2008.04.15(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15, 2008
INDEX
Site Plan No. 13-2008 Lake George Campsites 1.
LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6
Site Plan No. 44-2007 David & MaryLou Dutra 2.
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-33 (Cont’d Pg. 71)
Site Plan No. 11-2008 Family Footwear Grp., 3.
Laura Feathers
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Site Plan No. 59-2007 Katharine Seelye 7.
Tax Map No. 239.15-1-10 (Cont’d Pg 16.)
Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes & Hayes 8.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 308.6-1-86
Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 Boats By George 25.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-1, 226.16-1-37, 38
Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 41.
Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38
Subdivision No. 2-2008 Ray & Wendy Kraft 52.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 240.9-1-16.1
Site Plan No. 10-2008 Randy Gross 56.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES)
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
THOMAS SEGULJIC
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
THOMAS FORD
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call the meeting to order of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board, Tuesday, April 15, 2008. Happy Tax Day everybody. The first order of
business is approval of minutes, and we were just kind of discussing that. If it’s okay
with the Board, I’d like to put that off until next week, because I forgot to bring my copy
with me. There were a couple of corrections that had been noted. The next item on the
agenda is Administrative item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES; RESOLUTION SEEKING
LEAD AGENCY STATUS
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-Essentially what you have is a resolution to consider seeking Lead Agency
Status on this project. This requires both Planning Board and Zoning Board review.
Zoning Board is deferring to the Planning Board for purposes of SEQRA. So this is the
typical let’s seek Lead Agency resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-I take it it’s going to be before the Zoning Board this month?
MR. BAKER-It will be before, actually the Planning Board will do SEQRA first. Then it
goes to the Zoning Board. They need the Use Variance from the Zoning Board. If that’s
approved by the Zoning Board, it will come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan
Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-When will we see this?
MR. HUNSINGER-We got the drawings.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Well, you said you have the drawings already?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Yes. After the 30 days is up for the SEQRA Lead Agency, then the Board
will get its first shot at doing the SEQRA review for it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? Would anyone like to make a motion?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MOTION FOR THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY
REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Variance
application for: Site Plan: Applicant proposes expansion of the existing campsite
operation in order to provide for approximately 340 campsites and the construction of
new facilities including a new field house, restrooms, pool and laundry facilities. Site
Plan Review is necessary for all uses requiring a Use Variance. Use Variance:
Applicant proposes expansion of the existing campsite operation in order to provide for
approximately 340 campsites and the construction of new facilities including a new field
house, restrooms, pool and laundry facilities. Expansion of a non-conforming use
requires a Use Variance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to
be a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead
Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning
Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I
of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: ZBA, County
Health Dept., TOQ Water & Sewer Dept., Warren Co. Planning, NYS DEC
MOTION FOR THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY
REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
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)
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-There were no Staff comments, other than to point out that the applicant did
not submit any new information in response to the Planning Board’s last tabling
th
resolution of March 25.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here from the applicant?
MR. SEGULJIC-And we haven’t heard anything?
MR. BAKER-Haven’t heard anything from the applicant. The last resolution was very
clear in tabling them to this date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and we asked them to address the comments from Warren
County.
MR. BAKER-And no new information was submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we’ll set that aside for now and deal with it later in the
agenda.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2008 FAMILY FOOTWEAR GRP., LAURA FEATHERS OWNER(S)
LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1498 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE. TENT SALE EVENTS PLANNED FOR
LONGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SSE 3 & 4-05, SP 26-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE
1.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9-020, 161
LAURA FEATHERS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu?
MR. BAKER-This is another in the series of annual tent sales that the Board is asked to
review. The applicant’s requested waivers from the lighting, landscaping, grading, and
stormwater management plan requirements. They’re proposing a 20 by 20 tent to be
used in front of their store for a seasonal sales event during the month of August of this
summer. As in the past, there don’t appear to be any negative impacts associated with
this proposal. We also have a comment from the Fire Marshal’s Office that the applicant
should make arrangements with them prior to the start of the sale for inspection
purposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening, the floor is yours. If you
could identify yourself for the record.
MS. FEATHERS-Good evening. I’m Laura Feathers from Family Footwear Center
Company. What we’re proposing is an August tent sale. Basically the whole concept is
August is one of the busiest months, obviously, in the Queensbury/Lake George area.
So we want to take advantage of the influx of people from the area, and we clean out a
lot of the miscellaneous stock from our four stores that come down to this particular
location. We’ve done it in the past and it’s done very well. It also not only helps us but it
also gives more revenue to the Town of Queensbury because obviously there’s sales tax
involved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-The only comment I had was, in my recollection regarding the tent sales in
this particular area, did we not decide that we were going to do a shorter period than a
whole month? Something like 21 days perhaps? I thought we had done that when we
dealt with some of the other applications.
MR. FEATHERS-Well, last year you gave us 21 days, and I re-applied for a month.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FEATHERS-But this year I was hoping you would squeeze it a little farther.
MR. TRAVER-I think we had an applicant before us not long ago for a tent sale in that
area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think it was a 21, it was a weird number. I don’t think it was
21. It was like 25 or something, some number.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s my only comment. Other than that, we discussed it in the
past. I don’t see any changes in what they’re asking, other than the date, the duration.
st
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re asking for August 1 through August?
MS. FEATHERS-To the last day of the month.
st
MR. SEGULJIC-August 31.
MS. FEATHERS-And we’ll obviously take it down, put it up the day.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problem with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no electricity in the tent, is there?
MS. FEATHERS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have all the cash registers and everything inside the store.
MS. FEATHERS-Cash registers inside the store. The tent, you know, we always have
the Fire Marshal come down, but, yes, there’s no electric. We do have a radio, a
portable radio outside in the tent area, just for atmosphere, but other than that there’s no
electricity.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-Is this the same size sign you had last year?
MS. FEATHERS-Yes. It’s the length of the tent.
MR. SIPP-And is this lighted so that you will be open until nine o’clock?
MS. FEATHERS-No, it’s not lighted. So that if it starts to get dark early, we close it.
MR. SIPP-Well, in August, you’re going to be.
MS. FEATHERS-We should be light the whole time, I would think, just from natural,
unless it rains, and then we bring stuff in because if it rains it just gets soaking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the
Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Is this a Short Form, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was just looking, yes, it is a Short Form?
MR. SEGULJIC-Shall I proceed?
MR. HUNSINGER-We shall.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-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.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
FAMILY FOOTWEAR GRP., LAURA FEATHERS, 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,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
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 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I have granting of the lighting waiver, landscaping waiver,
granting the following waivers: lighting, landscaping, grading and stormwater, and that
they have to make arrangements for the Fire Marshal inspection prior to the start of the
stst
sale, and that the tent will be up from August 1 to August 31. Is that what everybody
has?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2008 FAMILY FOOTWEAR GRP., LAURA
FEATHERS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a Tent Sale. Tent Sale events planned for longer than 12
days requires Planning Board approval.
2. A public hearing is scheduled for 4/15/08; 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
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
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. NOT APPLICABLE 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 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2008 FAMILY FOOTWEAR GRP.,
LAURA FEATHERS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number
Five is negative. Number Seven does not apply, and Number Eight does not apply
either. With the following conditions:
1.That arrangements will be made with the local Fire Marshal for inspection
prior to start of sale.
stst
2.The tent will be on site from August 1 to August 31.
3.And that the following waivers will be granted:
a.Lighting Plan
b.Landscape Plan
c.Grading Plan
d.Stormwater Management Plan
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Traver
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MS. FEATHERS-All set. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 14
CROOKED TREE DRIVE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 110 SQ. FT. STONE
TERRACE AREA AND IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THAT ALONG WITH
INSTALLATION OF SHORELINE ROCK AND INSTALLATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
SHORELINE PLANTING. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
AV 17-03, SP 22-03, AV 29-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC
LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10 SECTION
179-6-060
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
th
MR. BAKER-Yes. This application was tabled at the applicant’s request on March 11.
th
Additional information was submitted on March 17. The new information consisted of
an updated Site Plan with stormwater calculations addressing the comments from
VISION Engineering. As mentioned in previous Staff comments for this application, the
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
proposed erosion just off the shoreline and in the lake bed will likely require a permit
from New York State DEC. I’m assuming that was meant to be erosion control. Has the
applicant made such an application to DEC? A copy of any required DEC permit should
be submitted to Planning Staff prior to final signature of the plans by the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Wow. This is
unusual. Okay. We will postpone that discussion as well. I wouldn’t have had you go
through Staff Notes, Stu, if I had realized there wasn’t anyone here.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES &
HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) NOEL LABONTE ZONING
SR-1A LOCATION 516 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER
SUBDIVISION OF A 23.16 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM
0.34 ACRES TO 9.23 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE REVISED SKETCH:
8/2/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 23.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-
1-86 SECTION A-183
TOM CENTER & JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here from Hayes & Hayes? I think they’re out there,
yes. While the applicant’s getting settled, just so members of the Board are aware, that
there were revised Staff Notes that were handed out this evening.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we give the applicant’s just a couple of
minutes to review the revised Staff Notes and the engineering comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. While they’re doing that, you could summarize your notes, Stu,
if you don’t mind.
