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, Mr. Magowan, would you be willing to act as Secretary in the absence of,
the recusal of our secretary for this discussion?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 will do my best.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, sir.
MR. MAGOWAN-They're big shoes to fill.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to use the existing two story structure for a health related
facility. It's a women's residential substance abuse treatment, disorder and recovery service. The
existing building has a footprint of 4,357 square feet. The applicant proposes no exterior changes to
the building or site. All parking, lighting and green areas to remain as is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STACK-Hello. My name is Keith Stack. I'm the Executive Director of The Addictions Care
Center of Albany. We provide a variety of prevention, treatment and recovery services throughout
the Capital District. We have a contract with Warren County to provide residential services for 18
women and we are proposing to do that on this property, 79 Glenwood Avenue. The services, the
program is self-enclosed. It will provide two levels of residential care, stabilization and re-habilitation.
Stabilization is considered ancillary detox. So these are individuals who may be experiencing mild to
moderate withdrawal symptoms or at risk of experiencing mild to moderate withdrawal symptoms. So
the stabilization phase could be anywhere from 72 hours to 10 days, and then they would just simply
evolve into re-habilitation clients, and re-habilitation you know really could go from 10 days up to 90
days. All services are provided on site in the building. It's staffed 24/7. We have a high level of
skilled medical staff. We have an RN on staff daily, two LPN's full-time daily. We have a part-time
LPN comes in approximately 9 o'clock for the medication distribution, but that's seven days a week.
We have a psychiatrist who will be on site for certain hours, either an M.D. or a physician's assistant
who will be on site and available on site daily. So there'll be a lot of skilled staff there. Then we have
other clinical staff, case managers and addiction, specialized addiction counselors. We'll have a licensed
mental health counselor/family counselor, and this is a program for women. They'll be receiving all
services on site. We would transport people out, potentially, to the hospital if they needed specialized
services or to other medical care for specialized services, our clinical staff, if they have other issues that
require a higher level of care, but we do the transportation of the individuals in that situation. After
they complete our program, they typically will go, oftentimes they simply go back home to their
regular community setting, or we assist them finding permanent supportive housing if that's what their
need is. Based on our experience in the Capital District, and I'll use Albany County for example, 90%
of our clients are from Albany County. So I would suspect that'll be the case in this program. Ninety
plus percent of the residents will be from Warren and Washington County. That's the coverage of
9
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
our contract with Warren County. So there'll be local individuals receiving the necessary addiction
treatment and recovery services on site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. A couple of questions. You mentioned this facility accommodates up to 18
individuals?
MR. STACK-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And do you anticipate that the facility will be at capacity most of the time, or are you
saying that's like the highest number? Can you give me what you believe to be the average?
MR. STACK-1 would say it will be at capacity. That's our experience now. We are faced with a heroin
epidemic, you know, that frankly in our other programs and treatment programs across the State in
general are at capacity. So I suspect it'll be full.
MR. TRAVER-And of the individuals that are being served, are they, is there a percentage of them
that, for example, might be court mandated to be there versus self-disclosing?
MR. STACK-Typically about 40% are court mandated. Everyone, I mean honestly everyone is there
for a reason. I will say people don't go into treatment because they want to, personally. It's very
rare that we have somebody who shows up at our door on their own. Forty percent are court
mandated. The rest it's either, you know, an employment issue, they've been referred by EAP for
example, you know, family, other family members with the, the heroin epidemic is a very young
population, anywhere from, and everyone's 18 years or older. These are young adults, adults.
MS. WHITE-One part of the narrative stated that this facility would be open to children, and then in
another it just said women. So is this just women and their children, or just 18 year olds, just the
women?
MR. STACK-The program that we just opened in Albany which is similar to this program is for women
and women with children.
MS. WHITE-But you don't see that in this?
MR. STACK-No. The contract in our Warren County contract is just for women. Although we
have had people ask if we were going to be treating, we don't treat children, but house children, and
the contract doesn't call for that.
MS. WHITE-Would you be hiring locally or are these already people that would be coming from?
MR. STACK-We would be hiring locally. We have, well it's typically eight to four, it's about we would
have 10 staff. From four to twelve it's anywhere from four to five staff because some of the daytime
staff come in at 12. So they work a 12 to 8 shift. Then overnight there's always.
MS. WHITE-So four to five staff for the 18 women?
MR. STACK-Yes, typically four to twelve we'll have four to five staff. Two of those may be there
until 8 p.m., and then overnight we have two full-time staff, one a clinical person, the other a care
manager. So when I say clinical, it's a certified addiction counselor overnight.
MS. WHITE-1 don't know if I interrupted you, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-No, that's all right. Go ahead and finish your question.
MS. WHITE-So you've got 18 people and four to five staff, and I only saw two bathrooms. I don't
know why but that seemed like not a whole lot.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 can't hear your concerns with this overhead buzz.
MS. WHITE-1 was concerned at the number of bathrooms per people in this building. I saw one
bathroom on the first floor and one bathroom on the second floor, for people who are there.
MR. STACK-1 will say that's really driven by our regulatory agency.
MS. WHITE-That was just something I noticed. It caught my eye.
10
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. STACK-Yes, no that's driven by the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Services. They have fairly, they have strict specifications. I mean they're group bathrooms. So
they're relatively large. Using our new women's program we have two. There's three shower stalls
in each one. Three toilet stalls in each one. Multiple sinks. So they're intended for multiple
individuals.
MS. WHITE-So what you're saying is it meets standards that are for certification through the agency
that you're?
MR. STACK-Yes. The Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. If we wanted to make it
bigger, we couldn't. They prescribe the bedroom sizes, those types of things.
MR. TRAVER-1 had a couple of other quick questions. You mentioned the staffing. That was one
of my questions. You answered that already. Do you have, of the individuals that are receiving
treatment, do you have some that are, or any that are MICA, duly diagnosed MICA individuals?
MR. STACK-At least half will be, and they may not be diagnosed as such when they're referred to us.
Referrals come from hospitals. In this case it would be Glens Falls Hospital, Hudson Headwaters, and
other treatment providers.
MS. WHITE-Would you define MICA for us?
MR. TRAVER-Mentally III and Chemical Abuse. Sorry.
MR. STACK-Yes, a very high number of all people suffering from addiction do have co-occurring
disorders.
MR. TRAVER-Well certainly depression, anxiety. I was actually more curious about say schizophrenia
or.
MR. STACK-Anyone with a severe mental illness we're not equipped to treat that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's what I was looking for.
MR. STACK-Yes. When we do, we do an intake assessment. We go through all the documentation
that's sent to us, then we do further research, and there's a very specific level of care determination
tool called a locator, and so we have to follow that, and that determines if a person's appropriate for
our level of care. So somebody with schizophrenia, a more severe mental health issue, you know, we
would not admit. Typically it's the, addiction's the primary illness.
MR. TRAVER-That's really what I was trying to get at.
MR. STACK-Yes. We wouldn't take severe, we're not equipped to, nor are we allowed to treat.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. And then one other thing I was curious about, the individuals
that are receiving treatment in your program, are they, is it typical that their location in the facility is
somehow monitored? I mean are they free to leave unescorted about the community, that type of
thing? Or are they, is part of their commitment to the program that they will remain in the facility
working with your staff?
MR. STACK-Yes, they remain on site. The only time they would leave the facility would be if we're
transporting them, and that's typically to a, you know, receive other types of care that they may need.
We purchase food. So there's a, we have a cook. They receive three meals, and regulations call for
healthy snacks. So they eat on site. We bring in yoga and Zumba. We do different types of care,
you know, and recreational services. In Albany we contract with Northeast Career Planning for
occupational, job readiness services. We'll do that here as well. That's part of the regulatory
requirement. We'll identify an appropriate provider for those services. We do have acupuncture
typically once a week. We do art therapy, but if we don't have the staff to do that particular skill, we
contract for it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then my last question really has to do with a regulatory issue. Who is, who
locally are you accountable to for maintaining these standards?
MR. STACK-The Warren County Community Services. So that is actually, we have the contract with
them. The funding is from the State. They get block grant funding and we sign the contract with
11
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
Warren County. So they're considered our local, our LGU, local government unit. So we're
responsible to them and Oasis, you know, they have regular field staff.
MR. TRAVER-That's the State regulatory agency.
MR. STACK-Yes,they'll do regular site visits. We have to go through re-certification reviews regularly,
but it's the local government is Warren County in this case.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and if I may, I guess I lied. I have one more question. Is your program replacing
an existing program or is it an expansion of a collection of services that's available to these folks locally?
MR. STACK-It's replacing a program that's no longer funded.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and is your program approximately the same size?
MR. STACK-Exactly the same size.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly the same size. Okay. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have
any questions?
