2008.02.19(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2008
INDEX
Subdivision No. 15-2006 Legacy Land Holdings 1.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28
Site Plan No. 61-2007 VMJR Companies 2.
Freshwater Wetlands Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
Permit No. 1-2008
Subdivision No. 1-2007 Cerrone Builders Et al 5.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4
Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 Boats By George 7.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-1, 226.16-1-37, 38
Special Use Permit No. 54-2007 Cindy & Michael Trombley 29.
Tax Map No. 265-1-16
Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 35.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11
Subdivision No. 12-2007 Christine Germaine 42.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.18-2-34
Site Plan No. 2-2008 Charles Webster 46.
Freshwater Wetlands Tax Map No. 290-1-15
Permit No. 2-2008
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.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
TANYA BRUNO
STEPHEN TRAVER
GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the first regular meeting of the Town of
th
Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, February 19. The first item on the agenda is
thth
approval of minutes from December 18 and 20. Would anyone like to put forward a
resolution?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 18, 2007
December 20, 2007
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
OF DECEMBER 18 & DECEMBER 20, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS – REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION
DAN VALENTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a letter received by the applicant’s agent requesting that
we extend the referendum period. Is there any discussion on that?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just wasn’t sure, based on the letter, I wasn’t sure what date they
wanted to table it to. Because I know if we’re going to table something, we should table
it to a date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, George?
MR. HILTON-Well, there’s someone here, if you’d like to speak to them, but my
understanding is 90 days is what they were looking for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Valenti, good evening.
MR. VALENTI-Dan Valenti, Legacy Land Holdings. Apparently we had to ask for this
extension due to a six month window in which we had to have that mylar, or the approval
signed by your Planning Board. We have the sewer district extension, which is approved
at this point, but we have a 30 day window, public referendum, waiting for that to clear,
and I guess our time expires up in between that and when we had to have this signed.
So I think we need a minimal amount, maybe a month or two, just to make sure we’re in
the clear here. That was pretty much it.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. Thank you. Would anyone like to put forward a
motion? Actually, the draft resolution just says pending approval of the sewer district. It
doesn’t specify a date, but we could certainly include a date if we wish.
st
MR. SEGULJIC-So if I understand this, their approval expires February 21. The sewer
extension approval is not going to be granted until after that? So, they have a 30 day
referendum.
MR. FORD-What would be an appropriate date?
MR. SEGULJIC-If we extend it out 90 days, there’s no.
MR. HILTON-I think what the idea is here, they’re trying to gain the approval of the
extension of the sewer district. That’s probably going to happen within that 30 day
timeframe. If you give them the 60 or 90 day extension of the subdivision approval, that
gives them enough time to get that done.
MR. VALENTI-The Town Board approved the sewer district extension a week from
yesterday. So, we were in front of Town Board then, and they approved it. So we have
a 30 day window from that point.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-So March 18 is when you get the approval, if I’m understanding this.
MR. VALENTI-Yes, approximately. I don’t have a calendar in front of me.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if we extend our approval out to April 21, 2008.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, why don’t we just say April 30, the end of
the month.
MR. VALENTI-Yes, that should be more than sufficient.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good thinking. Okay. Any further discussion? Have you got a
resolution ready?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 LEGACY
LAND HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
Pending approval of the sewer district extension. See the attached letter of January 15,
2008 from Jarrett-Martin Engineering. This is extended until April 30, 2008.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
VMJR COMPANIES – REQUEST FOR SPECIAL MEETING & ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD
AGENCY STATUS
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is a request for a Special Meeting by
VMJR Companies. In accordance with our by-laws, such requests are considered at a
regular meeting. So that’s why it was held until this evening. I wasn’t at the meeting
when the project was previously reviewed. I know that there was extensive public
comments on the project. I don’t know, you know, the extent of the public’s interest in it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, I don’t think we had extensive public comment that night, but
what we did have was extensive Staff Notes and VISION Engineering comments that the
applicant had to address. I think there were only about six people that commented on
that particular application.
MR. SEGULJIC-Who’s requesting the Special Meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-The applicant is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the applicant, and that’s the e-mails that are attached back and
forth from the applicant and Staff.
MRS. STEFFAN-Although based on the Lead Agency Status request, suggested a
meeting with all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it really should have it’s own meeting.
MRS. BRUNO-Did we determine the reason why they wanted that Special Meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-They didn’t really say in their request, unless I missed something,
George. I can only speculate as to what their reasoning was. I don’t know if they
thought that it would move the project quicker or, you know, I think when the project was
heard previously, we didn’t get to the project until late in the evening. So I don’t know if
maybe that was the reason for it, but again, I can only speculate.
MR. TRAVER-Well certainly, and there are a number of aspects to the proposal that are
going to require a lot of review involving wetlands and again parking and all of that kind
of thing. So it would seem to me that they’re perhaps requesting this in anticipation of
requiring fewer meetings in order to resolve the application. If we had a lot more time to
deal with all of these issues, we’re likely to be able to address them in fewer meetings
than if they’re simply another agenda item with limited time available.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Not to mention public comment, which there may be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So it would seem appropriate to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Maybe Staff could research meeting night availability in March,
and report back to us next week, and we can select an evening in March for a Special
Meeting.
MR. HILTON-Okay. So if you’re considering, it sounds like, a Special Meeting in March,
nothing beforehand. Because my understanding was that was part of the reason for the
request is that they were looking for a date potentially sooner than the date they were
tabled to.
MR. FORD-I was just going to ask what that date was.
MR. HILTON-I’d have to do some research on that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I believe it was one of the March meetings.
MR. HILTON-It was definitely one of the regular March meetings.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because they had extensive comments that they weren’t going to be
able to address by the February meetings.
MR. HILTON-Definitely, and we’re passed the deadline for March anyway at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have they submitted new materials?
MR. HILTON-I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I know you’re pinch hitting for Stu tonight.
MR. HILTON-But, you know, we can research dates in March, certainly. I don’t know if
this Board feels that any time before the date they were tabled to is reasonable or
feasible or what have you, but, I mean, we can research dates in March.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-If we tabled it to the April 15 meeting, with an application deadline of
th
March 17.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if they want a meeting sooner than that we would have to extend
their application deadline for this month because it’s already passed.
MR. HILTON-You would also have to re-notice the project, because it was tabled to,
things to consider.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because it was tabled to a specific date. Yes. Well, if they
haven’t submitted new materials, then there’s really nothing new to review yet. Maybe
we could clarify that with the applicant and report back next week.
MR. HILTON-I can certainly check tomorrow and send out an e-mail.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be great. Okay. Is that okay with everybody?
MR. TRAVER-Good plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a draft resolution to Acknowledge Lead Agency Status.
Is there any discussion on that?
MR. TRAVER-Do we need to make a motion on the request for a Special Meeting? I see
Staff has drafted such a motion in here.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can put it off until next week when we have a specific date.
MR. FORD-Good idea.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But in the meantime we can get back to the applicant and say that we
will do that and we’re trying to find an appropriate meeting date to do that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you want to do them both next week, the Lead Agency Status?
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we just wait for the Lead Agency Status, too, then, for next
week. Is there any reason to do is this evening?
MR. HILTON-I mean, it doesn’t hurt you to do it. It doesn’t start any time clocks, as far
as I know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, why don’t we go ahead and take care of that. Any further
discussion on that, Acknowledging Lead Agency Status?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, that would be the right thing to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution?
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES LEAD
AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 1-2008 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, in connection with the VMJR Companies project, the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office
to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a
coordinated SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have
been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead
agent, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the
resolution prepared by Staff.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES LEAD
AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
PERMIT NO. 1-2008 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to take some discretion and re-arrange the agenda just a little
bit this evening. I’d like to hear the Cerrone Builders, Subdivision No. 1-2007, first under
the tabled items.
TABLED ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE CERRONE BUILDERS ET AL
UNLISTED AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S)
SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC-3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MT. & CORINTH ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 227+ ACRE PARCEL INTO 26
RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 ACRES TO 47.13 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 222.2 AC., 3.44 AC., 1.84 AC.
TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4 SECTION A-183
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-George, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes,
please.
MR. HILTON-I don’t think there’s too much to really say on this. This is a Final
Subdivision. Preliminary was previously approved. Staff has indicated certain notations
about building foundations and maximum building heights, and that Phase I and Phase II
will be differentiated on the plat. As I recall, with the Preliminary application, there were
some concerns over cutting restrictions and no cut zones in the upland portion of these
lots. So I guess the Board should consider that as part of any Final approval and making
sure that those notations are part of the plat and perhaps written into the deed and just
get some assurance that the items that were discussed at Preliminary are included in the
th
Final as well. SEQRA Neg Dec was issued on November 27, and that’s really all I have
at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with us this evening is Stephen Cerrone
from the developer, and Tom Center from Nace Engineering. We’ve looked at Staff
comments, and I think if you look at them, we did do what was requested of us at the
time of Preliminary approval. Apparently they now want a little different language as to
the notation as to the foundation, and it says the top of the house foundation shall not
exceed the 460, I presume you’re saying elevation contour as shown, and we will make
that change on the map as we submit it for your signature, and other than that, I think
we’ve complied with everything that you wanted on this set of maps.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-That will ensure compliance and easy your monitoring, obviously, by the
Town.
MRS. BRUNO-I just wanted to clarify, perhaps we already have, when we’re talking
about the building height, and perhaps I should wait on this question, but where are we
considering that from, the grade or?
MR. O’CONNOR-The grade.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I don’t recall if we had that in the.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, that’s by your Building Code. I think your Code goes from the
exposed grade to the top of the structure. You’ve got a chart in your Zoning Code.
MRS. BRUNO-But at the lowest?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s at the lowest exposure.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it shall not exceed 40 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with it. I think they’ve addressed everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-The change in the language on the notation relative to the foundation, you
understand that it’s not just language, that it makes a real difference in the height of the
house? Because the initial wording, now maybe this is just my interpretation, the initial
wording could be meant to construe the bottom of the foundation. Okay. The new
wording clearly says the top of the foundation.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It was not our intention to think of it as being the bottom of the
foundation. So I had no problem with saying that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure you understood that.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, that was the area.
MR. FORD-Good clarification for enforcement purposes.
MR. O'CONNOR-There is the difference. I agree with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? We do have a draft resolution
prepared by Staff, if anyone would like to put forward.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you close the public hearing on this, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had to close the public hearing to approve Preliminary.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE
BUILDERS ET AL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 227+ acre parcel into 26
residential lots ranging in size from 1.0 acres to 47.13 acres. Subdivision of land
requires review and approval by the Planning Board
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/24/07, 9/18/07, 10/16/07,
11/27/07; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision Plan, must be
submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review
by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant
must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution.
7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
10. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE
BUILDERS ET AL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five is fine because it was a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not
apply. This is approved with the condition that the applicant will change the language on
Sheet S-2, under Special Restrictions for this subdivision, that should read the top of the
house foundation shall not exceed the 460 elevation contour as shown on the
subdivision drawings.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-And this is Final approval of Phase I. I don’t know if you want to
stipulate that. That’s my understanding.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is on the plat. It says Phase II is not included in the approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE
AGENT(S) MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) GEORGE PENSEL ZONING WR-
1A LOCATION CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO
AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA. MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS A MARINAS
REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 54-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 APA/CEA/DEC LAKE
GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 2.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 SECTION
179-10-10
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, when you’re ready.
MR. HILTON-I’m sure this will be quick and easy. This item was tabled due to an
advertising discrepancy at the last meeting. Since that time, we haven’t received any
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
new information. So the previous notes stand. This is Special Use Permit for marina
use in a zone where marina use is allowed with a special use permit that would be
granted by the Planning Board. The advertising discrepancy error has been fixed, and
the application is before you again this evening. That’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, landscape architect. I’m here with
the owner and operator of the marina, George Pensel. We had submitted this quite a
while ago, and the Board had asked for some additional information, which took some
time to put together. So when we resubmitted we tried to submit that additional
information and address some of the concerns that the Board had expressed. If you
recall, Mr. Pensel purchased this marina and he operates it somewhat differently than
the Mooring Post, and the primary reason to be before you is to modify the wording in the
Special Use Permit. We’re not proposing any construction, and the reason we need to
do that is we need to revise that wording so we can go back to the Lake George Park
Commission and revise the wording in a similar fashion in the marina permit. So they’ve
asked us to appear before the Planning Board first, but basically what we’re looking to do
is George is looking to eliminate the rental boats that were in the previous marina and to
reduce the number of rental slips from the previous marina and in exchange for that, he’s
looking to increase the quick launch slips from 80 to 20, and those 20 boats would be
stored within the existing, inside the existing. So there would be no additional outside
storage, and all other aspects of the permit would remain the same, all the parking, the
winter storage, total storage numbers, all those numbers would remain the same. The
information that was asked for, there were a few things. One was site lighting. We’ve
added that to the plan. It’s pretty minimal. There’s some building mounted flood lights.
There’s some lighting. There’s some lighting on the roof of the, on the marina, of the
docks. So the existing lighting is fairly minimal. There’s one street light on Cleverdale
Road, and so the marina is closed, I believe, 5:30, and so the only lighting that exists is
some of those lights are left on for security lights, and nothing is proposed to change
that. One outstanding item we’ve got, one of the things we were asked to do was do an
inspection of the sewage disposal system. Dan Ryan, the Town’s Engineer, and Tom
Nace went to the site and did an inspection of the system and found it wasn’t functioning
properly, and Tom put a proposal together to install holding tanks, and that was, he’s in a
process, we’re hoping this would have been before the Town Board before we got back
here, but he is in the process of working on that. The Town Board, I believe, has
directed Tom Nace to work with Dave Hatin and Dan Ryan, and the Town Board is
looking for a review from Dan Ryan and Dave Hatin before it goes before them. So
that’s where it is right now. Tom is coordinating that. So it has not been before the Town
Board, but they’re looking to resolve that. One of the other items was the topography.
The topography’s been added to the plan. Van Dusen and Steves surveyors completed
that survey. As you can see from the topography, the drainage pattern, the lakeside
parcel drains downhill towards the lake. The main boat storage area, the main portion of
the marina, drains southerly, and most of that water drains to a low area identified on the
plan, south of the southerly building. We had looked at, you know, in conjunction with
that, one of the other things we did is we responded to Dan Ryan’s comments, and I
received a letter today where I believe he signed off on all those items where we
submitted the information he had asked for and we had submitted some additional
analysis on the storm drainage, which has been submitted. One of the concerns was
the storm drainage that was in the original stormwater report that Mr. Nace did, showed
some infiltration on the lakeside, and Dan Ryan thought it wasn’t there, and I believe it’s
been installed. It’s just kind of become overgrown, and what we’ve done is we’ve agreed
that those stormwater management devices that were originally in the permit would be
renovated to be functional, and we had an opportunity, I think, to expand it, which we
said we’d agree to do. We also met with Dr. Evans, who’s the neighbor to the southwest
of the property who expressed some concerns about the drainage. If you’ll recall at our
first meeting with met with Dr. Evans on the site and talked about the stormwater runoff.
His concern is that runoff from the boat storage area drains in the area where he has his
leach field and drains down Mason Road to the rear of the property, and that’s why what
we’ve indicated on the plan is that, you know, to try to eliminate some of that concern.
We’ve installed, I believe we’re showing installation of 240 foot of a stone trench to try to
intercept any drainage southerly off the property. So, I think with that, you know, I think
those were the items that the Board had asked us to look at. So I think with that, we’d
open it up for discussion from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. FORD-That stone area that you’re referring to, is that going to specifically address
that southwest corner that has been an ongoing concern, not just now but in previous
years as well?
MR. MILLER-I believe it will. In looking at that site, I believe some of the problem is
actually some drainage that comes down Mason Road. There’s a berm along the rear of
our property that the Board has Mr. Brock install, to buffer the storage area, and I think
some drainage comes down Mason Road on the outside of that berm and continues
southerly, in addition to the water that comes off our property. There’s a low area in that
southwest corner, right now, that probably collects a fair amount, but in heavy rains, it
probably continues southerly. So our intent is that we could intercept that with this swale
and prevent additional water from, you know, reduce what does runoff.
MR. FORD-So this is an effort to maintain the stormwater on site?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Intercept it before it goes out and impacts the neighborhood?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think we have the advantage, after Mr. Pensel was here before, the
next month on our Planning Board drive arounds we were in the neighborhood, so we
were able to stop by the property and actually look at some of the issues that came up
during the last public hearing and the last application review. So we were able to look at
all the issues on property, which was very helpful in preparing for today.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you explain how the stormwater management’s going to work
overall?
MR. MILLER-Well, you know, first, you know, we’re not increasing anything. I mean,
we’re not doing any additional pavements or anything. I mean, what Mr. Pensel’s
agreeing to do is try to address some concerns that have been raised. The intent is that,
you know, the main storage area drains southerly and some of it drains off site to the
south, and some of it drains off site to the south, and some of it collects in a low area in
the southeast corner. So the intent is to try to intercept that southerly drainage with the
stone swale, and direct the overflow from there into the low area on site as opposed to
off site.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be an infiltration trench there?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my concerns is you’re going to be installing in a ten foot buffer
area?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-How’s that going to work?
MR. MILLER-Well, if you were there on the site, there’s an existing dense hedge row
there. The intent would be it would be installed, you know, we wouldn’t disturb the trees.
It would be installed on the inside of that hedge row.
MR. FORD-To the north of it?
MR. MILLER-To the north of it. Because we want to maintain the hedge row. We don’t
want to disturb that.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s going to be inside the 10 foot buffer area.
MR. MILLER-It may be, yes, but it’s inside the planting. I think that the intent of the
buffer area, I don’t know that the buffer area excludes drainage. I think the intent of the
buffer area was there was to be no boats stored there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to maintain the integrity of that hedge row, then?
GEORGE PENSEL
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Even with all the digging?
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What about on the eastern end of the property, the one that
slopes into the lake?
MR. MILLER-Well, we’re not, again, we’re not proposing any changes there, and what
was proposed before was there was some infiltration trench along the edge of the
driveway, and there was an infiltration area down adjacent to the boat launch. I believe
that that was installed, but it’s been overgrown, so, you know, since that’s what was
originally agreed to, you know, our, what we’re offering is to reconstruct that so that it’s
working and to expand. There was an additional 30 feet along the driveway it could be
expanded. The one area, the infiltration area near the boat launch, the original plans
showed that as a crushed stone area, and it’s not now. It shows, it’s concrete with a
drain, but I believe, in looking at it and seeing how it functions, I believe what happened
is the crushed stone being loose was probably a problem there, both for footing and
getting kicked around by the boat launch, so I think what they did is they poured a
concrete slab with grate on top of it, so that water collects and goes into the stone,
through the grate rather than right into the stone, so, you know, I think it’s functioning as
it was intended to function, but it’s different probably because of the use.
MR. SEGULJIC-But we’re not sure if it’s functioning properly.
MR. MILLER-It appears to be. I mean, you know, based on my inspection, it appears to
work as it was originally intended.
MR. SEGULJIC-But is it, you’re required to, I believe, be able to collect the first half inch
of a twenty-five year rain storm, is that the first half inch I believe is what it is?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is it functioning to do that? I don’t see how you can have a little hole
with all this water running down, and being collected there? I mean, your original design
is different than what’s there now.