MR. BAKER-Sure. These notes are actually a combination of George Hilton’s and
myself. The applicant submitted a stormwater management report which was forwarded
to the Town’s engineer for review and comment. The final subdivision plat does show an
easement across the property to be used as a stormwater drainageway from the
Michaels Drive area to the north of the site. This drainage easement does cross an
Army Corps of Engineers wetland on the property as well as an area of standing water.
Town Staff is aware of some drainage issue on adjacent properties to the immediate
south and east of this site along Luzerne Road that are related to water flowing across
the property proposed to be subdivided. During times of snow melt and during large
precipitation events, high water conditions exist which result in flooding of some of the
adjacent homes and properties. In order to mitigate these issues, Staff has had
discussions with the applicant about placing an overflow structure near the easement
crossing this property in order to divert some of the water from this property to the
drainage way that will cross the property and flow to Luzerne Road drainage structures.
These discussions took place prior to the submittal of the final plat for review by the
Planning Board, however the final plat has not been amended to show any stormwater
mitigation such as an overflow structure. Staff suggests a condition of any final approval
that prior to acceptance of the proposed subdivision road by the Town Board, that
designs be submitted for an overflow structure to be used to divert stormwater near the
proposed Michaels Drive stormwater easement, to that drainage way; and that the
structure will be constructed at the same time as the Michaels Drive stormwater drainage
system that will be constructed across this property. As the overflow device would be
constructed in an Army Corps of Engineers wetland, a permit or non-jurisdictional
determination from the ACOE shall also be submitted with the overall designs of the
proposed structure. There’s two paragraphs of additional comments added today, as
follows. It’s important to note that the overflow structure recommended by staff would
address waters that flow through the applicant’s property toward Luzerne Road, and
often cause flooding on Luzerne Road residential properties. As such, the inclusion of
this structure (and its approved design) in the final subdivision plan should be given
serious consideration by the Board. Also, please see the attached letter from Town
consulting engineer Dan Ryan regarding this easement. Of particular interest are two
points made in the top paragraph of page 2: a) a 30’ easement is required, 20 feet is
shown on the plan submitted, and b) the easement may need to be modified in the future
to facilitate a secondary collection point on Lot 17. The subdivision map shows various
no cut zones throughout the subdivision as well as limits of clearing for each of the lots.
The clearing limits shown for each house can be repositioned somewhat on each lot,
however these home clearing limits cannot be increased and cannot result in clearing of
areas identified as no cut zones. Any increase in the proposed home clearing areas will
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
require additional review and approval from the Planning Board. I’ll also add that the
Town Board has approved, in concept, the acceptance of the easement from Hayes &
Hayes for the Michaels Drive drainage improvement. However, that’s contingent upon
final approval of the actual easement document itself. The easement document itself
has not been drafted, reviewed or accepted by the Town yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks, Stu. Good evening.
JOHN SVARE
MR. SVARE-Good evening. For the record, John Svare, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart &
Rhodes, with Mickie Hayes and Tom Center, on behalf of Hayes & Hayes. Just in view
of the revised Staff Notes, I would just like to reiterate, as you know, on February 11,
2008, the Queensbury Town Board passed a resolution which approved the acquisition
of a drainage easement from Hayes & Hayes. Hayes & Hayes agreed to donate the
easement to the Town to help remedy stormwater problems. The Town had expressed
an interest in the easement, and it was understood and agreed that any work which
would occur within the easement would be a Town project, and would not be affected by
the stormwater plan for this subdivision. It was further understood that stormwater
drainage would be hand piped from the Michaels Drive project through this easement to
a Town stormwater structure. Now, it was understood that all permits would be acquired
by the Town. All work within the drainage area would be performed by the Town, and all
work would be constructed within the easement boundaries. In short, Hayes & Hayes
has donated the easement and any work that is needed to accomplish the goals of the
Town will be performed by the Town. That said, in view of the comments in the original
th
Staff Notes, and in view of Dan Ryan’s letter dated April 15, which I believe is attached
to the addendum to the Staff Notes, the comments concerning designs for an overflow
structure in general, it seems to us, are not appropriate. Turning to the comments from
Paragon Civil Engineering, unless you want to comment on that first part. I do have Tom
Center here that has submitted a letter to the Town addressing the comments from
Paragon that I’d like him to comment on.
MR. CENTER-Just to correct that, I have prepared it. I haven’t submitted it. I will submit
it, including any comments that come up from tonight. The first comment from Paragon
Engineering, in response, the general comments, he mentions that Lot 17 and 18, there
should be no further subdivision. That is already on the Sheet S-1 under the density
calculations. So we’ve already, in previous during the Preliminary subdivision, taken
care of not allowing any further subdivision and noting it on the drawings. As far as the
no cut areas, based on the Preliminary approval with the Planning Board, we extended
the no cut area to 75 feet on Lot 17 and 100 feet on Lot 18, which increases it from the
50 foot of disturbance from the wetland flagged boundary out 25 feet on Lot 17 and 50
feet on Lot 18. So we have, you know, based on a, you know, during the Preliminary
subdivision, we’ve already done that. I don’t know, as far as additional green space, I
believe we had already discussed that during the Preliminary phase. So just to comment
a little bit on that. As for comments for Sheet S-2, again, the first comment refers back to
our same comment in the general comments. Number Two for Sheet S-2, the 911
addresses, I believe those get designated by the Building Department during the
Certificate of Occupancy phase. That’s something that Dave expressed to me, that’s
what he does during, I don’t know if that correlates into the Final plat or not.
MR. BAKER-That is usually assigned by Dave Hatin after Final plat approval, as building
permits are issued. You’re correct.
MR. CENTER-Okay. All right. So there’s no need to put those on the subdivision
drawings. As for Sheet S-6, in response to Comment Number One, we changed the
label for the sediment control basin to a sediment trap, and we’ve provided a dimension
for the grassed outlet strip. In response to Comment Number Two, we’ve shown all the
lot numbers on Sheet S-6. Comment Number Three, the north arrow was inadvertently
removed, and that’s been added back on. Comment Number Four was a question in
regards to where the sediment traps will discharge. The soil is very fast percolating soil.
We don’t expect that you’re going to see any outflow from those traps, but if there is, it
will overflow into the grassed area of the woods. This is all runoff from the road during
construction phase. Once the road is constructed, all of the stormwater will be going,
directed right towards the catch basins and drywells. So those sediment traps will
become, will be removed and the individual houses have their own sediment and
stormwater controls. Comment Number Five, we added a stockpile area with sediment
control fence, and also, if there’s any other stockpiles that are put on the site, there’s a
note in the maintenance, on the erosion and sediment control notes, stating that they
have to be protected from erosion with silt fence. Comments for the stormwater
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
management, we have changed the dates in the stormwater pollution prevention plan,
updated them to reflect the current timeframes, and we will provide a copy of the DEC
Notice of Intent prior to the pre-construction, the subdivision pre-construction meeting,
and that pretty much addresses all the engineering comments. As far as the Staff
comment in regard to the drainage structure, as far as, it is our understanding, in having
spoken with Mr. Nace earlier today who went out to the site, it was the understanding
that all the work would be contained in the drainage easement. The request to expand it
from 20 to 30 feet was something that Mr. Ryan, who I talked to also this evening, the
Town Highway Department, who is going to be doing the work, requested that it be
expanded to 30 feet, and as for an actual drainage structure, there’s thoughts of trying to
do it, but it’s something that is not even in the design stage because they don’t know, Mr.
Ryan doesn’t know, as far as permit wise, if it’s something that can be done. So we’re
kind of looking at something that may or may not be done in the future because we are
dealing with a wetland area. There was hopes that maybe we could try to do it, but
there’s other permitting entities that would have to allow that outside the scope of this
subdivision.
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-As for the request to expand the easement from 20 to 30 feet, I really don’t
see any real problem with that if that’s what they need to do to take care of that. So it’ll
be a mild inconvenience, but really, overall, it shouldn’t make that much of a difference to
us. So, like with Stu before, we’re willing to cooperate to help solve the problem of
Michaels Drive. It’s really not a major difficulty on us to have the pipe come through to
extend it up 30 feet. So if that helps them accomplish that, that’s fine with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? Questions or comments
from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-The discussion in the VISION Engineering letter, the second paragraph
where he talks about the several residents along Luzerne Road, and he talks about the
collection of this runoff within the channel, can you expound on that for me?
