2008.03.25(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 2008
INDEX
Site Plan No. 44-2007 David & Marylou Dutra 1.
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-33
Site Plan No. 2-2008 Charles Webster 5.
Freshwater Wetlands Tax Map No. 290-1-15
Permit No. 2-08
Subdivision No. 14-2007 Lloyd Jones 10.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.14-1-52
Subdivision No. 1-2008 R. Case Prime 17.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5
Site Plan No. 8-2008 Swank 22.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22
Freshwater Wetlands 2-2007 Matt Hummel 27.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 297.6-1-6.1
Site Plan No. 9-2008 Fred & Alice Schmalkuche 33.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-95
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
TANYA BRUNO
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
MEMBERS ABSENT
DONALD SIPP
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board
for March 25, 2008.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA
OWNER(S) ETHEL, DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 28
NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT
THE LAKE EDGE ALONG WITH FILL ACTIVITY WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE
SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.18 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-33 SECTION 179-6-060(D)(2)
EDGAR GRIFFIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-Yes. The Staff submitted a letter for the, a memo to the Board just updating
information that’s been received since the original tabling of this application back in
September of 2007.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone on the Board find their old information on the project?
MR. GRIFFIN-Could I just stop here? I started this project, and as the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. f you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. GRIFFIN-Edgar Griffin, I’m their contractor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. GRIFFIN-I started the house, and we drew up this plan for the seawall. Then as the
house project dwindled, I was kind of taken out, and then with him having to winter in
Florida, I got thrown back into it again. There was a little miscommunication. In the letter
from Mr. Wick, it states that he wants to leave it as natural as possible, so the applicants
are actually rescinding the seawall and going with Mr. Wick’s suggestion that they fill the
void between the two other properties, compacted with a mat to keep that Japanese Knot
weed down, and then a small layer of soil to get the planting down to retain all the, and
he mentioned that it’s not a real issue. If anybody had any questions, you could call him
about it, but it’s a basic fill and plant.
MR. FORD-You didn’t specify, however, what Mr. Wick recommended, and that was a 25
foot buffer zone.
MR. GRIFFIN-A 25 foot buffer zone of the plantings, yes. We’re actually going to take it,
to fill to the other two lawns, if you were there now, you would have to raise it about 25
feet back and then draw it up a couple of feet more. So we’re going to earthen terrace it
with plantings throughout the whole 50 feet, without going into the retaining seawall
down by the lake. He did contract Rubin Ellsworth, Ellsworth Excavating. They work
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
closely together and they do keep, he’s fully confident Ellsworth can handle the pack and
plant. So I just, like I said, it was a miscommunication on my part. If you just want to, the
layers of soil that I’ve got on the print that I gave you for the seawall, just eliminate the
seawall because it’s no longer an issue. He wanted it to roll naturally down to the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I agree with everything you want to do, but it’s not matching up with the
plans we have now.
MR. GRIFFIN-It’s not matching up with the plans we have now. It’s still the same
terracing effect we had, only it’s, he wants a gentler grade, that 25 feet, instead of the,
we’re not raising the 20 inches by the lake. He wanted, Mr. Wick wanted it to naturally
roll into the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, so those are the plans we’re
working off of, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. This is what was submitted. There’s several different dates on
it, but there’s a date that says revised 7/19/07, signed by someone, I assume it’s David
Dutra.
MR. SEGULJIC-So he doesn’t want to have a seawall anymore?
MR. GRIFFIN-No seawall anymore.
MR. SEGULJIC-But he says he wants to put in the buffering as recommended by Mr.
Wick at Warren County?
MR. GRIFFIN-Yes. Everything Mr. Wick recommends to Ellsworth Excavating.
MR. SEGULJIC-The complication is that what we approve has to be on the plans, and
the plans, as presented, don’t represent that at this time. So how can we do this as
painlessly as possible?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we could certainly approve it contingent on the
applicant submitting a revised drawing that clarifies what we’re agreeing to.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would he have to come back again, though?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. GRIFFIN-That would be great.
MR. BAKER-If you approve it with conditions, it would be up to Staff to ensure that those
conditions have been met on the revised plans submitted.
MR. SEGULJIC-We just have to be as clear as possible.
MR. BAKER-Absolutely, be explicit.
MR. GRIFFIN-So, in other words, you need a new survey map stating that it’s going to
zero at the lake instead of 20 inches at the lake?
MR. TRAVER-You just need to amend the plans to reflect your final plans for the, your
site.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Because currently there is an imperfect representation of what you’re now
presenting to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-This drawing has a notation that says 20 inch rise to rebuild lake wall,
stone riprap to be used. So you’d need to remove that notation.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay. I understand. Is that it?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. BAKER-We also had a profile of the proposed sloping work that was submitted
which should be revised as well, to remove the seawall.
MR. GRIFFIN-Yes, that I can do.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Stu. That was referred to as a site profile, that drawing,
their site profile?
MR. BAKER-Well, it was a profile of the sloping that’s to be done.
MR. GRIFFIN-It’s actually a profile of the pocket between the properties, is what it is,
from the erosion effect over the years, from when Ethel Dutra owned it. The seawall fell
in and then the property started eroding. So between the two adjacent properties, it’s
now a huge pocket down by the lake which we’re trying to fill and plant.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We’re just trying to work through the minutia of this, and, Mr.
Chairman, you made the note that has to be removed from the map, what was that? The
plat removed?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll highlight it.
MR. FORD-I sure would have a much greater comfort level if I could look at something
specific with the history of this project. I think that that’s the way we ought to proceed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the hope here is that we can be as explicit as possible with the
motion.
MR. FORD-I know what the hope is. I just know what the reality is. Somebody’s got to
take words and plant it on this, and it really is the applicant’s responsibility, I believe, to
present something which would be representative of the final product.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay. Do you need a gradient every 10 feet from lake edge up to the 50
feet, is that it? Would that help, what the grade levels are going to be?
MR. FORD-Frequently we get into what the plantings are going to be within that zone.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay. It’s going to be a basic sprayed crown vetch is what it’s going to
end up as, something with low maintenance but not unsightly, mostly grass, actually,
which I did have on another notation that I submitted on Thursday of last week, I believe.
MR. FORD-So the buffer is going to be mostly grass.
MR. GRIFFIN-Mr. Wick actually had recommended rye grass in his letter, but he did
want the mat down to get rid of the Japanese Knot weed that’s growing rampant over the
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the letter from Mr. Wick talks about high grasses, shrubs and
such.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay. I’m going to have to get back with the owner on that to see how
much, how involved in the plantings. I do know they’ve mentioned low maintenance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, and that was one of my notes from the September
meeting. We were looking for a 10 to 15 foot wide buffering area between the lake and
the lawn of native materials.
MR. GRIFFIN-Right. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which I believe is the same intent that Mr. Wick is referring to.
MR. GRIFFIN-Yes, he’s recommending 25 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and he’s recommended 25 feet, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN-Which we have no problem with. As I say, in talking to Mr. Wick, with
Ellsworth Excavating, which he’s worked with for years around Glen Lake, he’s fully
confident they’ll do whatever you recommend. If you want specific planting, then.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much of a rush are you in to get this done?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. GRIFFIN-Actually right now he’s still in Florida. He’s retired from the telephone
company. He’s broke his back twice. He’s in Florida.
MR. SEGULJIC-I see what Mr. Ford is saying. What if we have him put these things on
the, change the mapping and put him on the first meeting next month and just get it over
with.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if you’re not in a rush.
MR. GRIFFIN-That’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we do that. I think that’s going to (lost words).
MR. FORD-I think there’s a consistency of approach here, that as we call upon other
applicants to do likewise.
MR. SEGULJIC-So as I see it, there’s really the three issues, to install 25 foot buffer of
high grass shrubs along the lake, remove notation.
MRS. BRUNO-What was that, Tom, could you say that again, 25 foot?
MR. SEGULJIC-Install 25 foot buffer of high grass and shrubs along the lake. Remove
notation 20 inch rise to re-build wall notation from the plat noted revised 7/19/07. Then
revise profile of slope to remove seawall.
MR. GRIFFIN-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those were the issues, right?
MRS. BRUNO-Has anyone suggested to you, just that the Lake George Association, I
know you’re on Glen Lake, but the Lake George Association has lists of native plants
and flowers.