MR. SHAFER-I'm following up on one of Steve's questions. Could you just speak to the issue of
security, both inside out and outside in?
MR. STACK-We'll have a security system installed, outdoor cameras, perimeter cameras, and we'd have
security inside, you know, it's fully alarmed, fire alarms, those types of things, and, you know, the
security really is our 24/7 staffing. In addition to, you know, a technological security system, we have
staff 24/7.
MR. SHAFER-Are there keys?
MR. STACK-Key pad or fob.
MR. DIXON-So are the residents, are they restricted to indoors? They can't go outside at all?
MR. STACK-They would go outside on the property. They could go outside on the property.
MS. WHITE-With staff eyesight?
MR. STACK-Yes. Staff would be outside with them.
MS. WHITE-Yes.
MR. DIXON-With your experience in Albany, has there been any issues with the residents when they're
outside? My concern, there's a children's park right next door to you. So obviously we don't want
any issues there.
MR. STACK-Well, you know, our main campus is in a neighborhood. So we have three residential,
we have a women's program and we actually have two women and children's programs and we have
two men's residences on our main campus and it's in a neighborhood, and we don't have, we haven't
had any issues. We try to be good neighbors. In September we have the kickoff to our prevention
education program. So we call it start smart field day. So all of the students that we teach in Albany
County, they come with their parents. We always invite our neighbors to our events and activities.
Tomorrow night we have our clients, staff, board of directors Thanksgiving over there and we invite
the neighbors to that. So, you know, we really haven't experienced any, you know, any serious issue
at all. We do, you know, we chaperone the clients when they're out, you know, they stay on site.
MR. DIXON-Would you be open to including a taller fence that borders the children's park?
MR. STACK-Excuse me?
MR. DIXON-So if you're looking at the building to the right there's the children's park. If there was
fencing to obscure some vision. I'm just trying to think of how this is going to look to the community.
MR. TRAVER-You're talking about tall fencing between this property and this?
MR. DIXON-And the children's park.
12
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. STACK-We wouldn't be opposed to doing that. I mean any of the particular issues you want us
to address we'll certainly do that.
MR. DIXON-And as we dig into the plans a little bit, Laura, are they on sewer or are they on septic at
this location? Do you have that answer?
MR. STACK-Sewer.
MRS. MOORE-Sewer.
MR. DIXON-Okay.
MR. SHAFER-And Town water?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Any questions?
MR. MAGOWAN-The only question, I think it's a great program. It's what we needed. We do have
a huge epidemic of opioids and other forms of drugs and I guess my main concern is really just the
security of the surrounding neighborhood. I know the building, the area, it's dark. It backs up to
the bank. I know across the street we have a 55 and up neighborhood. A lot of them are sitting
here, and I know we have the court next door. So my main concern would be more in the evening.
You say you're down to four to five employees at night. Just securing the building, not that they're,
you know, you said there haven't been any major, but, you know, have there been any instances where
maybe we should be concerned?
MR. STACK-Honestly I can't think of any. We really restrict them to the building and the property.
If there's an individual who, for whatever reason, decides well I don't want to be here anymore, they
don't just walk out, they're there voluntarily. Even if they're mandated, theoretically they're there
voluntarily. They're alternative would be incarceration, but we do an administrative discharge at that
point, and then we make sure they get to where they're going. Typically if they have legal issues
either probation or parole would come and pick them up. Otherwise it's a family member, something
like that.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have a discharge plan ideally in that case?
MR. STACK-We do. We're actually required to start the discharge and planning process and
admittance. We do regular interaction with, they call it collateral, but it's family members, friends who
they identify as being their supports. So we interact with them on a regular basis.
MR. MAGOWAN-So no one's being forced to be there. A lot of it's all voluntary. People are
saying, you know, I need help. I mean it's not an alternative instead of going to jail.
MS. WHITE-That's exactly what it is.
MR. STACK-Well, we can't force someone to stay. So some individuals are mandated and, you know,
so it's an alternative to incarceration. So if they decide well I don't want to be treated anymore, we
notify the appropriate drug court or probation parole, this individual has decided they don't want to
remain in treatment, then, you know, they would deal with that situation. If it's someone who's in
treatment because of an employment related issue or a family related issue, you know, there's a
consequence to them for that, but we don't force people to stay but we don't just let them walk out
the front door for example. So we facilitate the discharge. I mean there's a process.
MS. WHITE-They would, at that point, be transported.
MR. STACK-Yes.
MS. WHITE-With someone.
MR. STACK-That's one thing we never want to do is just to put somebody out the door. Then
frankly we're not doing our job treating somebody just by simply. Even if they're acting up in the
program for whatever reason, violating a rule in their interaction with other residents, we don't just
discharge them. We have a plan. In some cases they may need a higher level of care. They may
13
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
not be ready for treatment yet. We find a safe situation for them. We make that happen. We don't
just leave it up to the individual.
MR. DIXON-Well interesting as you're talking about release. You're expecting about 90% to be from
the local county or counties. Ten percent out of the county, possibly from Albany County?
MR. STACK-Well, you know, which could be Essex County, the surrounding North Country counties,
and I say that based upon our current experience. A women's program basically closed in April in
Granville, and that's basically this contract, they weren't funded anymore for any number of reasons.
So five of those women are now in our Albany women's program, and we get regular referrals from
the Warren County Drug Court, Kelly Sweet who's the Drug Court Officer, Manager. So we have
quite a few women now going to our Albany program from Warren/Washington/Essex County, but
they would be, I would say Warren/Washington and Essex County and, you know, adjacent counties.
MR. DIXON-When they're discharged, then, are they discharged back to their originating county?
MR. STACK-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. DIXON-1 think I'm done for now.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Brad, any follow ups? We have a public hearing, but before that.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm good right now. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience
who wanted to address the Planning Board on this? Yes, ma'am, and, sir, if you would give up the
table. We'll take public comment for a bit.
MR. STACK-Certainly.
MR. TRAVER-And then you'll have an opportunity to respond if you wish. Yes, ma'am.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SUSAN ANDREWS
MS. ANDREWS-I'm not sure what the allocated timeframe is. Five of my other neighbors who wanted
to attend, because of the weather conditions they didn't think they could navigate their wheelchairs
and canes very well. So they actually signed statements saying they could allocate their time to me in
case I run a little over.
MR. TRAVER-Well it doesn't exactly work that way, but we'll deal with that. So if you don't mind,
ma'am, if you would first state your name for the record.
MS. ANDREWS-Yes. My name is Susan Andrews.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, ma'am. So you're going to be expressing some concerns of your neighbors.
MS. ANDREWS-Yes. Mostly positive statements about the proposed program. I'm a Westwood
Homeowner but I'm also a passionate advocate for safe and human addiction treatment and recovery
programs for men and women of all ages. As a young student nurse back in the 60's and for many
years thereafter I witnessed what would now be considered very abusive treatment of patients that were
going through DT's and drug withdrawal. During my tour of duty as a young Navy nurse at Oakland
Navy Hospital back in 1971, caring for amputees, head injuries and spinal cord patients, combat veterans
medevacked in from Vietnam, I also worked in the Navy Alcohol Drug Rehab unit which was the first
such unit in our country which became the prototype for the Betty Ford care center and countless
other detox centers across our country. We learned by the late 60's that self-medication with alcohol,
marijuana and mood altering drugs including heroin became an accessible, though not successful way
of coping with the horrors of war for many. Coupled with the prolonged administration of narcotics
for combat wounds and multiple surgeries, we inadvertently created long lasting opiate addictions
without a sustained and humane strategy for easing all those patients off all those prescription drugs.