MR. CENTER-I think, from my recollection of talking with Mr. Nace, and what they found
when they walked through the site is the water flows down off of Michaels Drive and
collects into that low wetland area, and then exceeds the contours and comes down into
that area. It comes across Mr. Hayes’ property, and I believe what the hopes are is that
the Michaels Drive drainage area will alleviate a majority of what is coming down and
into and across Mr. Hayes’ property, at least that’s my understanding, that the drainage
area above is going to collect that water and channel it to that Luzerne Road drainage
structure, and it’s coming in and affecting that wetland area. It’s coming in and down and
collecting in there, and their hopes, you know, there was an outside thought, like I said,
to put some kind of, and the way Mr. Nace understood it was within the easement, to put
say a catch basin set to a certain elevation above the wetland elevation that, in times of
extreme flooding conditions, during say Spring runoff, that any water above that certain
elevation would go into that structure and have a path out and off the site, but would not
affect the wetland mean elevation, if you will. It would be a high water mark, only there
to take care of stormwater during that Spring seasonal extreme flood, if you will,
conditions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. He also talks about this channel that traverses northwest to
southeast on Lot 17 and 18.
MR. CENTER-I think it’s probably just a depression within the, you know, existing grade
where the water that comes out of that wetland would follow the contours.
MR. BAKER-I believe it’s shown on the plans as standing water.
MR. CENTER-Yes, where you see the standing water.
MR. SEGULJIC-On S-2?
MR. CENTER-Yes, on S-2 that goes across, east to west on 17 and 18, within the
wetland boundary, you can see in the shaded area on to the Lot 17 to the left of the
easement, you see an area, a darker shaded area marked debris. To the right of that
you can see a standing water note, on S-2, if you find A109. So that would be the kind of
channel that they’re talking about, it follows those contours, and eventually comes down
in here and meanders and will, you know, there’s trails and things that people have been
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
using, four wheeler trails, and it follows those depressions, and that’s some of the
pictures we had seen.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just so I, pardon me, but I’m just trying to understand all this. So
right now the plan is for Michaels Drive, we’re going to run an easement across the
property?
MR. CENTER-Yes, it would be coming through the Lands of Ball, and from Michaels
Drive they’re going to collect the stormwater up above on Michaels Drive, and then hard
pipe it across the Lands of Ball into, across this easement, and down, and along Luzerne
Road to a stormwater structure.
MR. SEGULJIC-To an existing stormwater structure.
MR. CENTER-It’ll be hard piped across the wetlands and into that area.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then in addition, there’s this possible, I guess, secondary
issue?
MR. CENTER-A secondary project, if it’s feasible, if it can be permitted, would be, and
this was talked about between Highway and Mr. Nace and Mr. Ryan out in the field,
when they did walk it, that possibly installing say something, and this is Mr. Nace’s
understanding, was a catch basin that would be at a specific elevation which would be
above the normal wetland elevation that, in times of flood, to alleviate, in times of
extreme storm, Spring runoff, to control that, anything that collects in that low point.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, would that be installed on the Hayes property or on another
property?
MR. CENTER-It would be within the easement.
MR. SEGULJIC-Within the easement.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-To capture the water. So you’re going to be taking water underground
into a pipe from there, and some water runs above ground and you would catch the.
MR. CENTER-Well, the wetland would remain existing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. CENTER-So basically what you’re doing is you’re taking the top grate, say, creating
a stand pipe that lets, say 300 is the elevation of the wetland normally, when it’s at its
highest, and then at extreme floods, and say you put that catch basin elevation at say,
you know, 300.5, so anything over that extreme elevation is going to allow that water to
go into that catch basin, into the hard pipe, and exit out, because there are other, you
know, the other areas. That’s what their concern is, that maybe Michaels Drive isn’t
going to solve all the problems. So they might need a secondary project, but that’s up to
Dan completely, and the Town, to do.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that would reduce the amount of water getting into that channel,
shall say we?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. CENTER-That’s what the hope.
MR. SEGULJIC-So everything would happen within the easement, you’re saying?
MR. CENTER-Yes. I don’t believe, you know, they’ve written it up in the comments as,
you know, something, the easement may need to be modified if they found another way
to do it, or if they had, DEC or Army Corps wanted something different, but there is no
plan, right now, to do a secondary structure. There’s thoughts, there’s, you know, other
avenues.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HAYES-The language that we could put into the deed and such is that we figured
that we’ll leave, reserve the right for the Town to be able to come back to make the
possible owner aware that there’s possible that they have to cooperate with the Town, or
if I had to retain the lot for a year to let the Town accomplish what they think they’re
going to have to, that’s, whatever needs to be done, that’s no problem. There is 17 lots
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That clarifies it for me.
MR. SIPP-There is sufficient drainage, then, on Luzerne Road, or at least they think
there is.
MR. CENTER-According to Mr. Ryan and his report, again, it’s not drainage that’s
created from this project. This project, the hard surface from the subdivision road is
going to be captured by the catch basins and drywells and the wing swale, managed all
on property, right back in, and the individual houses will maintain their stormwater on the
individual lots.
MR. SIPP-Okay.
MR. CENTER-So this is an off site problem occurring onto this property.
MR. SIPP-This is still all sand out there?
MR. CENTER-Yes, it’s very deep, well drained sand. Just this back area where the
wetland is has a confining layer that it collects water, which has caused that wetland, and
Dan’s done, if you’ve seen this, there is a study for Michaels Drive, that he’s preliminary
got done with doing some groundwater monitoring across a majority of Mr. Hayes’ parcel
in that area, and up towards Michaels Drive.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, Stu, a question for you. The first paragraph in the addendum, as
such the inclusion of this structure and its approved design in the Final subdivision plan
should be considered, should be given serious consideration. I guess, what are you
getting at there?
MR. BAKER-Well, in discussion that the applicant had had with other Staff in our
Department, it was indicated that the applicant was willing to work with the Town to get
that overflow intake installed on Lot 17 or 18, and if that’s indeed the case, if that’s
something the applicant was going to do, as they had expressed to Staff and I believe to
a Town Board member as well, that should be included as part of the subdivision
approval.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, where were you, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-On the second page of Staff Notes to the second paragraph to the
addendum.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, where it starts with also?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Should we condition our approval on this happening?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the more important question is, we don’t know if it’s required yet.
Is that accurate?
MR. HAYES-If I can interject, it’s the letter from, the designer of the project is not sure
what and if he’s ever going to do anything with that additional remedy. He may decide,
the Town may decide that they don’t want to do that, and that’s right in, Dan Ryan is the
Town Engineer. He’s the one, because we just go, all we’re trying to do is cooperate, if
they need an easement, they need access, to grant them the access to do the study.
Whatever they need to do to solve the problem, we’ll cooperate any way we can, but I
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
guess that’s an unknown if they’re ever going to do that, and that’s the guy designing it
saying it, not me.
MR. SEGULJIC-But if it is needed in the future, if I understand you correctly, you’re
willing.
MR. HAYES-We’ll put it right in the language that we’ll cooperate in any way they need
to access whatever. We’ll even hold the lot out for a year’s time, they can do anything
they want. We’ll cooperate however we can, but if the guy designing it doesn’t know
what he wants to do, I don’t know what we can say.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because he uses words like possibly and things like that in his
letter.
MR. HAYES-And the Town Board has to go along and decide if they want to do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So now we’re in the quandary of how do we word something like that? I
mean, it all sounds very good, but.
MR. CENTER-If you read Dan’s letter, I think what he’s looking for is in the event that
they require, or they find that there is an alternative for a secondary collection point, that
Mr. Hayes allows additional room for the easement if it needs to be in a different place
than within the 30 feet. I don’t think that at any point in time the discussions were that we
were going to do work within the easement or within the stormwater project because it is
so up in the air. I think, you know, just from my understanding of this, was possibly if it
needed to move into another location on the parcel, that the easement could be
expanded. I know, from a design standpoint, we had not been approached by either Mr.
Ryan to do any stormwater work or structures per say. It was more of, if we need to
expand the easement to do this secondary structure because there is, there’s a lot of if’s.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because we don’t know if it’s needed, A, or what it would look like when
it was designed.
MR. HAYES-We can restrict development on Lot 17 until this issue is worked out as well
so that you have all the flexibility in the world.
MR. CENTER-And I guess his statement, you know, right in here, individual property
owners currently have only one responsibility, and that is to grant the necessary
easements to the Town to provide for installation and future maintenance of the system.
So I think what he’s looking for is exactly what I said.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Where is that worded?
MR. CENTER-The third line down, in the second page of Mr. Ryan’s letter, where it
starts with individual property owners.
MR. SEGULJIC-So would that work to put that language in a condition, then? That is
that the Town would be allowed access to Lot 17, for installation and future maintenance
of the system if necessary?