MR. GRIFFIN-I’m sure Ellsworth knows all about it, but I will pick it up.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN-We will get those plans in on the print. So you’re really looking for this 25
foot buffer area plantings is what needs to be, that’s it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what Mr., well.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then correct the map.
MR. GRIFFIN-Just to be a lawn. It’s going to be rye grass from there back.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, just to clarify on your plat here, you know, note the 25 feet and note
the plantings of grass and note what the high grass is, the species and the shrubs you’re
going to use.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN-Yes, and you have a recommended list from the Lake George
Association?
MRS. BRUNO-One that we just suggest to people. I mean, I have others, but we really
tend to not give the, you know, just, we don’t need to get into the design aspects, but the
Lake George Association works well with the citizens.
MR. GRIFFIN-Okay. I’ll pick up the list.
MR. TRAVER-I believe it’s available on our website.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. GRIFFIN-Is it?
MR. TRAVER-Lakegeorgeassociation.org.
MR. GRIFFIN-Good. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-And, Stu, when’s our next meeting?
MR. BAKER-The next regular meeting is Tuesday, April 15.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Before we get too far into a tabling motion, we do need to open
the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on
this application? Okay. We will leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-And now we can consider a tabling motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I just have to make a motion to table with those conditions,
correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARY LOU DUTRA,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
To the April 15, 2008 Planning Board meeting, for the following additional information:
1.The installation of a 25 foot buffer of high grass and shrubs along the lake,
identifying species on the plat.
2.Remove the notation 20 inch rise to rebuild lake wall, stone riprap to be used.
Remove that notation from the plat titled revised 7/19/07.
3.Revise profile of slope to remove seawall.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-In that initial part of your motion, Tom, did you specify where we want that to
appear, on the plat, or a description thereof or is that sufficiently clear the way it was
worded?
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe I just said, I didn’t say where to put it.
MR. FORD-I mean, we want it on the plat, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-We want it on the plat.
MR. FORD-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a month. Thank you.
MR. GRIFFIN-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-
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC ACOE WETLANDS LOT SIZE
1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290-1-15 SECTION
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, the floor is yours.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center from Nace Engineering representing the
applicant, Mr. Webster. We received a comment letter from Mr. Ryan yesterday
afternoon, which, in turn, there were two comments that required a response from us,
that would be comment number three, he was requesting, he just had a comment to
ensure that the pump station had one day storage, and we’ve provided that in our
response letter that we dropped off. It does have 235 gallons of storage available, 220 is
required, and comment number five was in regard to erosion control for the foundation
drain. What we’ve provided on the drawing, revised drawing which we’ve submitted to a
copy to the Town for Mr. Ryan’s review, is a three foot wide by four foot long by one foot
deep stone outlet protection of that foundation drain to provide outlet protection there,
and all the other comments, I believe, have been addressed. We did receive, and what
we’ve put in with the application was a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-None.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like everything has been covered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in
the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. I will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any final concerns, considerations from members of the Board? I
think any consideration would have to include a condition that we do get final signoff.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, there is a SEQRA on this as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I was just checking to see if it was Long or Short.
MR. CENTER-I believe it was a Short Form that was submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Seguljic, whenever you’re ready.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-I’d feel more comfortable if we said minimum to moderate but it will be
mitigated by the project. I just think that that’s important to keep clarified.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other members okay with that?
MR. TRAVER-That’s all right.
MR. FORD-I concur.
MR. TRAVER-It’s mitigated by the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJLIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. S P 2008 & FWW 2-08, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CHARLES WEBSTER, 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
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 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So with regards to the motion. There’s only one item, the final signoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Question for Staff. Can we do the Site Plan and the Freshwater
Wetlands Permit in one resolution?
MR. BAKER-Yes, you can do it concurrently.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and that is how it was drafted. I just wanted to make sure that
that was okay. Yes, the only condition, I believe, is final signoff from the Town Engineer,
th
VISION Engineering, specifically on Items Three and Five from their March 24 letter.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then eight is not applicable, and nine is not applicable.
Right?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 2-08 CHARLES WEBSTER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: 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.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/19/08 tabled to 3/25/08; 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 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 NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
9. NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 2-08 CHARLES WEBSTER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies.
Number Five is Negative. Number Eight is not applicable, and Number Nine is
not applicable. With the following condition:
1) That the final signoff of the engineer’s comment letter be obtained.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. FORD-Good luck, Mr. Webster.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, yes.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LLOYD
JONES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A
LOCATION 70 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
A 4.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.66, 1.21 & 1.36 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF
LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 71-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/CEA/DEC DEC
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-52 SECTION A-183
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, when you’re ready.
MR. BAKER-Okay. Staff comments are fairly brief, noting that the applicant has
submitted a stormwater management plan as part of this application, which was
forwarded to VISION Engineering for review and comment. The applicant has proposed
a 10 foot no cut zone at the southern property line of the proposed Lot Three, and any
clearing of those lots within 100 feet of the adjacent wetlands will require a Freshwater
Wetlands Permit from the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I’m here
on behalf of Lloyd Jones. Mr. Jones and his agent, Mr. Steves, are both out of town. Mr.
Jones proposes to subdivide a three lot parcel on Country Club Road, or subdivide a
parcel on Country Club Road into three lots, ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 acres. The Sketch
Plan was accepted in late 2007, I believe. We also applied for and received a variance
for this project relative to lot width of Lot One because it does not involve a shared
driveway. It would require double lot width because of its location on an arterial, and we
do not have enough lot width for a double lot width. We did receive a variance at the
th
December 26 meeting, I believe, of the ZBA for that lot. The other two lots do share a
drive. I did receive some engineering comments yesterday, four of them, and taken one
by one, wastewater systems for the two new lots are shown as a prototype design, and I
will gladly add a note to coordinate with the actual house size the location for the number
of bedrooms with the field. I will show a 50% reserve area, as I have room to do so. The
force main does indeed design to drain back into the pump station. So, the frost depth
note that he indicates isn’t necessary, and I’m okay with adding an overflow detail at the
outlet of the pond, and that was, in summary, engineering comments, and that’s all I
have to present.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Do you have a concept, now, for what you would envision the housing to
be like on the two, essentially the two new lots? In terms of are they, the engineering
comments, they speak of five bedrooms. Do you imagine large homes, medium, small
homes?
MR. HUTCHINS-We don’t. We envision four bedroom homes. The owner intends to sell
them as building lots. He doesn’t intend to develop them himself. So he will not have
ultimate control over that, and with that in mind, we’ve laid them out as a fairly large
house, but it’s shown as a box, and obviously that will need a site specific plan to be
submitted at building permit time, because no one builds a square house anymore, and
we have no way of anticipating what that, I did show a schedule on the wastewater
system, and we did take it up to five bedrooms, to answer your question.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you anticipate any clearing within 100 feet of the wetlands?
MR. HUTCHINS-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that’s always interesting on subdivision is, you
know, you’re required to, you know, put a house and typical septic system, but I believe
the stormwater controls are more specific, and what I’m getting at is the proposed
stormwater basin that’s on the southern, well, I guess it’s the southeast, roughly the
southeast corner of the lot.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And one of my thoughts is, is there any way that that could be pushed
back away from the road? Because one of the goals of the new Comprehensive Land
Use Plan is to maintain the natural hedgerows that existing, and there’s a, you know, a
fairly mature vegetation strip along Country Club Road, and even though it’s fairly deep,
it’s not very heavy, you know, so I mean, you can see through it, you know, currently,
and my fear is if you build the stormwater basin where it’s depicted that you’re going to
lose some of that vegetation. Is there any way that that could be pushed back, you
know, even 10 feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that could be pushed back. It’s essentially on a contour. That’s a
good point. That could be pushed back along that contour. I wouldn’t want to go too
close to the house with it, obviously.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-But I would have no problem with holding 10 or 15 feet from that
property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m looking at the 30 foot building setback, and, you know, only about
rd
1/3 of it is outside of that. So if you could, you know, move it 10, 15 feet, that would
make a big difference.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That’s certainly feasible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-In fact, we had shown, I wouldn’t have any problem with 15 feet off that
property line, which would be moving it 10 to 15 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be perfect, 15 feet from the property line. That
would be great.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that, we are showing a 10 foot no cut at the southerly property line,
which we did during the process of the variance at the request of a neighbor, and I have
no problem with carrying that across where that stormwater area is and pushing that
back to 15.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So could you just clarify that for me? We’re going to move that 15 feet
from the property line?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to say move the eastern edge.