Many patients were actually transferred to psych units and ultimately dishonored with dishonorable
discharges. Most of these men were suffering from PTSD, a diagnosis long deferred and denied by
our VA medical system which was never designed to handle all the visible or invisible casualties of war,
14
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
that war, other wars and our current one. We were faced then, as we are now 50 years later in our
own homegrown civil war against opiate addictions, with long term medical and psychiatric challenges
which have no easy solutions for healthcare providers, the addicted patients, their family members, co-
workers, our wider communities and our entire nation. Anyone with a family member or friend who
suffers from addiction knows that the disease of addiction takes hostages. As a career Navy nurse,
former hospice nurse, parish nurse and hospital and hospice chaplain, I have witnessed up close and
personal the spiritual and physical and financial burdens inflicted upon countless families of all cultures
and religious affiliations. Addictions wound the souls of the addicted persons and those who love
them in immeasurable ways. As the daughter of an end stage alcoholic mother, the wife of an alcoholic
senior Naval officer, the step-mother of a cocaine addicted step-son and co-custodian of my former
husband's drug addicted nephew who ultimately committed suicide, I participated in four separate family
treatment programs in two different states over a five year period. I was desperate to save each of
their lives and to protect other people whose lives I feared they might endanger. I know the burden
it places on family members when their loved one is placed in a facility hours away and the sacrifices
they make just to drive there and visit them let alone needing to take time off from their jobs for
family therapy. I've watched the pendulum swing from inadequate treatment of patients with DT's and
drug withdrawal, to the evolution of almost country club permissive rehab centers aimed at improving
an addict's self-esteem while almost bankrupting lower and middle class families and hiking medical
insurance rates, and well intentioned pain management clinics sprung up all around our country from
the early 1990's right up until today with well-intentioned physicians and nurse practitioners prescribing
opiates for sports injuries, post-operative pain and other chronic conditions which were never designed
for long-term poorly supervised dosing and this has inadvertently contributed, along with some other
variables, to the opiate crises we face today. All the while pharmaceutical company executives and
stockholders have gotten richer, but we continue to deplete our human resources with the senseless
dying from opiate and other drug overdoses. On reviewing the 21 page New York State Residential
Services Guidelines for management of this proposed 18 unit women's drug detox center for Warren
and Washington Counties, and after meeting with seven other of my Westwood resident on March
9t", with the AC director Mr. Stack, many questions were asked and answered, but a few unresolved.
I'm hopeful that this gender specific versus the one size fits all combined male/female programs of the
past will be a success. As a perpetual advocate for women's health services, I believe that women have
unique recovery needs and goals which will hopefully be addressed more effectively in the days ahead.
In the poster that I passed over there with all the photos on the front and back that I've taken since
February when I read the article in the Post Star about the proposed detox center, I really need to
emphasize the close proximity of Freedom Park which is a disabled and able bodied children's
playground within a driveway's distance width of the proposed detox center. When I expressed
concern at that meeting with Mr. Stack that female patients of any age could be unduly stressed by
such close proximity to the sights and sounds of children playing and laughing and crying, particularly
if they had lost custody of their children or their grandchildren due to their drug problems, or if they
had gone through miscarriage or an elective abortion due to the drug problems during their pregnancy,
I was advised that the ACC agent might be able to build a wall between 75 Glenwood Avenue property
and the children's playground. That would be very costly I would imagine. I was also told that the
living spaces and conference rooms for these women would most likely be in the opposite side of this
building. So they wouldn't actually have to see the children. When the issue of inadequate outdoor
space for fresh air, sunshine and exposure to nature was raised, there was mention of using the existing
outside picnic table but also that yoga and other relaxation activities would be available inside the
building. If you look at those photos, on the left side of the front photos looking at the property
from Glenwood Avenue, you can see the close proximity of the Queensbury Town Court where
alleged criminals and others congregate in the parking lots awaiting arraignment during day and night
hours. You can also see the narrow right of way which goes over Halfway Brook adjacent to the
Berkshire Bank,the Queensbury Town Court and 79 Glenwood Avenue property. Cars speed through
that narrow road every day, posing a hazard to other vehicles as well as pedestrians, and that
unobstructed view of the only outside space in the back of the building that might be available to
perspective female patients to me is a clear violation of their right to privacy as they enter or exit the
building or go out for fresh air in that very limited space that you can see in all those photographs by
the backdoor, and I feel that it poses a potential safety risk if a former drug dealer that might be over
in the parking lot just yards away, or maybe someone else who's not invested in their recovery may
want quick access to a female patient. In addition, I've been advised by personnel at the Berkshire
Bank that I've spoken to, as well as the Southern Adirondack Independent Living Center that's on the
other side of the children's playground that there are fisherman who come into the Halfway Brook
area within a few yards of the backside of 79 Glenwood Avenue, the children's playground, as well as
the Independent Living Center area, and staff from the Independent Living Center have often needed
to go out and instruct those fishermen to leave the children's playground area and that entire private
property space. It further interferes with the right to privacy that tense female patients in the detox
center deserve to have, as well as perhaps posing a threat to their personal safety and indeed right after
fishing season started, early April, as I was driving down Glenwood Avenue, in the parking lot right
across from Glenwood Manor, three men got out of their truck with fishing poles, proceeded
15
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
downward towards Halfway Brook and eastward down towards where the children's playground is. To
this day, despite the violent atrocities committed against people of all ages in our country, many people
don't want to believe that it could happen here. I can only hope and pray that it doesn't, but in the
meantime I believe that we all need to do what we can, when we can, to ensure the safety and welfare
of the healthy and not so healthy members of our community. Thank you for listening.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning
Board? Yes, sir. I did see a hand back there. Again I would ask you to state your name for the
record for our minutes.
HERB LEVIN
MR. LEVIN-My name is Herb Levin. I live at 33 Marcy Lane in the private community of Westwood
right across the street from this facility. I think this facility is an excellent plan. It's a starting point
to fight the opiate and other drug addictions in this area. However, I think it's in the wrong location.
The application says that all green areas will be kept as they are. There are no green areas. It's all
paved. It's all parking lot. I'd like to know if a patient who is on good behavior and poses no threat
to anybody, if they suddenly have to have a smoke, are they going to be escorted out to the parking
lot to have a smoke? Or is the limited staff going to say go ahead, be back in 10 minutes? If a
patient on good behavior suddenly has the urge to have an ice cream, Sprinkles is a few hundred feet
away. Are they going to say we'll go with you or are they going to said go ahead, you've got 15
minutes? Knowing human nature what it is, my scenario is going to be that they're going to let the
patients be out over the bounds of the property. There's no way to secure the parking lot. Like
Susan said, there's a right of way through there, and there are a significant amount of cars coming
through. All you need to do is stand in that parking lot and count the cars as they go by. It's a
short cut that people use to go through the bank and through there to get to Glenwood Avenue.
It's right across the entrance to Westwood. Westwood occupied, I'm not sure, but I believe the
average age is over 70 is average age. A lot of the older residents are already traumatized by the lack
of security. This last year, for instance, we had some unscrupulous door to door salesman.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Traumatized by lack of security in their own neighborhood?
MR. LEVIN-In our residential.
MR. TRAVER-Not at this facility.
MR. LEVIN-Not at this facility, but it's not going to get any better. If the patients or the staff even
get bored, want some fresh air, what a nice place to go but across the street and down Westwood.
MR.TRAVER-Well we did discuss that with the applicant before. We'll certainly review those concerns
again, but I know that there was some discussion about the individuals in their service environment
and how they would interact with the outside and so on, but go ahead.
MR. LEVIN-Well, and finally I'd like to, I did some research. Recent drug relapse statistics show that
85% of individuals in their terms of drug use within a year following treatment. Other information
says that 60 to 70% of individuals in recovery relapse within 90 days. It's sad to say, but many of
the people going through this rehab will relapse and it's possible that they could commit crimes, general
property crimes, and what better place than a community of elderly people.
MR. TRAVER-So you're concerned, if I'm understanding it correctly, you're concern would be that
some of these individuals would relapse at the facility?
MR. LEVIN-No, after leaving the facility, knowing that Westwood is right across the street and elderly
people are going to be vulnerable. I don't think this is a good location for many different reasons,
but I do applaud their efforts in creating this facility.
MR. TRAVER-Well thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? I
see in front. I think you've been wanting to speak for some time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's okay. If there's somebody else that wants to.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, there is a gentleman in the back that had his hand raised. I'll let you two work
that out.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. I'll let you go first. I'm going to sum up.
16
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
RICHARD SMITH
MR. SMITH-Good evening. My name is Richard Smith. I live at 16 Quincy Lane here in the Town
of Queensbury and have for the last 15 years. I just want to dispel some of the myths that exist about
drug addicted individuals. On September 14, 2014 1 lost a 19 year old daughter to a heroin overdose.
The last 32 plus years I've worked in the New York State police and currently am assigned as a
Lieutenant Colonel at our headquarters in Albany. So while many might look at my daughter as the
boogie man, as some people think addicted individuals are, I can assure you she wasn't. She worked
with disadvantaged youth and she worked at a town pool with children's programs and she was
universally well liked prior to becoming involved with heroin.
MR. TRAVER-I'm very sorry for your loss.
MR. SMITH-Well thank you. I'm really not here for sympathy, but I would be here for empathy, and
I applaud one of the previous speakers' passionate address to the Board here today. I've spent my
entire adult life in law enforcement, and I would say to you that addicted people in treatment are less
of a threat to society than the individuals who motor in their cars without supervision day after day.
MR. TRAVER-Who are undiagnosed.