MR. BAKER-Well, I believe that would be part of the final easement language agreed to
between the Hayes and the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, shouldn’t it be in our subdivision approval as well? Or no?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, first of all, we’re looking for something more than the 30
feet possibly, right? Potentially.
MR. BAKER-They’ve currently shown 20 feet (lost words) saying we need 30.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but I got the impression that we might have to expand that out
further than 30 feet, or am I incorrect?
MR. CENTER-I don’t believe the whole easement would be expanded larger than 30
feet. I believe a portion of that within that area that we’re calling the channel, if they got
permission from whatever controlling agency of the wetland, they may need access
somewhere other than where we’ve cut across.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the 30 foot easement should take care of the easement, then.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HAYES-As I understand it, the 30 foot easement came from, the Highway
Department feels more comfortable working in a 30 foot width than a 20 foot width,
because there’s concerns about nicking trees and them getting in trouble for that, and so
I think that for machinery they’re very sensitive to that. So that was their request, then,
because the pipe will fit within, you know, two feet of the (lost word) but that’s the
Highway Department expressed that to me, that they’re very nervous about just a 20 foot
because of somebody saying you drove on the line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they want room on either side of the pipe to work on.
MR. HAYES-Exactly, and I guess they’ve been scalded before, so they want 30 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-This 30 foot easement is what they need?
MR. BAKER-That’s the understanding I have as well, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-This may be out in left field. Has the Army Corps given permission for this
work?
MR. HAYES-That would be up to Dan Ryan and the Town, but I’m sure they’ve spoken
to the Army Corps Engineers with the Town, Dan Ryan being the Town Engineer, would
handle whatever Army Corps. I would guess, wouldn’t you, Tom?
MR. CENTER-I mean, he’s done a preliminary study, and I believe he even says in his
preliminary study that he has started the permit process, and I think it was the February
meeting, Special Meeting, where he discussed with the Town Board, where he
discussed the Michaels Drive drainage project, that if they gave him the go ahead, the
first thing he would do is start the permit process. So, again, that’s outside of us. That’s
the Town Engineer and the Town working with Army Corps.
MR. SIPP-You don’t touch any of their wetlands.
MR. CENTER-Yes. I think that’s also the reason why the easement is at the narrowest
point of the wetland of the flagged wetland, to limit the actual disturbance of the Army
Corps.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now one bookkeeping thing, I guess. Paragon Civil Engineering’s letter,
you’ve addressed all these issues?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Put the north arrow and all that?
MR. CENTER-Yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’m all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is no public hearing required, and we did approve SEQRA on
th
December 18. We are required to reconsider SEQRA if there’s any new information or
whatever, in light of the comments and information received this evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see any reason to re-open it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Was there a motion prepared by Staff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there was.
MR. BAKER-Yes, there should be.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. The only condition I see is increasing the drainage easement
from 20 feet to 30 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-And changing the plans accordingly.
MR. BAKER-I believe the Board should also require final Town Engineering signoff. The
last letter we have on file has outstanding comments, although it sounds like the
applicant has addressed those, they just need final review and signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do we deal with the potential additional easement
requirements?
MR. BAKER-By conditioning the final plat show a 30 foot wide easement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, in case the secondary collection point is needed. Let me
just read what I wrote and see if this will suffice. Applicant agrees to provide an
additional easement on Lot 17, should a secondary collection point be required, and will
restrict development on Lot 17 until such time as the design of the required stormwater
management system is completed.
MR. BAKER-Yes, you might want to make that until such time as designed and
installation. Although actually design might cover it. I mean, the easement would be in
place. The purchaser of the property will be aware of the easement and the restrictions
that go with it. So, scratch that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds like I need to read the motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. CENTER-Just one quick question in regards to the Paragon letter. As far as the
Sheet S-6 changes have been made, we don’t have any problem with that. In regards to
his general comment about the no cut area, are we, is that a settled decision on that?
Just so that we’re not debating it with the Town Engineer?
MR. TRAVER-Well, you increased those to 75 and 100.
MR. CENTER-Well, during Preliminary, as part of the Preliminary application we did
those things with the Planning Board. What I’m concerned about is, he’s brought it up
here. Is the Planning Board comfortable with the no cut area that we have? Do we need
to address that any further? Everything else is all basically drawing related issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-When I read that, I wonder if he was unaware of the additional
restrictions that we had requested.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree.
MR. CENTER-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES &
HAYES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision of a 23.16 acre parcel into
18 lots ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 9.23 acres. Subdivision of land requires
Planning Board review and approval.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held 8/21/07, 10/16/07 & 12/18/07; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
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 requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. NOT APPLICABLE 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. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES &
HAYES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Item Four complies. Item Five, the Planning Board issued a Negative SEQRA
Declaration on December 18, 2007. Item Six, there is no new or significantly different
environmental impacts. Item Nine does not apply, and the motion is subject to the
following conditions:
1.That the proposed drainage easement shall be increased from 20 feet to 30
feet and the drawings shall be modified accordingly.
2.That the applicant agrees to provide an additional easement on Lot 17,
should a secondary collection point be required, and will restrict development
on Lot 17 until such time as the design of the required stormwater
management system is completed, and is also subject to final approval by the
Town Engineer.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. Good luck.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I know the agent for Seelye is now here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was just going to ask.
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHARINE SEELYE (CONT’D)
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you already read Staff Notes. Whenever you’re ready, the floor
is yours.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. First of all, let me apologize for being a little late. I didn’t
guess right, I guess. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing
Katharine Seelye who is the owner and applicant for this application for a Site Plan
Review. The property in question is along the, off of Crooked Tree Lane, which is a
lakeside drive that goes down off of Route 9L, west of Dunham’s Bay, and I have a letter
here from Katharine. Unfortunately, her work schedule doesn’t allow her to get back up
here. She works for a national newspaper and she covers the Democratic Presidential
campaign. So, while I recommended that she be here, she just, you know, from month
to month she hasn’t know what her schedule was to be, and that’s why it’s, we made the
first application back in November and haven’t been able to be here together. So as of
the February meeting, she said proceed, and then we had the weather events, and
missed that meeting in March. I had a previous commitment out of town. So here we
are, but let me read a letter that I’ll give a copy to Sue, but “To the Board. First let me
apologize for not appearing in person. I had planned to attend tonight’s meeting and
then was unable to because of work. I trust Dennis will be able to address any questions
you may have. I just wanted to give you a quick overview of the situation at my property
at 14 Crooked Tree Lane. For years I have battled the problem with shoreline erosion in
a small corner of my property. The ice break up in the Spring routinely rips apart the
stone wall. I have been investigating various ways of reinforcing this wall permanently,
both to stop erosion and to keep from having to rebuild the wall every Spring. I really
didn’t know how to do this and solicited various opinions. One idea was to build a wire
cage filled with rocks in that corner.” That’s the Gabions that you might be familiar with.
“I didn’t much like the idea because I don’t like the way those cages look, but it seemed
more feasible than placing big boulders there. Uncertain about the best way to proceed,
I called up Craig Brown to ask whether these cages were acceptable and to see if he had
any other suggestions for how to deal with this problem. He visited the property last
September. When he came, two other things caught his eye, and these are why I have
an application before you tonight. One was that perhaps half-a-dozen trees had been
cut along the shoreline. The other was the laying of stones over a rocky area of about
110 square feet. I had not sought applications for these because it did not occur to me
that there was any problem with either. Let me briefly explain both: 1. The trees were
removed over a period of perhaps five years. All of them were either dead or dying or
had fallen during the blow-down on President’s Day last year. I was sick at having to
have them removed, but I was afraid they could damage my house or dock. One of the
trees held one end of a hammock. Unbeknownst to me, the tree had rotted. Last
summer, my cousin was lying in the hammock when it suddenly crashed to the ground,
pitching him onto the stone. Fortunately, he did not hit his head, but that was an obvious
case where it was simply unsafe to leave the tree in place. You should have a note from
Cherry Tree Service saying that each tree they took down was dead or dying. 2. As for
the stone area, it is based on a large stone outcropping. The surface was already
impermeable, with very jagged stone. It was, however, in the shade, and because my
dock is so open, I wanted a shady area where I could put a couple of chairs. The area
was not level enough for a chair and so I had some “pavers” placed over the stone that
was already there to level out the surface. I now understand your concerns and I think
we are in total accord as to the next steps, which I was already planning when Craig
Brown visited. As you can see from the pictures, I very much value the trees on my
property. I will be planting new ones this spring. I have also started to put plantings
around the stone area and will continue to do so. I hope this letter addresses your
concerns. And by the way, if you have any thoughts on how I might fix my original
problem with erosion, I would love to hear your ideas. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, Katharine Seelye” Okay. With that as a background, there was an issue
about hard surfacing within the 50 feet. I think there’s photos that were part of the
application. It was a situation where it was already an impermeable area and she had a
mason smooth it out with some, an area, and it actually is an area of about 101 square
feet. There was a typo there. So, based on Dan Ryan’s comments, we provided
stormwater management of that area, by providing a little trough around the perimeter of
it, which would capture any runoff that would come off that new impervious area.