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be moved into the lot.
MR. FORD-Deeper in, further from the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to move the eastern edge of the stormwater basin 15
feet from the property line.
MR. HUTCHINS-To 15 feet from the property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-To 15 feet. It looks pretty straightforward to me. I don’t have any
questions.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-What would happen if say on Lot Two, the new owner would come in and
decide they want to keep those two maple trees right in the middle so therefore they’re
going to push their house back and not have it be a box? At that time, would you go
back in and do a couple of more test pits so that you could move your septic closer to the
front yard? How would that work, Stu?
MR. HUTCHINS-The thing we’re up against, the constraint back there is we’re holding a
100 foot setback from a wet area, that kind of runs along the bike path.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I was thinking if someone got creative and, you know, caught that or
whatever. I guess I just answered my own question, actually. They’d have to come
before us again for a Site Plan modification. Right? If we were to switch the house and
the septic location.
MR. BAKER-If it’s just a matter of changing the house location, no, I don’t believe it
would need to come back. As long as they could still show test pit data for the proposed
location, revised location of the septic system.
MRS. BRUNO-Thanks. That was just a little what if.
MR. HUTCHINS-And part of that, the way it, the garage is going to want to be on the
south side of that lot because of the shared drive. So we looked at pushing them back a
little, but it gets crowded to the rear.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if you turned the house?
MRS. BRUNO-That was kind of what I was thinking. If you put something on an angle, I
mean. It looks good, though.
MR. HUTCHINS-You can be reasonably assured that an ultimate builder won’t want to
do it the way we’ve shown it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have
a public hearing scheduled this evening. Did anyone want to address the Board on this
application? Seeing no takers, I will open the public hearing and I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted Action. I believe it’s a Long Form, if I’m not mistaken.
Members ready to proceed with SEQRA?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you’re ready, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Long Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-I believe the answer is yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, small to moderate.
MR. FORD-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-And mitigated through site.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
or quantity?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to subdivision 6
NYCRR 617.14(g)?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I motion for a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LLOYD JONES, 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
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 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary approval?
I think the only change is the stormwater basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-So as far as addressing the engineering comments when they come
back with final, that will be addressed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess that should be a condition as well.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I can address them relatively simply, and I would do that before I
resubmit final.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So two conditions. So Four is going to comply. Five is negative.
Nine is not applicable and Ten is not applicable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007 LLOYD
JONES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.23 acre parcel into 3 lots of
1.66, 1.21 & 1.36 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held 3/25/08; 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 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
6. 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
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, 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; and
8. 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
9. NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
10. NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
11. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007
LLOYD JONES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number
Five is Negative. Number Nine is not applicable. Ten does not apply. With the
following conditions:
1.That the stormwater basin be moved so that it is located 15 foot from the
eastern property line.
2.That signoff be obtained for the engineering letter.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2008 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED R. CASE PRIME
AGENT(S) CAFFRY & FLOWER OWNER(S) R. CASE PRIME MARGARET PRIME
ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 51 HILAND DRIVE & ROCKWELL RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.4 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.63 TO 5.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 73-05, SB
25-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/CEA/DEC NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE
16.4 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5 SECTION A 183
ILONA COYLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes when you’re ready.
MR. BAKER-Staff Notes, I just noted that this was a very detailed Sketch Plan
application. Actually much of the information that’s required at Preliminary, but not all of
it, and that additional information will be necessary at Preliminary. We did also receive
today the engineering comments which I believe the Board has copies of.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess whenever you’re ready. If you could identify yourself for the
record.
MS. COYLE-Absolutely. Hello. My name is Ilona Coyle, and I’m with Caffry & Flower,
and we represent R. Case Prime in Subdivision application number 1-2008. I’m here
tonight with Stuart Mesinger, a planner with the Chazen Companies, and Paul Guyee, an
engineer with the Chazen Companies. This project is a four lot subdivision for a property
of 16.4 acres which will be subdivided into four lots ranging between 2.63 and 5.44
acres. The subdivision is designed to maintain the character of the community and to
retain the environmental characteristics that make this lot so attractive. Mr. Prime
designed this subdivision with the intent of keeping the neighborhood which he’s lived in
for 40 years much the same as it has been for quite some time. The lots are within, are
very similar to the other lots within the community, in size and nature, the proposed lot.
There is a two acre deed restriction on the properties that exist, and each lot, of course,
exceeds that by quite a bit, being between 2.63 and 5.44 acres. Also, it’s notable that it
is one acre zoning. So this is a significantly larger lot than what would be required if the
zoning were the only restriction in place. Mr. Prime has also suggested, voluntarily, that
he would put buffers along the property lines and along the wetlands and to place these
buffers on Lots One, Two, Three and Four for the boundary lines, would be 20 feet, in
which space there would be no construction of structures or cutting. The only exception
to that would be along this particular property line, where Mr. Prime has an informal path
which he uses to access his garage, and would like to maintain the existing clear space.
So there will be some screening between the lots. There are also wetland buffers which
Mr. Prime has voluntarily decided to put in place that go above and beyond what the
Town of Queensbury’s regulations or State or Federal regulations require, in that there
are wetlands running along here and here, in that Mr. Prime has proposed to put
restrictions on any structures and any cutting within 100 feet of those wetlands, with the
exception, again, of Lot Two, where Mr. Prime wishes to maintain the existing character
of the lot, and there are some cleared areas that are beyond those, within those 100 feet,
and he wants to maintain those. So, as far as these properties are concerned, if you
look at the scalloped areas, you can see them kind of here, the dashed line, and here,
along here, the dashed line, those are the 100 foot buffers which Mr. Prime has
voluntarily put into place to protect the wetlands and the streams. Now, we’ve also done
studies of the wetlands and the wildlife in the area. Those studies have been attached
as exhibits to our submission. We are also minimizing our impact to both the wetlands
ad the community by putting in a turnaround, a shared turnaround here, because we
wanted to limit any access over these wetlands, and so the most feasible route to create
access for these three lots was to create a shared turnaround. Now, what we did instead
of creating a whole new turnaround, Mr. Prime has an existing loop which he has used
around here, and that existing loop is simply going to be widened to provide adequate
access for emergency vehicles and other vehicles. So, it has been widened. Mr.
Palmer, the Fire Marshal, has looked at that and has said that it won’t be a problem.
Also a court has ordered, or has deemed the Area Variance to be granted as far as the
Area Variance required from the 40 feet of frontage for Lots Three and Lot Four.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would that turnaround, it’s, currently a significant portion of it is
gravel. Is he proposing to pave it?
MS. COYLE-Yes.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. COYLE-However, he would like to pave it until after utilities have been installed and
all the lots have been sold, to be sure that he doesn’t have to tear the paving right back
up again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. FORD-Makes sense.
MS. COYLE-The loop here provides adequate access, in that it’s only 377 feet from the
end of Hiland Drive, where there’s a turnaround which is dedicated to the Town of
Queensbury, and from there to there, that’s 377 feet. There’s another point where one
can turnaround at the apex or at the corner of Hiland and Summit, and then of course
there’s the intersection of Rockwell and Hiland Drive. This is 800 and some feet and this
is 1200 feet.
MR. FORD-From, 800 feet and 1200 feet from?
MS. COYLE-From the end of the loop.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MS. COYLE-Yes, so this is 300 and some feet from the end of the loop. This is 800 and
some feet from the end of the loop. This is 1200 and some feet from the end of the loop.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MS. COYLE-So depending on how the Board elects to calculate the length of the dead
end drive, we believe that no waiver is required because it’s only 377 feet. However, if
the Board chooses to consider it to be longer than that, a waiver may be required, if the
Board chooses to calculate the length of the drive from Rockwell Road, but as I just
mentioned, we don’t believe that that’s necessary. The septic systems on the three
properties, on the three proposed properties, have been done with three test pits, one of
which was in season, two of which were conducted out of season. Of those, we had
percolation tests, some of which ran fast. Those would be on Lot One and Lot Four, ran
fast, meaning that they triggered the regulations that there should be a 200 foot setback
from the streams. That’s something that was mentioned in the engineer’s comments.