MR. MILLER-Only in that they put, the concrete is over the top of it to keep the blue
stone in place, but it’s swaled, you know, it’s swaled down in so it goes into the stone
and in. The water’s collected the same way as it would if it was open, and the stone’s
there.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re telling me that a smaller area can collect?
MR. MILLER-I don’t know that I could, you know, say that a half an inch is being
collected, but on the other hand, we’re not here looking for any construction. We don’t
want to disturb anything. I mean, the construction we’re offering is, you know, try to
resolve some of the concerns.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m only asking you to abide by the stormwater control report that was
done in ’97, that’s driven by the stormwater regulations.
MR. MILLER-Well, the recommendations that were in Mr. Nace’s report, that’s what
we’re talking about reconstructing on the site, or not reconstructing, but bringing it up to
design, current design standard.
MR. FORD-Jim, would a dye test, or something similar to that, be an appropriate way of
trying to determine whether or not that is actually functional, or releasing water that is
contaminated with oil and gas and so forth and distributing that into, along the shoreline
and the lake?
MR. MILLER-Well, I’m not sure I’d want to do a dye test on the lake, but I mean, I think
that if you were to do a dye test, I mean, because we’re adjacent to the lake, you would
see the dye come into the lake, but the intent was to, the intent, I believe, of that report,
was to collect that water and get some filtration, rather than have it all run directly into the
lake. I mean, obviously you’ve got a marina with a boat launch and, you know, we’re
right on the shore of the lake.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-The report and the regulations say you have to capture the first half inch
of rainfall. That’s what it says you have to do. That’s what this plan says you will do.
These plans existing don’t say you’ll do that. Can you tell me you’re going to collect the
first half inch of rainfall?
MR. MILLER-I can’t swear to that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t ask you to swear, but is it going to work?
MR. MILLER-Well, all I can say is the mitigation that was agreed in that report is in place,
or will be replaced.
MR. SEGULJIC-Other than your infiltration basins getting cement, concreted over.
That’s a huge difference.
MR. MILLER-Other than that, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-You said the plans called for the top to have surface ditch was three
inches of Number Two crushed stone.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had indicated it’s been concreted over.
MR. MILLER-Yes, but the stone is under the concrete.
MR. SEGULJIC-How does the water get in there?
MR. MILLER-It’s like a shower pan. What they did is they put concrete over the top of
the loose stone, and they pitched it to a low point in the middle, and it’s got a grate. So
the water collects into the middle, then goes down into the stone, rather than just flow
directly into the stone. I’m sure they did it because the stone went everywhere.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the elevation difference across the site is at least 15 feet, so that
water’s going to have good velocity. I’ll bet you it goes right through the shallow pit and
right out the other side.
MR. MILLER-Yes, it does. In a heavy rain it may do that, but the intent is to catch the
first half inch.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, not the intent. It has to catch the first half inch.
MR. MILLER-Well, that’s what I mean.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not making it up. That’s what the regulations say.
MR. MILLER-I understand, but there is a point, though, in a heavy rain, where after the
first half inch it would overflow.
MRS. BRUNO-Do we have any idea of how deep that stone is underneath the concrete
when it was originally put down?
MR. MILLER-No, but we could verify that it was put in correctly. I believe it was put in as
detailed, because it had to be signed off on at the time, and then I think they just came in
and put the concrete over the top of that stone.
MRS. BRUNO-So I would believe that even if it were four feet down, you’re going to have
definite freezing issues, and as we have seen in the past week, with the freezing and the
raining and everything, I would say that a drain like that would be useless.
MR. MILLER-Well, a lot of infiltration drains don’t function when it’s frozen. Unless
they’re a drywell below frost, but you typically, you know, we’re designing for the summer
use in a situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you’re not open in the winter.
MR. SIPP-Yes, this is on the edge of the lake.
MR. MILLER-I mean, there’s no cars there.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. SIPP-You’re draining quite an area from Cleverdale Road all the way down, a lot of
blacktop. You’ve got some grass parking area, but you’re draining a fair sized area here,
right at the edge of the lake, and some of this has gone into the lake. It’s got to.
MR. MILLER-It’s got to.
MR. SIPP-Yes, and this is what we’re trying to prevent. If you’re going to collect it, let’s
collect it and pump it back up and distribute it underneath the parking area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think technically what happens is since this is a retrofit, you are
given some leeway. They just have to collect the first half inch, I believe is the way it is,
under the stormwater regs, but my problem is I don’t see that occurring here. No one’s
given me comfort, other than to say they believe it will work.
MR. MILLER-Well, I guess we looked at the, in Mr. Nace’s stormwater report, having
been approved previously, that that was what was being requested, to make sure that
that was in place and functioning, and, you know, we’re agreeing we would do that and
we would extend the stone drain because we had some additional area to do that. So, I
thought that was, you know, since we’re not doing any construction, that was what was
going to be required is to make sure that what was proposed in that report is what’s
there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what’s proposed is not there because you concreted over the top
of the infiltration basins.
MR. MILLER-But it functions the same, Tom. I mean, it’s just that, I mean, if we took the
concrete off, the stone’s there. It’s not concreted over to direct it away from the stone.
It’s concreted to collect it into the stone. It’s only got that concrete over it to hold the
stone in place.
MRS. BRUNO-Can you explain to me the use of stone riprap in swales or areas of
property where you’re trying to divert water away, in some of your new construction?
MR. MILLER-Well, there’s two functions. If you’re looking at some type of an infiltration
device or storage, if you’re trying to store water or infiltrate water, you know, what you’re
doing with the stone, the stone has 40% volume in it, where soil’s very dense. So a deep
stone trench is supposed to collect that water and store a volume of water and either just
store it there so that it drains away, or let it infiltrate, but you could also use stone in a
drainage swale where, you know, the flow of the water has reached a high enough
velocity that you would erode the soil. You’d put stone in a swale like that to protect the
soil. So, depending on how you’re using it, there’s different ways to do it.
MRS. BRUNO-Isn’t also some of that purpose to slow the water down as it’s flowing?
MR. MILLER-Yes, exactly.
MRS. BRUNO-So wouldn’t that same theory be true in what Mr. Seguljic is trying to?
MR. MILLER-Well, not the way it was originally designed, because the way it was
designed, it sat at the low point of the asphalt pavement where the water was draining
down and probably previously draining into the lake. So what was agreed upon is that
area would basically be created, it would be like a basin there, filled with stone. So the
intent there was to collect that and provide some infiltration next to the lake, which I
believe what’s there does that, except it’s got a cover over it and collects it down through
the cover.
MRS. BRUNO-Is that something that, this is just for educational purposes, is that
something that in your stormwater calculations, your hydrocad, if you were to do that,
that there’d be actually two different variables whether a certain amount of sheeting
water were to go towards an area of stone versus basically a grate or a hole like that?
MR. MILLER-Well, the hydrocad wouldn’t really address that, because some of that
information is input based on calculations and measurements off the drawings, but if you
had a stone trench, or stone basin that was say 12 foot wide, you know, and the water
was sheeting down or channeling towards that, you know, that 12 foot width would
collect it. So what they’ve got is the concrete there that’s collected to a low point. So the
water drains in. It’s like a shower pan. The water drains into the concrete, the same
width, and it just goes down into the grate into the stone.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MRS. BRUNO-Has that hole been sized, like how we do drainage pipes along roads and
that type of thing?
MR. MILLER-I don’t know. I didn’t check that. I think it’s got like a 12 by 12 or an 18 inch
square grate, a fairly open grate.
MR. SIPP-Is there any way of servicing this, that is to remove the soil, other pieces of
debris that get into this system? Is there a way to service it?
MR. MILLER-Well, it’s got a grate that, you know, if you opened it up you could see the
stone, and so they could take that out and they could clean that out. I think if it really
became filled with sediment over the years, you’d probably have to reconstruct it, like
you would a drywell, if they fill in with sediment over the years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Talk to us about the septic tank, the comments on the holding
tanks.
MR. MILLER-When the inspection was done with Tom Nace and Dan Ryan, the system
wasn’t functioning properly, and there was no way to determine what the problem was.
So they talked about it and thought that the quickest solution was to pursue holding
tanks and that’s what Mr. Nace recommended, and it shows on your plan. So obviously
that requires a variance from the Town Board of Health. So it’s got to go before the
Town Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess I’m confused, and part of my confusion is based on Dan
Ryan’s comments, because he states that holding tanks will be proposed.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, they are being proposed. It’s in the process. Dan’s reviewing
that. We included it on your drawings because that was what Tom Nace was proposing,
and he was, I believe, he was told to have this reviewed by Dave Hatin and Dan Ryan
before he comes before the Town Board. So that’s why it’s been delayed and hasn’t
been before the Town Board. Tom is still involved in that review.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I have a procedural question. I guess this is for George. Do we
have to wait for the Town Board decision or approval on this before we would approve it,
or do our SEQRA?
MR. HILTON-I don’t think you necessarily have to, but if you had enough concern, you
certainly could. I think it’s been said before on many items, if this Board needs a certain
level of comfort, you can wait and get the information you need, but I think you could
condition an application as such. I mean, I don’t think you’re bound, you don’t
necessarily have to wait, but you can.
MR. TRAVER-Getting back to the entrenchment area near the water, that had been
concreted over to manage the stone better, apparently there was a problem with the
stone.
MR. MILLER-Well, I’m assuming that. I wasn’t involved in that, but from inspecting it,
that’s what it looks like they did, and I could see where the stone has been a problem.
MR. TRAVER-I can see how that could happen, yes. What about, because certainly it
would seem to me a matter of commonsense that the crushed stone exposed is going to
manage the stormwater better than the concrete with the small drain in. In dealing with
the issue of the stone under foot, what about replacing the concrete with a grate of some
kind, which would give more permeability and yet contain and allow the stone to do more
of its infiltration.
MR. MILLER-Well, it’s a fairly big area. So you wouldn’t get a grate that size, but, I
mean, if you think of like a catch basin grate in a parking lot, typically, or along a road, I
mean, typically catch basins are placed like 300 feet apart. So they collect a big area
and those are typically 24 inch or 30 inch square grate, and this one I think, I don’t know
if it’s a foot or maybe bigger, but I mean, we could look at that and increase the size of it,
but my feeling is that the flow through the grate probably, you know, isn’t the restrictive
factor here. It’s probably how quickly the stone can absorb it, and those voids would be
filled. So you’ve got a heavy rain, I think whether you had a grate there or the open
stone, once the void’s filled or, you know, the rain was heavy enough, you’d get some
bypassing at some point.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. TRAVER-But isn’t it more likely that, concreted over, you’re going to get some
overshoot in a heavy rain, far more likely than you are with a pit of crushed stone?
MR. MILLER-You could, we could increase the size of the grate.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, you know, your point is well taken with regards to roadsides
and so on, but being that this is going directly into the lake, we need to try to reduce that
stormwater runoff obviously to the extent that we can, and we’re also talking about, to
some degree, a fundamental change in the way this particular area is utilized in that
you’re now going to be launching and retrieving boats at a much greater rate, which
involves more vehicle traffic in this same area than was prior with the previous, or the
existing use where you had the rental slips, and we just need you to take a look at that
and if the, we can understand how perhaps the initial stormwater devices that were
approved have been modified, because of the problem created by the crushed stone, but
I think, in a way, to go from, you can perhaps see an open pit of crushed stone as one
extreme. I submit that going to paving it over is the other extreme, even if you put a
drain in. So what I’m proposing is can you take a look at having the stone available for,
to make it more permeable, and yet cover it with some pervious, as opposed to concrete,
covering that will retain the stone, but at the same time allow stormwater to be infiltrated
at a much greater rate, and not allow the water to just simply shoot right across the
concrete, which inevitably is going to happen. I mean, the time that we did our site visit,
there was a lot of water running, and it was going right into the lake. The other area that
I’m concerned with is right at the area in the boat ramp area itself where there doesn’t
seem to be any buffer at all for the water coming down the hill, and I’m wondering, is it
possible to put even the simplest of, perhaps at an angle to the slope, something similar,
a stone covered with a grate of some kind to intercept that water and maybe direct that
into the same basin. It would make a huge difference in the quality of the water going
directly into the lake. That doesn’t seem like a huge construction issue.
MR. MILLER-We could look at that. I mean, we could even do something, I mean,
obviously we don’t want for cause a safety hazard to the people launching boats, but I
mean, we could do something similar to what’s done on a hiking trail, where they’ve got a
name for it, where they have like a slight ridge that directs the water, rather than have a
structure. What they do is basically have a swale or something that could direct it that
way?
MRS. STEFFAN-Water bars?
MR. MILLER-That’s one of those words I could never remember. One of the things
about the amount of activity. I think, you know, what’s being eliminated are rental boats,
which would go out a lot, and slips that are for rent, where people keep their boat in the
water, and in both of those conditions, you know, those boats would get used more than
a quick launch. I mean, a quick launch, typically people that use their boat less
frequently. If you’re someone that uses your boat a lot, you’ll go for a wet slip so you
don’t have to go through the launch procedure. So, I mean, it’s typically accept, I mean,
sure there’s probably some exceptions, but it’s accepted that quick launch is less
frequently used than wet slips.
MR. FORD-Let me throw out a concept, and please react to it. I know in certain parts of
the country that it is common to place grading on a slope down driveway, sloping to the
garage, where the grading goes all the way across in front of the doorway. Could
something like that work more efficiently and effectively than the current arrangement
where it’s paved down to a single round grading a foot in diameter?
MR. MILLER-I was thinking about that when we were talking about the drainage. The
one thing that gets to be, you know, on a boat launch, you know, you’ve got a fairly
uniform slope, and if you take a trench drain like that and you put it in flush to the, you
know, the water tends to bypass it. So you’d have to create a low spot to do that. That’s
why the water bar idea would almost do the same thing, but, you know, that could be an
option. We’ve done that before. I mean, typically you do that across the front of a
doorway or something where you’ve got a long level area, and you need to collect water
and you don’t have the ability to pitch the pavement to a catch basin.
MR. SIPP-Now, when this water hits this pan that you’re talking about, like a shower,
what’s the size of the outlet to this pan?
MR. MILLER-Well, it just goes into the stone.
MR. SIPP-It just goes in?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. MILLER-Yes, there’s the grate.
MR. SIPP-There’s no collection there?
MR. MILLER-Well, it’s a depression. The concrete is depressed. It collects and drains
down into the stone.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the other thing that maybe we’re overlooking is that there is quite
a bit of grass here. There are two lanes here for vehicle access to get boats in the water,
but there is a very large grass area in between, behind the fuel storage area, and then
over on the side of the property there’s a whole grass storage area. There’s a buffer,
and if you remember, it kind of juts out into the driveway and so there’s a lot of
opportunity for water sheeting off that hill to hit grass areas. Now, in Dan Ryan’s
comments, Comment Five, you know, he talks about the stormwater control measures,
and his comment is the applicant is proposing improvements to the existing conditions
and to remedy overdue maintenance of infiltration devices, and on SP-1, it identifies right
on the drawings that the existing stone trench will be reconstructed and extended, and
that’s that grassy area behind the fuel storage area, and then the inlet, which was right
down near the boat docks, and that seemed to be the lowest point on the property, and
that basin will be cleaned and restored. I mean, there was, that needs to be done
because there was sediment in the stone, because I remember there was grass growing
out of it. Once that’s cleaned, you know, it should be functioning properly, and I just
don’t know if we’re suggesting that he do some major ripping up and re-paving whether,
if that’s going to cause more environmental harm than cleaning out the inlet and letting it
function properly, as was originally approved in ’97.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s a good point.
MRS. STEFFAN-You know, there is a lot of grassy area here.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m wondering, when it does speak to that, to clean out and restore
that basin, aren’t you going to have to remove that concrete?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, the grate’s got to come off.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but I mean then you’re only looking at cleaning and replacing an area
of stone the size of the grate, right?
MR. MILLER-Well, the stone trench along the edge of the driveway, I mean, you’d get in
there with something like a Bobcat and just do the two foot excavation for that, and I
think at the water our intent was to, you know, go a step at a time, remove the grate,
remove some of the stone, you know, tend to confirm that what’s there was as designed,
because that seems to be functioning. I think that the part of the stormwater
management that was originally proposed that’s not functioning was in the grass area
where the grass, it’s silted in, the grass is growing over the top of it now. So that’s where
we really saw we needed to rebuild it, but I believe that basin area is working.
MR. TRAVER-Although we’ve already discussed that it’s really not built as designed,
correct?
MR. MILLER-Well, with the exception, if you look at the volume of the stone, and I
believe that that was built as designed, I mean, unless I dug it up and looked at it, but the
difference was they tried to contain the stone.
MR. TRAVER-But realistically, that does have an effect on the infiltration of the water.
MR. MILLER-But the main thing in stone that you’re dealing with is the voids in the stone,
the 40% voids in the stone. So, you know, you’ve got a grate directing the water into that
stone as opposed to it just sheeting into the stone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, what if we were to just ask the applicant to clarify that
the stormwater management meets the Code requirements, and then have the Town
Engineer review that, and concur.
MR. MILLER-I mean, I think that would be fine, and we can reconstruct the stone and
ditch and have the Town Engineer verify that it’s functioning as proposed.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I’m going back to Mr. Seguljic’s comment that it has to
capture the first half inch, and if, when you look at that, you’re comfortable that it does,
and then our Town Engineer is also comfortable that it does, then, you know, you may
not have to do anything. I guess that’s what I’m suggesting, is just, you know, I mean,
that would address your comments very specifically.
MR. MILLER-That would be fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, just to clarify so that I understand.
MR. MILLER-Because what I would do is I would go back to Tom Nace who did the
original report.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s my understanding that this project pre-dated Queensbury’s, what is
it, 147. So it’s my understanding we go back to the DEC Regs under 6NYCRR 646-
1.14(b)(4)(5), and it talks about, well this is what you’re supposed to be meeting.
MR. MILLER-I would have to check with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-For development or re-development occurring on a site where
development has previously occurred, the applicant shall be required to prepare concept
plans and to develop construction and cost estimates for stormwater control measures to
control. It goes on and on.
MR. MILLER-But we’re not developing.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re just saying, this was submitted in 1997, but you have to meet that.
It says you have to control the first half inch of stormwater. I am not seeing this on these
plans.
MR. MILLER-I guess what I did, I assumed that Tom Nace, when he made, when he did
that report and made those recommendations, and they were accepted by the Town at
the time, that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, interesting you say that. I see nothing that the Town accepted
this.
MR. MILLER-Well, it was part of the approval for the Special Use Permit. That was one
of the conditions of the Special Use Permit. So that was submitted at that time.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but I’m just saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is my suggestion okay?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think that’s good. I’m just pointing out it has to meet that
requirement, is my understanding.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we’d like to see the design calculations to prove it meets that.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Is that the only real
issue that we have outstanding? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Okay. We
did have a public hearing re-advertised for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience
that wanted to address the Board on this application? I would just ask that you identify
yourself for the record and direct your comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
BILL WETHERBEE
MR. WETHERBEE-Thank you. I will. My name is Bill Wetherbee. My wife and I have
been year round residents at Cleverdale since 1976 and lifetime seasonal residents.