MR. SMITH-Undiagnosed. I certainly understand people's fears. I've lived with them for years and
I've spent my entire adult life working to assist people with those fears, but I can assure you that
individuals reside in our community that have addictions that are undiagnosed that are unknown to
you and I as their neighbors, and absent adequate treatment facilities like the one that's proposed here
before the Planning Board these people will continue down the path of self-destruction and many of
them might end up like my daughter, on a gurney in a hospital. So I would ask that you seriously
consider this as a first step in helping our community and I appreciate the time. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes, sir. There's one other gentleman. Good evening, sir.
ADAM GUESTER
MR. GUESTER-Hi, my name is Adam Guester. I only have one concern. I take my grandkids, and I
see a lot of other people over in that playground that they're talking about. Now these people, when
I first understood it, they would not be outside. Now all at once this fellow got up here and said
they're going to be outside. Now would you take your kids five feet from them? That's my problem.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GUESTER-1 mean I'm all for a treatment center, but I think they need to put it someplace else.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. It looks like we have another. Good evening.
JENNIFER NEIFELD
MS. NEIFELD-Good evening. I'm Jennifer Neifeld. I'm the Chief Operating Officer of 820 River
Street Incorporated. I run the Baywood Clinic. It's an outpatient clinic at 551 Bay Road. We currently
have 200 addicts and alcoholics in that facility that I'm treating on a daily basis. Keith Stack and I,
I've worked with him for years. This is such a needed facility and I'm sitting here like chomping at
the bit, because addicts aren't bad people. They're people that are sick, that are trying to get better.
I'm 20 years in recovery myself. People aren't out there harming. When they break the law or
they're after something it's because they're in the midst of their addiction. If they're in a treatment
facility, at least they're getting hope. The seed is being planted. Yes, they relapse, you know, they
have something yet to learn, but the people that are out in the street now that we've got right in our
community that are breaking into houses, that are stealing things, those are the people that we need
to get into treatment. The closest facility for us to refer anybody in patient is down in Glenville at
Conifer Park or down in Albany and we have to wait months to get them in, and in the meantime
they're out there struggling. They're out there going to these doctors that are giving them Soboxon
and all this other. They're taking it illegally. They're breaking the law every day to manage their
addiction. This facility also, it's the Granville Halfway House. It's part of our corporation that closed
in Granville. It was a 15 bed female residential program. It was not as intensive as the one Mr. Stack
is putting into Queensbury. However, the need in our community, in Warren and Washington County
for any type of residential program, every report that I have read is right at the top of the list. I
really encourage the Board and what I'm hearing is not in my backyard and I really hope that that
17
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
stigma is not going to carry over into this Board today because we've come a long way to kind of get
that stigma out of here and what I'm hearing is, I don't want it in my backyard and really I really have
to support this. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Jennifer, excuse me. Congratulations on your 20 years, too. I know the main
concern would be the security, and after Richard Smith, I like that the people in treatment are less of
a threat than the people that are undiagnosed that are out there on the streets. In your years in
handling all the clients that you have seen,what is your feeling? I mean obviously,are they trustworthy?
I mean, overall what are some of the problems that you might have seen? I mean, like I said, if
someone is that desperate and they're actually in treatment and they want to try and they're going for
it and it's voluntary?
MS. NEIFELD-I can't answer that question. I really don't feel that's an issue. We are in a professional
office up there. We have neighbors up there. Our clients stand out in our parking lot. They're
out there having coffee in between groups. They walk to Stewarts. They're not concerned about,
oh my God, somebody's going to see me, you know. They don't rob Stewarts. They haven't done
any damage to any property up in that area. We've been there for over 20 years now. Our landlord
is Dr. Merrigan. He is so pleased that we are there and wants to keep us there. So, you know, I
think that, I just think there's a lot of misconceptions about people that suffer from addictions and
they're wonderful people. They're very, very smart and intelligent. These people have learned how
to survive. They have skills that we probably can't even imagine. They have trauma from their
background, from their history that they're trying to overcome and I just feel that in this community
it would be an unbelievable thing to be able to say, hey, Warren County's got this great facility now.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MS. WHITE-Can I just ask you just briefly. Somebody mentioned concerns about the children, and
the noise from the children and people at the Town Court or fisherman being able. What I'm hearing
you say is that the existence of the facility takes priority over the location. Is that what? You're
kind of saying that, not to be concerned about these women and the closeness,the noise or the people?
MS. NEIFELD-Not necessarily. I don't think that's an issue. We have a lot of women that do not
have children and Dr. Merrigan does evaluation on school children and they're in and out of that
building all the time. I don't think, I think that you're going to find something wrong with, there's
not going to be a perfect location, bottom line. You're going to have the same conversations, whether
you move it someplace else. You're still going to have these same issues that are going to come up.
It's going to be up to how people want to perceive it and how much you want to reach out and do
something different in our area. You can't arrest your way out of this. This isn't a criminal thing.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you very much.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Anyone else want to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. Finally, right?
LIONEL EMERY
MR. EMERY-Good evening. I'm Lionel Emery. I'm the President of the Homeowners Association at
Westwood. Just for the record, Westwood is not an age restricted community. However, most of
the people there or a majority I would say are retired seniors. Westwood Drive is a private drive,
owned by the Westwood community. Just a point of interest in this. When this proposal came out
in the newspaper last February my phone started ringing. People were alarmed. They were alarmed
about their personal security, security of the neighborhood, their home values, will the value of their
property be adversely affected by a facility like this. I tried to stay objective. I've stated a number
of times to people that I don't feel a not in my backyard attitude is really defensible. I just, that's my
personal feeling, and people disagree with me, but I think we need to look at this objectively and hold
the emotions down. That's what I've tried to do. Let me make a couple of points here. First off,
I noticed on the application when we met, we met with Mr. Stack, Mr. Stack graciously met with us
last spring when we contacted Supervisor Strough and expressed our concerns because we hadn't been
advised of this proposal that came out in the newspaper and it caught us by surprise. Keith Stack
graciously came up, met with us. We talked about all of our concerns and I think we had a very good
meeting, but one of the points that was made both in the press articles which I have copies of here
and in our discussion was the capacity of this facility was going to be 14 females. I notice now it's up
to 18. There is a concern about the compact size of this. We had Mr. Stack describe the facilities in
18
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
Albany and I have pictures of those facilities, and it's a much larger neighborhood, even though there
is a residential neighborhood right across the street, but they have multiple buildings and a much larger
campus. Whereas this building, as has been stated, is very compact. I'll try not to duplicate the
points made here.
MR. TRAVER-1 appreciate that because we have given people a lot of leeway.
MR. EMERY-Right. One thing that wasn't brought up and has been brought up in our discussions
with people talking to me is a concern about visitation. In fact there's more concern about visitors,
there's been more concern expressed to me about visitors visiting the residential facility and the visitors
hanging around the facility and encroaching on, you know, coming over to the neighborhood and
walking around and so forth, worrying about security and safety, which wasn't brought up by the
Board, and I presume you'll address that with Mr. Stack.
MR. TRAVER-Well that's the reason we have public hearing is to take public comment.
MR. EMERY-Okay. Lastly, I guess, is the question of hopefully, you know, if this facility is put there
everything goes fine, but if something happens, stuff happens all the time, doesn't go as planned, a
problem comes up and there's an adverse effect on our community, you know, what is the recourse?
How do we deal with that? That's a concern.
MR. TRAVER-Yes we did ask them about their reporting organizations and they are audited on a
regular basis. We'll ask that again.
MR. EMERY-Okay. With that, that's all I have there to offer. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone who has not addressed the Planning Board
on this application that wants to? Okay. Laura, are there any written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We'll ask the applicant to return to the table if you would. Let's see. Just trying to
paraphrase some of the public comment and I appreciate that you were here to listen to all of it, there
was a question, I guess one of the easy ones I hope would be the question of visitors, and are they
allowed unobserved access or are they allowed to sort of roam the grounds and that type of thing?
MR. STACK-We have planned and scheduled visits with family.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. STACK-So we have a visitation room. So the visits take place inside, inside our building. So
there's not, you know, people milling around outside. We have scheduled visits. They're monitored
visits, simply because we worry about somebody bringing drugs in.
MR. TRAVER-Certainly. Yes, I can see how you would be.
MR. STACK-So they're monitored visits.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. There was a question about smoking.
MR. STACK-By regulation we're tobacco free. Smoking is not allowed on our property, period.
MR. TRAVER-On your property. Okay. So if you have, I imagine a number of these individuals are
addicted to nicotine as well as other substances. How do you deal with that? How have you dealt
with that with your, for example in your Albany facility? I imagine the regulations are the same.
MR. STACK-In certain cases they're being referred from another treatment program. So that other
treatment program would be tobacco free, but we treat for tobacco dependence. That's part of our
counseling work that we do and we make nicotine replacement therapies available, patches. Our staff
are trained in several tobacco dependence modalities, the butt stops here. We treat for that.