However, we have already addressed that by suggesting cut and fill blended designs,
which I’ll have Stuart and Paul tell you more about, which is basically a way to slow the
rate of percolation, so that while, if we just did a plain old perc situation, it would have a
very fast percolation rate. The blended clay, blended system will reduce the rate of
percolation, and we are requesting a waiver of the requirement that we show wells and
septics on adjoining properties because the regulations triggered by proximity of wells
and septics on adjoining properties would not come into play here, because those are
only triggered when a neighboring well or septic is within 100 feet of the well and septic
which is proposed. Here none of the wells or septics being proposed on these lots are
within 100 feet of even the property line, let alone a neighboring well or septic. So we
believe that it would be unnecessary to show the wells and septics on adjoining
properties. As far as the drainage and grading for the properties, we feel that it would be
premature to require drainage or grading at this time, because the individual lots are
going to change, the design of the building is going to change, not the shape of the lot,
but in terms of where people are going to put their houses, Mr. Prime is not going to be
the one who develops the houses on these lots. He’s hoping to sell the lots and each
individual property owner is going to choose where they put their driveway, where they
put their house, and accordingly, the drainage and grading might change. Also, this is a
relatively, if you look at the topo lines on the map, it’s a relatively flat property. There
isn’t a whole lot of steep slopes that would indicate that it would be very difficult to
propose a feasible drainage or grading plan. We are also requesting a waiver of the
drainage and grading plan for the turnaround, specifically because the turnaround is an
existing turnaround. It’s been on Mr. Prime’s property for 40 years. All he’s proposing is
to widen it a few feet. You can see actually the lines of the existing turnaround, the
existing gravel driveway is in dotted lines, and then the proposed gravel driveway you
can see it’s a bit wider. It’s in the solid line. So, I mean, it’s pretty clear that, you know,
it’s not a huge change. We aren’t talking about disturbing a whole lot of new area. I
believe that is a general overview of what’s going on with the subdivision. Do you have
any questions for me or Stuart or Paul?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-How long did you say it was from the outer road to the end of the loop?
MS. COYLE-From Rockwell Road to the end of the loop it’s 1277 feet.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments?
MR. FORD-Hiland Drive is maintained during the winter by?
MS. COYLE-Hiland Drive, up until here, is maintained by the Town of Queensbury,
because it’s a Town of Queensbury road. There’s a turnaround here, where the Town of
Queensbury has easements over Mr. Prime’s property and Mr. Unkauf’s property. They
are not entirely cleared there, but that’s been up to the Town of Queensbury. They
haven’t felt that it was necessary until now, and they don’t appear to think that it will be
necessary in the future. We have a letter from them that was included as one of the
exhibits saying that they were aware of the turnaround and they didn’t feel that it was
necessary at this time to clear it, but they, of course, reserve the right to do so, but they
don’t feel that the proposed subdivision will interfere with that. Then from here through
the end on the private loop, on the driveway, that’s all going to be maintained by Lot
Number Two, in accordance with the restrictive covenants that are going to go with the
deed. Those have also been included as an exhibit to the application. Now, the costs
for that will be billed equally among the three lots that are sharing the driveway, and the
bills will be basically be forwarded to those property owners, and those property owners
will have 10 days to pay them, and it’s just for things like plowing, maintenance, you
know, if more gravel needs to be laid, things like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the private loop, by definition in the Zoning Code, that would be
considered a private road. Does that create any kind of legal complications, other than
what you just described?
MS. COYLE-The only, only the issue of the waiver, of the 1,000 feet. As far as any
variances, those have already been obtained. So that’s about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I had a question for Staff. Regarding the proximity of the proposed septic
to the stream, would this system, and obviously we’ll be getting more detail as the project
moves forward, but is this an example of the type of system, because of its proximity and
the design, that would require a local Board of Health approval?
MR. BAKER-Only if it requires a variance from any of the standards in the local health
Code, which is probably wouldn’t.
STUART MESINGER
MR. MESINGER-No. Stuart Mesinger. Your Subdivision Regulations actually
specifically provide, at 139-6, where you can modify a system that has the zero to three
inch perc rate to a slower system and allow it within the 200 feet, and that’s what we’d
propose to do and show you that detail on the Preliminary plan.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only thing, is everyone comfortable with the length of the
road?
MR. TRAVER-I think if it’s maintained by the Town up to the beginning of the private
drive, you know, I think that, the length of the road that’s maintained by the Town can be
removed from the total length from Rockwell for consideration of whether or not a
variance is needed, in my opinion.
MR. FORD-That’s my opinion as well.
MRS. BRUNO-Could you clarify that again? You’re saying take the (lost words).
MR. TRAVER-The section of Hiland Drive between Rockwell and the private driveway
ending in the loop is maintained by the Town up to the turnaround where the easement
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
is, the turnaround. So my feeling is that we need not consider that length in the
calculation for whether or not it needs a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s Summit Street, Road, what is that exactly? What is that, just a
spur to another house?
MS. COYLE-Yes. It’s an offshoot that just leads to some more houses.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MESINGER-We obviously agree with Mr. (lost word). The logic being, the reason
it’s there, it’s a health and safety thing in case vehicles have to get in and out and
turnaround, and the practical reality is there’s an existing turnaround that’s used by the
Highway Department there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right because we have a turnaround at the curve there.
MR. MESINGER-Right, and then a second one also within 1,000 feet on a public road.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problems with that.
MR. FORD-The length of the private drive?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. FORD-Nor do I.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, as far as granting the waivers, is that something?
MR. BAKER-That would be done at Preliminary.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MESINGER-As a point of clarification, because I know you talked about it in your
last application, the level of sort of grading that you typically require on a single family lot.
We have the same situation where Mr. Prime’s intent is to sell the lots and there’ll be
builder in and we’ll have defined a septic system and location and proved it out, but who
knows what they’ll really want to build there, and so our preference would be to follow the
provision in the Ordinance at 147-9, which basically let’s somebody submit at the time of
their building permit a grading and drainage plan. Is that a typical practice here, rather
than have him go through the expense on something that he doesn’t know what’ll get
built?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know, but what you’re saying makes sense, at the time of.
MR. MESINGER-Okay. That’s what we’ll propose, unless I hear strong objection,
because it just doesn’t make sense to have it be done twice and have him pay for it,
when what gets built may be different. It can be a note on the plat. It can be a condition,
whatever.
MR. HUNSINGER-So then each of the three new parcels would then come before the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review?
MR. MESINGER-No, I think, and you’ve looked at this more closely than I, but isn’t the
provision in 147-9, which of you read it more closely than I did, you want to go through
that?
MS. COYLE-A provision of stormwater review under 147-9 requires a detailed
stormwater plan to be provided to the Code Compliance Officer, who will then review it
and determine whether it’s acceptable. Because this is a small subdivision, it doesn’t
require the full Planning Board process that a major stormwater plan would require, like
in larger subdivisions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, it’s a minor.
MS. COYLE-Exactly.
MR. MESINGER-And it seems to us that that would get you out from having to look at
three lots and three different times over the next three to five years. So that what we
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
would propose to do here. I have one other question or clarification, just to let you know.
Your engineer asked us to verify that the top of bank of the stream that runs through part
of Mr. Prime’s property does not extend beyond the 100 foot wetland line. This stream is
at the bottom of a fairly steep ravine, and there’s sort of a commonsense answer, which,
when you walk it you would see, and I don’t propose to survey that. I propose to send a
wetland biologist to, you have to look at top of bank of streams as sort of a routine part of
a biological assessment to verify that. There’s one part of the stream, on the far east
side of the property, that is not on his land, but it’s at the bottom of a 20 foot slope.
There I would propose that he or she walk the property line and verify that the top of
bank doesn’t come to the property line. I’ve already done it, and it’s not even close, but I
want to, I just kind of want to tell you that that’s what I’m going to do rather than have to
set flags and survey, and again, charge Mr. Prime a lot of money for something that’s
fairly obvious on its face.
MR. HUNSINGER-Seems reasonable.
MR. MESINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know one thing, the meadow on Rockwell Road, I’ve always felt is
one of the nicest building sites in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. FORD-I think the white tailed deer would concur with that. They enjoy it as their
home as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. So with regards to those waivers, we would grant
those waivers, but put notes on that each subdivision would have to have its own plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, before they get a building permit, they would have to file their
own plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we would grant the waiver for the subdivision, but each Site Plan
would?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that correct?