Actually it’s impervious underneath as well. So it’s technically not new. In addition, the
Site Plan indicates a couple of area of plantings, and back to the original issue that
Katharine was hoping to solve is the erosion area on the one shoreline, and, you know,
we’ve proposed something that would be somewhat of a deterrent to the ice damage.
I’ve discussed it with DEC. It would be taken care of through what’s called a general
permit with DEC. So it’s not really an issue on their end of things. I talked with Mark
Migliore at DEC in Warrensburg, and while that permit isn’t in place yet, it’s not a major
issue in their vision of this. So that’s what the application consists of, and, again, the
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
owner is sorry not to be here to explain her situation, but that’s the resolution, or the
proposed resolution of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that you discussed the erosion control boulders that are
designed to protect the riprap on the shoreline with DEC. Have they issued a permit?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, not yet. No.
MR. TRAVER-You have applied for one, though?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, we actually haven’t. We’re getting through this process first, and
then, but my discussions with them make me understand that it’s, again, a general, that it
falls under the category of a general permit. So it’s something that will be readily
obtained.
MR. SEGULJIC-In looking at your pictures, I mean, the nice thing is it looks like it’s very
well buffered along the lake, which is very nice, but I guess I’m confused. When I
stopped by there this morning, it doesn’t look like the pictures match up with exactly
what’s there. It looks like you have a heavy area of vegetation going along the lakefront,
but it looks to be half the size. Is that just the angle of the picture?
MR. MAC ELROY-Which picture now are you referring to?
MR. SEGULJIC-In particular I guess the first picture. This picture, I don’t know if you can
see it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s their shoreline.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, this was taken obviously in the summertime, and I was there in
the Spring, but it didn’t look like this second half was there. Do you know what I speak
of?
MR. MAC ELROY-The second half?
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. It looks like this whole area is vegetated in the front.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-But when I was there this morning, it looks like this other half isn’t there.
It’s just grass instead of buffer area.
MR. MAC ELROY-To the right side of the cedar?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, on the south side.
MR. MAC ELROY-The lower growth vegetation?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think it’s there. It’s just not in bloom. So it may not be as
noticeable, but there’s nothing that’s been removed since last Fall, and that’s when these
pictures were taken.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then on the next picture, you have a pipe sticking out.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that’s some sort of footing drain or whatever from upgradient.
That’s the simple explanation of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right, and then what you’re proposing to do is place.
MR. MAC ELROY-A couple of boulders, a couple of, well, four we show right there,
something along that would serve as a deterrent to that ice movement, that this is right in
the exposure of a north wind that does damage, has done damage along that exposure
of shoreline and that’s an area that’s evidently more vulnerable. You see the property in
the photos to the westerly side has a seawall that protects that, and it’s at that corner that
seems to have taken, you know, the punishment, and that’s a, you know, riprap shoreline
or dry laid stone shoreline along there, and it’s periodically, from winter to winter, may
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
see damage based on the ice movement, and she’s just hoping to do something that
would minimize the impact of that, and by placing, she doesn’t want a retaining wall. It’s
not something that’s encourage. She doesn’t desire that, and this was another effort or
another technique that may solve the issue that she has.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then you’re going to be planting the six trees then?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Six trees would be planted.
MR. SIPP-What variety, what species?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s three hemlocks that are shown on the easterly side, and
a bush, vibernum, over in the area near the erosion area.
MR. SIPP-Has any consideration been given to a wider buffer in there of native plants
besides the trees along that whole shoreline?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is what’s existing what shows there, and this would
supplement that.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but what about this?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, that’s not them. That’s not them. I mean, this is, you know, good for
the lake. Next door, that’s another story.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment would be is, would it be possible, on the, I guess it’s
the western edge.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s next to the seawall.
MR. SEGULJIC-By the seawall, put a rain garden there because you have all that water
running right straight down this hill straight into the lake, and there’s nothing to prevent it.
If you had a little rain gutter in there or something. Because it looks like you have all the
vegetation in the front, other than in this corner.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Well, there were bushes there prior, but those, if you notice
that line of cedars and hemlock along the property line, and those have been limbed, but,
prior to that, they had more or less choked out the bushes that, I think there were lilacs
there, actually, prior to that, and those got choked out, and probably in combination in
maybe an erosion event or an ice event, you know, they had lost their.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you think we could install a rain garden in the area where it says
covered porch, right where “B” is?
MR. MAC ELROY-And by that you’re suggesting what?
MR. SEGULJIC-You have all this water running straight down to the lake, right along this
property edge.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, which is a grassed area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but it still carries nutrients.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if you put it into a rain garden, it’ll give it a place for some treatment
and infiltration. I think what you have here is great, but just nipping and tucking on the
edges.
MR. MAC ELROY-But you’d suggest more.
MR. SEGULJIC-Always.
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it looks like she likes vegetation.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all it is is more vegetation. That’s all it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you suggest that would be uphill from the proposed cranberry
bushes?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, right in the area of “B”.
MR. TRAVER-That’s right in the vicinity of where the pipe comes out it looks like in the
picture.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, upgradient there.
MR. TRAVER-And that would slow down the flow going into the lake from that discharge.
MR. HUNSINGER-How big did you want it?
MR. SIPP-Well, you’d have to calculate the amount of water. I mean, you can get some
help from the Lake George Association. They’ll calculate out the size, the depth, the
type of soil and so forth.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we’re capable of doing that as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Overall it’s very good there, but I was just.
MR. SIPP-Now, this pipe that runs into the lake.
MR. MAC ELROY-There’s not a pipe that runs into the lake.
MR. SIPP-Well, what’s this pipe, then?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, my understanding, it’s a footing drain that daylights at that point
that you see in the photo. Now a footing drain would simply capture groundwater from,
you know, up near a footing area or a perimeter wall area. So, that’s simply
groundwater, first of all.
MR. SIPP-Well, yes, but groundwater carries nutrients. What is put on the grass, some
of it eventually gets down, I assume the grass goes right up to the house, plants around
the house are fertilized.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you know, I can agree with what you’re saying, but all the projects
we’ve ever seen, this is probably the first lake friendly projects we’ve ever seen.
MR. SIPP-Let’s make it better.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think if we put a rain garden there.
MR. SIPP-I’m all for that. I think that’s a very good idea, and it wouldn’t take that much to
do it.
MR. MAC ELROY-And I think that Katharine would be in agreement with that. I just,
administratively, I’m not sure, is that something that would just be made part of a
resolution? It’s not something that we necessarily have to come back for?
MR. SEGULJIC-That would be my goal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the
Board on this application? We do have one. I know you know the drill, but if you could
state your name for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We
sympathize with the landowner, and appreciate their concern to prevent the erosion.
Regarding the alternatives, and I’ll throw this out to Dennis, I didn’t know, I don’t know
the exact condition of the shoreline, but I was just wondering if they’d considered
possibly installing, you know, some small vegetation or bushes. They were just referring
to some bushes in lieu of placing rocks in the lake. It’s always a little troubling when
DEC starts taking the lake away and just allowing the installation of the rocks in there. I
don’t know if that is a consideration or that could be.
MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t think, it wouldn’t do the job that’s necessary.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay, because I mean I wasn’t on the site. I took a look at the aerials,
you know, the way that the dock was located, and I think it was a boathouse to the south.
It seems like the angle was, I don’t know, you know, I don’t personally live there. So I
can’t comment, but we were going to put that out. We also, you know, we’re working on
a shoreline project up in Hewlett’s right now in an exposed shoreline and you can clearly
tell where there are small bushes, even to the height of two feet, that that shoreline has
remained stable, and just to either side of it, the grass has eroded back six feet, due to
the ice and wave action. So, you know, we were just hoping that there could be some
consideration maybe of that, in lieu of placing rocks out on the lake. So, just a
suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a quick question. So you’re saying that by having vegetation along
the shoreline to help stabilize the shoreline?