Last April when this matter was first brought before the Board, we filed a position
statement on behalf of a coalition of residents of Cleverdale who periodically speak out
on quality of life issues. That position statement, first Staff said they had nothing, and
then when reminded from the floor that there was something, they acknowledged it.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
Because nearly a year has transpired since we filed that, Mr. Hunsinger, I’ve taken the
liberty to make copies of it which I would like to give to you for yourself and your
colleagues at the end of this brief commentary on my part, so that they might wish to
review it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WETHERBEE-Having said that, I would like to revisit and reemphasize a couple of
points. Number One, we are very exceptionally concerned about the increase in quick
launch activity which is embodied in this proposal. The applicant classifies the increase
in quick launch capacity as being a, quote, minor revision, unquote. That is an increase
from 80 to 100 quick launch vessels, that’s 25% . One would wonder what a major
increase would be if 25% is minor. Suffice it to say, we consider that a major increase.
The number of quick launch vessels which is presently permitted via the Lake George
Park Commission marina permit was not frivolously or impulsively arrived at. There was
a great deal of examination, study, time, due diligence and exacting consideration of
lifestyle and neighbor concerns that went into the representation of that number. We
urge the Board not to set it aside, since it was arrived at after a long period of contention.
We feel it was arrived at fairly and that it truly represents a meaningful number. To
simply arbitrarily cast it aside and say we’re going from 80 to 100 we feel is indefensible.
Secondly, representations have been made about changes in the waterfront and the
footprint of the docks at the marina. This is somewhat illusory and/or deceptive. If you
look at the diagram of the marina as it was configured before Boats By George became
the owner and after, you will note that a significant number of dock slips were lost. Not
because of any concession or give away, but simply as a result of the transaction
between the buyer and the seller. Those docks were given up when the deal, quote
unquote, was finalized. To now turn around and say, well, I’ve given up a number of
docks at the waterfront in return for more quick launch is deceiving. Those docks were
given up, and those dockages and slips were relinquished at the time that deal was
finalized. There shouldn’t be any concession now made for the fact that the owner gave
up the right to those docks when he bought the property, and we’d like to underscore that
and encourage you to look at the diagrams you have, the large diagrams which show
both the before and the after, in terms of the footprint at the waterfront. After examining
the comments at the April meeting, I want to take also a minute, at the risk of being
redundant, and make sure everyone here clearly understands what quick launch really
means. Quick launch has nothing to do with rapidly putting boats in the water in April
and taking them out in October. Quick launch in the marine industry is no different from
having a dock right at the waterside where you have your boat tied up, no different. The
only difference is the boat is stored inland. You have the same opportunity to put it in,
the same opportunity to use it, the same frequency of use. Everything is the same. A
few minutes ago, the representative of the owner claimed that quick launch was not as
frequently used as those who have boats at the dockside. Quote, it is reasonable to
conclude a dock space customer will use the facility identically to a quick launch
customer, end quote. That was penned by the owner of the marina, Mr. Pensel when he
made the original application. He himself said it is reasonable to conclude a dock space
customer will use the facility identically to a quick launch customer. So the frequency of
use is the same. There are, however, some important peripheral and collateral
differences. The boats have to be moved from an inland location on the west side of
Cleverdale Road, via a forklift or tractor, across Cleverdale Road, down the ramp, and
put in the water. Then when the customer returns, the same reverse occurs. Each time
that transaction occurs there are four trips, pick up the boat, take it to the water, return
the tug to the forklift. When the boat comes back, the forklifter tug goes back down,
picks it up and brings it back up. Four trips. These tugs operate or forklifts operate with
a diesel engine or an internal combustion engine. They operate at a very low speed, and
high RPMs. There is noise. There is emissions. There are all kinds of other peripheral
considerations. There is traffic on already congested Cleverdale Road. Consider that
going from 80 to 100 is a 25% increase in that frequency of use. Concluding, at the April
hearing on this matter, which was of course adjourned until tonight, Mr. Hunsinger, on
Page 48 of the minutes of that meeting, asked, quote, Staff to review the file and give a
summary of prior issues and provisions applicable to this property, end quote. I tried,
through September, to get a copy of that Staff review. I was referred consistently to Mr.
Brown, the zoning coordinator. He was dismissive of my efforts and finally told me there
was nothing in the file to warrant any consideration. That stretches and strains
credibility. If anyone has any knowledge whatsoever as to what happened with this
facility through the decade of the 1990’s, to simply dismiss it and say, there’s nothing in
the file, there’s nothing in the file of importance. I don’t know if you have received that
requested Staff report that Mr. Hunsinger asked for, but if you did, I can’t get a copy, and
I’d like to know what his position in that respect is. To summarize, and I appreciate the
opportunity to have spoken to this length, many people cannot be here tonight for
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
obvious reasons. We live in a seasonal community, and many residents are not there. I
can assure you that I speak for many of them via the Cleverdale coalition with respect to
this commentary. I wish they could be here, in order to comment on the degree to which
this increase in quick launch capacity will affect Cleverdale and what has happened. I do
hope that this has served somewhat to clarify our position, however, and I thank you for
your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a quick question for you.
MR. WETHERBEE-Yes, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you aware of any enforcement actions against the marina?
MR. WETHERBEE-Enforcement actions at the present marina?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, by the Town.
MR. WETHERBEE-All I know, Mr. Hunsinger, is that the catalyst for this whole activity
which brings us here this evening started in ’06, in May of ’06 when the applicant filed an
application with the Lake George Park Commission for a marina permit, claiming, I
believe, and I may be wrong on this, that he wanted to carry over the provisions of the
previous owner. The Lake George Park Commission referred the matter to the
Queensbury Planning Board because it was reflected as a quote expansion, unquote.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. WETHERBEE-And has not thereafter taken any action to issue an operational
marina permit. So, in answer to your question, none, other than the fact that there is not
presently a viable marina permit for that operation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WETHERBEE-I don’t know if that answers your question or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. WETHERBEE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment? Yes, sir.
ROBERT EVANS
DR. EVANS-Thank you, members of the Board. My name is Robert Evans. My wife and
my four kids, we live and border the Boats By George on the western and also the south
side of the property. We’ve lived there for about 25 years. I want to start tonight by
saying that George is a friend. He’s a good neighbor. He runs a good marina. We’re
glad to have him on Cleverdale. That is certainly not the problem. He’s cleaned up the
marina and we’re pleased that he has. However, George knows what he bought. He
knows what he bought. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming business in a very
protected residential area. We spent hours, as Mr. Wetherbee has talked to you, hours
and hours with the Lake George Park Commission, Town of Queensbury in setting up
the numbers of boats for storage and for quick launch. Going from 80, again, to 100
boats is a lot. It’s 25%. It’s certainly much more than we anticipated for many reasons.
Mr. Wetherbee has alluded to some of those. The apples to apples, in terms of show
room rental boats and quick launch are not the same. Showroom the boats sit in there.
Rentals, it’s a question mark, and as you heard, quick launch is back and forth daily.
The traffic that has occurred over the past year to year and a half has been incredibly
increased on the Cleverdale Road. Boats are going back and forth. Mr. Pensel has
bought property just over the Queensbury border in Fort Ann. There must be 100 to 200
boats stored there. He also has his business on Route 9 and 149. So who knows how
many boats are being quick launched and stored. It’s very difficult to determine these
days, but in any event, my comment to you is that it’s not quite clear where we’re headed
in terms of quick launching, but 20 boats, again, is a large increase. My comment is is
that’s a marked expansion and I strongly urge you to look at the fact that this really
should be a change in use variance that he be required to have. I’m also commented, as
a neighbor, on the runoff. There were a number of questions tonight. Pictures tell you a
million words, and again, the runoff coming from the marina is like a stream, especially in
the kind of weather we’ve had, but every spring, I brought you pictures of the water
coming off his property onto mine. It just gushes along. It forms almost a lake onto my
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
property and the Cleverdale Road, which is now frozen. I worked for the Town when I
put in my septic system and landscaped it so that it drains towards a culvert that the
Town put in, and yet on his behalf there’s, from what I hear, I walked the property with
them, and I’m not sure stone is going to do as much. I haven’t seen any topographical
maps since we talked, but with the volume of water that comes off there, I can’t believe
that that is going to work. Since the buildings were torn down originally by Mr. Brock, we
had grass and permeability, stone’s been added. There’s concrete, and there’s very little
permeability, and there’s runoff into our borders which comes down through the area that
I have on these pictures. So, again, I think that there’s a marked change in regards to
use, 25% increase I think is very marked. I’m concerned about what occurs down the
road in terms of boat storage, boat buildings, and those kind of things. You give an inch,
you take a mile. I want George to certainly have a good business, but on the other hand,
I think that the impact on the community is great. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am.
JOAN ROBERTSON
MRS. ROBERTSON-I’m Joan Robertson. I live directly south of the Mooring Post
Marina, no Boats By George. Excuse me, I’ve lived there a long time, Boats By George
in Sandy Bay. George is a good neighbor. I like him. I want to say that first, and we’ve
been friends a long time. This is a longstanding boat yard originally owned by Scott
Henderson. When we moved to Cleverdale 50 years ago, the neighborhood was one of
quaint, Victorian cottages, pretty flower gardens, and a small boat livery. The wooden
boats went into the lake in May, were delivered to various cottages and were taken out of
the water in September or October. There were occasionally day use people, but it was
minimal. The transfer of vessels was by an electric tramway. I hope this background,
which I’m doing deliberately, this background information, will forestall comments about
our knowing it was a full scale marina when we purchased our home years ago. It was
not. It was a quiet neighborhood. So what’s happened has been a huge disastrous
surprise to me, but I have to live with it. This present business is a nonconforming, pre-
existing use in a residential neighborhood and expansion is not permitted. There has
been an increase in the use of the launch area by boats that are winter stored at Boats
By George, various upland facilities. This causes a substantial amount of truck traffic on
a narrow country street with these over the road activities. There is a substantial amount
of public launching, as well as quick launch boats stored on site. For each vessel, as
was pointed out before, with quick launch it goes down and back, down and back, and
that’s tractors with pickup trucks. Now it’s right next to my porch. We don’t sit on the
porch on the weekends, but that’s okay because George has to make a living and that’s
okay. I mean, I’m not complaining about that part of it, but Sandy Bay is already
congested. Mr. Pensel purchased part of Mr. Brock’s marina. Mr. Brock reserved one
lot containing a house and garage, and several waterfront dock spaces in front of the
residence kept for himself. He has applied to Lake George Park Commission for a Class
A Marina permit. Mr. Pensel apparently wishes to stop renting boats and use these
allocated dock spaces for quick launching. He also wishes to add 10 more quick launch
spaces to make up for the ones he supposedly lost in the sales transaction. Well, he did,
he bought three-quarters of a marina, not 100%, but trading rentals for quick launch is
one thing. Trading dock spaces he doesn’t own, which are John Brock’s property, for 10
more quick launch spaces is not reasonable and is definitely an expansion of services.
Mr. Pensel bought part of a marina and should not expect to increase the number of
boats he is allowed to rise to the level of the previous owners. An added fact, the area
from perhaps two lots south of the marina, that’s mine and one other one, and then two
lots north, has been identified as an active zebra mussel site and is being monitored on a
regular basis. The discovery of zebra mussels will require added vigilance by marina
personnel as well as local environmental groups. Now Sandy Bay is already congested
and having that many more quick launches is, I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like a good
idea, and thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome, thank you. Anyone else?
MIKE O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Mike O’Connor. I’m speaking on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Evans, and
also the coalition that’s being put together on Cleverdale. I think your initial questioning
of the applicant was right on the point. What are you actually being asked to approve
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
and what’s on the maps and what’s not on the maps? And I apologize, but I was on
vacation last week, and I’ve only been looking at this for a couple of days, actually today,
and maybe historically I know that Staff asked or Board members asked Staff last month,
was there a determination by the Zoning Administrator whether or not this was an
expansion? And I haven’t heard an answer today. Last month, or the last time that it
was before you, George, I think your answer was you didn’t know, and I’d ask that
question up front.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, do you want me to answer?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, if you know the answer.
MR. HILTON-Well, I’ll give you my best answer, which I think answers the question. If
this is, in fact, an expansion, there’s, expansion is allowed with the granting of the
Special Use Permit by the Planning Board. The Special Use Permit is an allowed, let me
back up. It’s allowed in this zone if the permit is granted from this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILTON-As such, this marina use could expand or chooses to approve it under the
Special Use Permit requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My understanding would be different than that. My
understanding is that this is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and any expansion of a
nonconforming use requires a variance, a Use Variance, and that’s pursuant to Section
179-5-, I’m sorry, I’ll write a letter and quote that for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand this, there is not a Town permit for this marina now.
When this came through the process back in the 1990’s, and it went all the way to the
Appellate Division, the applications at that time were denied by the Town, and I may be
incorrect, but I haven’t looked at it since 1997. They then went to the Lake George Park
Commission, and Mr. Brock did work out with some of the neighbors an actual Lake
George Park Commission permit, and at the time of the sale of this, and I’m not sure
even how that took place, and I don’t know if Staff have looked at that. It always was
shown and presented as being one parcel that was owned by Mr. Brock, and now as I
understand it Mr. Brock has retained a 60 foot parcel which has 13 slips attached to it on
a dock, and there’s 121 feet, and I may be incorrect, and Mr. Miller can correct me if I
am, that was sold to Mr. Pensel and has the remainder of the docks on it, and I mention
st
that specifically because the Lake George Park Commission in a letter of June 21, and I
don’t think it has changed that, June 21, 2006, said that what was being proposed by Mr.
Brock and Mr. Pensel represented an expansion of the marina because Mr. Brock
actually retained the right to use those 13 spots that are in front of his 60 feet of frontage.
They aren’t totally eliminated as it would sound like they want a credit for those 13 spots
because they aren’t using them in the Pensel marina. They are still being used. They’re
still putting boats into the Bay from those spots, and I’ve got copies of this letter which I’ll
submit to you from the Lake George Park Commission.
st
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re talking about the June 21 letter?
st
MR. O'CONNOR-June 21.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, at least I do, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a whole series of letters that went back and forth, but I don’t
know that this letter was ever amended or modified. I talked to Molly Gallagher today,
and she sent me, she thought, the latest from that. Again, I could be corrected.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you get one, George?
MR. HILTON-I did.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I clearly think that this is an expansion. The evidence that they
attempted to file, and I think did file, although Pam wasn’t sure how it was going to be
accepted, a Notice of Appeal if there was a Zoning Administrator’s determination since
the last meeting as to whether or not this was an expansion. If we’re told that there was
never a determination as to whether this was an expansion, it would be our intent to file a
request for an interpretation to show that it is an expansion and should go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals before it comes to you. I’m going to be concerned, this is kind of like
the after the fact approval process, because there are other parts of the waterfront that
come into play, or the waterfront regulations, because even though these docks pre-
existed and were legitimate as they existed, when they divided the parcel, they don’t
show where they’re maintaining 20 feet of freeboard on each side of the dock. They then
make a pre-existing legal dock illegal because of the way that they’ve broken up the lot,
the subdivision. I also would have a question of Staff as to whether or not that needed
subdivision approval, if it was all held according to their map reference in one deed, and I
do recall back before they put it all together in one parcel. I don’t know if there was more
than one deed or not more than one deed. There is a quirky provision within our Town
Ordinance that says if the property is in the Adirondack Park Agency or a Critically
Environmental sensitive area, or designated area, there is a merger by operation of law
of lots that are owned, that are adjacent to each other. So, from a zoning point of view,
this was one lot, if it was all in one title, and I can’t honestly tell you in fact here whether
it was or not. Maybe Mr. Pensel knows the history of that better than I do, or I don’t have
that. I’ll dig that out from the County Clerk’s Office, but I think there are more issues here
that need to be set before you, let alone the stormwater. The stormwater is a big issue
for the Evans’. What they installed in the 1990’s hasn’t worked. Water comes across the
road. If you’ve got some pictures in front of you, you can see that it doesn’t work, and I
think everybody, if you’ve been up and you’ve looked at what’s there, it’s not a good
situation on the side that goes towards the lake, and this is your opportunity to take a
look at that. There is no Lake George Park Commission permit in place for either the
docks that were retained by Mr. Brock or the docks that were purchased by Mr. Pensel,
and you should keep that in mind. It sounds like there are an awful lot of other agencies
that have to give permits or approvals. I don’t know how you could make any
determination on a SEQRA basis until you know whether or not there’s adequate septic.
Either in this letter or one of the prior letters, the Lake George Park Commission raised
that issue that the septics that they were looking at, and it might be, I’m not sure, but
basically it says you’ve got a septic that was built not in consideration of usage of a
marina and what’s going to be applicable for the marina may not be the same as what
you had your intention original use. That’s either in one of the prior letters or not. If it’s
not in this letter before I leave tonight I’ll give you a copy of that letter. So it’s hard for us
to make real sound comments, other than the fact that we think there’s a lot of
information that’s not on the table before you. I apologize that I wasn’t here at the last
public hearing, but I read the minutes of the last public hearing, and I don’t even see
where some of the Board’s questions were answered. So I’m not going to repeat
unnecessarily the same comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-May I ask a question? Is it your position that the, or let me go back a bit.
We had a marina there, part of which was sold, part of which was retained by the owner,
although he’s not operating it as a marina in the sense that the portion that was sold will
be operated as a marina, if I’m making sense.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not factually correct, though. The piece that is being retained,
that was retained, is being operated by, as a marina. An application has been made to
the Lake George Park Commission by that fellow to operate that as a marina as well.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is it your position that this applicant, or I should say part of your
position that we need to consider an expansion of use in this application because a
neighbor also has a marina?
MR. O'CONNOR-If they’re relying upon the prior approvals as being the basis for their
being no expansion, then you have to look at what happened to the properties that were
in that configuration at the time of the prior approvals. At the time of the prior approvals,
they had 13 more spaces that were part of this. They were reserved by the fellow when
he sold the marina. So for rounding off figures, say they had 80 quick launch before, and
I don’t know the full number of, and just say, for simplicity, forget the rental boats, they
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
had 13 that they were going to do seasonal leases on, so they had a total of 93 boats,
they now want to do, I’ll cut it in half. They now want to do 90 quick launches, and the
fellow still has the 13 boats. So he’s got 103 boats, as opposed to the 93.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what you’re representing, then, is really a ratio, because they
lost dock space and yet they’re asking to increase the number of quick launches, that
that effectively is an increase in use?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it’s an increase in traffic on the lake and in that Bay. This is Sandy
Bay, if you remember, which is a congested Bay. It’s one of the two areas in the whole
lake where the Lake George Park Commission has put out a buoy system to avoid the
congestion, or limit the congestion to the degree that they can and you’re putting more
boat traffic into that Bay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North
Queensbury. It certainly doesn’t look like you’re prepared to make any kind of a
determination tonight by way of approval, and my question has to do with that failing
wastewater system. What are we going to do about it? It’s the slow season now, but it’s
not going to be too long before that marina is going to be in full operation, and I think we
should address that wastewater problem immediately. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? George?