MR. BAKER-Well, they would be submitting stormwater management plans as part of
the building permit to show compliance with the minor stormwater project, aspects in
147.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and just for the sake of the discussion here, what level of detail
would that include? I mean, I can envision that typically it would include things like, you
know, gutters on the house that would then go into some sort of a drain along the
perimeter of the foundation of the house. I can’t imagine what else might be required
because the only impervious, well, plus the driveways, which are pretty much currently
existing.
MR. MESINGER-Yes, you show the grading and the erosion and sediment. One of your
engineer’s comments was erosion and sediment control, and again, we’d propose to
defer it to each house, but you show the grading, erosion sediment control, and then
exactly that, you know, where does the water go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Yes. Under 147-9 it states that stormwater control measures may include,
but shall not be limited to, drywells, pits of crushed rock lined with geotextile fabric, and
infiltration trenches, and measures can also include landscape features such as
depressions, retention ponds, swales and the like.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Did we address Item Four in the VISION Engineering letter,
the limits of clearing and/or disturbance?
MR. MESINGER-We would propose to show you an envelope.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board or Staff?
MR. FORD-Are we specific enough on the width of that new shared drive? Because it is
going to be a bit wider than the current one, correct?
MR. MESINGER-The width is shown on the plan, and that was a subject of great debate
in front of the Zoning Board, in which we actually had to get out the design of the Town of
Queensbury’s fire truck and put the template on the map and prove that it, in fact,
accommodates the Town fire truck, that it’s wide enough to do so.
MR. FORD-Thank you. I’m not going to take you there again.
MR. MESINGER-It’s in your packet if you want to see it. It’s somewhere in there, Exhibit
F.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any additional questions of us? I imagine you’ll be filing
your Preliminary subdivision plans shortly, if not already. I think we’re all set.
MR. MESINGER-Do you vote on the Sketch?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. It just kind of concludes.
MR. MESINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. MESINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 8-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SWANK AGENT(S) KATHY HILL
OWNER(S) DAVID KENNY ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1444 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE FROM 7/2/08 THROUGH 7/22/08. TENT
SALE EVENTS PLANNED FOR LONGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 22-05, 10-06, 28-07
WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC N/A LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO.
288.12-1-22 SECTION 179-4
KATHY HILL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes,
please.
MRS. BRUNO-Chris, I think that we may have had some public here tonight. The public
hearing will be open for the next meeting. Correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Just, if there was anyone from the public here for the
Sketch Plan Review, Sketch Plan Review we do not hold a public hearing, but we
certainly do when they come in for subdivision.
MR. BAKER-Okay. Staff comments on Swank. The applicant has requested waivers
from the following requirements, stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting
plan and landscaping plan. Staff also notes that this request is similar to proposals that
have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Board over the last few years. The
length of time approved by the Planning Board changed from 30 days in 2006 to 21 days
in 2007, but the location of the tent remains the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FORD-Welcome back.
MS. HILL-Good evening. My name is Kathy Hill. I’m the manager of the Swank Factory
Store. Swank has been in the Adirondack Outlet Mall for over 20 years. We’ve had 24
tent sales at this location, 17 in July and 7 with the Mall in September for Balloon Fest.
The July tent sale is very important to my store and my company. The tent sale is about
20% of my annual sales. Not having a tent sale would be a hardship. When we have a
tent sale, we sell our items at greatly reduced prices from retail. Ninety-five percent of
our items are priced below $10. I use a 30 by 45 white tent. Caution tape is used, per
the Fire Marshal, to keep cars 20 feet back from the tents. Our location for the tent is
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
perfect, down in the corner, away from the traffic. We are 67 feet back from the
sidewalk, and 113 feet from the Mall entrance. On the other side of the tent is an
embankment, then a 29 foot driveway, then the other Mall. In this location, we can be
seen from cars coming up the road. So there’s no sudden stopping. The tent would go
nd
up on Wednesday, July 2, merchandise would be set up then, and then the tent would
rd
be inspected by the Fire Marshal prior to opening. The sale would start July 3 and run
nd
through July 22. This sale is an established event in the area. We have customers
that come from all over every year. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-None that weren’t addressed last year for me.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes. This is the exact same proposal isn’t it?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the same drawing and everything.
th
MS. HILL-This would be my 18 year out there.
MR. TRAVER-Wow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this project? I will open
the public hearing and I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Unlisted Action requires SEQRA Review.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-They submitted a Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are we ready for the Short Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we are.
MRS. BRUNO-Will we be giving the waivers? Do we have to do the waivers before we
do the SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it doesn’t matter when we consider those.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-They all make sense to me.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Start with the?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I propose a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Tanya Bruno:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SWANK, 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
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 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Site Plan approval?
MR. SEGULJIC-I would love to.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess the only conditions would be to include the approval of
the requested waivers.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the lighting, grading, stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-And landscaping.
MR. SEGULJIC-And landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess for sake of consistency, we probably should include the days
of the sale in the motion.
nd
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and it’s July 2 until?
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-The 22.
nd
MR. SEGULJIC-Until July 22.
MS. HILL-Yes, 21 days.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2008 SWANK, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following: Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from 7/2/08 through 7/22/08. Tent sale
events planned for longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/25/08 ; 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 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
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)NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of
credit; and
9)NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted
to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2008 SWANK, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five is
negative. Number Seven doesn’t apply. Number Eight is not applicable. Number Nine
does not apply. The following waivers are granted, for stormwater management, grading
plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan, and there will be one condition:
ndnd
1) The tent be installed from July 2 until July 22 2008.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. HILL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MATT
HUMMEL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION LOT 48 ROLLING RIDGE,
SECT. 4 LYNDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THE
APPROVED FW 2-2007 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLLING
AND GRADE/FILL REAR YARD INTO WETLAND BUFFER AREA. FILLING AND
GRADING ACTIVITY WITHIN A WETLAND BUFFER REQUIRE A WETLAND PERMIT
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO MODIFY THE
APPROVED SITE LAYOUT/HOUSE LOCATION. CROSS REFERENCE NONE
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/CEA/DEC DEC WETLAND – GF-19 LOT SIZE
8.24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-6.1 SECTION CHAPTER 94-5
MATT HUMMEL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes when you’re ready, please.
MR. BAKER-This application is a revision of the December 2007 approval of an
application submitted by Robert Reid. The current proposal doesn’t have any changes
to the propose impacts on the wetland buffer, but instead is focused on the following
changes to the site layout: The location and type of retaining walls at the rear of the
house, and changes to the location of the home, garage and driveway. The project is
back for approvals primarily because the layout of the home on the Reid application was
the subject of such scrutiny in the prior application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If I could just elaborate on that. When I met with Staff for the
completion review, almost two months ago, this was brought to my attention, and I really
felt that, because we had deliberated so much on the location of the garage and the
septic field, that, you know, since they were proposing to change it, that it really should
come back before the Board for full consideration.
MR. BAKER-I should note that the Chairman had asked for copies of the approved
layout of the Reid application, which was distributed to the Board this evening. So you
should all have those, and we do also have engineering comments on the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. The floor is yours.
MR. HUMMEL-Good evening, Board members. I’m Matt Hummel, the owner of Lot 48,
Rolling Ridge, on Ridge Road. Upon closing on the property I (lost words) the
information on the approved Site Plan in front of Hutchins Engineering, to ensure that we
have adequate leach field for the septic system, and upon their recommendation, they
requested that, or they suggested that I actually amend the Site Plan and try to have it
re-approved because there was not sufficient area for the leach field on the approved
Site Plan. I do have a letter from Hutchins Engineering that basically states that due to
the seasonally high ground area, it’s required to have a shallow absorption field, a
shallow fill absorption field. Therefore, the edge of the fill would be considered from the
setback point. Therefore they have recommended that by placing the garage on the right
hand side of the house, the original setback from the edge of the fill, building setback
from the edge of the fill to the garage, that it would be better suited for that Site Plan. As
shown on the approved Site Plan, there would have to be a 20 foot minimum setback
from the edge of the fill to the house and there would not be adequate room for that on
the approved Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that makes sense to me now. That was the main reason to
flip the garage?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUMMEL-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is so you could build the actual structure closer to the septic.