MR. TRAVER-So would these individuals have possession of tobacco products?
19
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. STACK-No.
MR. TRAVER-So they wouldn't even have a cigarette. If they wanted to go out and have one, they
wouldn't have one.
MR. STACK-That's correct.
MS. WHITE-What about staff smoking?
MR. STACK-It's a problem. Staff are not, it's interesting how they describe it in the regulation, but
staff are not supposed to enter the building smelling like tobacco products or smoke. They don't
smoke on the facility. We make nicotine replacement therapy available to our staff that do smoke, but
they don't smoke on the property.
MR. DIXON-But for their breaks.
MR. STACK-I'm sure they do. They would travel off site, but we, you know, if they come in smelling
like smoke, that becomes an HR issue that we have to deal with, frankly because we're regulated and
that's one of the, when they do re-certification reviews, that's one of the issues they stress.
MR. TRAVER-A question was raised about, a concern about these folks having access to fresh air and
sunlight and Vitamin D and all that stuff. So do you have, and you mentioned when you spoke
previously that you have recreational activities proposed. So people who are, wanted to go sunbathing
or wanted to get fresh air, whatever, do they typically do that in your parking lot or is that something
that you organize and maybe have a trip somewhere?
MR. STACK-The residents are there for treatment. So they would be, you know, they could go
outside, but it's restricted to our property, the property boundaries. We could do organized
recreational activities outside, you know, like yoga or Zumba. We would have the appropriate mats
and things like that, but those are organized activities, and when they're not in a group session or a
family session or individual session, they would be allowed to go outside, but it would be within the
confines of the property boundaries.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Again, there was discussion earlier about the playground nearby. I guess first
the question was raised about people in treatment who have lost, perhaps only temporarily, but they've
been separated perhaps from children, and now they're hearing children playing in a playground and
from your experience, how does that impact on their treatment, Number One, and have you made
any plans to try to offset or compensate for that? I know there was talk about a wall. Can you just
try to address that issue?
MR. STACK-1 mean we can certainly, you know, put up an appropriate fence adjacent to the park.
Relative to the impact on women who have been separated from their children by hearing children
playing next door, one of our main goals and responsibilities when we're treating these women is to
reunite them with their family. Many of the women, you know women face, Susan Andrews makes a
very good point. Women do face very particular and distinct challenges relative to addiction. Number
One, there's less treatment available for women, but it's hard for a woman, particular a woman with
children, to get into treatment simply because they are the caregivers. So it's very challenging, in their
situation, to find an adequate living situation for their child that enables them to get into a treatment
setting for an extended period of time. We also find that often if women are able to get into treatment,
that situation may break down, and, you know, so then they would have to leave treatment to fill an
obligation to care for their child, or they're afraid to go into treatment because they know they're
going to get separated from their child. So because of all of those instances it's very challenging for
women to remain in treatment and get the treatment they need. So one of the, that's why we have a
licensed mental health counselor, family counselor, and it's really our responsibility to start making that
connection with the family again.
MR. TRAVER-And you mentioned that you have organized visitation. At least in some cases I assume
their children could be part of that.
MR. STACK-Absolutely. Yes, in our program I referenced before we have the appropriate, when you
go to the doctor's office they have the room with the kid furniture and things like that. So we have
all that available. We have staff available to attend to the children if the mother's with another adult
family member for example. So we address those issues, but one of our key goals is to reunite the
family.
20
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. TRAVER-And a question about the building itself. This building is or was for sale, I guess.
MR. STACK-Yes, we have a contract to purchase it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if this plan goes through then the sale would be completed. If not, are you
aware of others that might be interested in the building, or have you heard about other potential
occupants and maybe some other use for the facility other than your?
MR. STACK-1 have not, no.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. STACK-1 did want to just, John Kellogg perhaps can clarify this. It's not actually a right of way.
I think that's something that's evolved, but it's not a formal right of way.
MR. TRAVER-1 know at least at one point there were some pretty severe speed bumps in that area.
MR. STACK-There still are.
MR. TRAVER-There was a non-profit that occupied that building some years ago when the earth was
still cooling and I was a board member there, and I can remember my car, I don't remember what car
I had at the time, but kind of going through there and it was not something that I'd want to try to do
at any speed at all, but if you want to address that, if you want to come up and put your name on the
record, that's fine. It's up to you.
MR. KELLOGG-I'm John Kellogg. I've been working with Keith on this. We did do a survey and we
did not find anything in the survey that shows that there's any legal right of way there for that between
the bank and the property.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So hypothetically would plans be to close that right of way?
MR. STACK-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. There was talk about fisherman. I mean that's public property. I'm not sure
what you, I'm not as avid a fisherman as I used to be, but I would hope that you wouldn't prohibit
people from fishing as long as they're not.
MR. KELLOGG-They're property line really runs right along it. So it's private property on their side.
So I don't know where the public property would be where they could access that creek.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but I would think as with other citizens or individuals that might be passing
through or passing by the area, you would really only be concerned if they were encroaching on your
facility. Right?
MR. STACK-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments?
MR. DIXON-1 have a few questions.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DIXON-So if I start off with the floor plan itself and I'm looking at the second floor, I'm counting
eight bedrooms, eight double bedrooms. Early on you said that this was going to house 18 women.
MR. KELLOGG-There's handicap on the first floor.
MR. DIXON-All right,and are there any provisions for any single bedrooms? Because I would imagine
there's going to be instances where people are not going to get along very well and you may have to
separate people. I don't know what your provisions are for that. The additional comment to that is,
on the second floor you have a bedroom listed, and I don't know if it's just a flaw in the design, but
there's no window to it, and I'm sympathetic. From everything I've heard from the audience here
today, it sounds like people would prefer that it's not in their backyard for this project, but I am
hearing a level of support and that support being having an appropriate facility that can really care for
these individuals. So my concern would be, on the second floor top left there by the staircase there's
no windows for an individual that's housed in that area. To me that would almost feel like a jail
21
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
sentence I guess, and the other comment that I want to through out there, and I think it's a significant
one, is truly the lack of green space for these individuals. So if we were to move forward with this
project, I would want to see more green space so people can get out, they can enjoy the fresh air, they
can have grass under their feet. Additional plantings against, or along the lines with the children's
park there. I know we can't make it a perfect project, but I think the concept is good. I think there
still needs to be some work on the design.
MR. TRAVER-So more landscaping, it sounds like what you're looking for.
MR. DIXON-More landscaping. Maybe addressing the bedroom count. I know we're looking to
house 18 individuals in there. Maybe it needs to be drawn back to 16, and I heard somebody in the
audience mention that it was originally quoted as 14.
MR. TRAVER-Well some of that, if I might, I believe some of that's regulatory. Their ability to
designate a given room as a bedroom, I believe, is regulatory, but correct me if I'm wrong, but, yes,
they can certainly address that, 16 versus 18.
MR. STACK-Our contract is for a specific number, but we can certainly, I mean we have to abide by
the wishes of the community.
MS. WHITE-Does one of the bedrooms not have a window? Is that the case?
MR. STACK-1 don't know. By code it has to have a window.
MS. WHITE-That's what I'm asking.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like it might be a medical office.
MR. STACK-By code a sleeping room has to have a window.
MS. WHITE-Has to have a window.
MR. STACK-These are not for permanent use.
MS. WHITE-That's what I was thinking.
MR. TRAVER-So you probably have to have a secure medication room for example, that you might
need on that.
MR. STACK-A separate medication room and then lock boxes within the medication room.
MR. TRAVER-Right. You've got to have, I would imagine you're going to have a records room of
some kind that would also have to be secured. That wouldn't need a window.
MR. STACK-We will have a records room. Frankly most of our records now are electronic.
MR. DIXON-Yes, I would just hate to see it being a housing unit for these women. I would like a lot
of care given, and thought given to this because as they are recovering they're going to be under a
great deal of stress, and I would venture a guess that everybody in this room probably knows at least
one person that has gone through some level of recovery, and it's not easy. So I guess I'm looking
at my role up here if we have some control over making this the best possible project for you, for the
community. Those are my thoughts.
MR. STACK-Again, we can certainly add green space. Frankly, obviously that's the process. I
MR. TRAVER-And one of the things that we would need to do to, hypothetically, to codify that is if
we're talking about, we can't simply say just add some green space. We would need to agree on what
that would look like, how many square feet it would be, and likewise with you hypothetically putting
up a wall. We would need to say where is it, how high is it, what's it made of, all of that. So we'll
have to get to that point should we arrive there. Other questions?
MR. MAGOWAN-Right now I counted up 30 parking spots plus two handicap, and if you were able
to eliminate that road in the back, I mean you could open up that nice back corner, you know, for
more green space. I mean how many spaces do you actually need?