MR. HILTON-I’ve got a few letters.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve got some letters? Okay. Go ahead.
MR. HILTON-Would you like me to read them? Sure. The first letter I have is from Sara
Wheeler. It says, “This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing we received
on January 10, 2008. As usual, this notice gives summer residents who live away during
the winter months little time or opportunity to review the proposed modifications
requested by Boats by George. It has become habitual for Cleverdale variance requests
to be made when summer residents, who contribute to North Queensbury’s substantial
tax base, will find it impossible to be correctly informed about such requests. Given the
lack of adequate information, we would like to protest what we assume may be a
variance for increased quick-launch capacity for Boats by George. The Special Use
Permit approved by the Lake George Park Commission at the time of purchase was for a
maximum number of 80 boats for quick launching. If the “modifications” request is to
increase that capacity to 100, we strongly ask for denial. Currently, there continues to be
a drainage problem after rain storms in front of the Boats by George store on Cleverdale
Road. This water along with the continual pollution to the lake and additional traffic are
both detrimental to Lake George and the Cleverdale community. Additional quick launch
will only increase these problems. Sandy Bay is already over utilized and lake pollution
has increased for residents in that area, especially. Although we are primarily summer
residents of Cleverdale, we are concerned with the well-being of all of Lake George, the
land surrounding the lake, and the Cleverdale community. We continue to feel that our
Town representatives allow variances to Cleverdale residents even though the variances
do not meet current zoning and use restrictions. Often the restrictions are dismissed and
overbuilding is allowed on property and potential pollution of the lake is ignored. While
we do not know the specific “modifications” that Boats by George is requesting, we
sincerely hope that the Planning Board will consider thoughtfully the consequences of
the variances requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sara W.
Wheeler D. Billings Wheeler” The second letter I have is a letter from the Lake George
Water Keeper. He’s got a few points here I’ll try to go through. Regarding the proposed
stormwater management plan, regarding the existing stone trench which is proposed to
be rehabilitated, how much stormwater is directed to this area? It appears by the grading
that the only runoff which is collected is from the drive to the ramp. It also appears a
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
high area in the grass parking prevents runoff from the northern drive to reach the
northern drive to reach the trench. Could another trench be installed along the northern
drive? What is the existing drainage structure near the ramp? How effective is the
existing inlet and basin near the boat ramp? How does runoff enter the inlet? Can a
small speed bump be installed to direct runoff toward the inlet and prevent it from flowing
into the lake? What is the extent of proposed vegetation removal in the area of the
proposed stormwater management system on the western side of Cleverdale Road?
Could the stormwater management be extended into the low grass area for an additional
basin? The New York State DEC Design Manual and best management practices
require a grass filter strip prior to the use of infiltration trenches to remove sediments.
Can this be incorporated into the design to provide longer life to the proposed
stormwater controls? Has there been any consideration for pervious paving possibly by
the boat launch area? What did the previous septic system consist of? Will any of the
existing soils be removed which may be considered contaminated? Are there pump-out
facilities on the lake? Is the preferred parking by the lake on the grass areas? Do these
spots tend to fill up first and what is the impact on the grass areas, i.e. do the soils
become compacted and does the grass remain through the summer? Describe the boat
wash facilities? How is its use encouraged by the business and staff? Is there drive-up
launching available? What is the maintenance services provided on site, i.e. pointing
and hull work? Are hazardous materials stored on site? Are those mentioned in the
Spill Prevention Plan? What is the depth of water in the vicinity of the ramp and docks?
Is the depth in the docking area and ramp decreasing? Is dredging anticipated in the
near future? Marinas are an important business for the ability of people to recreate and
enjoy Lake George. Marinas can also have great impacts to a water body. We
encourage the Planning Board to consider this opportunity to improve the best
management practices on site and reduce potential impacts to the lake as well as
encourage other proactive measures for lake protection including the use of boat wash
facilities. I looking forward to continue working with the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board in the defense of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your
consideration of these comments.” Lastly a comment letter from Robert and Angela
Kladis. It says, “We are writing this letter in regards to the above mentioned proposal of
Boats By George. We live on Mason Road; our residence sits across the street from the
back of the Boats By George property. In regards to this proposed expansion, we do
have a few concerns that we feel should be addressed with relation to Issues of Health
and Safety by the owner prior to the proposed task of expansion. Quick Launch Increase
from 80 to 100 boats. This equals a 25% increase. This will lead to more boat traffic in
Sandy Bay, which is already an existing problem in terms of congestion. Increasing the
Quick Launch will only escalate the problems both environmentally and in the issue of
congestion. Substantial vehicle increase on Cleverdale Road. We have observed on
many occasions, as many as 3 trucks with trailer-boats, coming from the Boats By
George Rt. 149 locations, throughout, (before, during and after) the seasonal months.
This poses an issue of safety. Septic Systems of the Marina. Are they in compliance
with the Board of Health? Storm Water Runoff on to Mason Road, which has created an
issue as well. These are issues that greatly impact our community and should be
addressed and take priority over any proposed expansion. We are opposed to this
proposed expansion.” That’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER-Okay. I think, you know, the one comment on the wastewater, obviously
that’s underway, and the intent is that approved and installed before it opens in the
Spring. The other comment was about this being an expansion. Is it not our intent that
this is an expansion, and if you look at the package that we submitted in our drawings,
we have very detailed information about the current permit, the number of slips and all of
that, and what happens, right now the permit reads 80 quick launch, 36 wet slips. Of
those 36, 25 were rentals. This was Mr. Brock’s. Twenty-five of them were seasonal
rental slips. Eight were slips that were designated for quick launch when a boat either
comes in or goes out it’s pulled to a dock. Eight were designated for quick launch, and
three were designated for gas sale. In addition, there was the 10 rental boats. So those
are the number of slips that were identified and quick launches that were identified in the
permit. The number of slips that Mr. Brock, that’s not a separate parcel. Actually there’s
four deeds on the property. Mr. Brock kept his residence to the north of the marina as a
separate property, but what he did is the docks in front of his residence were part of the
marina permit. So when Mr. Pensel bought the property, nine slips, not thirteen, nine
slips in front of Mr. Brock’s home were retained by Mr. Brock, and that’s, you know, it’s
his prerogative to pursue a marina permit for that. There was three slips I believe that
are in agreement that they’re an easement that, or four I think, that’s why it looks like
thirteen, there’s only nine. So nine slips are lost. There’s no doubt about that, but, you
know, the nine from the thirty-six, though, is, we still have 27 wet slips, and we still have
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
the 80 quick launch and the 10 rentals. That’s, you know, if we deduct the nine out, you
know, those are the clean numbers. So we’re not looking for an expansion. We’re
saying we don’t want the 10 rentals. Four, you know, the quick launch slips are going to
be increased from eight to twelve. So there’s more slips available for the quick launch,
and then the seasonal rentals, instead of sixteen would be, I think that goes down to
twelve. So that’s what we saw is a reduction. So we’re looking to basically trade. We
don’t want to get into an expansion. We don’t want to go back before the Zoning Board.
All Mr. Pensel’s looking to do is revise the wording in the permit the way he wants to run
the permit, with no construction. The 20 slips relate to, there’s 20 boats are able to be
stored in the southerly building, and that’s the 20 boats we’re talking about. So whether,
you know, how it gets determined whether it’s an expansion or not, you know, I don’t
know if that’s Craig Brown’s determination, but that’s our intent. We’re not looking for an
expansion. We understand the concerns. The neighbors are seeing 80 to 100, but, you
know, if you look through the narrative and everything, I think we were very forthright to
reveal exactly what the permits and everything were. The other thing I’d like George to
maybe talk a little bit about, I don’t know the details of the permit, but it’s been implied
that he’s operating without a permit. So I’d like George maybe to talk about his.
MR. FORD-Before we get to that, could I ask for clarification, please, on this issue.
Would you characterize what has occurred before and what is anticipated, if this is
approved, would the same number, fewer boats or more boats be coming and going from
this facility?
MR. MILLER-Could George answer that? I mean, he would know more than me. I
mean, I would assume it would be pretty much the same, you know, but again, I was told
that wet slips get you the same amount as quick launch, or rentals. So I think we’ve
probably got.
MR. FORD-I’m just trying to approach the whole concept of expansion versus
maintenance from a different perspective, that’s all. Maybe George can address that.
MR. MILLER-Well, we don’t, obviously we don’t consider it an expansion. I mean, we’re
looking here to modify the permit.
MR. FORD-That’s why I was trying to get, stipulate something numerically.
GEORGE PENSEL
MR. PENSEL-This marina permit, this property that I purchased, encompasses
everything except for the actual docks. The deeded property that John Brock retained is
a residence which had no purpose whatsoever for the seven customers that potentially
could, or the nine customers that could use those docks. Currently those nine customers
cannot use his docks because he does not have a Class A Marina permit. If the Board
was to issue John Brock a Class A Marina permit, that would be an expansion. That
would be an expansion. That would be another marina. This marina that I purchased,
whether it be parking, septic, office, phones, anything, pump outs, was all serviced by my
marina, and it’s all on my marina permit. It’s not on his. It’s nobody else’s. My
application represents a decrease of three boats at this facility for the purpose of
dockage or rentals. We’re down by three units. This is a decrease. It cannot be termed
an increase. No way. My marina permit, which I’m operating under currently, is being
operated under the permit of John Brock. The Park Commission told me as long as I
had paid my dock taxes, which I did every year since I bought the marina, that until the
Board acted on my application, that I was operating under the old permit, and therefore
as long as I stayed within those parameters, that I’d be in good faith, which is what I have
done. I have not changed the face of that marina in the way I operate it. I have not
increased the quick launch, and I have not, so I have operated under the terms of this
permit that the Town of Queensbury adopted in 2005 when they issued the Mooring Post
a Special Use Permit. That was when they assumed, the Town of Queensbury,
accepted these terms as the permit, and I would never, and so my, the very fact that
these docking customers, nine of them on the permit, utilize the parking, the restrooms,
that would be an expansion of services if another Class A Marina permit was allowed in
Cleverdale, and I would be dead set against it. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. George?
MR. HILTON-Again, I think our comment is any changes, whether they’re expansion or
not, require a Special Use Permit, and that’s why this application is before you, and I just
want to reference a memorandum that was provided by Craig Brown to the Planning
Board on August 14, 2007. I’m assuming you’ve all read this. Regarding this
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
application, it says, “Pursuant to your April 26, 2007 resolution I offer the following
response. The Boats by George use represents a Marina Use. Marina uses are listed
as allowable uses within the WR-1A zoning district subject to a Special Use Permit. No
Use Variance is necessary for this project as proposed.” So I think that may help as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like, based on the comments from Board members, it looks
like we’re heading towards tabling this this evening. What issues do we want to have in
the tabling motion, other than clarifying the stormwater management requirements? One
of the things that Craig’s memo doesn’t talk about is any enforcement actions that were
asked about back in April.
MR. HILTON-I can tell you that we did discuss that. It’s my understanding, as far as the
subdivision, that no subdivision was presented to Staff or the Board. A subdivision was
not reviewed, either administratively or by this Board. It’s my understanding that there
are no outstanding issues, if you will, with the previous approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILTON-But also there’s nothing that prevents the applicant from filing this
application, based on the last approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What other issues do we have?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just still unclear about this proposed stormwater control along Mason
Road. There’s existing vegetation where you’re going to propose that stormwater
control, correct?
MR. MILLER-Where we’re going to install it is outside of the edge of the existing
concrete. The concrete that’s there is a slab left from the old buildings. Everything else
is crushed stone. So on the back side of that concrete, we’re going to leave that
concrete slab in place. It’s existing, and along the back side of that is where the stone
trench was installed. So it’s going to be a grassed area.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s also a hedgerow there.
MR. MILLER-Yes, but between the concrete and the hedgerow. I believe there’s room
there.
MR. SIPP-That’s a Type B buffer which is I think three trees per 50 feet.
MR. MILLER-Well, it’s the buffer that was installed back originally. I think, a long time
ago, when John Brock did this, I believe there was actually a planting plan submitted to
the Planning Board that I believe I worked on it. There was a planting plan that was
approved by the Planning Board, and all that was installed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone else on the Board share that? It seems like that
stormwater control is going to go right through the existing planting there?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because when I looked it up a little while ago, I think he was okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But is this considered commercial when I look at the.
MR. HUNSINGER-What it reads, and I’ll just read it quickly, the type specifies the, as
Don pointed out, the number of trees and also the width of the minimum landscape yard,
but I think that the important factor is as follows. Parking or storage of vehicles of any
kind or objects associated with the use of the property is not permitted within the buffer
yards. When not inhabited with natural woody plants, i.e. trees and shrubs sufficient to
visually screen adjoining use or zones, such buffer areas shall be planted, re-graded
and/or fenced, and I think, you know, the buffer that’s there, the hedgerow of trees, I
mean, it’s certainly more than one tree per, or three trees per 100 linear feet of buffer. I
mean, it’s a solid hedgerow.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I’m fine with that, but I just don’t see how you’re going to put that
stormwater trench through there.
MR. MILLER-No, it’s inside it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s inside it.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. MILLER-We’re not going to disturb that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re not going to disturb that hedgerow at all?
MR. MILLER-That would be inside that.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s within the 10 feet buffer, but it’s not, I mean, my understanding.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, how deep is it going to go, two feet, three feet?
MR. MILLER-A two foot minimum.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, you’re not going to disturb the roots at all?
MR. MILLER-Well, I mean, if there were some that spread out there, it wouldn’t kill the
plants. Because we’re probably back 10 feet from the base of those plants.
MR. SIPP-Well, that buffer is, if you go by one inch is twenty feet, you’ve got maybe 10
feet wide. You start digging in the first half of that for a two foot wide trench.
MR. MILLER-I can take some pictures and show you. There’s room to get in there with a
Bobcat or something.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re a landscape architect. I’m counting on you. You tell me it’ll work,
it’ll work. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-One issue that came up that peaked my curiosity here is the traffic, and
the public comment was brought up that there were two additional storage areas off of
Cleverdale, or one’s in the Town of Fort Ann and the other one’s on Route 149. The
question in my mind is, if we’re accessing boats that are off site, what does that do to
traffic?
MR. PENSEL-Well, the Mooring Post always had multiple locations before I purchased it.
MR. MILLER-Yes, but I think, I don’t want to put words in George’s mouth. I don’t think
they’re quick launching from remote sites. I don’t think they’re going to Fort Ann to bring
a boat to launch it. I mean, George obviously deals with boats. He may store boats at a
different facility, and a client wants to move it to this site so it can be a quick launch boat.
He’s obviously, you know, whether George does it or if somebody buys a boat at another
marina and another boat dealer and brings it to George’s property, it’s got to come to the
site, but I, you know, it sounded like he’s sending vehicles to Fort Ann to get a boat to
launch it for the day, and I don’t believe that’s happening.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those other off site locations are just for seasonal storage.
MR. PENSEL-Seasonal storage.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a one time thing, in in May and out in October.
MR. MILLER-And storage and sales.
MR. PENSEL-Yes. Many of them don’t even go back to Lake George. They may go to
Lake Placid.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s a one time thing.
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re not quick launching from it?
MR. PENSEL-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The only other issue is the septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-The septic system, yes,
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-So are we slowing that down? How does this all play out? That’s a
separate issue?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s the Town Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the Town Board, but I’m thinking is that going to slow them
down?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not necessarily.
MR. MILLER-No, that’s moving ahead.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s on it’s own track.
MR. MILLER-That’s moving ahead regardless of.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is that on the agenda, the Town Board agenda?
MR. MILLER-I can’t speak for that, because I know Tom was working with Dave Hatin
and Dan Ryan, and he had to get everybody in agreement before he went back to the
Town Board, and I’m not quite sure where that stands.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s on its own separate track?
MR. HILTON-Yes. It sounds like it. Again, I mean, if you have specific questions you’re
looking for more information, by all means, but you don’t necessarily have to wait for that
before you act.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m more concerned with us holding up approval of the septic.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MILLER-No, that’s moving ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So would anyone like to put forward a tabling motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re going to include a condition that the applicant obtain Town
Board approval for holding tanks? I mean, before we do SEQRA, we would need to
have that approval.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to answer the question.
MR. MILLER-I mean, that’s in the, that’s right in the wording in the Special Use Permit
and a Marina permit that there has to be a wastewater disposal system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. MILLER-So George would be in violation without it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we frequently approve Site Plans before they have final
approval from the Department of Health. I don’t see how this would be any different. I
mean, if you have it, of course, you can represent it, but if you don’t have it yet.
MR. MILLER-We were hoping to, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if that’s not a condition, the only condition that I’m hearing is that we
wanted to clarify the stormwater management requirements meet the Town Code.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-No other conditions?
MRS. BRUNO-I think somebody had asked that we get the design numbers from the
original. I don’t know if that ties into what the other condition, from the original
stormwater plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-What do you mean?
MRS. BRUNO-I just have a note here regarding the 1997 stormwater report. I think Mr.
Seguljic was asking for the actual design numbers, the calculations from the original.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, that’s what we’re asking to get clarified is the, clarify
that the stormwater management meets the Town Code, and have the Town Engineer
review it.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I was just making sure. Like I said, I wasn’t sure if that was the
one condition that we had already put on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
thth
Tabled to the April 15 meeting, with an application deadline of March 17. It is tabled
so that the applicant can clarify that the stormwater management controls on site meet
the requirements of the Queensbury Town Code, and to have the Town Engineer review
those.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Not to be a stickler here, but I think technically what happened is
Queensbury’s, Queensbury passed a Code in 1999. So I believe we go back to the Lake
George Park Commission code. Are we tying ourselves in by saying the Town of
Queensbury Code?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know.
MR. SEGULJIC-The applicable codes, how’s that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just say applicable codes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But does that help Staff? George?
MR. HILTON-I mean, we can only enforce our Code.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But then they submitted a plan to the Town, because the Town 147
didn’t get passed until 1999. This was 1997.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the Lake George Park Commission, as I understand it.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the Lake George Park Commission in this letter, this goes back to
2006, they put, they refer it back to the Town. They’re looking for a determination from
the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you understand what we’re looking for. Don’t you?
MR. MILLER-I think sort of. What I’m going to do is I’m going to go back and work with
Tom Nace and ask him to review what he had done, review what we’ve got now, and the
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
Codes where we’re talked about we’re looking for that first half inch containment, and
ask him to review that, and I’ll probably have him respond to that portion.
MR. TRAVER-I hope you’ll consider, when you do that, that in cleaning out that existing
stone infiltration basin, that you might be able to do that easier in the long run by lifting
that cover off and maybe putting something more pervious down when you replace it,
rather than casting another concrete. That may help the numbers.