MR. HUMMEL-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUMMEL-There was no setback.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUMMEL-I have this letter here, I can give this to you. I haven’t entered it into the
record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was going to say, I don’t think that was in our package.
MR. HUMMEL-I actually just received this letter this evening because I had dug a test pit
about two weeks ago, 3/14, and they basically did, you know, it was a deep perc test,
five foot perc test hole. They weren’t able to do a perc test due to the frost in the ground,
but they did have quite a bit of information, as far as where the ground water level was at
and the type of soil that’s in there.
MR. FORD-And who did that, please?
MR. HUMMEL-I dug the test pit. Hutchins examined it.
MR. FORD-Thanks.
MRS. BRUNO-So the letter there is from Tom Hutchins?
MR. HUMMEL-The letter is from Tom Hutchins. Do you want me to read it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be great. Thank you.
MR. HUMMEL-It’s addressed to me. It says, Dear Matt: At your request, on 3/14/08, we
performed a test pit soils analysis at your property on Lyndon Road in Rolling Ridge
subdivision. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the depth to seasonal high
groundwater, and to evaluate the suitability for the installation of an on site wastewater
treatment system. Our findings are as follows: 0 to 22 inches is (lost word) ground, silty
sand with cobbles and boulders. Twenty-two to twenty-eight inches, dark brown, sandy
silt-(lost word), 28 to 42 inches, light red-brown silty sand, (lost word), mottling at 26
inches, strong roots to 26 inches, water at 31 inches. The depth to seasonal high
groundwater is evidenced by soil mottling. A two foot minimum separation is required
from the bottom of the absorption trenches to seasonally high groundwater. Therefore a
shallow absorption field is required for the site. The system fill material must be
imported, and the absorption trenches will be constructed in that the fill to the bottom of
the trench placed two inches maximum into existing grade. The system fill must extend
six feet from the edges of trenches and then tapered to meet with the existing grade.
Typically the tow of fill must meet the required wastewater site setbacks such as sideline,
house, well, etc. A percolation test was not performed due to the frost content in the
ground, which made hand digging nearly impossible. The required percolation test
should be performed prior to the design of the wastewater system. I trust this information
is sufficient for your immediate needs. Please contact us when you are ready to proceed
with the final design. Best Regards, Tom Hutchins.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did he provide you with any opinion on whether or not the perc test
that was done, that’s shown on the site map, did he think that he would find different
conclusions or did he seem to think that the perc test that was done previous was
accurate enough?
MR. HUMMEL-He did feel it was adequate perc test. He wasn’t disputing the rate of
absorption.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUMMEL-I was just mainly looking, I determined this into the process of the
approval with Queensbury, and I had a contract with Bob Reid. Therefore I was not, I did
not have direct input as far as the Site Plan changes. I knew of this at the meeting, but I
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
was directed not to speak on that because it was basically, it was his contract for the
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MRS. BRUNO-I think you’ve, you know, that perc test was verified, once the frost is
gone. The change in the system completely seems reasonable.
MR. FORD-The extent to which the buffer zone is invaded, can you address that issue,
please?
MR. HUMMEL-Yes. I can do some dimensionals. It looks to me that’s pretty much the
same as far as the impact area. It’s scaled out a little like (lost words) to the buffer.
From the edge of the, the tow of the fill to the 100 foot buffer, at it’s closest point, it’s
scaled out to be 12.4 feet. I’ll give you the comparisons. It’s showing it to be about
seven feet roughly. It’s actually closer on the approved Site Plan than it is on the
proposed amendment for the site, as far as I can tell.
MRS. BRUNO-It looks that way to me, too.
MR. FORD-So the greatest differential is about approximately five feet, and that is less
impact on the buffer zone.
MR. HUMMEL-It’s further away from the buffer, correct.
MR. FORD-It doesn’t infringe upon the buffer as much, by five feet.
MR. HUMMEL-Correct. There’s 12 feet away from the tow of the, on the amended Site
Plan, the approve Site Plan shows it to be about seven feet.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. BRUNO-The other comments brought up by the engineer, have they been rectified
at all?
MR. HUMMEL-I haven’t received any comments.
MRS. BRUNO-Do we have an extra copy of that, Stu?
MR. HUNSINGER-I have one if you don’t.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s the one thing that he didn’t, actually it’s the last one that I was going to
ask you about, the driveway runoff should be directed away from the septic system
toward the road. I was just thinking that, because the way that septic systems work,
through evaporation, you don’t want to saturate that anymore. I think some of our review
time was shortened because of the holiday over the weekend, but there was mention of
the culvert for the driveway. I’m just seeing if that will impact drainage of the driveway
back away from the septic system. I guess what I’m getting at is what he had mentioned
in Eleven, that providing additional stormwater mitigation for the driveway and/or roof
areas, both for the wetland and because of the septic system. French drains are great,
but they don’t always handle all of it. I just don’t know how we might want to handle that,
the signoff. We could condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we not require that for Reid, when Reid was here? Comment
Eleven from VISION Engineering is that consideration should be given to providing
additional stormwater mitigation for the driveway and/or roof areas. Did we not require a
stormwater management plan when we approved the Reid Site Plan?
MRS. BRUNO-I thought that we would have.
MR. BAKER-No, it doesn’t appear so.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there are stormwater management notes on the plan.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, there are. This might just be actually.
MR. BAKER-Previous engineering comments had stated that a stormwater management
plan and report should be considered, but I don’t know that one was ever required.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Could end up falling under the category of, just for your own benefit, so
that you don’t have failure of systems.
LUCAS DOBIE
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Planning Board members. My apologies for
my tardiness. For the record, Lucas Dobie, Hutchins Engineering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-Matt’s a friend of mine. I’ve (lost words) off the clock, so to speak. He
originally brought me the plan and I had done a project just up the road from him and it
had a couple of concerns about how they had shown the septic and everything for the
Reid project, when Reid got approved. I think probably Matt went through that, where
my concern was the high groundwater table, and we had since done a test hole last
week, and found groundwater at about 26 inches. So hence I advised Matt to revise the
plan to bring the absorption field up, and that’s why we’re here. I think he’s gone through
that pretty well. I was just looking at the VISION Engineering comments briefly, it looks
like it’s stormwater, and Matt is prepared to provide some mitigation. I think right now
they’re just showing the French drain, to provide some filtration of the sheet flow coming
across the site before it goes to the wetlands, and we’d be comfortable with doing a little
pond or something on the outlet of that to provide some more pooling effect to remove
more pollutants before discharging to the wetlands. We’d be comfortable doing that.
Another thing I could think of would be some infiltration trench around the garage or
driveway, which, it would have to be real shallow is the only problem because two feet to
groundwater, we’d have minimal infiltration, but we could do something like that to
provide a filtering effect, which we would probably propose to do something like that on
our Site Plan submission for the building permit, because we will have to do a full
wastewater design and we could do some stormwater stuff on that if that would make
you comfortable. I think Matt’s prepared to pull permit early summer to get going on this
Site Plan if all goes well. Certainly we want to do everything we can to do the job right.
MRS. BRUNO-It seems like this might be one of these good applications for the rain
gardens that we’re talking about.
MR. HUMMEL-With the (lost words) plantings? Sure, we can do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-I think if we get everything in conditioned. I think if we just put conditions
into the approval, I’m comfortable with that, since it had gone through strenuous review
before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other members feel similarly?
MR. FORD-I do.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There is no public hearing required. It is listed as an Unlisted
Action. I was surprised to see, usually on modifications do we, we usually don’t do
SEQRA on modifications, unless something gets triggered.
MR. BAKER-It’s at the discretion of the Board. If you the proposed changes before you
don’t require a new SEQRA review, you certainly don’t have to do one. Just simply state
for the record that the previous SEQRA Neg Dec determination applies.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think if anything he’s shown a little more willingness to move
the project away from the wetlands. So I think there’s less of an impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-So were there any conditions, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How do we want to work through conditions?
MRS. BRUNO-Well, you’re going to, obviously the septic design has to be in place for
the building permit.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the stormwater management for the driveway and the
house and garage, was there anything specific that you would propose that we could
include in the resolution?