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. I mean, we, and I apologize. Of course I thought of bringing the
pictures once I’m sitting here, but we’re working with the homeowners of Hewlett’s
Landing, just, they have about 900 feet of shoreline, and it’s a graded down to the lake,
and it does face north, probably in almost the same direction that this does, and when
they get the north winds there, as I imagine in the area, too, the ice pushes right up, and
you can see where they have it actually, you know, five, six feet of exposed sand beach
now, right next to it, where they have small bushes, height of the table, maybe a little
higher. That shoreline has remained, and it has not been pushed back, and I don’t know,
you know, whether that could be an option there, you know, and maybe that’s something
that, you know, we could suggest to DEC to take a look at, in lieu of them just issuing
general permits. That’s just a suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of those photos, you could always e-mail them to Staff, and
they could forward them to the Board.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other members of the audience want to comment on this
application? I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Members of the Board comfortable moving forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-We have to do a Short Form, I assume?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are we prepared to do a SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form, yes.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 59-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
KATHARINE SEELYE, 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 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only condition was the rain garden you mentioned.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and the only other thing I would ask is that the applicant review
using stabilization of the shoreline for erosion control.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, yes, and that’s one of the reasons why those plantings were in
that area as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-But that’s part of the purpose of that as well as just replacing a voided
area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then just a question. They’re showing these four boulders in the lake.
If we approve this, I guess if they don’t get permission from the DEC then they can’t do it
anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-So it doesn’t matter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would assume that if DEC wouldn’t approve that, then they’d
be back here for, you know, to modify the approved Site Plan.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is there a motion prepared by Staff?
MR. BAKER-It would be attached to the Staff Notes.
MR. SEGULJIC-There it is. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2007 KATHARINE SEELYE, 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 has constructed a 110 sq. ft. stone terrace area and is seeking
approval for that along with installation of shoreline rock and installation of supplemental
shoreline planting. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board
review and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/26, 3 /4, 3/11 tabled to 4/15/08; 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. NOT APPLICABLE 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 8 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
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2007 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five,
Negative. Number Seven and Eight do not apply. Number Nine does not apply. With
the following condition:
1.That the applicant install a rain garden consisting of native vegetation of
adequate size to handle runoff from the west side of the property in the
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
northwest corner of the property to the south of the proposed cranberry
bushes.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question, Stu?
MR. BAKER-Yes, just a comment for the Board. Town Code currently contains no
standards for a rain garden. So we don’t have any standards to judge the submittal of a
rain garden by. If there’s specific elements you want to see in a rain garden, such as,
you know, an area of X square feet with a depth of X square feet, specific types of
plantings, then you should state so. Otherwise essentially they could submit something
that shows the location and says proposed rain garden, and that would meet the
requirements of that condition.
MR. TRAVER-How about if we word the resolution such that the rain garden is designed
to accommodate the discharge from the daylight outlet for the? The applicant has
indicated that he could certainly design it appropriately.
MR. BAKER-So you would then want the rain garden signed off on by the Town
Engineer?
MR. SEGULJIC-I would say we can rely on the applicant’s engineer. I mean, they’ve
done, the site looks good, and I’m comfortable with that. I don’t know how everybody
else feels.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how are you going to word that in the resolution?
MR. SEGULJIC-Can I leave it as it was, that they’ll install a rain garden?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you just need to define the rain garden a little bit.
MR. SEGULJIC-Consisting of native vegetation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Native vegetation.
MR. SEGULJIC-A rain garden consisting of native vegetation of adequate size to handle
runoff from the west side of the property?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you got it, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. There we go.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE
AGENT(S) MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) BOATS BY GEORGE, INC.
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 291 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA. MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS
A MARINAS REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 54-96, AD SUP 7-03, AV 39-96, SP 31-95, UV 66-94, AV 67-94, AV
1401, UV 1402 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 APA/CEA/DEC LAKE GEORGE
CEA LOT SIZE 1.97 AC., 0.64 AC., 0.16 AC. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-1, 226.16-1-37,
38 SECTION 179-10
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-In response to the tabling of this application on February 19, 2008, the
applicant has submitted additional information as requested by the Board. The new
information includes an updated Stormwater Control Report and an updated Site Plan.
This information has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for their review and comment.
The site plan shows various buffer areas throughout the site. Any new plantings for the
buffer areas should be identified on the site plan, and we do also have, as noted,
comments from VISION Engineering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, project landscape architect, and with
me is George Pensel, the owner and the applicant of Boats by George on the lake. This
is a continuation of our application. We are looking to modify the wording of our Special
Use Permit so we can move forward with the Lake George Park Commission to modify
our marina permit, since George purchased the marina. There was a few items that we
were tabled for the last time we were before the Board. The first item, as shown on the
drawings, there’s a proposal by Nace Engineering for reconstruction of the wastewater
disposal system. That review has been moving forward simultaneously with this
application. It’s been reviewed by Dan Ryan at this point and has been reviewed by
Dave Hatin, and it’s my understanding that it’s scheduled before the Town Board last
week. The other issues dealt with storm drainage. We had a lot of discussion at the last
meeting about the storm drainage, and part of that, we had Tom Nace who did the
original storm drainage study back, I believe, in 1997, review our Site Plan and
application, and you can see he has a letter of report there, and, you know, basically
what he’s explaining to me is that in 1997 this marina was existing at the time, and the
agreement was that they would come up with a stormwater management plan to capture
a half an inch of rain fall in the first flush, if you will. So Tom reviewed the plan, and in his
review he breaks it into two areas. One is the west side of the property which is the main
portion of the site where the boat storage is, and in his letter he says that’s essentially
unchanged from when he reviewed it, and he’s also expressed to me that the installation
of the existing stone trench that Mr. Pensel’s agreed to install on that property would
further improve that condition. The other part of it, we looked at the area towards the
lake, and he reviewed what’s there, compared to what his recommendations were. He
concurred with our proposal to reconstruct the stone trench that was there, and we had
some discussion and reviewed some of the issues that were discussed with the Board
about the existing drain that was there and the size of the grate that fed into the stone
trench, and in reviewing the existing drainage system that’s there now, there was some
question as to the size of the stone basin on the lake and being paved over it’s hard to
determine what was there. So that, in conjunction with discussions of the Board, with the
concern of water flowing unabated down the ramp towards the lake, we discussed with
George and proposed what we have shown on the plan is that essentially a trench drain
would be installed across the entire front of the property. That stone basin would be
reconstructed so that it would confirmed that it was, the (lost word) would exceed what
was originally proposed, and that the stone basin would then be able to, the stone trench
drain would then collect the water as it comes down the ramp and then it would be
directed to the area away from the ramp where you see in the details there would be
basically no bottom in the trench where the stone is. So all of the water would be
diverted and collected into that stone basin as originally proposed. So what we tried to
do is make sure that what’s there, you know, what’s being proposed, meets or exceeds
what was agreed what was agreed to in the Special Use Permit in 1997, and then I
believe we listened to what the Board had to say and the Board’s concerned, and, you
know, we looked at a lot of things that were discussed, and obviously we had to come up
with a solution that didn’t provide, didn’t cause a safety hazard to patrons going to the
dock and was not a hazard to the boats being launched in the ramp. So George agreed
that he felt that the trench drain solution would work best. So, I believe at this point, you
know, we’ve addressed the issues why we were tabled for last meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-My only concern regarding the stormwater is, as noted in Dan’s letter of
th
April 11, is the maintenance. That trench at the bottom of the ramp is likely to get filled
with sediment fairly regularly, and that sediment will need to be captured somehow and
cleaned.
MR. MILLER-I think we could review that and, you know, we could add some notations
and certainly give some, you know, pass along some information to George. Part of
George’s marina permit addresses maintenance, operations and things. So we could
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
develop something as part of the marina permit so it would be in there. Basically the way
the trench drain is designed is it has a solid bottom where it’s in the ramp, and then when
it’s off to the side, it’s into the stone. So, I mean, we could certainly create a lip or
something where it flows from the solid bottom into the other one, which would provide
more of a sediment trap, and then, you know, annually, the grate could be removed and
that could be cleaned.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m still troubled by this swale you have in some sections on the
southern section of the property, the non-lake portion.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Were you’re proposing the swale right through the middle of the buffer
strip?
MR. MILLER-No. The buffer area is, as a matter of fact, Staff comments talk about
planting in the buffer. That’s an existing buffer that was agreed to in the Special Use
Permit, and that was planted originally. So we weren’t proposing new planting in that.
That would be, there’s a hedgerow along that buffer area, and we would be, you know,
along the edge of the buffer, but we’re not disturbing any of the plantings. Actually, the
area is.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess right in this section, right here, in particular, going right down the
middle of that buffer, where you have the plantings.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think, what our intent there is, as you can see, the buffer area, that’s
in the back of the, the area Tom’s pointing to is behind the building. So there’s, you
know, the whole area between the back of the building and the property line is essentially
taken up by the buffer area, and right now there’s nothing in there, you know, actually I
think some stuff may get stored there. There’s no planting or anything there. That’s back
behind Dr. Evan’s garage, that area, and the intent there was to add that drainage swale,
so that stone trench, because the lowest portion of the property is further to the south.
So the idea was that would just help, you know, convey water into that low area.
MR. SEGULJIC-But aren’t there plantings there now?