MR. MILLER-Okay. We’ll look at that.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 54-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CINDY & MICHAEL
TROMBLEY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 80 ELLSWORTH LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. KENNEL. KENNEL IN
RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
YES LOT SIZE: 6.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-16 SECTION 179-4-020
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Lucas Dobie, Hutchins
Engineering. With me is Cindy Trombley who is the owner of the property and will be
operating the proposed dog day care facility. I’d like to give a little history on the project.
th
As you may recall, the Trombleys were here on November the 27 with, well, what I call
a preliminary site plan, kind of more of a sketch than a full engineered plan. They didn’t
get too terribly far, and one of the tabling motions was to bring in an engineer to design
the stormwater, wastewater, that kind of thing. In addition, the Trombleys received a
st
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on November the 21 for the requirement
that you need 10 acres for a kennel facility. They have just under seven acres. They
received that variance unanimously. They also brought to the meeting, I believe they
submitted as well letters of support from the community. Since then we’ve addressed
Staff comments. We’ve worked out Dan Ryan from VISION Engineer’s preliminary
comments, and specifically we performed test pits, percolation tests, and then we did a
more thorough Site Plan, which I’d like to summarize if I could. The test pits we had over
seven feet with no seasonal high groundwater. So that’s not an issue for stormwater
infiltration or for septic. One of the Staff’s comments was to prepare a Site Plan at a
scale less than one inch equals fifty feet. We’ve prepared a one to thirty foot site plan.
So it will show a lot more detail. We came back with an approximately 300 foot length
driveway to get down to the proposed building, 20 feet wide crushed stone finish, and for
parking we took out of the Code the kennel requirement, which is one space per 600 foot
devoted to the use of the facility. So for that use I took the building area and a little
fenced in area, a play area if you will, and we came up with six parking spaces, which is
what the Trombleys had envisioned, we think will work very well for the customers. We
prepared a detailed wastewater for the dog, they’re going to have a dog wash facility.
We estimate about 15 washes a day, and then general water usage for the staff on hand,
which will be primarily Cindy, maybe another assistant, I believe. As far as lighting, we
don’t propose any parking lighting, anything off, anything raised, just a wall pack
mounted next to the entrance door, because again, they’re not a kennel. Most pets
would be picked up around five o’clock I would think, five or six o’clock, and for signage,
they just propose one sign right on the building, nothing along Bay Road, because they
don’t own the property, obviously. For stormwater, we’re just proposing two drywells,
pretty straightforward, riprap ditch on the north side of the driveway to collect runoff, and
we’ll probably stick some check dams in that to slow down, to slow it down before it
comes into the drywells, and as far as clearing, we’re approximately 27,000 square feet
of clearing. We’re keeping as tight as we can, just to maintain the wooded field the
property, and we did, obviously this package was re-submitted to Dan Ryan for further
comments. He signed off on his initial round, but has a few more small detail things. We
re-submitted to him today, but it’s my understanding he’s on vacation this week. So
obviously we don’t have a signoff, but I’m very comfortable we will be able to address
those and get his signoff no problem, and with that we’d be happy to entertain any
questions from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? Mr. Ford?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. FORD-I have one in particular. For the record, I just want to make sure that there
will be no boarding of pets?
CINDY TROMBLEY
MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes. It was stated last meeting.
MR. DOBIE-Yes, they just propose a grooming facility and daycare, which is a pretty
interesting little business that’s growing quite well from what I’ve seen.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of those unique businesses you never think of.
MR. DOBIE-It is. What’s good for your kids is good for the animals, too. One of Mr.
Ryan’s, probably his most substantial of concern comment was the slope of the driveway
which we don’t have exact topography from a field survey, but we estimated it in the field
with a kilometer they call it, it’s like a compass that measures angles and percent slope,
and we estimate we’ll be able to keep the driveway under 12%, which is reasonably
steep but not extreme. It’s the nature of the site and also a regulation where you need a
200 foot setback from all property lines for a kennel facility like this, even though it’s
mostly just to protect the neighbors so that pretty much dictated where we’d have to put
the building and thus run a little longer driveway to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board members?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it all looks good to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Seeing none, I will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a SEQRA Short Form. Everyone comfortable moving forward
with SEQRA?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. FORD-I am.
MRS. STEFFAN-Whenever you’re ready.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 54-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CINDY & MICHAEL TROMBLEY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. 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.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-
significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we move forward on any motion consideration, because this is
a Special Use Permit, we have to take into consideration specific items that are outlined.
I think Staff brought it to our attention, Section 179-10-050.
MR. TRAVER-General Standards.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe the easiest thing is to just read them quickly. Do you want to
summarize them?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the things that we need to consider, that I’ve summarized, we
need to apply, a Special Use Permit is applied due to the characteristics or the special
characteristics of the area that the project will be located in, and the effect on the
surrounding property and the community and character. The Planning Board needs to
ensure that there’s a long term benefit to the Town and that the project is desirable
versus, you know, would cause problems or difficulty. The Planning Board may require a
performance bond or a letter of credit to guarantee satisfactory performance, and then
the Planning Board must also identify the terms of validity. It’s either a permanent, a
temporary, or a renewable use permit. There’s a couple of options that we have, and
that kind of summarizes the Special Use Permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any discussion on that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’ve probably answered this already. How many people a day
are coming and going?
MRS. TROMBLEY-For the daycare we’re looking at 12 to 15 dogs.
MR. SEGULJIC-So 12 to 15 cars.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure. So 15 is the maximum?
MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how many employees?
MRS. TROMBLEY-I’d say two at this point.
MR. SEGULJIC-And your building is 1200 square feet?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it fits in with the criteria.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-I just want to see how the Board feels about this. I’m kind of going back
and forth on this. When you look at this erosion control and implementation schedule,
for example it says temporary seeding and mulching after initial site grading. Are we
okay with that, or do you want to put like within 10 days after initial site grading? I mean,
is that nebulous for enforcement if it comes to that?
MR. HILTON-To be safe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, the general stormwater controls are more specific, in terms
of, you know, when those things are done.
MR. SEGULJIC-The reason why I picked 10 days, and I should have said this earlier, is
that 147 says any area of land from which natural vegetation cover has been either
partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activity shall be re-vegetated
within 10 days from substantial completion of such clearing and construction.
MR. DOBIE-I think that’s very reasonable. I believe DEC standard is for their SWPPP’s
is 14 days, but we’d be very comfortable with 10.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-The contractor is going to be doing it. They do a nice job. They’re in and
out and in a hurry, and it would be hydroseeded, I would imagine, and tidied right up no
problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I’d just propose, after temporary seeding and mulching
implementation time, just say within 10 days after initial site grading?
MR. DOBIE-I would think that would be after final site grading, wouldn’t it? Because if
you’re pushing dirt around, you don’t want to.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. After final site grading, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-A note to the plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you want it to say?
MR. HUNSINGER-Within 10 days after final site grading. Yes. I think we want to make
it contingent upon a final signoff from VISION Engineers as well. Okay, anything else?
Any other comments, questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve got a condition no pet boarding. Number Two, VISION
Engineering signoff and to address comments and to get a signoff, the plat notation
change, and that we’re granting a permanent term of validity, so that if the use is ever
discontinued for 12 consecutive months, that they’d have to come back for a
modification. Okay? Does that cover everything?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 54-2007 CINDY & MICHAEL
TROMBLEY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,200 sq. ft. Kennel. Kennel in Rural
Residential zones require Planning Board special use permit review and approval; and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
2. A public hearing is scheduled for 11/27/07 tabled to 2/19/08; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record; and
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if
the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
8. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 54-2007 CINDY & MICHAEL
TROMBLEY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Eight does not apply [removed]. Paragraph
Nine does not apply [removed]. This Special Use Permit is approved with the following
conditions:
1.That there will be no pet boarding.
2.That the applicant will address the VISION Engineering comments dated
February 15, 2008 and obtain a signoff.
3.That there will be a plat notation change on Drawing S-1, under the Erosion
Control Implementation Schedule, under Implementation Time, under
seeding and other vegetation stabilization, it should say, after final site
grading within 10 days.
4.The Planning Board grants the term of validity for this Special Permit as
permanent, which according to Town Code means that it permits a specific
use to continue indefinitely until the specific use ceases for any reason for a
period of 12 consecutive months, or the use is modified or expanded. Such
modification or expansion shall require the permit holder to seek a
modification of this Special Use Permit.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much, Board, and thanks for your time.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN
FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ ZONING
RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A
10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES CROSS
REFERENCE SUB 1-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter, for the record, from Bartlett, Pontiff. I’m
the attorney for the applicant. I’m here with Kevin Hastings, the project engineer, and
actually Laura Fedorowicz is in the audience. It appears from the last meeting, which
was in November, Jon Lapper was actually present, that the first item that really needs to
be addressed with this application is a request for a modification to the existing
subdivision condition. It’s my understanding, when I reviewed the Staff comments, that
the minutes of the prior meetings were incorporated in those comments for your review.
If I could just give the Board some background as to our review of those minutes. May
16, 2000, the original application was approved, and that was based on the predecessor
in title Mr. Rist’s application. The condition that actually prevents further subdivision,
which is why we’re here this evening, appears to have been a suggestion by Staff, at
least based on our review, from Staff comments, and at that time, when we get to the
Board minutes, it was really a stipulation that the application, or the applicant
immediately agreed to. There really wasn’t much discussion at that meeting. When we
reviewed the Staff’s comments at that time, it was Laura Moore at that point, she also
indicated that, if the parcel is to be further subdivided, clearing, grading and erosion
control plan should be submitted, and obviously we’re prepared to do that at this point
and follow all Town requirements that are now necessary, but we feel as if there really
wasn’t something that was a huge dialogue by the Board. It was something that
immediately the applicant signed off on. When the Fedorowiczs came back in 2005,
unfortunately the concerns that were really raised by Staff as to that condition really
weren’t addressed. It was just that this condition existed and they didn’t feel comfortable
lifting it. When they were before the Board in 2005, Jon Lapper had mentioned this at
the last meeting, that the application that was really submitted was just for really two
square lots. There really wasn’t something that the applicant addressed as to the slopes
or any other thing that was part of the concern that Staff really initiated this condition in
2000. This application, however, we feel is substantially different than the 2005
application, in that the two concerns that were raised by Staff, which were steep area
and the concern for intermittent streams, we’ve designed, with the help of Kevin
Hastings, to avoid. The two lots are proposed in a 10.13 acre size lot. For clarification
purposes, I think there’s been confusion with Staff that the first lot is 2A, which is 4.06
acres. The second lot is 2B, which is 6.07 acres, and I want to bring that to the Board’s
attention, because it appears that there might be some misidentification as to the public
notice as well, but Lot 2B is considerably bigger than when it was originally proposed in
2005, and that was really created to help alleviate the concerns with the steep slopes, so
that the driveway would curve and have a grade of 9.19%, and in most of our
documentation, I know this was discussed in November, too, I keep saying it’s under
12%, but I’m saying that in the sense of the Town’s regulation, but it’s 9.19%. Again, the
steep areas and the locations of the intermittent streams were really what was
addressed by Staff when this was originally deemed a condition that they would propose
in 2000. Again, we’ve submitted application which incorporates a clearing, a grading,
and erosion plan, which was initially what Staff had wanted to see with this lot to be
further divided. We’ve also provided a driveway which has the 9.1% grade, which feel
helps alleviate the concern of the steep slopes to get to the proposed house, and we also
have an NJ letter from the APA. As for the intermittent streams, right now as you can
see on this map, it’s really identified as a drainage ditch, is that the correct terminology,
and essentially that’s because the Fedorowiczs did their homework and they went to the
DEC and part of the map that was submitted by Matt Steves, identified as S-1, states
that the DEC says that there’s no DEC regulated streams on the property. They really
made a conscious effort to try and demonstrate to this Board that there is merit to
actually lift this condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MS. BITTER-There’s one last thing, I apologize, that I wanted to incorporate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MS. BITTER-When they were before you in 2005, there were going to be a requirement,
or there appeared that they could have required variances for what they were proposing,
and this time they’ve designed it that no variances will be necessary. The one item that
was a typographical error that Staff had brought up to the attention is demonstrated on
S-1 as well. The slopes over 25% of the 10.13 acre parcel is only 2.64, and the usable
land which is allowed is actually 7.49 acres, and it’s on here as 4.49. So in the three
acre zone that we are in, there’s more than enough acreage to comply with the zoning
requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. BITTER-I’m sorry.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a lot of trouble with this. I’ve been thinking about it a lot. A prior
Board said no further subdivision. The applicant agreed to it. Two Boards said no
further subdivision, and if we allow, I’m not a big believer in precedent setting, but if we
allow this, everyone’s going to be lining up, that agreed to no further subdivision, and in
the future no further subdivision isn’t going to mean anything. I have a lot of trouble with
that. The applicant agreed to it.
MS. BITTER-And I think that what we’re trying to say is that everyone’s entitled to due
process, and obviously, as this Board agrees, you look on every case on a case by case
basis, and I think the circumstances here were unfortunately that the original applicant
just arbitrarily said, I don’t have a problem with it and sold it to the Fedorowiczs, only, you
know, a few weeks later, and the Fedorowiczs, that wasn’t necessarily their intention. So
there unfortunately was miscommunication, and that’s why the Fedorowiczs have made
all this effort to demonstrate to you that the conditions that were originally, or, I’m sorry,
the concerns that were originally presented by Staff could really be overcome with an
application that we are now presenting.
MR. FORD-I don’t believe the fact that there was little discussion at that time, the two
previous times, necessarily should be interpreted as that there wasn’t any concern. I
know very few Boards that put that stipulation on just because it happens to be
recommended by Staff.
MS. BITTER-No, I appreciate that, and I didn’t mean to say little discussion. I just meant
to say that the applicant immediately agreed. It wasn’t as if there was like discussion as
to what differences they could make to the application or anything further that they could
do to alleviate those concerns.
MR. FORD-The APA in its letter also indicated, after Paragraph Four, no further
subdivision or other new land use or development is proposed. If any of the above is
incorrect, please contact the Agency as a different determination could result. So it may
be correct, but it’s incomplete. Is it not?
MS. BITTER-Because it says no further subdivision or other new land development?
That’s in every one of the jurisdictions for the purposes of that this is all they would be
approving at this point.
MR. FORD-But they’re saying, if any of the above is incorrect, please contact the agency
as a different determination could result, and I’m not talking about that particular
sentence. I’m talking about everything that preceded that in the way of the description,
and what was left out of that was that on two previous occasions it had been stipulated
that there would be no subdivision. So was that conveyed to APA for their
consideration?
MS. BITTER-I didn’t personally make that application, but I would have no problem, if
this Board wanted me to obviously address that to the APA so they are aware of that.
MR. FORD-But that was not done.
MS. BITTER-I’m not sure, because I didn’t personally make that application. I apologize,
Mr. Ford.
MR. TRAVER-I have just a comment. In going back and reviewing, because it’d been a
while since we’ve seen this application, going back and reviewing the minutes and so on,
from the previous time, I think certainly the effort to engineer the driveway in such a way
that it doesn’t exceed the, you know, the 12% has some merit. However, in looking back
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
through the comments, I think Mr. Sipp made some important points with regards to the
issue of stormwater management when we have snow in the wintertime, and you’re
nodding your head so I think you must have seen some of those.
MS. BITTER-Yes, I read the minutes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, you know, and I think that those concerns remain.
MS. BITTER-Right, and I think what Jon had said at that meeting, too, is obviously we’d
be willing to work with the Board to address whatever concerns they’ve had to modify
what we had as planned, but at this point, you know, we can’t really do that unless the
Board is willing to alleviate the condition.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but you’re saying that could be addressed in Site Plan Review.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SIPP-I think going along with that you need a cross section of this driveway in order
to show the slope in towards the hill, rather than down over the side of the hill, plus the
fact of where the snow will go. If it’s going to be a year such as we’ve had this year, is it
going to be removed or just plowed to one side?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SIPP-Or some of it removed and some of it remain. I would like to definitely see a
cross section of this driveway the pitch that it has to the inner slope, because I believe
that at nine percent slope in some cases it’s going to be a little tough.
MS. BITTER-Right.
KEVIN HASTINGS
MR. HASTINGS-Well, as we responded at the last meeting, those details would be part
of a final package. So what we’ve presented so far is enough concept information for the
Board to at least understand what the project is about.
MR. SIPP-What, has anybody done any soil types, any borings, to determine soil type?
MR. HASTINGS-No, the soil typing was done from the USCS, which is the soil mapping
and typing that’s commonly used for stormwater management. We will be doing on-site
boring and test pits as part of that, because that was part of the VISION comments, but
those are getting into, steps into toward, you know, a Preliminary application, more
substantial information that you would want for review.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, if I may.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Shouldn’t we discuss the issue if we’re comfortable with lifting the no
further subdivision? Because we’re sort of getting into the Site Plan issues when we
haven’t decided?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I was about to say I think we’re in a bit of a chicken and the egg
situation, because the, and it’s unfortunate there was not more comment when the
original condition was applied. However, I suspect, in looking at the topography, that it
probably had to do with the feasibility of putting in a driveway and such other matters.
So the question is, without having a driveway design, without having a Site Plan that
we’re necessarily comfortable with, how can we then look at making an exception to a
reasonable expectation that we will honor the restrictions on these agreements, and on
the other hand, how can the applicant come up with a Site Plan without the option of
subdividing it? So it’s a bit of an issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have public comment?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-I have one more reference to the APA letter, if I may. Relative to restrictions,
I believe the Adirondack Park Agency has a reputation for being pretty strict, and when
they toss the ball as they do in this paragraph back to the Town, please note that the
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
Town of Queensbury may have more restrictive requirements and standards than those
administered by the Agency as set forth below, please contact the Town directly, as the
more restrictive provisions would apply, and the more restrictive provisions that apply is
that twice the Town has stipulated there will be no further subdivision. That’s what’s
applying here, and that’s what should apply.
MRS. BRUNO-Does the Board recall if we had discussed the fire access because of the
length of the driveway?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did.
MRS. BRUNO-I thought we had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I actually think we came to the conclusion if emergency access
wasn’t available their insurance would go up, would be rated accordingly, is where the
discussion went.
MRS. BRUNO-The reason why I ask that is because the argument was made, and it
sounds pretty reasonable, although I have to agree with my other Board members, that,
you know, we do try to keep things as consistent as possible and not set precedents, but
in looking at, you know, have you really designed to make a subdivision work, even
though it just comes down to perhaps your insurance rates needing to be adjusted, it
does come down to a life an health safety issue and to me that kind of means that the
site doesn’t work as subdivided. So it really, beyond the fact that no subdivision had
been listed before, I’m not quite sure that you did overcome what was lacking.
MS. BITTER-And I guess I wasn’t privy to the minutes which dealt with the fire and safety
concern, and I’m not sure if it was something that could have been addressed by the fire
department responding to what was being proposed. I didn’t see that in the minutes. So
I apologize.
MRS. BRUNO-I don’t recall. I meant to bring them with me this evening, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, again, that becomes a Site Plan issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, like I said, I, in a roundabout manner, tried to explain why I was
asking that for the site, for the subdivision purposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? No takers? Okay. I will
open the public hearing and will leave it open for the time being.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess really the first issue is maybe to poll the Board and see how
they feel about removing the stipulation of no further subdivision. I was on the Board
when the project was approved. The only specific issue that I remember talking about
was the cliffs there and just saying, well, you probably couldn’t develop it anyway. So,
you know, what if we just stipulate no further subdivision? I tend to agree with you, there
really wasn’t a lot of thought given to it. I didn’t think, in my own mind, that it would be
possible to provide a driveway that didn’t exceed the 12% slope. So, I guess I,
personally, feel okay with it, based on the most current design.