MR. DOBIE-I think I agree with Mrs. Bruno on the rain garden for the outlet of the French
drain would work real well. How I envision handling the driveway would be to, because
it’s going to pitch back toward Lyndon Road, probably run a swale along the front of the
property, and then along the west side of the house toward the French drain, wrap the
swale around to that and then it will filter through the French drain outlet to the rain
garden. So I would be comfortable if you would condition a rain garden on the outlet or
something like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how big would the rain garden be?
MR. DOBIE-Probably ten feet by twenty-five feet, something like that I think would fit in
that area pretty well. Probably 18 to 24 inches deep. We wouldn’t want to go much
deeper than that (lost word) permanent groundwater pool.
MR. FORD-That’s what I was going to ask.
MRS. BRUNO-Usually we ask for the, as you know, the calculations, and we’re now
increasing the amount of water going towards the French drain from the driveway,
beyond what we had agreed to before. I don’t know how we would work in asking for
that calculation, it’s just one calculation so you don’t have to get into the hydro CAD and
everything when we’re not looking at a full a stormwater management report.
MR. DOBIE-Typically on, what I know with a Girl Scouts project we did for one of their
small nature lodge or something, we just did the minor criteria for the Lake George Park
Commission, the one and a half gallon per square foot seems to work really well for
these smaller projects. We would be comfortable doing that to size the rain garden.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-I think we’re probably at about 1500 to 2000 square feet of impervious. So,
that, I think, would be a reasonable calculation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just let me ask the question of Staff. Stu, if we state that the
applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan that’s compliant with the minor
criteria, prior to pulling the building permit, is that going to suffice?
MR. BAKER-That should, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that the size of the rain garden shall be, and that the rain garden
will be sized accordingly. It shall be roughly, or approximately, 10 by 25, and 18 to 24
inches deep.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s good.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Let’s see if we can run through this. Everyone ready?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO.
2-2007 MATT HUMMEL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1) A freshwater wetlands application has been made to the Queensbury
Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to the
approved FW 2-2007 for construction of a single family dwelling and grade/fill
rear yard into wetland buffer area. Filling and grading activity within a wetland
buffer require a wetland permit from the Planning Board. The applicant seeks to
modify the approved site layout / house location; and
2) A public hearing is not required for a modification; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
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
5)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 Freshwater Wetlands permit,
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)NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of
credit; and
9)NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted
to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and
inspection; and
10)MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 2-2007 MATT HUMMEL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff, with the following
changes. Item Four complies. Five, SEQRA was taken into consideration and
the modification does not result in any new, significant or different impacts. Eight
and nine do not apply. The motion is subject to the following conditions:
1.That the applicant submits with their building permit criteria to show
compliance with the minor criteria for stormwater management.
2.That a rain garden located at the end of the French drain be sized accordingly
with the approximate dimensions of 10 foot by 25 foot, roughly 18 inches to
24 inches deep.
3.That the applicant obtains a signoff from VISION Engineering.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
MRS. BRUNO-Do we want to have signoff from the engineer as well? He just mentioned
a few things like the stone is not wrapped in fabric. I’d like him just to see those details,
to make sure that they’re going to be adequate. Those are important points.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything in the engineering letter that causes you concern?
Do you think you’d be able to get signoff?
MR. DOBIE-I don’t see anything of any major concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So then the second condition is that the applicant obtain a
signoff from VISION Engineering.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUMMEL-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2008 SEQR TYPE II FRED & ALICE SCHMALKUCHE AGENT(S)
B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 246 ASSEMBLY PT. RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK.
BOATHOUSES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3-08, SP 51-05, SP 63-95, SP 47-89,
SP 85-90, AV 82-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC LG CEA
LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-95 SECTION 179-
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, could you summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-Yes. The total square footage of the dock beneath the covered boathouse
is 696 sq. ft. and is within the area allowed by code. The site plan indicates the height of
the proposed boathouse will also be within the height limitations within the Zoning Code.
Staff suggests a condition of any approval that a copy of the required Lake George Park
Commission permit be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
MS. BITTER-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Stephanie Bitter as the attorney for the applicant. I’m here this evening
with Frank DeNardo of Elite Docks. Fred and Alice Schmalkuche are actually here in the
audience as well. I brought some pictures of the site. They were incorporated in the
application, but just to get some bearings as to what actually exists on the drawing today.
You’re looking at the survey that was performed by (lost words). There is a crib dock
that’s located on the southern end of the property which sits 3.18 feet from the property
line. This is actually, if you’re standing on the crib dock to the south looking south, this
dock is actually owned by the Town of Queensbury. This is if you’re looking north from
the sundeck area. This is the actual existing dock and sundeck, the boat slip and the
crib dock. This is standing on the Town of Queensbury dock looking towards the north,
and then this is looking towards the south. As the application identifies, unfortunately the
sundeck that exists there, which I referred to as a sundeck/boathouse, is no longer
structurally sound. Due to its instability, it actually sways, not only in the wind, but also in
the waves, making it unsafe to utilize as either a sundeck or a boathouse. In effort to
rectify the situation, the applicants met with Frank DeNardo, in order to come up with a
plan that will not only correct our situation, but also lessen the impact on the lake. The
design that they came up with was to actually utilize the southern crib dock, because it’s
considered to be structurally sound. It has been inspected, and to construct a sundeck
which would be 28 by 36 feet in size, which utilizes that southern crib dock, and then
construct a northern crib dock which would be six by thirty-six. This way they don’t have
to tear anything up. That’s fine for (lost words). Due to the existing setbacks at the
southern crib dock, it was necessary that we get a variance before coming before you
this evening. That variance not only allowed us to maintain that 3.18 foot setback but
also allowed us to construct the sundeck on top of that crib dock, which also (lost words).
The applicant is prepared to submit to the Lake George Park Commission which they will
do so after obtaining the necessary approvals from the Town. I will open it up for
questions.
MRS. BRUNO-Could I have you please reiterate the dimensions of the existing dock,
sundeck and what the width is of the proposed, we’ve got the 36 feet, 36 foot.
MS. BITTER-The proposed sundeck would be 28 by 36.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MS. BITTER-And the northern crib dock which is proposed would be six by thirty-six.
FRANK DE NARDO
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MS. BITTER-And I’ll pass it to Frank if you have any other questions as to the
dimensions.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, for the existing, the unstable dock and sundeck, just so that we can
get an idea.
MR. DE NARDO-I believe it’s 36 feet long. I am not certain on the width. I believe it’s
around 24, yes.
MRS. BRUNO-So we’re talking roughly the same size structure. A little bit larger, a little
bit wider. Do you know the existing height?
MR. DE NARDO-Of that structure right now, I don’t have the existing height, but what’s
there, I believe it’s at, the requirements are 14 to the top of the rail.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So it’s not a grandfathered?
MR. DE NARDO-No.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. DE NARDO-The structure we will, as we construct it it’s going to be to Code
anyhow, as we do it, which is a 14 to the top of the rail.
MR. FORD-All dimensions will be within those parameters.
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. FORD-Height, width, length.
MR. DE NARDO-Correct, as per the plans that we have right now. I mean, they’ll be a
28 by 36 sundeck is what we’re looking for.
MRS. BRUNO-Will you have additional drawings to submit to the Building Department
when you go there, besides this one elevation?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes, they need all the structural stuff.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. FORD-The view from the lake will be in essence identical to the one we’re looking at
there?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes. If you’re looking at it from the Queensbury dock, that’s where it’s
going to be (lost word) as it is right now. Actually it will be a little clearer because you
won’t have the arches that are in there, the bottom right corner there. So that structure is
actually going to be made wider up in there. So there’ll be more visual up towards the
lake. Essentially it doesn’t change the view at all. If anything, it enhances the view, it
gives you a better shot up the lake, if you’re on the Queensbury dock.
MR. FORD-I was thinking particularly of the view of the structure itself, head on from the
lake.
MR. DE NARDO-Looking at it?
MR. FORD-From the lake.
MR. DE NARDO-It would be similar to that.
MR. FORD-The second one down on the left.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Just be shifted to the left a bit more.
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-In comparison to the cribs.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes, the upper support structures will be on the crib dock on that side.
So that span will go over the two new crib docks. So we’ll be putting it.
MR. FORD-Approximately how much further north?
MR. DE NARDO-Actually no further north. It’s going to be going south. It’s going to be
going this way.
MR. FORD-Going south, all right. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be 24 by 36?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct, 28 by 36.
MR. SEGULJIC-How far out from the shore is it going to be?