MR. MILLER-No. Back in 1997 when they did the permit, the buffer, I think, was intended
to do two things. The only area, if I remember correctly, that was planted, was the area
along Mason Road. There’s an arborvitae hedge along there, and that was planted, but I
think these other areas of buffer was intended that the hedgerows that were there would
remain and that the boat storage, you know, would be pulled back, so that boats weren’t
being stored where they’re overhanging the property line. So I think the intent was to
keep the boat storage out of those areas, and not necessarily have it all planted, because
what is there now is essentially what was approved back then.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you’re saying there’s nothing behind the garage, no plantings
behind the garage?
MR. MILLER-There’s some hedgerow right along the property line. We would not disturb
that, to do what we’re doing there. We’re not proposing removing any vegetation. So
where this swale would go would be inside where the natural hedgerows are. They’d all
remain.
MR. SIPP-What’s the elevation there? I see it sloping from the lands of Evans and onto
this low grass area that you have made behind the garage. What is the elevation there,
and will that?
MR. MILLER-Well, we’re not creating that low area. That’s a natural low area now. What
we, one of the concerns, and why this stone lined swale is being installed is Dr. Evans,
who owns the property to the south, is concerned about drainage coming onto his
property. So we’ve agreed to do this. I actually think a lot of the drainage that comes
onto his property comes down Mason Road, but that was the, you know, that was added,
you know, based on the discussions with the neighbors, and, as you can see from the
topography, the site’s fairly flat. Where it says low grass area there now is essentially the
lower area, and even if you see in Mr. Nace’s report, he talks about, you know, being
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
there and inspecting the site during a rainfall, that the site’s so flat, and, you know,
undulations, that, you know, essentially, a lot of the initial rains that fall are trapped on the
site and don’t runoff, but if they do migrate down, they come across the back of the
buildings and into that low area. So what are our intent was is that that stone swale
would just help that natural flow, that, you know, we weren’t going to construct a basin
down there or anything.
MR. SIPP-No, I agree with that, but I’m concerned about Mr. Morris and his land, his
house there. I have no elevation. I’m guessing that if you follow the contour back.
MR. MILLER-Well, it’s fairly flat. I mean, if you look at Cleverdale Road in front of the
garage, at Mr. Morris’, and then, you know, up at the north side of our property, there’s
only two foot of drop across the entire property.
MR. SIPP-So it’s at least a foot drop from Evans’ land to Morris’ land.
MR. MILLER-Well, we’re really not directing flows of water down in there. I mean, the
intent was that this would be there, it’s not, you know, just to try to collect the water in that
stone trench and to try to help it to infiltrate. We’re not trying to drain that area down into
that lower portion.
MR. SIPP-I’ll agree with that. It’s just that in a heavy snow melt or heavy rain, I just don’t
like to see that water run southward and onto the lands of Morris.
MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t believe it does. That low area where it’s labeled on the plan,
that’s actually lower. There’s a depression there. So I think when it flows there, I think it
tends to sit there and infiltrate.
MR. SIPP-Now, in this wash area, how much water is used there to wash boats?
Because that obviously has got a pitch towards the south also.
MR. MILLER-Well, actually, part of the reason, I think if you look at the site where that
was, I think part of the reason they located that there originally in the permit is that’s,
there’s a natural depression back there, and so I believe that area was picked, so if boats
are washed, the water’s kind of contained on that area of the site.
MR. SIPP-I hope so, because it’s crossed by a contour line at 338, yes. Yes, I admit, it’s
flat, but I don’t know, the water is not going to run that fast, but it does pitch that way, and
how much water is used to wash each boat? A quick rundown with a hose or are we
scrubbing the bottom or?
GEORGE PENSEL
MR. PENSEL-There aren’t a lot of boats washed daily. There’s a lot of boats washed,
but they’re in between. So I really don’t have a clue how much water I use, but if there’s
five boats washed a day, that’s a lot.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. TRAVER-Can you give us an idea of approximately how long it takes to wash an
individual boat? I understand that it varies somewhat according to the boat size, but
generally speaking, half an hour, ten minutes?
MR. PENSEL-Well, the rinsing of the boat might take about 10 minutes. The washing of
the boat probably takes a half an hour, but, you know, we have to rinse it, we have to
scrub it, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Do you use a pressure washer to do that, or a regular hose?
MR. PENSEL-We don’t. No. We use a bucket, and biodegradable soap.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, for the washing. What about the rinsing.
MR. PENSEL-The washing, and the rinsing, we don’t use a pressure wash, no.
MR. TRAVER-A regular garden hose type?
MR. PENSEL-No, just a regular garden hose.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Back to this trench along the lake. So it’s going to collect the water, and
there’s no bottom to the trench?
MR. MILLER-There’s no bottom. There’s a bottom in the section where it crosses the
ramp.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. MILLER-But over to the side where it shows the basin, the stone basin, there’s no
bottom in that, and it would flow in there and be collected into the stone.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just going to ideally just flow downward?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now just one note, and this is on your March 2008 notes, in the fourth
paragraph, last sentence, you say significantly since the 1997 report, you say in the first
half inch of rainfall is still contained on site. I don’t know if that’s true. I mean, I’m just
commenting on it, I don’t think that’s true, and then in the paragraph below that, there’s.
MR. MILLER-Is this on Tom Nace’s letter that you’re looking at?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it’s dated March 2008.
MR. MILLER-Okay, yes, that’s Tom Nace’s.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then there’s a comment in the paragraph below that. It says however at
the present time these have become somewhat filled with silt, and it is now proposed to
be replaced.
MR. MILLER-Those are the ones we’re replacing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but they were concreted over.
MR. MILLER-No, he’s talking about the stone trench that was along the side of the
driveway. That was the infiltration trench along the side of the driveway.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the basin he’s talking about. Because the basin was supposed to
be open.
MR. MILLER-Well, the basin we’re talking about rebuilding that also.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just pointing that out that this is not accurate because that
basin was supposed to be open originally.
MR. MILLER-Originally, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And there’s stone across it.
MR. MILLER-That’s right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Someone concreted it over.
MR. MILLER-Yes, you’re right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m just saying that this is not accurate.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think it is. I think it’s just, you know, maybe the wording isn’t quite
clear, because I think Tom was talking about the infiltration trench along the driveway
having been silted in. That’s what we’ve agreed would be reconstructed, and extended,
actually, and he wasn’t referring to the part that’s concreted over as being silted in,
because obviously it’s been concreted over. You can’t see it, but, you know, based on
the comments we’ve received from the Board, we felt the best way to ensure that that
system is constructed as was originally approved and to improve on it would be to
reconstruct that also.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then just my last comment Mr. Traver brought up is the
maintenance of this trench now. As the engineer says, he’d like to see some type of
maintenance plan.
MR. MILLER-Yes. We’ll do that, and we’ll add it within the marina permit, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. MILLER-Because the marina permit has some specific information. As a matter of
fact, it talks very specifically about boat washing requirements. It talks very specifically
about trash removal and clean up at the lake, maintenance of the fuel systems and toilet
pump outs, and it also addresses stormwater. So the Park Commission has all of these
items included in the permit. So we would add that into that. Then if we’re back here 10
years from now you’ll know what we said.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. MILLER-One thing I’d like to add is a timetable for doing the improvements.
Obviously we’re getting into Spring, and we’re getting into the season, and what we’d like
to do is be able to do this in the Fall, when the boats are out of the way, we don’t have a
lot of activity, and, you know, have it done in the Fall of this year.
MR. SIPP-You could increase the length of the trench that’s right on the driveway, where
you launch the boats, you could increase that quickly, and get that done before.
MR. MILLER-Well, but the problem with that, it’s not going to be effective until we
construct the stone basin, so that’s a lot of excavation down there, and, you know, what’s
been there for the last 10 years is there and is still functioning as it has been. So if we
can get in there in the Fall when all the boats are out of the way, and everything, because
right now we’re getting to the point, people are, you know, starting to want their boats and
things.
MR. SIPP-What about the buffer up on the southwest side? Is that going to be put off
until the Fall or next Spring?
MR. MILLER-Along Dr. Evans’ property. When would you want to do that? You’re
talking about the stone infiltration trench on the upper part?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. MILLER-Well, once we finish here, we’ve got to go back to the Park Commission.
They’ve got to approve it, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the requirement is on any Site Plan that’s approved, you
have a year to complete it. I mean, I appreciate the information and your candor, but.
MR. SIPP-Yes, you’ve got a concrete pad there. You’ve got a 15 foot wide buffer.
You’re going to put a stone trench in there. You’re going to be chopping some roots
here, guaranteed, and.
MR. MILLER-Yes, well, right along the edge, we’re digging right along the edge of the
pad. So water comes off the pad, it would go into the trench. I mean, the concern we
have, you know, if we try to get at it in the middle in the season, we’re liable to open it up
and with the activities that go on, you know, leave this exposed. It would be better to get
at it at a time where we can, you know, have the site available and get in in a day or two
and get it done and get out of there, and not leave it exposed and open to storms.