MS. BITTER-Then I guess I’d be more than willing, and I think that the applicant would
be, if there’s additional information that would be help to the Board. I mean, obviously,
you know, if it’s something from the fire department that would help, I realize it’s a Site
Plan issue, but if that would be something that would address, to alleviate the concern or
get past the condition, then, you know, we would be willing to help the Board out at this
point to get to that point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think it’s one of those situations where the comfort would
come almost from a Site Plan, you know, more than a subdivision boundary.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MS. BITTER-Right, and even like, I know that Mr. Ford had questions of the APA, per
their conversations with the APA, clarifications to the questions that were presented. I
mean, we could obviously do that.
MR. FORD-I’m just interested in how they would respond when they had found that two
previous Planning Boards had stipulated no further subdivision of this property. What
would be their response?
MS. BITTER-Right, and I think what your reference, the restrictions, I mean, they usually
do just adhere to the Town, especially when they have an approved Zoning Code, but at
least giving them the background to make sure that they were aware of the history.
MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, I take decisions of prior Boards seriously, and to lift no prior
subdivision, what’s going to stop everyone from coming in and asking for it? It is one of
the tools we use, and I think its effectiveness will go away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP-I tend to agree with Tom. I see, I really see nothing but trouble on that slope.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about down at this end?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I suppose I’m tempted to look at the issue of overruling two previous
decisions by feeling as though I really need something compelling, not necessarily new
evidence, but certainly something very compelling, and unfortunately the, you know,
being the topography is what it is, and I guess I’m not seeing something there that makes
it compelling to change the ruling of no subdivision. I understand that some convoluted
driveway type thing could be designed perhaps to address the issue of slope, but I’m not
sure that’s the only issue. So I guess I’m leaning towards not overriding that two prior
decisions.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m also leaning towards not overriding, however, it’s a little difficult
because I do hear what the applicant is saying in terms of that the design options weren’t
really looked into at the beginning. I wouldn’t be comfortable voting yes this evening if I
were to suggest a tabling motion. I think what I would ask for is the same thing that Mr.
Ford is asking for, clarification from the APA, what they would have to say, you know, if
they knew all of the background and I would like to see some information from the
emergency services, but it’s just tough because I’ve always said I like to stay the course
of previous Boards who’ve voted on something. It’s a tough one, you know, I can see
both sides, and I think this really speaks to the point that as we’re going through each
application, rather than just at the end of an application saying, well, okay, we’ll make it
work, we’ll give you, you know, all right, we have to really think it through, and
unfortunately that’s leading to longer and longer meetings for all of us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m on the fence. I had several different issues noted when I reviewed
the project, and I am concerned that a few Boards identified no further subdivision, and I
do take that seriously also, because it’s precedent setting, and we will have other folks
coming back. We’ve had it before, but I think we certainly would see an increase in that.
I also have concerns because if we ask you to go away and come back with more
information, the other thing that we’re doing is providing hope where there may, you may
get a denial in the end, and based on some of the comments that were made in the
VISION Engineering letter, there will be substantial investment that will have to happen
in order to develop the property, just because of the slopes that are there. So I have
concerns from many points of view, and I guess I could go either way, but one of the
things that often happens on the Planning Board is that we don’t discourage folks soon
enough in the process, and then we encourage folks to spend a lot of time, you know,
developing information, bringing in experts, spending a great deal of money only to get to
the end of the project and say, no, this isn’t going to work, we don’t think it’s a good idea.
MS. BITTER-And I think that’s when I started that I really wanted to at least address the
condition before we moved on to Preliminary as best we could. The items that we’re
discussing here to supplement are really based on the condition which I can appreciate,
but to obviously continue to answer the question of Dan Ryan at this point, it seems to be
not, we’re not there yet, and we appreciate that.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’m just concerned it did go through two layers of review, and no
further subdivision was reinforced the second time around, and since I’ve been on the
Board a few times now, we have said no repeatedly.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s really about the only tool we have to preserve open space, from what
I see, the agreement of no further subdivision, and I personally think this driveway is
pretty tortured. I mean, engineering wise, it’s great, but this is not your ideal driveway by
any means. I wouldn’t want to be driving up that in the wintertime.
MR. TRAVER-No, I think Don pointed that out the last time.
MR. SEGULJIC-Or should I say down.
MR. HASTINGS-But the owner’s fully aware of those conditions.
MS. BITTER-And the applicant will be the owner. Well, I think we’d like to have the
opportunity, if the Board is willing, to table it for the further information that a couple of
the Board members had requested, if the Board is willing to do that.
MR. FORD-I personally could go with denial, but wherever you want to go with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, if someone wants to offer a motion to modify the
Subdivision No. 1-2000 approval to remove the no further subdivision approval and see
where that goes, that would always be in order.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does the Board have to take an action?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we would have to take an action to remove that
stipulation at some point. I mean, it could be a condition of the approval.
MR. HILTON-I think either way you should decide on modifying the original 2000
subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-And I think we’d rather, obviously, we’d rather it be tabled at this point with
the request of further information. Then we understand, obviously, the comments that
have been presented this evening, so that the applicant can decide, but that would be
our request.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution?
MRS. BRUNO-I told Gretchen I’d take a stab at it if she’d look over my shoulder.
MR. TRAVER-We want clarification of that APA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, Staff comments and VISION Engineering comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just thinking this out loud. My concern here is that if we ask them for
a table and get more information and everything signed off, we’re going to put ourselves
in a box. So, what I would like to do is to make a motion.
MS. BITTER-I didn’t mean to interrupt, but the one thing is that, I know you’re tabling
motion does mention about the engineering letter, that we’d have to address all those
comments. So that’s why I want to give the applicant the opportunity to determine
whether or not they want to invest the money in order to do that, because obviously
that’s a significant investment. So that’s why I would request the tabling motion. I
understand where you’re coming from.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can hear it already.
MR. FORD-And you’re serving your client well in making that approach. I would expect
you to do that.
MS. BITTER-I would rather it be done that way.
MR. FORD-Sure you would.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. SIPP-Does a denial at this time cause the applicant not to be able to come back
with a different design, propose the same two lot subdivision at a future date?
MR. SEGULJIC-Not to speak for Staff, but they can keep on coming back as long as it’s
a different application, right?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-I move that we Deny Site Plan No. 1-2000.
MR. TRAVER-That’s not the issue before us. The issue before us is modification of the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, you deny the request for modification.
MR. SIPP-Modification.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re not denying Subdivision No. 13-2007.
MR. HILTON-No. You’re looking back at the original Subdivision No. 1-2000 and what
I’m hearing is you’re deciding the fate of the proposed modification to that approval.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess how would that be, the wording on this is that the, we’re
denying the request for the removal of the no further subdivision.
MR. HILTON-Or to modify the previous approval for Subdivision No. 1-2000.
MR. TRAVER-Previous denial, right?
MR. HILTON-Well, except they’re seeking a modification to the previous approval to
remove a condition. So that’s the way I was looking at it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any objection to my going forward with a motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Gretchen reminded me that we had at least on one occasion
where Town Counsel informed us that if the applicant requested a table, requested that
we table the application the evening of the meeting, that we had to honor that. I’m not
sure the current Town Attorney shares that opinion. Because I remember being very
surprised when we were given that opinion from the former Counsel.
MR. TRAVER-And in reality by denying the modification, all we’re really doing is saving
them the cost of an application fee, correct? They can bring back this same, get another
application, fill out another application and come back. So we’re not really, I know on
some level it seems like we’re addressing the issue by denying the modification but
we’re really not, because by denying them an opportunity to come back and try to finish
their argument, which I really think is what they want. It’s still out there. They can just
make another application.
MR. FORD-So they can do that no matter what.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FORD-They have that right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think Tanya has a motion that will cover the bases so that the
applicant can feel like they’re fully heard and fairly treated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you’re ready.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN
FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Tanya Bruno who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the April 22, 2008 meeting with an application deadline of March 17, 2008.
The conditions for the tabling:
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
1) Please return the full information to the APA regarding the two previous no
subdivision conditions placed by the Queensbury Town Planning Board and
receive a letter as a comment and review letter from the APA.
2) For the applicant to address VISION Engineering comments from February 15,
2008.
3) For the applicant to address Staff comments.
4) Make corrections to the drawings as recognized by the applicant’s agent in the
density calculations.
5) Review and comment letter from jurisdictional emergency services, especially
regarding the driveway.
6) That the applicant understands that meeting these conditions does not ensure
that the applicant will obtain a favorable outcome to the no further subdivision
condition from 2005.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a comment from Staff.
MR. HILTON-Was the public hearing opened?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was, and left open. Yes, thank you. Okay. Motion carried.
You get another crack at it.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR UNLISTED CHRISTINE
GERMAINE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20
LOCATION 709 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A
8.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 TO
3.10 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.68 +/- ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 301.18-2-34 SECTION A-183
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. My name is Tom Center from Nace Engineering,
representing Ms. Germaine. This is a ten lot subdivision on an 8.68 acre parcel. We’re
proposing nine new lots and one existing lot. All three lots will front three different
existing roads. We have received Staff comments today and on Friday engineering
comments. I don’t know if you’d like me to address some of the Staff comments and the
engineering comments now.
MR. HUNSINGER-The floors is yours, however you want to approach.
MR. CENTER-Okay. In regards to the Staff comments, as far as moving the Lot One
driveway, we have no problem with moving that driveway further up the road to obtain
greater sight distance, and the same going with the clearing limits on Lot 10. We’re open
to opening up that grading. I believe a lot of that is brush, trees, light vegetation along
Sherman Avenue, and that can be opened up to whatever the Board believes is
sufficient to provide better sight distance on Sherman Avenue. As far as the two SEQRA
comments, I don’t know if that’s something that Staff looked into. The Natural Heritage
Program, are you referring to Karner blue or what in particular things are we looking for?
Being that this is surrounded by predominantly by other residential lots, it’s on three
existing roads. We’re not aware of any issues in regards to that. I didn’t know if there
was something, some information that Staff had.
MR. HILTON-I think at least for the first comment it’s just asking, has the applicant
received any verification. We have no information.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. CENTER-Okay. We do not. I certainly can look on the SHPO website and just
ensure that we’re out. I feel fairly confident that there’s not an issue there, but I can
confirm that. As far as Item C-7, there is, you know, a junkyard to the east, but the
question I believe is the predominant use of the land in the area. That would be
residential. As far as the engineering comments, Comment Number One, we have no
problem. What I’ve actually done, I’ve talked with Dan and we have no problem. What
we’d like to do is add a note to the drawings basically stating that prior to issuance of a
building permit for each lot that a percolation test be performed in the area where the
proposed septic system is going to go. I think it gives you a better product in this
particular subdivision. Since we’re on three existing roads. We’re not doing any
stormwater infrastructure. There’s a potential that, you know, when a homeowner comes
in and lays out their house, the septic, they may have a pool. The septic system may be
in a little bit different location that we can do it, similar to anybody coming to a single lot
looking to do a house and a septic system, we go out and do that prior to the building
permit application, and do the percolation test and submit it with the building permit, that
it’s been done in the area where they’re proposing to do the septic system. Our locations
are our version of the best location for a septic system, but on occasion they do move in
regards, when someone decides to build a house. So in an instance like this, if it’s
comfortable with the Board, we’d like to add that note, and along with that, for a test pit to
be performed on Lot 10, we could go out there again, same, similar. I believe the soils
are going to be similar to the existing four test pits. Department of Health was out on the
site and witnessed the test pits along with Mr. Maine, and I believe they felt confident in
the number of test pits that they performed, but if there’s a question about elevation, we
have no problem, and actually we would add that note right on there, onto the Detail
sheet, requiring that.
MR. FORD-Who was there at the time of the test pit?
MR. CENTER-Charlie Maine and I believe Jim Meacham from the New York State
Department of Health, along with Mr. Nace.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, are there, I don’t have any VISION Engineering comments.
Did they get sent to us? I’ve got some for next week, but I don’t have any.
th
MR. HILTON-There is a comment letter of February 14.
MR. FORD-Maybe I printed it out or something. I’ve got it.
MR. HILTON-There were six items.
MRS. STEFFAN-Could you just read them to us?
MR. HILTON-Sure. Number One, a deep test hole should be conducted on Lot 10 due
to the lower elevation. Additionally, percolation testing should be conducted on each lot.
Number Two, Lot 2 appears to collect substantial runoff from neighboring lots 1 and 3.
Consideration should be given to providing some type of diversion to protect this
property from adjacent property and roadway runoff. Number Three, The septic system
for Lot 6 appears to be in a depression which may collect runoff from surrounding area,
particularly during frozen ground conditions. Number Four, it should be noted if
underground utilities are proposed or overhead. Number Five, A typical lot layout
schematic is recommended which includes; typical driveway size and dimensions,
house, water supply (with minimum separation to sewers shown if septic installed in front
yard), other underground utilities if proposed, typical septic system layout with setbacks,
notes indicating minimum perimeter grading around house to slope away from building,
and minimum erosion and sediment control requirements. Number Six, It should be
verified if any driveway culverts are required due to existing roadside runoff conveyance.
In particular for Lots 5-8, and those are the comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. I’ve got a couple of things. On S-2, it’s got a note here
from Maine Enterprises (lost words) for another subdivision, I’m not sure if it was laid out
like this.
MR. CENTER-It is the same subdivision, I believe. I believe the Germaines purchased it
from Mr. Schermerhorn.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. CENTER-I know this went through Sketch Plan. When I believe the test pits were
done on the lots, Mr. Schermerhorn owned it, at the time, or had the rights to it. So that
was Charlie’s letter, same test pits. I believe they were the same layout. A lot of times
what we do when we go out with Department of Health is try to hit in between as many
lots as we can and look for changes in soils, and as we go through, if we have them
spread out, and we hit the same soils, and we’re fairly confident, I mean, this is a well
built out area, well drained sands. So we’re fairly confident that we don’t have any
problems. We look for low points. We look for certain things on the sites, and that’s how
the test pits were done. It would be no different if the lot were laid out with more or less.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So three years difference is not going to?
MR. CENTER-Three years difference isn’t really, the soils are still going to be the same.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and drainage patterns in the area have not changed.
MR. CENTER-Drainage patterns have not changed. It’s wooded lots.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The other thing that I just wanted to note is when I was going
through the material, the first page of the SEQRA form, has, mine has John Whalen’s
name on it.
MR. CENTER-That would be an error on the, when we printed it out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, yes, on the Full Environmental Assessment Form.
MR. CENTER-Yes, one One of One.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. State Route 149 south subdivision?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that was just an error.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Going through it, and I have to admit, Germaine was the application
then I looked and I saw the Schermerhorn subdivision over in the corner, then I’m going
through the environmental and I’m seeing Whalen.
MR. CENTER-Yes. The letter was with the same Lambert Drive parcel. I see what
happened.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s something that we need to fix.
MR. CENTER-Would you like me to complete going through the Engineer’s comments?
I’ll go through the rest of them. As far as, I think we’ve covered the first one with the
deep test hole and the percolation test. Lot Two, again, you know, looking at it, I talked
with Dan. I agree that I don’t think someone’s going to build their house in a depression.
I think that becomes a Site Plan when submitted. What I’ve done to the drawing, in
response to this, is brought the grade up from the road, so that the house and the septic
system will sit a little bit higher than the road, and that will get us out and keep
stormwater from coming across the septic system or the house on that lot, and protect it,
without having any issue with the stormwater from the two adjacent lots, and it would be,
it would still be following its natural path, but would be protecting the new construction on
the lot. Number Three, in regards to the septic system of Lot Six, what we’ve done there
is we’ve pulled that further to the northwest up the slope closer to the house, so that it’s
not sitting in that depression. I think the soils, again, are very well drained. There’s not a
defined runoff pattern where you’d see overland flows going through there. So there’s
not a lot of concern, but for the Engineer’s sake, his question to answer that, we’ll pull the
septic system up further up the slope away from that, that lower point in the back, and
again, when they do the foundation and they move soil around, they’ll probably level that
area off too back there. Number Four, as far as underground utilities or overhead,
looking at the existing layout going down the road, Lambert Drive and Timmons Lane are
all underground utilities. More than likely, there’s no poles there, so overhead wouldn’t
make sense. They’ll probably remain underground utilities for all those lots, and Lot 10,
everything along Sherman Avenue is served by overhead utilities as is currently, and I
would imagine that that would also be served by overhead utilities, unless this Board
wanted to require underground utilities coming down to the house. Number Five, as far
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
as the layout schematic recommended, we’ve shown the typical septic system layout,
which is typical on all the other approved subdivisions. I think that gets into some of the
Site Plan or the actual building permit application. I’m not sure if that’s the wish of the
Board for us to be more specific for each lot, because it does change per each owner.
Addressing the topographical issues on Lot Two has been done on the drawing, because
that’s an obvious issue that needed to be shown, similar to if you’re doing a large
subdivision where you’re bringing in the road. We’re not doing a lot of, we’re not doing
any work on the existing roads and right of ways. So everything’s going to change a
little, but I believe that the Town’s Code, when you go for a building permit, will cover all
of those issues as far as driveway on an individual basis, as the individual house building
permits are requested, including the septic system, because they have to provide a plot
plan with all those details at the time, prior to any construction.
MRS. BRUNO-Do you have an idea of what size houses and I guess also the applicant
that’s doing this subdivision, will they also be acting as builder or will they be selling off
the lots?
MR. CENTER-I do not have that information at the time.
MRS. BRUNO-Do you have an idea of what size houses they’re envisioning?
MR. CENTER-I believe similar to the other houses in the neighborhood, you know, three,
four bedroom houses. I don’t think they lend themselves to an estate lot. Maybe the one
on Lot 10 may be a little larger than the other ones, but I think the, you know, Lot 10 and
Lot 8 are one acre lots. They have a little bit more room, but the smaller lots I envision
the same, three to four bedroom.
MRS. BRUNO-So the typical size septic that you’ve mapped out here will cover?
MR. CENTER-Yes, a typical three to four bedroom septic system. We’ve given details if
additional bedrooms are added. So we’ve covered up to six bedrooms on the typical
detail for the septic system.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thanks.
MR. SEGULJIC-It all looks pretty straightforward. Just one question.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s unusual for you to give options for septic systems.
MR. CENTER-Options as far as the difference between infiltrators and?
MR. SEGULJIC-Details provided for both standard pipe and gravel, and you’re saying
you can use either.
MR. CENTER-In infiltrators? Well, sometimes an individual owner or builder may prefer
to use the infiltrators as opposed to pipe and stone, and those options are occasionally
put on the drawings when requested. So they do have the option. They’re equal. It’s an
or equal application, and again, these soils lend to either system.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to
address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, George? No? Okay. I agree with Mr.
Seguljic, it looks pretty straightforward, but we’re not quite there yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It looks like we’re going to table, and we’ve got a couple of
conditions. To address VISION Engineering comments, to correct Page One of the
Environmental Assessment Form, to relocate the driveway on Lot One, to address and
satisfy Staff’s comments. What else?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was it, I mean, because on Staff comments was the
habitat issue.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. CENTER-Is there anything prohibiting this from going forward to Final. If these are
non-showstoppers, if we can agree with the Engineer on the changes and we come up
with the information for the two Staff comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we can’t do SEQRA tonight because we don’t have the signoff
from the Heritage foundation. So there are a couple of questions that are related to that,
unfortunately.