MR. TRAVER-Parking spaces?
22
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. What do we call for in Codes? I mean they're talking 10 on staff, 8 to 12
during the day, 4 to 5 at night. There'd be a little change over. How many?
MR. STACK-Yes, but we wouldn't need 30. Again I'm not clear on what.
MR. TRAVER-Laura can clarify that for you. So, but certainly any parking area, and we're talking
about adding some landscaping.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well it's pretty much all macadam except for the one area over there along the
playground. I know the fence is right up next to the Town Court.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So identifying the parking spaces that are not required, there's a potential for.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then if you're closing off that back road, I mean, you could get an area where,
the only place you're going to be able to do yoga right now is on the front yard.
MR. STACK-The only issue there I believe would be we'd just have to get a, there's a wetland back
there, the stream.
MR. KELLOGG-We would be within a certain distance of that stream,and that brings us into a different
agency.
MRS. MOORE-That brings them into a Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-To, what, close off the road? Get rid of the macadam, turn it green?
MR. STACK-Well to modify that, to do any work within that.
MR. KELLOGG-So that's what we would have to do. We would just have to get the appropriate
permit to do that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know that right of way is used, not right of way, the access road is used
quite a bit because people want to cut across they could do it that way, and take out two lights, and
that's, you know, and that's not fair for Glenwood.
MR. TRAVER-So that would be a safety improvement.
MR. MAGOWAN-That would be a real huge safety improvement. I mean, and I always, you know, I
see it as more people that would probably be hanging around the back of the Town Courts that I'd be
more worried about than the women going outside to get some fresh air. I would like to see maybe
a taller border fence, maybe along the playground.
MR. TRAVER-Can you be specific?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, a solid vinyl fence maybe, you know, six foot high that would help to lessen
some of the concerns there. I mean not that I think that the kids would be scared, and like I said to
me, it wouldn't bother me. It's not like it's got the barbed wire fence and I go back past Comstock
and to this day it's still pretty scary. Do you know what I'm saying? So this is not what we're talking.
This is something that needs to come in. We've been talking about it up on the County level is it's a
huge problem and I really, I think the fears of having it in my backyard, I don't feel that because I'm
on that road two or three times a day and there's a lot of commercial around there, but if we're going
to move forward and we're going to have an area outside, I'd like to see more of a green area to make
that feasible, and like I said, and if they do gather outside it would be on the backside of the building
where it's more commercial and they can talk over the fence to the Town Court people.
MR. TRAVER-Laura, did you have something to offer?
MRS. MOORE-So you asked about parking requirements, and at this point they need approximately
18 spaces.
MR. TRAVER-Eighteen.
23
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MRS. MOORE-So we discussed at our pre-application meeting in regards to green space which they
thought would be a good idea, I agreed with it. We also looked up on our GIS mapper, and I can pull
it up, is there is the wetland due to Halfway Brook. So they're subject to the Freshwater Wetlands
Permit to go along with their Site Plan. It's something that they would have to amend the application
to do that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So would that require them to return, hypothetically, to us?
MRS. MOORE-At a later date, yes.
MR. TRAVER-It would. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So you would get a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, and they need to follow through on
their survey and where that wetland boundary is that needs to be mapped.
MR. TRAVER-Flagged, right?
MRS. MOORE-Flagged.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you might be able to get 10 spots right on the side of the playground.
MR. TRAVER-The playground.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that would be the employee parking.
MR. DIXON-1 mean currently is you're looking on the east side of the building there's greater than 18
spaces there already.
MRS. MOORE-Right in their backyard. I mean that's exactly where the wetland sits, but if you work
with DEC or Army Corps at this point to determine where that wetland boundary is. It may be a bit
different. So it might be something to look at.
MR. DIXON-Well currently there's still enough parking. You could almost turn everything on the
west side and part of the back all to green space.
MR. TRAVER-Well we have to be specific so our acting secretary can make the.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'd keep the green space off the west side since there seems to be such a
concern with the playground.
MRS. MOORE-1 guess I would have the applicant evaluate where green space could go. Because right
now we don't know.
MR. TRAVER-Come up with a landscaping plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds better, right.
MS. WHITE-1 agree.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you've heard the concerns.
MR. TRAVER-So if we're getting into wetland permit and landscape plan, Laura, should we wait on
SEQR as well?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Could I make a comment?
MR. TRAVER-You may not. We have closed the public hearing. I'm sorry. You can submit written
comment and the applicant will be returning, it sounds like, after some additional planning. All right.
Other questions, comments? If we have some, if we ask the applicant to think about the property in
terms of landscaping, green space, fencing on the border with the playground, so they will be doing
that and turning around and coming back to present us with that information and also the DEC
24
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
information. Are there any other elements that Board members would like the applicant to,
information to provide to us?
MS. WHITE-We talked about closing off that road.
MR. TRAVER-That I suspect will be part of their green space plan.
MR. DIXON-1 believe we also talked about on the east side where the Town building was there was
concern over people that were going to the Town building. We had discussed as far as green maybe
a fence over there as well.
MR. TRAVER-A fence there as well?
MRS. MOORE-1 think there's an existing fence. I would guess its length should be evaluated.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a split rail.
MR. DIXON-Something a little more substantial.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So if there's been, and there was some concern expressed about the
potential interaction between people that might be waiting to be heard at the Town Court level and
consumers of your services. You may want to consider or evaluate the existing fence and see if there's
any merit in, you know, improving it or updating it.
MR. STACK-It is simply a split rail fence. It would be an upgrade for it to be meaningful.
MR. TRAVER-And so the suggestion for the playground side was a solid vinyl fence six feet high. So
maybe at the same time you could do both sides. If you want to take a look at that.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm going to say vinyl. If you go wood, you know, it's nothing but maintenance.
MR. TRAVER-They have vinyl that looks like wood. Don't they?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well they do. I would look into, you know, the earth tone colors to blend it all
in, because you do have a brick building. The building next door is brown, the playground, you know,
but I don't want to say vinyl.
MR. STACK-Understood.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean they do have different composite type fencing, but I would say at least
that high, and if not from the corner of the Court back if that's what the Board wishes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, a question for Staff. With the application presumably being modified
and a SEQR review being postponed until we see that modification, would there be another public
hearing at that point?
MRS. MOORE-You could potentially open up, re-open the public hearing now.
MR. TRAVER-And leave it open.
MRS. MOORE-And leave it open and just for, in reference to timeframe, I don't know how quickly a
delineation can be done about the wetlands. So I'd almost move it to a January meeting if that's,
looking at the applicant, if that works because our December meetings, the deadline comes up this
Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-My guess is that's too quick.
MR. TRAVER-Could we try to make that work? Could you come back in January maybe with these
things, and that would resolve the remaining issues as far as the grounds and so on? What I would
offer, perhaps, there's some concern about the interior, in terms of how it may or may not impact the
people staying there. I don't know if you can clarify maybe on your plan what the rooms' uses are
going to be so we'll know who's going to be in the windowless bedroom or not, or whatever that type
of thing. That might help to explain sort of the comfort level or whatever of the individuals. So
then I guess to clarify then what we would be doing this evening would be a tabling of your application
25
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
and we would delineate some specific things that we would be looking for for you to return, with the
goal that you would be back in January, and I know we have the calendar, Laura, but I'm not sure that
I have the January schedule on my '18 meeting. So what date would you suggest? I know it's in our
packet but I haven't discussed it yet.
MR. MAGOWAN-We have the 15" and the 22nd
MRS. MOORE-The 15" and the 22nd
MR. TRAVER-The 15" and the 22nd. Okay. So any preference?
MRS. MOORE-None. That's completely up to the applicant.
MR. STACK-This is all going to depend on DEC's approval.
MRS. MOORE-So let's start with the first one, the 15t", and then if he needs to move it we'll table it to
the 22nd
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So then that would be 1/15/19, believe it or not, would be the
meeting. So for purposes of potential changes in the Site Plan, we are re-opening the public hearing
this evening.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. TRAVER-So when this application returns it will be different than what you have seen and studied.
The applicant will have the opportunity to address some of the issues that were discussed this evening,
and then there will be another opportunity, potentially January 15" would be the goal. The applicant
would return and we would then re-hear public comment at that point. Does everybody understand
how that works? Okay. All right. So then we're ready for a tabling motion.
MR. MAGOWAN-So we have fencing along both sides, driveway cut through with wetlands.
MR. TRAVER-DEC delineation of wetlands and work with the Town to process a wetlands permit.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. The short version of that?
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure you can shorten it.
MR. MAGOWAN-DEC delineation of wetlands.