MR. DE NARDO-Thirty-six.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thirty-six, and it’s twenty-eight feet wide?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, you’re looking at this drawing here and you’re saying that’s
going to be 28 feet wide? Is that just the deck you’re speaking of, 28 feet?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. DE NARDO-The upper deck. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the total structure is going to be how wide, the docks themselves?
MR. DE NARDO-The docks themselves?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, from end to end.
MR. DE NARDO-Thirty-six feet long.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. DE NARDO-And the width.
MRS. BRUNO-I’ve got 45.6.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it’s more than 38.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes, it’s exactly 40.
MR. SEGULJIC-How do we know that? I just don’t see that dimension in here.
MS. BITTER-This was submitted with the variance. I’m not sure if this was part of the.
MR. FORD-There was a revision based upon some new calculations, correct?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-I was a little high. I added something in twice.
MR. DE NARDO-It’s 40.
MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t it 40 plus 18 inches?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, it’s 41 and 6 inches.
MR. DE NARDO-Actually that’s, the 18 was supposed to be, it should be 12 from the
center of the 18. The 18 was just the center support structure. That just sits in between
the two cribs, and the 24 foot slip. So that was a mistake on my part. I was just putting
that in there to show how wide that center support structure is going to be.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MS. BITTER-And that was my apologies, because I submitted it as part of the application
to demonstrate the mean low water mark, as we had provided, and unfortunately at the
meeting of the Zoning Board we had submitted (lost words) note the difference.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the total width is 40 feet?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes, 40, I can’t go wider than 40 because the Park Commission
regulations anyhow.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, and that’s what I was getting at.
MRS. BRUNO-Actually, hold on one second, Tom. I know where you’re going. Sorry,
but we just decided that that was 24 feet wide, I thought, okay. I’m sorry, let me gather
my thoughts. Sorry, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-You go right ahead.
MRS. BRUNO-Now I’m trying to find my note where I wrote down the existing and the
planned sizes were. Go ahead.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now I’m always confused about, it says, how big is your
sundeck going to be?
MS. BITTER-Twenty-eight by thirty-six.
MR. DE NARDO-That’s the sundeck, not the dock.
MS. BITTER-And his question was the total length of the docks, when looking at it face
on, which is 40.
MRS. BRUNO-So we actually have an overhang on the upper dock, the sundeck? Let
me just look for a second. I think I’ve gotten myself confused.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just jump in, I’ve got like a total of 1,008 feet or something?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now for Staff, I’m always confused about this. It says the
maximum surface area of any dock or wharf shall be 700 square feet. Is that the
sundeck?
MR. DE NARDO-That is the dock.
MR. BAKER-No, that’s the dock.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the dock surfacing.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct.
MR. DE NARDO-And that’s what the Park Commission allows on that. That’s the most
you can go with a piece of property of this size.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to say, quickly I come up with like 730 feet of surface
area.
MS. BITTER-Based on, you’re including the sundeck.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, because it’s 36, it’s 36 by 66, which is 216, and then it’s 10 by
36, which is 360, and then it’s the walkway along the.
MR. DE NARDO-Four by twenty-four.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s four feet. Okay. It looks like five feet. That’s four. Four by
twenty-four. So it’s like 672 or something like that you said?
MS. BITTER-Six ninety-two.
MR. DE NARDO-Six ninety-two.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Now the other thing is, how much shoreline is there?
MR. DE NARDO-(Lost word) on this, I believe.
MS. BITTER-It should be roughly 70.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MS. BITTER-Because there’s 27.85 shoreline setback, 38 feet from the other side, and
40 was the dock.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s something, once again, that’s not visible, quickly looking at
this.
MS. BITTER-The length of the shore?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MS. BITTER-I just made the calculations based on the setbacks of the northern end, the
southern end, and then the width of the dock, as we just discussed.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I mean, what’s the lot width on the lake?
MS. BITTER-The lot width on the lake.
MR. BAKER-There are two surveyed distances shown.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. BAKER-Add those together and you get.
MS. BITTER-35.08 and 37.9.
MR. BAKER-So 72.98.
MR. SEGULJIC-Seventy-two. Okay. So you’re allowed one, and this is one big “U”,
then. Okay, and then how many boats would be docked here?
MR. DE NARDO-Two probably.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you’re going to have the center support in here?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So even though there are spaces for four boats?
MR. DE NARDO-He’s only putting two boats in there. (Lost words) for four boats, it’s still
within the riparian rights. As far as setbacks go, I mean, he’s within his riparian rights if
he wants to put four boats, but he’s not doing that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then that would make him be a marina, then, I believe.
MR. DE NARDO-Unless he’s a boat collector.
MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s only going to be two boats there.
MR. DE NARDO-Two boats, yes, at this point.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we put that as a condition, then.
MR. DE NARDO-I don’t think we should. I mean, it’s up to you folks, but I don’t think it
should be something in there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not?
MR. DE NARDO-Why? I don’t understand why.
MR. SEGULJIC-Or, as I understand it, he needs a permit to be a marina, then.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. DE NARDO-Then he’d have to go in front of the Park Commission for a marina, (lost
words) marina permit. They don’t give out marina permits anymore.
MR. SEGULJIC-So then why would he not want the condition if he can’t get the marina?
MR. BAKER-It would be a marina only if he was leasing dock space to others, and it’s for
personal use. I don’t believe it qualifies as a marina.
MR. HUNSINGER-If it’s for his own personal use, he can have four boats.
MR. DE NARDO-If it’s for his own personal use, he can put in four boats. Say you have
a sailboat on one side, he had a wooden boat in the center, and then he had a power
boat on the other side and a fishing boat on the other. I mean, I’ve seen that more than
once with my customers. I’m just giving you an example. I just don’t want to throw this
thing in the works right now. I mean, I’ve got some customers that have got five and six
boats. I’m actually doing a job on the other side of the lake right now. The guy’s got six
boats, personal boats.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. FORD-While Tom is calculating, Stephanie, are you aware, or can you attest to the
fact that there has been no modification in the dimensions via the deed or any other way
of this property or the property to the north or to the south?
MS. BITTER-Like lot line adjustments, is that what you mean? Not that I’m aware of, no.
I’m aware that the deed that we submitted is the deed that exists.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Is there a public hearing for this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is.
MRS. BRUNO-I see where your calculations came from. I glanced at it and thought the
tick marks were all lining up. That’s why I was questioning how at one place it said 24
feet and the other it said 28. I wasn’t taking into consideration the two foot overhang for
the posts on either side, but it was that right there, kind of like with your 18 inch thing. It
just took me a minute.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We
do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to
address the Board on this application? No? Okay. I will open the public hearing and I
will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. BRUNO-Did we have something in the past about the land bridge? It’s been a
while.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what they’re showing are steps going from the dock to the.
MRS. BRUNO-Dock to the sundeck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DE NARDO-If I’m not mistaken, a land bridge, I think Warren County has issues
with that all the time, and it’s never been a problem with the Town of Queensbury. I
mean, I’m going to a lot of jobs right now that the land is higher than the dock, the access
from the top is straight across to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know why they have an issue with that?
MR. DE NARDO-That’s just one thing they throw out at every meeting, and nobody can
figure it out. It has no impact at all. They just put that out every time.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I can speculate as to what some of the issues may be. I mean,
certainly, you know, the dock will move in the seasons, and if the staircase goes from the
dock to the land, then it could become unstable. That’s speculation on my part. It’s the
only thing I could think of. Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? It is a
Type II action. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2008 FRED & ALICE SCHMALKUCHE,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse / sundeck.
Boathouses require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/25/08; 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
with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)NOT APPLICABLE - The requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a
SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; OR 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)NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of
credit; and
9)NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted
to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and
inspection; and
10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2008 FRED & ALICE
SCHMALKUCHE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies.
Number Five, Type II. Number Eight and Nine are not applicable.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/08)
MR. DE NARDO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there any other business before the Board?
MR. BAKER-Just a quick comment on Staffing. The Town Board has done, completed
second interviews for the Land Use Planner position, and currently reviewing references
on the candidate of choice. So we may have a additional Staffing coming in next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MRS. BRUNO-Great.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any discussion on Executive?
MR. BAKER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no further business, a motion to adjourn is always in
order.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
MARCH 25, 2008, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Seguljic:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
40