MR. CENTER-Okay. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But to answer your question, I don’t think there’s any reason why,
assuming, you know, you come back and there’s no issues at all, I don’t see any reason
why we couldn’t do Preliminary and Final in the same night, at that point.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But no guarantees.
MR. CENTER-I understand no guarantees. Had we had a little more time, I could have
gotten those Heritage comments, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 CHRISTINE
GERMAINE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
nd
This is tabled to the second Planning Board meeting in April, which is April 22, with a
th
submission deadline of March 17. So that the applicant can address these conditions:
1) To address the VISION Engineering comments.
2) To correct Page One of the Environmental Assessment Form.
3) To relocate the driveway on Lot One.
4) To address and satisfy Staff comments.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-See you in a couple of months.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 2-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2008 SEQR TYPE
UNLISTED CHARLES WEBSTER AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S)
SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION EAST SIDE CHESTNUT RIDGE APPLICANT
PROPOSES INFILL OF 3,850 SQ. FT. OF WETLAND IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A
SINGLE FAMILY HOME. DISTURBANCE OF WETLANDS IN THE SR-1A ZONE
REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 29-07, AV 25-
07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC ACOE LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 290-1-15 SECTION
CHARLES WEBSTER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, the floor is yours.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. WEBSTER-I’m the applicant, Charles Webster. This is not déjà vu. I was here
about a year ago.
MR. FORD-We remember you, sir.
MR.WEBSTER-And I had a plan that I thought would work, but I had to pull it because it
was, well, it was pretty convoluted anyway, and I couldn’t get a well driller to put his rig
where the well had to be. The lot is a long triangle, and locating the septic system and
the house and the well is, you know, to meet the requirements of safety and sanitary was
the problem. So anyway I went back to the Corps of Engineers and they say didn’t
anybody tell you that you could close off the small amount of this wetland and we
wouldn’t even worry about it. They said if it’s less than a tenth of an acre, it doesn’t even
come up for a meeting. It’s just passed almost automatic. So, I went back with that in
mind and that’s what this application is about. I don’t have a contract yet. I don’t know
how much is going to cost, but the plan is doable, and I’m requesting approval because it
appears to be the best thing that I can use for the lot at this time, under the present
regulations. The so called wetland is a unique situation. It’s really a stream that runs
between two ponds, and the land drops off about five or six feet between the two ponds.
It drops off about three feet going through my lot. So really this is a drainage, standing
water doesn’t exist here. It’s a stream, and it runs from a culvert under Chestnut Ridge
Road and it runs right along the edge of the property, this long hypotenuse of the lot, and
the amount shown here looks like a lot more than it really is. There are 70 year old trees
in this area that are already standing up on high land, what would be considered high
land. So I’ll be filling in between those trees where there are low points where trees have
fallen down in the past and left sort of a hole in the situation. The Corps of Engineers
scientist suggested I could do anything I need here with a wheel barrel, and it probably is
almost true. In other words, this only needs to be filled a few inches in order to hide the
anaerobic soil that lays under some of this area. So, it will be done, I won’t do it with a
wheel barrel, but some kind of a small piece of equipment so that I don’t mess up the lot
too much. It’s a forested lot, and I want to take out the absolute minimum of trees to
accomplish this building, and this is, well, as big a house as is convenient to put on this
lot and meet the restrictions of the setbacks, but it will be set back properly. So I’d like
approval of this, and I’m going to, see, I bothered a lot of suppliers and builders the last
time, and I didn’t want to do it again until I get approval. So with that, I will go back and
see what I can do in the way of financial and find out whether it’s worthwhile to do it or
not. There’s no flood problem here at all. The drainage area is like 50 or 60 acres for
the whole thing. It’s just a rift through Sanford’s Ridge, and a developer in Washington
County raised the level of a pond and added about 25 acres to the drainage plus some
spring water. So the flow through here is higher than it had been for a number of years.
That’s why there are so many large trees in the area where it may be wetter than it
should be for that kind of trees, but this problem will ease itself. I can’t get the engineers
to make him lower his pond at this point. The amount of water is so small that they treat
it as a low priority, but it’s going to be okay because flooding is never a problem here. I
have talked to the people, when this pond was raised in Kingsbury, I went down and I
talked to people on Aviation Way in Kingsbury and they’re right in the wetland where this
water supplies part of the water for that area, and I wanted them to make a complaint to
the Corps of Engineers along with me, so that maybe I could get some action, but they’re
unconcerned. So apparently they’re never faced with any water problems. So the
impact will be negligible. I expect to do this enlargement of the non wet area using
probably hay bales, you know, to make that barrier and then fill perhaps not over six
inches more height here. It’s not a major, it’s not a bulldozer job by any means.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually I believe that the New York State stormwater requirements do
not use hay bales. There has to be.
MR.WEBSTER-Well, there’ll be other protection besides.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Our Code will dictate some of them.
MR.WEBSTER-Yes, that’s right. That’s being provided.
TOM CENTER
MR. CENTER-Have you had a chance to review received VISION Engineering’s
comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and there are several outstanding issues that will need to be
addressed.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. CENTER-Yes, and I’d like to go over those, again, that we’ve addressed. As far as
Comment Number One, in regards to design calculations, there was a, in the process of
running this through a couple of different iterations, the design intent is as shown on the
site plan is one lateral, 40 foot long lateral for the two bedrooms, and we have corrected
that on the drawings so that calculations will reflect that as one 40 foot long lateral, and
as far as Comment Number Two, I spoke with the neighbor with the septic system in
question and field measured approximate where he believes his septic system and the
well, and we believe we do have the 100 feet of separation between our proposed well
and his system. His system is down slope further, behind the house.
MRS. STEFFAN-Was that a newly constructed home or recently constructed?
MR. CENTER-No, that’s an older home.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, so there wouldn’t be any plan on Town record.
MR. CENTER-I did not see it when I looked on the Town website as far as for septic
system upgrades. I didn’t see any information on there, whether they’ve got a recent
septic permit.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-You say that this Number Two is not accurate then?
MR. CENTER-Well, I spoke with the homeowner, and I believe he’s here, and he gave
me the approximate location of where his septic system is in the field. We believe we
have more than 100 feet of separation between the two. There’s a spot where I believe
that Mr. Ryan was assuming that there was a raised system is actually the septic tank.
The septic tank sits higher than the grade, and it could be interpreted as a raised system
behind the house, but talking with the owner, went outside with him, and he said that was
his septic tank, and that his system was further down slope. Comment Number Three,
we have added the pump station detail requested. It was designed as a pump station, as
a pump up system, obviously, with the grade, as I’ve shown the details for a pump
station on the drawing as previous submissions for the variances had shown it as.
Number Four, we’ve been to the site numerous times, and looking at the drainage, I went
out there this weekend with the rain and what not. There’s a stone wall that runs along
the property, and we feel that there’s adequate protection, that the drainage doesn’t go
directly down this property. We have provided for the new construction a swale on the
south side of the property to catch any drainage that does come down the driveway, take
it around the house, and anything that would come across the road and go across the
site would not go across the septic system because we’re proposing a raised system.
So the system is actually going to sit up and will shed water to either side. Comment
Number Five, we have proposed the plans, the drawings of the house show the walkout
basement on the east side, and speaking with Dan, he thought it was, there was not a
walkout basement. He did not receive the building plans. We discussed that, and he
just asked that we add a detail for day lighting the foundation drain, which we’ve added
to the drawing to show that day lighting out and around the foundation. So having a
foundation drain underneath there will take any water around the foundation.
MR. FORD-Is the basement elevation well below the water table as he represents?
MR. CENTER-Well, the water table, mottling was observed at 29 inches, but, you know,
down to 54 we did not have water seeping into hole. So it’s more of a boundary
condition than a high groundwater, water coming down can’t get to, it’s a very firm soil,
very compact. So water can’t get through it, and then the water that does get down to
that 29 inches actually goes lateral, and that’s what leaves the mottling.
MR. FORD-Where did that water come from?
MR. CENTER-From above. As the water comes down, it can’t percolate further through
the soil because it is compact, so it travels laterally, and that’s, you know, more of a
boundary condition than the groundwater. It is on a slope. Obviously there’s standing
water down below.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s sort of a perched water table.
MR. CENTER-It’s not necessarily, yes, it’s like having a barrier that the water just can’t
get down through. So having a day lighted drain will let any of that water that comes into
the foundation exit and go out, because obviously it’s going to be a different soil type.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
It’s going to have the potential to take on water that comes from the outside and down
and day lighted out.
MR. FORD-Different soil type?
MR. CENTER-Well, when you backfill, you will use some of the soil. It won’t be as
compact as the existing soil.
MR. FORD-Are you going to be bringing in fill?
MR. CENTER-Hopefully, we’re going to have to bring in some fill, obviously, to build the
raised system that needs to be to meet the percolation rate.
MR. SIPP-What about the drainage on top of the footing?
MR. CENTER-Drainage on top of the footing? It’s going to be a grass lawn, again,
sloping down.
MR. SIPP-No, I mean, putting in the tile or a foundation.
MR. CENTER-Yes, a foundation, we propose a foundation drain around and brought it to
day light.
MR. SIPP-Because if you pitch it downhill, once you take the water that would be coming
down along the basement wall, pitch the tile out from there, I use tile which doesn’t say
that.
MRS. BRUNO-Perforated PVC.
MR. CENTER-Perforated PVC pipe foundation drain.
MR. SIPP-You would take away probably a good share of the water that would be.
MR. CENTER-Exactly, and that’s what we’ve added to the detail.
MR.WEBSTER-I’m also going to specify under the basement floor there’s going to be
drainage, lines under the floor.
MR. SIPP-Okay.
MR. CENTER-And Comment Number Six, he had a concern about the groundwater
coming up, because of where we had the bottom of the basin, the separation to high
groundwater. Again, I believe it’s more a function of the boundary condition at the 29
inches. It’s not water coming up as the soil fills with water. It’s water going down and
allowing, that’s why we have a storage basin that is, when we looked at both the
hydrocad model and the 1.5 gallons per square foot, the 1.5 gallons per square foot was
larger than the hydrocad model. So that’s why we stayed with the larger volume that we
would store, and then it goes, infiltrates through the soil or in severe conditions it does
have a way out, and I did speak with Dan about that, about it being a boundary condition
as opposed to any shallow high groundwater. Comment Number Seven, in regards to
the stream, when we first started dealing with this project and when Dan was out there,
there was a large number of downed trees and things that allowed the water to pond
where it doesn’t normally flow, that let it build up, and there wasn’t a defined stream
channel. That’s why when you look at the survey there’s not information there because
of the water in the wetland and the different vegetation that was down there. Some of
those downed trees have since cleared up, and there’s a defined channel that’s further,
closer to the property line and the area that we’re proposing to infill is more upland
wetland area, as opposed to flat in the drainage, where you see it in winter conditions,
but you can have a better feel when it’s not full vegetation, and also that’s one of the
requests that we have of this is to fill in this wetland under the Army Corps regulations
and move the wetland boundary out so we can move the Town of Queensbury
separation. There’s no New York State DEC requirements. It’s an Army Corps general
permit which has been submitted to them. We’ve had numerous conversations with
Kevin Bruce, and he’s also been out to the site, and it’s in his hands, as far as getting a
permit from him under the general permissions to do the work.
MR.WEBSTER-He called me on the phone a few days ago and he said he’s locating the
permit. I don’t think he had it in his hands at that time.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. FORD-Has there been anyone from U.S. Corps on site? Army Corps?
MR. CENTER-You did have, Mr. Bruce came out to see you.
MR.WEBSTER-Yes, that’s right. I had him out in the Fall when the leaves were off so he
could see the whole picture.
MR. CENTER-And he’s the one who steered Mr. Webster towards the filling. If we could
get the separation of fill less than a tenth of an acre, that is acceptable.
MR.WEBSTER-I think he was surprised I hadn’t already built. He thought I was able to
overcome the problem, but that’s the way it is. The soil situation there, the Sanford’s
Ridge is one soil type almost entirely, all the way from the roundabout in the middle of
Glens Falls right on out to Vaughn Road. It’s all one type of soil. It’s Carleton I believe
the name is. It’s a sandy loam, and of course it’s a glacial moraine and the rocks have
all been tumbled and all of them are round. They’re either egg shaped or round. There
isn’t a square rock anywhere around. The conditions on some areas, and this is one of
them, there’ll be a small hardpan, and I was farming on this property, as you can well
imagine, and if you tried to dig a post hole, you came to a hard time digging, and then
you go through that, then the rest of the hole was easy, but it’s just a hard pan laying just
about that distance below the surface, but there’s no water rising up from below. I mean,
that’s impossible, because it’s all one kind of soil all the way down. You start digging
and you’ve got to go a long ways.
MR. CENTER-There was a yellow brown loamy sand that did have the defined mottling
layer at 29 inches.
MR.WEBSTER-Which is this compressed area.
MR. CENTER-And it’s (lost word) where it became very compact.
MR. FORD-How much, what is the actual acreage for the wetland there?
MR. CENTER-For the entire wetland?
MR. FORD-On this site.
MR. CENTER-On the site? The delineated wetland area as it shows on here is 21,323
square feet, and we are proposing to infill 3,580 square feet.
MR.WEBSTER-But it won’t actually be that much area, because as I say, there are high
lands within that area, and it’s way less than a tenth of an acre anyway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because the wetland area is all the area to the right of that?
MR. CENTER-Yes, you see the wetland flagging that was done by Charlie Maine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, this A-2, A-3.
MR. CENTER-Yes, A-2, A-3, that very dark line right there with the A numbers is the
wetland boundary flagged by Charlie Maine and Army Corps did come out and look at
that and agreed with the delineation. The hashed area is the portion that we’re
proposing to infill, and the solid line would be the new wetland boundary after that infill.
MRS. BRUNO-Could you explain the flow, again, of that, the little wetland area that he
described more as a stream, where that goes?
MR. CENTER-What happens is up close to the corner of the property line there is a
drainage pipe that comes under, a stormwater pipe that comes underneath Chestnut
Ridge, and that flows right down along the rift in the property line, you know, between the
property line and the clearing limit, in there, and it’s, once the trees and debris that was
clogging that artery were cleaned up and cut aside, it allowed the water to come down
that channel, and it doesn’t show up as a DEC stream. It’s an intermittent drainage path.
All the houses, I mean, there’s houses on both the north and south on Chestnut Ridge
and to the east there’s houses all the way down Sanford’s Ridge.
MRS. BRUNO-And they don’t have any issues?
MR. CENTER-And they don’t have the issues.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MRS. BRUNO-And where does it go from there?
MR. CENTER-It continues down, and goes all the way down to, as you’re coming down
Sanford’s Ridge, it turns into County Line Road, and it flattens out, just before the Airport
down in that area, before you get to Hicks Road. There’s a flatter area down below.
MRS. BRUNO-So it kind of bisects 10, 9, and then works its way towards County Line
Road and then follows that area?
MR. CENTER-Yes, it pretty much comes down 14, 13, 16, you know, 10 and 18, almost,
the property lines on the rear of those lots is pretty close to where that rift is, and then as
you get down to Lot 20 and 9 and what not I believe that’s where it flattens out. There’s
a cornfield down there, if I remember correctly, and that whole grade starts to flatten out,
and that’s where the water ends up going through and sitting in that material down there.
MR.WEBSTER-It drops about 50 feet from the second pond. The second pond was
used for ice harvest, and the second pond, when it drains it goes about 50 feet rapidly
down off the ridge and into Washington County again.
MR. FORD-Mr. Webster, in your initial presentation to us, you mentioned about a well
driller, not being able to get one on site. Have you contacted one after you came up with
this new proposal?
MR.WEBSTER-No, but I know he can come, it wasn’t level enough. I would have to
provide another entrance through the stone wall, and add a pad for him to park it on and
take out a whole bunch of trees, and it just wouldn’t make sense. I would have had to
make another variance to do that probably, and so I’d have had to go through the whole
procedure again. This is a better answer. It’s a better location for the well and it’s a
better location for the septic system. It’s an improvement all the way around. If I build
this house, I plan to have a, if the well is suitable, I’m going to have a geothermal heating
system, and it would be rather awkward to have the well so far away from the house for
that kind of an operation anyway, but I shall probably drill a well first a evaluate it’s
quality for that purpose before I.
MR. FORD-And then if you’ve got any money left, you can build the house.
MR.WEBSTER-Yes, it costs money to drill a well. That’s true.
MR. FORD-On Chestnut Ridge it does.
MR.WEBSTER-It can be fairly deep, 400 feet probably. That’s not excessive.
MRS. BRUNO-Where are you thinking of locating your geothermal field? Where are you
locating your loops for your geothermal field?
MR.WEBSTER-I’m sorry?
MRS. BRUNO-Your geothermal fields, where are you?
MR.WEBSTER-Well, there would be 100 feet of water in the well or 200 feet of water in
the well would do the job, and then you don’t have a thing circulating through the ground
or something, no. That’s not practical in this, because the frost is so deep here. You use
well water and put it back in the well for that purpose. It’s being done quite a bit.
MR. SIPP-The County just hooked up to their system.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, a question for Staff. In Queensbury now isn’t it a 100 foot
buffer for wetlands, correct?
MR. HILTON-Well, it’s anything within 100 feet requires a permit. So, I mean, technically
yes, but in order for someone to disturb within 100 feet of a wetland, it requires a permit.
The setback is a bit different. There’s a building setback which in this zone I believe is
75.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because I was wondering what the 75/50.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. CENTER-You have 75, 50 and 100. It’s 100 feet for the 100 foot setback separation
for the septic system. Seventy-five feet for the house and fifty feet for disturbance, being
the tree clearing, stormwater the, as far as the wetland filling, again, would be, you know,
in the wetland buffer itself. That’s, you know, part of the wetland permit that we’ve
requested to fill those areas. Again, there’s light trees and brush. Mr. Webster’s not
proposing to take down trees, large trees to do the filling, and having talked with Mr.
Bruce, a minimum amount of fill is enough to satisfy the re-establishment of the wetland
boundary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-On Dan Ryan’s comments, Number Ten, if you could address that.
MR. CENTER-Yes. Number Ten, we have proposed, along with the stormwater
controls, if this is acceptable to the Board, to use a temporary erosion control on the
slopes, until they’re established, and a seed mix that would be established to hold the
grade for the type of slope that we have, and it’s Mr. Webster’s intent, having talked to
him, for this area to re-establish itself as, you know, a wooded area, and not necessarily
be green space lawn. He’s looking to re-establish it more as what it is now, once the
septic system is built and the slopes are re-established, he’s going to let it grow back in
the area on the slope outside the septic system, back into a wooded area, similar to what
surrounds it.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I will
open the public hearing. Comments? We have a written comment as well.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN WEBSTER
MR. WEBSTER-John Webster’s my name. I’m Uncle Charlie’s neighbor here. I’m the
one that sold him his land for one buck so that he could return to Queensbury and build
his very last house, or so was his hope, on the old family farmstead. First issue I
suppose I have is with the so called wetlands. This is a wetland that punches out for the
summer, apparently, it takes a vacation. The third pond in the chain, the Kingsbury pond
feeds it. It goes to a very swampy little pond right on Chestnut Ridge and then it goes to
this ditch that seems to be in contest of the last pond, which is on my father’s house,
who’s on my other side. It goes dry every year, every year. I’ve lived there for all of my
46 years and I know exactly what happens there. My uncle’s proposing a very modest
home, probably smaller than a lot of the attached garages on the houses that have been
put up on Chestnut Ridge Road lately. I’m sure Mr. Ford can attest to that. Very energy
efficient. He wants to have very little of an impact. As you can see, he’s trying to work
very hard and I certainly hope that the seven of you can be reasonable and come to
some accommodation for him. That’s about all I have. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. WEBSTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-George?