MRS. MOORE-Well I don't know if it's DEC. It's just delineation of the wetlands.
MR. MAGOWAN-DEC wetland delineation.
MR. TRAVER-So they go along and they actually literally put flags down.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So we're just going to ask DEC for the wetland permit.
MR. TRAVER-Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MRS. MOORE-Can I correct that again? It's just a wetland delineation. Do not put an acronym in
front of it.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So cut through with the wetland delineation. All right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then a wetlands permit application needs to be submitted, and Laura should be
able to assist you with that process, or her staff, and then a request for clarification of the interior
room usage. You mentioned the fencing, right?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 got the fencing. What was that you just said?
MR. TRAVER-Clarification of the labeling of the interior room, because I don't think it changed from
the current.
MR. MAGOWAN-Labeling of rooms.
26
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DIXON-Did we get on there the proposed improvement to green space?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they're going to be submitting a landscaping plan. Trying to maximize your green
space. Laura can help you with that as well.
MR. MAGOWAN-How do you want me to say that, proposed?
MR. TRAVER-Submit a landscaping plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-With green space.
MR. TRAVER-I've never seen a landscaping plan that was all blacktop. Have you?
MR. MAGOWAN-With green space. Right?
MR. TRAVER-They usually come with green space. Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Well it could be red space.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sure that won't be far off.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 69-2018 ADDICTIONS CARE CENTER OF ALBANY [ACCA]
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to use an existing two story structure
for a health related facility — a women's residential substance use disorder treatment and recovery
service. The existing building is 4,357 sq. ft. (footprint). The applicant proposes no exterior changes
to the building or site. All parking, green areas and lighting to remain as is. Pursuant to Chapter 179-
3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new use for health related facility shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2018 THE ADDICTIONS CARE CENTER OF ALBANY
A( CCAI, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer:
Until the January 15, 2019 Planning Board meeting. At which time we will have:
1. Further plans on the fencing on both sides.
2. The driveway cut through with the wetland delineation.
3. A wetland application permit.
4. Clarification of the labeling of the rooms.
5. Submission of a landscaping plan along with added greenspace.
Duly adopted this 13t" day of November, 2018, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Just a note, I have one more item, is that the information should be submitted by
December 15t". If you're not able to do that please contact me. That's sort of a scheduled date.
MR. TRAVER-Well that's not normally part of the resolution. I mean that's a requirement, right?
MRS. MOORE-It is. Well, if you don't put it in there then the applicant doesn't have guidance about
when they should submit it.
MR. MAGOWAN-All this to be.
MRS. MOORE-You don't have to put it in there. They understand that.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So the resolution stands.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
27
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in a few weeks. The next item on our agenda is Site Plan 68-
2018 for Justine Dobert.
SITE PLAN NO. 68-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JUSTINE DOBERT. OWNER(SJ: 52 MAIN
STREET, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 52 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
MAINTAIN A PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND COMMERCIAL USE
STRUCTURE TO DISCOURAGE CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC. THE FENCE IS 32.7 FT. AT 6 FT. IN
HEIGHT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FENCES IN
COMMERCIAL ZONES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: UV 44-2004; SP 67-2004; SP 47-2009; SP 11-2005; MULTIPLE SIGNS &
PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2018. LOT SIZE: .45 ACRE. TAX MAP
NO. 309.10-2-28. SECTION: 179-5-070.
JUSTINE DOBERT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-This is an application to maintain a privacy fence between an existing residence and a
commercial use structure.
MS. WHITE-1 apologize, Laura. Can we ask for the room to be cleared out?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant maintains a privacy fence between the existing residence and the
commercial use structure and they would like to discourage cut through traffic. The fence is
approximately 32.7 feet and 6 feet in height.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good evening.
MRS. DOBERT-Hello. I'm Justine Dobert.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Could you tell us about your fence?
MRS. DOBERT-Yes. So we have two rental properties on Main Street. One is a residential at 50
Main Street and then 52 Main Street is a commercial property, and 52 Main Street there is a fitness
center there and 50 Main Street is rented to an elderly couple. We've had a lot of cut through traffic
there. The properties are on the corner of Main and Richardson. So when vehicles are coming,
heading west, they often turn into the driveway of 50 Main Street and cut right through because the
properties are connected, come out the corner of 52 Main Street on Richardson, and there have been
a couple of accidents. We were trying to discourage cut through traffic with some cones and some
rope and some flagging, and we had a woman actually drive her car right through that and kind of get
hooked on the rope and then she yelled at the tenant. So with the grandson playing outside in the
front yard, he has one of those little cars, and it's all. It used to be all just like hard packed dirt, and
then we paved it, and since we paved it in the spring, the cut through has increased. I guess it's just
a nicer driving area. And the two year old goes out in his little car and scoots around on the pavement
there, and, you know, we've had our tenant express concern about him getting hit by a vehicle and
then the fitness center next door, now they hold classes sometimes in that front area. They're out
flipping those giant tires. It's the CrossFit place where they're all exercising, and they seem, they go
running down the road and sprint back in and it's really a great thing.
MR. TRAVER-So the fence is really almost a safety/traffic control device.
MRS. DOBERT-It is, definitely. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So you put up the fence and then the Town said you need to get approval for that.
Right?
MRS. DOBERT-Yes, and it was one of those things, I guess, you know, looking at it now we should
have gotten approval prior to putting the fence up, but I think that my husband is so busy and, you
know,and we had these complaints. We were talking about it and we actually had these two,a weekend
and just some resources to just say let's do it now. So we just jumped on it and put it up, and we're
like, phew, we finally got that. We were really getting worried about just something bad happening
there. So that was why we put it up so quickly and didn't even think about making the plans.
MR. TRAVER-So now you're basically going through the process and you're asking us to allow you to
leave the fence up, even though it was unapproved when you put it up?
28
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MRS. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. DOBERT-That's it. I like the fence. I think it matches the building well. I like the way it
distinguishes between the commercial and the residential, and we painted both of the links and one's
white and one's gray now and I just think that overall we've improved that property a lot in the last
year, the looks of it. I mean it was kind of like we were driving by it like you know. I think it's a lot
better and safer.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. DOBERT-So we would like to just keep the fence.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-Justine, this is a very timely issue for all of us. We are working on an unapproved
development protocol right now in the Town and our resolution at the beginning of the meeting, I
don't know if you were here to hear that resolution we presented to the Town. We come up with
the fact that sometimes it's easier to put it up and then come back and ask for approval after, and it's
a very touchy subject for us.
MS. WHITE-In this case it does not sound like that.
MR. DEEB-But it's still unapproved development. Okay. I'm not saying the need is not there. It's
there, okay, but proper protocol wasn't followed, but the other thing I guess is it is a good project.
You did need that and it did have to be done, but it's just amazing the timing of this for you to come
in here with this, to do this. You said you've tried to take it down but you ran into problems, in
your narrative?
MRS. DOBERT-Well, it was, it would have damaged some of the fence and we would have had to replace
it.
MR. DEEB-But you attempted to take it down.
MRS. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Okay. At least you attempted to do that before you came in.
MR. TRAVER-And what you represented to us this evening is that you were unaware that you required
approval ahead of time for this fence.
MRS. DOBERT-Yes. I was not aware,and it definitely, I could see where maybe that happens occasionally
or more than I would think. I personally wouldn't do that on purpose, though.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and the concern that we're trying to address, to be honest with you, is usually
not a fence. It's a house or a deck or something that has a significant environmental impact.
MR. DEEB-Yes, it's a much bigger project.
MR. MAGOWAN-And your relationship to Stan?
MRS. DOBERT-He's my husband.
MR. TRAVER-1 suspected it.
MR. MAGOWAN-And he knows better.
MR. DEEB-Is that why he's not here tonight?
MRS. DOBERT-He's on a job down in Westchester. He said to say hi.
MR. MAGOWAN-So there is a code in Queensbury for the height of fence, from front yard to rear
yard, and usually on the side yards, but I know, you know, in the rear yards it's six foot, but in the
front yards it can't be six foot, and you happen to be on the Main Street corridor.
29
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MS. WHITE-Well is this fence in compliance?
MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry,that's a residential. You're discussing about its height. In commercial zones,
the only requirement in commercial zones is it requires Site Plan Review. There is discussion through
site plan, if there was a security issue and you had to put up barbed wire, and you'd have to explain in
detail why you needed such high security features to your fence. In this case it's six feet and it's a
commercial zone. All it requires is Site Plan Review. It's not a height issue.