MR. HILTON-A couple of quick letters. Number One, first letter is from an Edward Smith.
It says I wish to comment on the application of Mr. Charles Webster. I live directly
across Chestnut Ridge Road from his property. His property, is in my opinion,
developable and I would endorse the variances that is necessary. I do not see any
adverse impact on the area involved. Yours truly, Edward W. Smith 275 Chestnut Ridge
Road Queensbury, NY 12804” Secondly is a letter from Douglas and Barbara Seeley.
It says “Dear Planning Board Members, We would like to express our opposition to the
proposed infill of 3,850 sq. ft. of wetlands adjacent to our property. After reviewing the
Town’s commissioned report submitted by Vision Engineering, LLC, it is obvious that the
applicant has not adequately addressed the environmental issues associated with septic
disposal and stormwater management. The proposed land development plan submitted
by the applicant does not accurately represent the severity of the site’s existing slope.
We too have concerns about the additional runoff that will result from the clearing and
development of the site. The area was designated a wetland for a reason. Solving a
problem in one portion of the site by infill, will only force the water to go elsewhere. We
believe the Planning Board should deny the applicant’s request and protect this valuable
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
wetland resource. Respectfully, Douglas and Barbara Sealy 300 Chestnut Ridge Rd.
Queensbury, NY 12804” That’s all I have.
MRS. BRUNO-George, do you know which property that is, 13 or 14?
MR. CENTER-Well, it says Lands of Taylor and Lands of Grasso as of, do you know who
the Sealys? It used to be Grasso. So that would be the property, that would be Lot 14
that’s on the very corner.
MR. HILTON-Exactly.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. CENTER-Which again, you know, that area starts at, the storm drainage channel
comes in pretty close to that property line over in that area.
MR. WEBSTER-His property is very close.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board here? I hate to table it again, table
another application, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but we have to get VISION Engineering comments addressed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. CENTER-I feel confident, talking with Dan on the phone Friday, unfortunately he’s
away on vacation during school break, that we can address all of his comments, right
down through to, and we’ve been working with Dan on this project from the beginning,
when we were looking at the variance. He’s been out to the site with Mr. Webster. So I
don’t see anything in the comments that he’s proposed that we can’t come to agreement
on .
MR. FORD-I’m sure you’re accurate on that, but I can’t tell you the number of engineers
who sit at that table and tell us exactly the same thing.
MR. CENTER-Well, having looked at all of his comments, the one that would involve the
most Board involvement would be Comment Number Seven in regards to the wetland
boundary and the existing, and that permit. Other than that, it’s details, some minor
errors on my part that I have fixed, had I had more time, other than just receiving it
Friday, and if Dan was in Town, there’s really not a showstopper in here that would
cause us to have to come back, unless you can see something that’s in there that you
don’t think. I’ve explained everything that we have. I’ve shown it on the drawing, and I
understand. I’m just trying to help further along. We also still have to go through the
Army Corps and get their approval to do this, and that’s been submitted to them to them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wouldn’t it fall under a national permit?
MR. CENTER-National permit general conditions, which is, you know, we’re working with
them on, you know, currently, and certainly anything that they need, and we’ve spoken at
length on the phone with Mr. Bruce, and he did, a lot of this has come from his
recommendations to us and having been out at the site. So in essence of helping this
project that’s been quite lengthy, we’d request to have it conditioned on meeting those,
the comments, and getting a signoff, and also getting signoff from Army Corps.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Webster, do you have house plans already?
MR. HUNSINGER-Floor plans, elevations?
MR. WEBSTER-I have tentative house plans, yes. They’re rather straightforward.
MR. CENTER-I believe we did have them, which they were going to be the same, with
the walkout basement, and we’ve stated the basement elevation and the first floor
elevation on these drawings. It’s based off of those.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing I was thinking about is the floor plan and then the
drainage, because Dan talked about, Mr. Ryan in the engineering comments, about
drainage around the basement, and then we had the discussion about a walkout
basement being proposed, and so with the new plan, I thought it would be a good idea to
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
have the house plans as part of that, to show drainage and to see the walkout basement,
and how it fits with the new plan.
MR. CENTER-If I can explain some of that, having the finished floor of 94, we had that
elevation of 94, 93 coming to that, the rear northeast corner, if you can look at the
grading plan, which would allow for a one step out the back, and allow, you know, what
Mr. Webster was looking for, what he had envisioned is, you know, having an egress
outside the rear of the house, and a typical nine foot ceiling, and we’ve added the detail
for underdrainage.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess in my mind, I just, based on some of the comments and looking
at the plan, I’m shaking my head wondering how this can work with this much fill in a
wetland, as far as how it will work, how we can get approvals for it to work, and so I’m
depending on our Town Engineer to identify that this will work. It sounds reasonable, but
in my experience, filling wetlands is something that’s not acceptable, not always not
acceptable, but it requires a great deal of remediation, and so I will be looking to VISION
Engineering to sign off on this, and the Army Corps permit.
MR. WEBSTER-The filling is going to be very, very shallow, like maybe six inches. The
land, you can walk along, the only reason that it’s classified as wetland is because if you
put a shovel down, you can find anaerobic soil, gray soil underneath. The topsoil still will
grow grass or anything you want to put on it. It doesn’t grow very much grass because
the leaves.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, when we did our site visit last year, we couldn’t understand why it
was a wetland because we weren’t seeing standing water or running water.
MR. CENTER-It becomes a soils question, when you look at the underlying soil and the
condition of the soil being present, the experience of the soil scientists, and the growth,
the plant growth in the area all become a factor that brings it in to the wetland, and then
you start to, you know, it’s the history of the parcel. This is a, you know, as things built
up around this parcel, there’s a drainage channel, there’s a natural, everything slopes
down, water runs downhill to this natural rift. Again, we’re surrounded by houses on all
sides that don’t necessarily meet the same requirements that we have put on the
drawing to provide for this, and he’s, I think we’ve provided stormwater beyond what’s
required, and allowed to maybe even catch whatever might come from above, any hard
surface, all that.
MRS. BRUNO-When are you looking to break ground ideally?
MR. CENTER-My concern is just we were tabled once before when we submitted, from
January to February. I know there’s become a backlog and I fear that, again, we’ll be in
to April or June to submit again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it probably would be April, really.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have you done all you can to minimize the impact on the wetland?
MR. WEBSTER-I don’t think there’ll be any impact on the wetland at all, sir.,
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’re filling a wetland.
MR. WEBSTER-Yes. I can’t visualize any problem that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I personally take wetlands seriously. I mean, they’ve been
identified, and my question, once again, is have you done everything you can to
minimize the impact?
MR. CENTER-I believe he has, and I believe that in the end the product that he’s
proposed with the soils for the septic system, the house is a two bedroom house. It’s a
very small impact, you know, for a septic system size. It’s not like he’s proposed a four
bedroom house. We are maintaining the stormwater. We’re treating the stormwater on
the site. We have minimized the wetland disturbance to the minimum required to meet
the Town separation requirements. Army Corps does allow a tenth of an acre to be
filled, and we are below that tenth of an acre. So even Army Corps realizes that there
are certain times and certain instances when wetlands can be infilled, and seeing that
this isn’t an area that there’s no development around, that there’s no, you know, there’s
no other disturbance, I think he’s doing his due diligence to do the minimum required to
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
build a house on this lot and, you know, the comments that the engineer has, again, are
commonsense. We have no issues with those comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. The house, can’t you put the house more parallel with the
road? That way you have to fill less wetlands, and then if you pulled the septic system
closer. Can you do that?
MR. WEBSTER-No, I don’t think that’s possible. In order to have a, the reason that the
house is located like that is so that I can have a porch at the entrance, just a covered
entrance. I’m at the point.
MR. CENTER-If you want to just take a look, those are the house plans that were
submitted when we were looking at the variance. They are the same that this design is
based off of.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you bring the septic system in closer to the house?
MR. CENTER-The septic system is at the minimum separation distance from the well,
100 foot. Where we get into, we have to be 15 feet off the property lines, then 100 feet
between the well and the septic system. We have, you know, the Eljen units in a single
lateral. We’ve provided 50% replacement area shown on the drawing, and actually, you
know, we, in order to do that, that 100 foot is based off of the 50% replacement area for
that future lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what you’re telling me is that you’ve done all you can.
That’s all I wanted to hear from you.
MR. CENTER-We have, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It’s all making sense, because you have that separation distance
from the well.
MR. CENTER-Yes, and the neighbor’s well, as well, his property.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. It’s just that I want to make sure that you’ve done everything
you can.
MR. CENTER-And I understand.
MR. SEGULJIC-So really it comes down to engineering comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think I’m with Gretchen. I think we need to bring them back.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, do we have the ability to copy those house drawings?
MR. HILTON-I mean, we do, but, I mean, tonight you mean?
MR. CENTER-So that you can include them as part of this?
MRS. STEFFAN-Just for everyone’s satisfaction.
MR. CENTER-That’s not a problem. Do you have a problem submitting these drawings
that you supplied for the?
MR. WEBSTER-I can give new drawings if there’s any difference. I’m not sure that the
ones that you have are the.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you guys can work that out and let us know.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. WEBSTER-If it’s the 30 by 42, it has not changed any.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-It’s the latest ones that you provided to me.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What we can do is we can make an exception, and because
you’ve addressed a lot of the VISION Engineering comments, you just haven’t been able
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
to communicate with Dan about them, and you have house plans to resubmit, what we
can do is we can table this to next month’s meeting, and we’ll just, we will extend your
th
application deadline to, and it gives you about 10 days to the 29 of February, and then
th
we’ll have you on the March 25 agenda. Okay. So that you can be back next month.
Okay. All right.
MR. CENTER-Is that acceptable?
MR. WEBSTER-What is the objection that we’re working against here?
MR. CENTER-They would like a signoff from the Town Engineer. He had some
comments on the drawing. So they’ve asked us if we can address those, have the house
th
plans, submit those by the 29.
MR. WEBSTER-I didn’t see or hear or have any comments from the Town Engineer.
MR. CENTER-I received them at the end of the day on Friday, and spoke to him prior to
him leaving Town to address a lot of these issues, and there wasn’t a lot of problem with
what he was looking for.
MR. FORD-There are 10 issues, Mr. Webster, and I’m sure that you and your engineer
can.
MR. WEBSTER-These are the ones right here.
MR. CENTER-These are the issues, yes.
MR. WEBSTER-I thought we answered all those?
MR. CENTER-We did, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, Mr. Webster, but they just have to be changed on the plans so that
our engineer can say, okay, all of my requirements have been satisfied and you are
ready to proceed.
MR. TRAVER-He explained them to us, but we’re not the engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. TRAVER-They certainly sound very reasonable.
MR. WEBSTER-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2008 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 2-2008 CHARLES WEBSTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
th
We will be tabling this to the March 25 meeting, with an application deadline of
th
February 29. So that the applicant can address VISION Engineering comments and
obtain a signoff, and so that the applicant can re-submit house plans showing drainage
and the walk out basement.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Do we want to address U.S. Corps?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know whether they’ll get a letter by then.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s just something you file and you get, yes.
MR. CENTER-Yes. He may have some comments, changes, but other than that, it’s
more of a formality that he wants to see the plan and paperwork and you have to file a
form, fill it out, what you’re requesting, but if you’re under a tenth of an acre.
MR. FORD-Can that be filed prior to your coming back?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. CENTER-I have filed it, and I will submit with this application that completed
application that we filed, which is nothing more than their form and our drawing, and, you
know, once any comments that you folks have made, I will re-submit a final drawing to
him, including any changes that were requested by the Board and the engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you next month.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. Before we adjourn, I had an item to bring to the
Board’s attention, that was brought to my attention by Staff, specifically Bruce Frank, on
the Fun Spot o Route 9, the mini golf that we approved, I can’t remember when it was.
MR. TRAVER-It was last summer.
MR. HUNSINGER-12/06, 12/26/06. I’m sorry, there’s two sets of minutes. It was April
26, ’07 we approved it. One of the conditions of approval was some noise attenuation
that was going to go on the inside, and what we had actually asked for was, well, what
was explained during the course of the meeting was that the best solution would be a
new exterior wall that would create additional mass that would dampen the noise and
absorb the noise more, and apparently the applicant has had a change of heart and is
now willing to do that, but of course it would be against what was actually approved. So,
you know, Bruce brought it to my attention, he’s like, this is what you guys really wanted.
To me it seems like a no-brainer, but it isn’t what was in the motion. So I’ll bring it to the
Board’s attention, to see how you’d like to handle it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So he’s proposing that there now?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Where would the wall be?
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be on the outside of the existing building. There would be a
new wall that would be built, a new façade.
MR. SIPP-On the east side.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be built on the east side.
MR. FORD-Parallel to Route 9?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-What about the south and the north?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it would be built on the east side. That’s where the noise barrier
was going to go. It was going to go on the inside of that wall, that’s what was approved.
MR. SEGULJIC-And so now he’s decided to put it on the outside.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-So they’re not really planning on continuing any part of the façade around
the sides for continuity? Did they say they were going to, I’m trying to remember, are
they block walls?
MR. HUNSINGER-There was no proposed change to the building, to that building.
MRS. BRUNO-Right, but I guess what I’m asking is, what is, I’m trying to remember what
the building is, it’s a concrete block building, right? So what they’re saying there is
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
they’re going to put that on the front. I’m just wondering how it’s going to look. I think
this is what the rest of the Board’s asking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s going to.
MR. FORD-Is this it, that’s the plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, except the color, it’s this color, not brown.
MR. TRAVER-So what they’re proposing is an improvement, in terms of sound
management.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. SIPP-It may dampen the sound that way, but it’s not going to dampen the north and
south. I’m not so sure that that’s the.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we didn’t require them to do anything on the north and south
walls.
MR. TRAVER-What’s the difference between what we approved and what they are now
offering? Only the one, outside versus inside, and only on one wall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So the north and south was not part of the original approval, and is also
not part of what they’re proposing to do now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So they’re just making a change in what they agreed to do from inside to
outside.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SIPP-Has he contacted a sound engineer or somebody that can tell the difference
between the inside and the outside applications?
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, George?
MR. HILTON-I don’t. This is the first I’ve heard of this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if it doesn’t work, he’ll be getting complaints.
MRS. STEFFAN-But that’s what some of the public comment was about from some of
the folks in Twicwood right across the way was that they were afraid of the noise from
this operation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. TRAVER-Do they need to make an application for a Site Plan modification?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s the question. That’s why I’m bringing it to the Board, to
see how you want to handle it.
MR. TRAVER-And what are they proposing, not to do that? Are they proposing to make
the Site Plan modification?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, what they have proposed is a change in what was
approved. Staff then brought it to my attention to see how we should handle it, and so
I’m bringing it to yours.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s nice to see that going up that road things are starting to improve. I
mean, similar to the look that they did at The Wood Carte. I’m curious if the engineer
would agree that the interior versus exterior sound attenuation is the same.
MR. SIPP-That’s what I said.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Could they come before us as an extra item on the March agenda, if
they’ve got all this together, as a modification?
MR. HUNSINGER-Or even next week.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, what would SOP be? They would make an application for Site
Plan modification?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the standard operating procedure is, you know, what they’ve
proposed is a change. So then, you know, Bruce brought it to my attention and he said,
is this something that you think would warrant them coming back before the Board or not.
MR. TRAVER-So there’s no real requirement that they do that. It’s up to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, you know, it’s kind of a gray judgment area if you
will.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay.
MR. FORD-Is it, really, Chris? From taking that whole issue that we spent so much time
on and got them to agree to the interior, and now they’ve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they’re doing more than what was required. So is it a change?
Yes.
MR. FORD-But they’re not doing what was required.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I think it’s an improvement. I have no problem with it. I think we
should just, my opinion is move it along.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a problem with what they’re proposing, Tom?
MR. FORD-I don’t know that I know enough about it, Chris, to simply say, okay, let’s do
it. We spent an awful lot of time addressing the sound issue, and I don’t know that this,
who’s to say that this is going to be, maybe it’s better. Maybe it isn’t as good as what
they had originally agreed to, and hammered them.
MR. TRAVER-Why are they doing it that way instead of the way it was originally
proposed? There must be an advantage to them.
MR. FORD-I guess I would like to hear a little more information about it. It may be better.
I agree with Gretchen in terms of adding it to, as an additional item, or whatever. Let’s
not hold it up, but let’s get enough information so that we have a comfort level with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Certainly if Bruce Frank thought it was a better solution, that’s
certainly, you know, a very positive endorsement, but I think we should take a look at it
as a modification and put it on as an extra item, whether it’s next week or the following
month.
MRS. BRUNO-He did actually say better? Let’s just do it next week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, a modification doesn’t require a public notice or public hearing.
MR. HILTON-No, but I mean, I’m not sure what the applicant, what their schedule will be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. HILTON-So, I mean, I’ll report back to Bruce and say next week or March and we’ll
talk about it internally.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, have they begun any construction on this already?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, the site’s been under construction for a year.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, I meant specifically this change.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/19/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so, not to the best of my knowledge. I drove by there the
other day to take a look at it and get an idea, and, you know, one of the comments that
Bruce made to me is because of the design of the mini golf, most of the façade you can’t
see now anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I haven’t even looked at the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Do you feel comfortable doing it that way?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I’ll tell you why is because the motion was specific.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it was to address neighbor’s concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and what the minutes talk about, and granted it’s from Tom
Jarrett who was the applicant’s engineer, but the comment, and there’s a couple of
different comments, different meetings, and what he says is that what attenuates noise is
mass. Heavy mass attenuates that, and short of building a whole other structure in front
to attenuate that noise, which I actually suggested and he picked himself up off the floor,
because apparently it cost about four times more than adding to the interior wall, which is
what they ended up agreeing to, and then again later on he says the only way to really
address that effectively is through an increased mass, and it’s very difficult to add mass,
but we’ve agreed to try to do the best we can to reduce the effect, speaking of the bass
noise specifically.
MR. TRAVER-So I wonder what their motivation is in choosing the much more
expensive. Granted, it may be because they’re concerned and what they originally
proposed was not adequate, but it does represent, it sounds as though, a giant increase
in price and it would be interesting to know what their.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it may have been a structural issue with the wall, and maybe they
can gain a couple of square feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it could be anything.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well that’s a good point. There must be some rationale.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Motion to adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second.
MR. FORD-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 19, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
60