MS. WHITE-So if they had come to us ahead of time, this would have been in compliance.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MS. WHITE-The fence itself.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the only thing that really concerns me with the height of that fence down at
the end is the view coming from alongside your building on Richardson Street. It takes out the angle
of the people coming this way to be able to see if any cars are going to run the red light at the last
minute. I like it, and I see the need for it and it's very good. The only thing I would suggest, and
you could say this just as per your punishment for doing this is if you came back to that next post,
right, eight foot back, or whatever the next post is,and then dropped that down to a three foot height.
Do you know what I'm saying? Just angle that one last post down.
MR. TRAVER-For sight line purposes?
MR. MAGOWAN-So the sight line.
MRS. DOBERT-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Do you follow what I'm saying?
MRS. DOBERT-Not exactly. No.
MR. MAGOWAN-What you're going to do is you're just going to take from this eight feet back,
where this post is, this red line, you're going to go from six feet down to three. Just open that.
MR. TRAVER-So that the visibility of drivers is.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm worried, see how close this is here? The post is right down here. That's on
the corner of Richardson Street. This gives the people coming up Main Street, gives them across your
parking lot there.
MR. TRAVER-Is that going to have an impact on her quest to stop the traffic?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, no, because the fence is still going to be there. All you're doing is just
lowering.
MRS. DOBERT-Well, what I'm wondering, I guess I would need to really look at it in person.
MRS. MOORE-It's 35 feet from that corner.
MRS. DOBERT-Yes, and our issue with the fence being that high, too, was when we had cones across
and we even had.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just asking this last eight feet to drop down that corner.
MR. TRAVER-But that's 35 feet from the corner, Brad. Isn't that adequate visibility the way it is?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, not the way that traffic is on Main Street.
MR. DEEB-I don't know. Thirty-five feet's a good number of feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Drive it, you'll see what I'm talking about. Especially if you drive like me. You
need all the room you need to slow down.
MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you take the mouse and show us the area that Brad is talking about?
30
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MRS. MOORE-So can you see this red line? So this is 35 feet from the corner, which is to the middle
of where that fence is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the fence is where your mouse is now?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-That's one end of the fence?
MRS. MOORE-No. So this is the distance. So the fence runs to here, but it's not even on this
property line. Sorry.
MR. TRAVER-So that's where the fence currently is?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I don't see how it affects the road sight.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm not sure I get that, either.
MR. MAGOWAN-Did you drive by and look at it?
MR. DEEB-Yes, I saw the fence.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's pretty looking. I don't have a problem with the fence being out there. I
would just like to see that corner softened. That opens up more of the corner onto Richardson. I
can see the car, but I can't see a car that might be looking to push that red light.
MR. TRAVER-Push, you mean run the red light?
MRS. DOBERT-That car's on the parking lot. Is that where you're talking about? On this picture, this
car?
MRS. MOORE-This car right here.
MRS. DOBERT-Is in the parking lot of the other.
MR. DEEB-There's plenty of sight line there, Brad.
MS. WHITE-Can I just say just leave it alone. I'm sorry.
MRS. DOBERT-One other thing, too, with the fence being that high, if our neighbor's car were parked
over here, or like even say right here and the fence were cut and it looked like the fence only went to
there, I don't know.
MR. MAGOWAN-All you're doing is sloping it. You're just taking off the end post, cutting the, it's
a quick little thing and it will soften that edge. I don't like the squareness all the way out to the road
like that. It just doesn't look right.
MR. TRAVER-1 think we understand what you're describing. I'm not sure that we see what you're
remedying by doing it.
MS. WHITE-Yes, to what end?
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm talking aesthetic looking, all right. I'm talking safety wise because I want to
see a car further back on that road, all right, not one that's sitting at the light. If they're stopped at
the light I'm not worried about them.
MS. WHITE-But you're looking at the picture from the parking lot. You're not looking at a picture
if you were in traffic driving.
MR. MAGOWAN-I've driven past that. I've looked at it.
MS. WHITE-Do you see what I'm saying? You're taking a completely different perspective.
31
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. TRAVER-All right. The Chairman wants to poll the Board. So let's start with Michael. Do you
agree with the modification that Brad is suggesting? Do you see what he sees and feel that it should
be included?
MR. DIXON-1 do for aesthetic reasons only.
MR. TRAVER-Aesthetic reasons. John?
MR. SHAFER-Are you suggesting it come down on an angle from six feet to three feet?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Right.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. SHAFER-I'm okay with either one. I can live with either one.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. WHITE-I'd say leave it.
MR. DEEB-I'm okay the way it is.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So I guess I'm okay the way it is, too. So that's three to two. So, all right.
So anything else? Any other questions, comments? There is a public hearing, although there isn't
anyone in the public here. Are there any written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think aesthetically it would look a lot better. That's all.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand.
MR. MAGOWAN-If you don't agree with me on the safety part, that's fine. Aesthetically I think it
would look a lot nicer.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a, this is a SEQR Unlisted, believe it or not. So we do have to do a SEQR
resolution on this. We're going to close the public hearing such as it is.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns about environmental impacts with this pre-existing
fence?
MS. WHITE-No, it's a commercial.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll entertain a motion for SEAR.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 68-2018 JUSTINE DOBERT
The applicant proposes to maintain a privacy fence between an existing residence and commercial use
structure to discourage cut-through traffic. The fence is 32.7 ft. at 6 ft. in height. Pursuant to Chapter
179-5-070 of the Zoning Ordinance, fences in commercial zones 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;
32
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 68-2018 JUSTINE DOBERT.
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 13" day of November, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-And next we have the Site Plan resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 68-2018 JUSTINE DOBERT
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to maintain a privacy fence between
an existing residence and commercial use structure to discourage cut-through traffic. The fence is 32.7
ft. at 6 ft. in height. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-070 of the Zoning Ordinance, fences in commercial
zones 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 11/13/2018 and continued
the public hearing to 11/13/2018, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/13/2018;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 68-2018 JUSTINE DOBERT. Introduced by David Deeb who
moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1] Waivers request granted:
2] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution
33
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 13" day of November, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Magowan
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Now the one last thing I will comment. Should you find that Brad was
right all along and there's a potential traffic or a real traffic problem created and you decide you want
to modify your fence, would you please give Laura a call? Okay. Thank you and good night.
MRS. DOBERT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-One other quick item for the Board. As you're aware in the month of November with
our now two year process of identifying officers for the Planning Board for 2019, 1 have spoken with
Chris Hunsinger and David and they are willing and happy to continue their role as Vice Chair and
Secretary. I would like to continue another year as Chairperson. So what happens then is next month
when we have the actual election there will be an opportunity for nominations from the floor. So
anyone who would like to run for any of those offices may be nominated. If there are no additional
nominations, then I will move that the Secretary cast one vote for the slate of officers, and that will be
our election. That will take place at the last meeting in December.
MR. DEEB-Is everybody okay with that?
MS. WHITE-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-1 hope so because I just changed the By-laws last year. I don't want to have to change
them already.
MR. DEEB-I know but I just want to ask. All right. Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure. How does it work? You sign up to come on as a
six year term?
MR. TRAVER-For being a member at large? Yes, and you have a term which is coming up in
December. I don't know if it was your original appointment, but your appointment as a member is
going to be expiring December 31". 1 was going to speak to you about this after the meeting, but
what you need to do is write a letter to John if you would like to be reappointed.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'd love to. Nobody's brought anything up, and I didn't want to wait until the last
minute. I'd be quite offended if I showed up in January and they said.
MR. DEEB-What are you doing here.
MR. TRAVER-Well, understand that the election of officers is our process with the exception of the
Chairman, but the appointment of members of the Planning Board is a Town Board process. So you
need to submit a letter to Mr. Strough and I hope that you will, in that letter, express your willingness
to be reappointed to the Planning Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-Weill I guess I would have to ask the Board members, you know, would it be all
right.
MR. TRAVER-I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. SHAFER-I move we adjourn.
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you adjourning, you all received information about next year's calendar. If
you have questions, concerns about that, we did add certain ones. We did add the additional meeting
that month because we were doing, I think it's January, February and March where we ended up needing
those meetings. I don't think we added one to April this year. So just be cognizant of it that you
may have three meetings in those three months.
34
[Queensbury Planning Board 11/13/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we decided to do that because what happened was when it was busy we were
having to try to figure out when are we going to be able to meet. So now we've got three meetings
a month planned for the construction season, and then what we can do is just not have a third meeting.
That's a lot easier than trying to organize one.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So thank you for doing that.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So if the meetings are all set, then at your next December, either, I believe it's
your November meeting that you could adopt that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-All right. That's all I had.
MR. TRAVER-And I don't know what I did with mine.
MRS. MOORE-I'll have Sunny send them out again.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I had a print out of it.
MS. WHITE-I did, too. It has balloons on the top of it. Can I find it in my stack of papers now?
No.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and we are adjourned, correct? All right. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
35