MR. SIPP-Okay. I’d like to see that trench done before the season really starts.
MR. MILLER-We’ll have to get the permit from the Park Commission. They’ve got to
agree to what, you know, so, I mean, we could schedule it as soon after we get that
permit.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you’re not going to get too many boat launches this weekend or next
weekend, probably not much before Memorial Day.
MR. MILLER-Part of the problem is we have boats stored on the property and things. So
if we could do it in the Fall, after the season, and we could, you know, everything could
be set up so the areas are cleared, and it would be simpler to do it. Because there’s
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
nothing disturbed. I mean, we’re not proposing any other construction with this
application, other than the stormwater items that the Board has asked us for. So, I mean,
there’s no other construction going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. Are there members of the audience who wanted to address
the Board on this application? Okay. I will open the public hearing. We do have one
taker. Do you want to come up, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
BILL WETHERBEE
MR. WETHERBEE-Thank you. My name is Bill Wetherbee. I live on Mason Road at
Cleverdale, due west of the property that embraces the Mooring Post Marina. My
comments really are something of a reiteration and encouragement of the Board to
examine, once again, an issue which has not been addressed here tonight, namely the
increase in quick launch activity which is occasioned by the application which you have
before you. I think one of the things that makes the increase in quick launch imperative
for consideration is the fact that you have been beleaguered by a number of total
numbers, so many boats are going to be used for this much less, so many additional
boats will be used for that much more, and so on. Lost in the welter of all the attention
devoted to the numbers of boats to be on the site is the important consideration of the
uses produced by certain classifications and types of boat use. What I’m trying to say is,
it’s impossible to equate quick launch activity with other forms of boat activity. Quick
launch activity encompasses far more intrusiveness, far more environmental
considerations, and far more other elements of intrusiveness than simply having a boat
tied up at a dock at the waterfront to which people come and go. As we tried to indicate
two months ago, every time a boat is quick launched, another vehicle must be started,
must deliver the boat to the waterfront, must return from whence it came, and then when
the boat is pulled out of the water, the same sequence occurs again. One of the
neighbors of the marina pointed out the degree to which this intrusiveness enters into
anybody’s lifestyle who lives anywhere near the marina. This application envisions a
25% increase in that activity. Trying to equate that with other forms of boat activity is like
trying to claim that a kayak is like a cabin cruiser. There is no comparison. Quick launch
activity is far more intrusive than other forms. When the Lake George Park Commission
set its standard of 80 quick launch vessels on the site, it meant just that, quick launch
activity, not totality of boats, and we urge the Board to consider that as it examines the
totality of use of this facility. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor
from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Dr. and Cheryl Evans and some of the
other neighbors that are in the immediate area of this particular application. I believe that
Dr. Evans has sent a letter in on behalf of himself and his wife. The two photos that I
have submitted and that are being circulated are recent photos taken of the stormwater
that comes onto his property. He adjoins this property on the south side on the back of
the Marina. If you look in the minutes, you will see that somebody, and I don’t know
whether it was Tom Nace or the applicant or the Town Engineer, somebody remarked
that some of the improvements that were to be made in 1997 were not made, and I think
this is kind of evidence of the fact that they weren’t. Now I don’t know who owned the
property at that time. I don’t think it was the present applicant, but these photos show
clearly that the water is not contained on the site. The water does come off the site and
goes onto Dr. Evans’ property and is problematic. I heard a lot about, we are going to
reconstruct, we are going to do this, we are going to do that. Do you actually have plans
for those, every one of those items that were mentioned, or are they still designing some
of them? Because it sounded like they were still designing some of them, particularly on
the lakeside of the property, as much as the back side of the property by Dr. Evans, and
if you don’t have those plans, and they don’t plan on doing the construction until the Fall,
I think it would be to your benefit to actually have the plans, so that Staff can actually
enforce what’s going to go forward, as opposed to guessing and trying to figure out what
was intended or was not intended, as we seem to be having a problem with with the 1997
plans. I don’t see why Staff, or why the applicant shouldn’t be required to make the
immediate repairs that he talked about, at least some of them along the lakeside. He’s
admitted, on record, that he’s in noncompliance, or the property is in noncompliance.
Maybe the applicant is not the one that’s in noncompliance, but you have a stormwater
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
system that has not been maintained, that is plugged up. You’ve got a stormwater
system that is partially cemented over, and he’s saying I’ll leave it that way for the
summer, but I presume he wants to try and get his quick launch installed before the
summer. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, and I’m not sure, it’s not this Board’s
problem to do enforcement, but I think it is this Board’s right to say to an applicant, you’ve
got to come in here with clean hands, and if what they were talking about is a working
stormwater system in 1997, without it being cemented over, they need to do that for you
as well as the Lake George Park Commission. They don’t need somebody’s permission
to do it. That’s what was approved, and for some reason it’s got out of synch. The other
thing which I raised last month, and I didn’t hear anybody address it, I do think that there
is a problem with the subdivision of the property that occurred. The deed to the present
applicant is from John A. Brock, dated June 1, 2005. It’s my understanding from the
plans that have been submitted that he owns the single family house that’s on the
lakeside of the property, immediately adjacent to this parcel or these parcels that were
conveyed. If you look at your Ordinance, Section 179-20-010 E, you will see that lands
that lie within a Critical Environmental Area or the Adirondack Park Agency, are adjoined
by an operation of law where an owner owns adjacent lands. So you may be giving a
blessing here to an illegal subdivision that occurred either intentionally or unintentionally
by the parties, one of which is before you. My understanding is that at the time of this
deed, Mr. Brock owned adjoining property, and I think we’re in a one acre zone. The
parcel that was retained certainly is less than one acre. It does not have pre-existing,
nonconforming rights as a standalone lot because of Section 179-20-010 E. I won’t read
that to you, but we asked that question last time around. We’ve heard no response.
We’ve gone and gotten a copy of the deed, just to be sure that we were in the right
ballpark for what we’re talking about. This is, as you heard in the prior presentations, a
very congested area. It’s not an area that is wide open, that there’s a lot of space, that
there’s a lot of room for mistakes, and that’s why I think you need to have the I’s dotted
and the T’s crossed, which it doesn’t appear as though you do. I’m not an engineer. I
hate pretending that I’m an engineer or knowing anything about engineering, but I know
that if you go up and you take a look at that concrete ramp that runs directly into the lake,
that cannot be a healthy circumstance or situation. I wondered why, in part, nobody has
suggested more than one trench intersecting that, or going across that, so that there is a
safety net, if you will, when one trench fails, or one trench fills up. I like the idea that you
have suggested, that there be a clean out or some type of sedimentation area, but again,
it doesn’t sound like it’s in the plans that are before you. It’s something that can be
designed, where you have the sedimentation stay in the hard surface bottom of the
trench, with a grate that can be removed, that can be maintained, with the overflow going
into ground sedimentation or a sediment area. So those basically are our comments.
We don’t think that the stormwater that was put in in 1997 works. We’ve submitted
photos of it that it doesn’t work. It didn’t work this Spring. It hasn’t worked since 1997,
and we’re fearful that unless you dot the I’s and cross the T’s, you’re not going to get
anything better with this approval. The other comment I think, and I get confused every
time I look at them. I do think there’s an increase in volume here. A piece or a portion of
this Marina was taken out of play when Brock kept the docks that were in front of his
parcel, but the Marina still wants to have the same number of vessels, in fact, they want
to have more vessels. The best I can tell is that the docks in front of the Brock parcel, at
the minimum, have nine vessels attached to that, and now we’re talking about adding a
total of 11 vessels to the site, and as a simple way of looking at that and maybe the
applicant will correct me, maybe not. If you look at the map that was submitted, at least
the one that I’ve been looked at, it’s Sheet SP-1, and mine was last revised December
15, 2007. The back part of the property now shows 80 boats for quick launch. The prior
mapping in 1997 showed 80 boats. What’s new is that there are now 20 boats shown
inside one of the buildings for quick launch that was not shown in the prior boats. You
come over to the lakeside of the property, and they’re now showing 27 total berthing
spots. Before they were showing 36, and I may be incorrect or whatever, but I subtracted
the 27 from the 36, and then subtracted the difference from the 20, and that was the
increase. So I think the neighbors, particularly I think the neighbors that live right
immediately adjacent to the ramp on the south side, on the lakeside, who’ve said that
there’s constant noise there on the weekends, to the point that they don’t go out on their
patios and don’t do anything, probably looking at an increase in noise. I don’t know if the
Lake George Park Commission is going to approve this thing. I also will mention in the
same vein, I don’t think you can rely upon the Lake George Park Commission to enforce
what you think is necessary as far as stormwater. You can’t rely, or you shouldn’t rely
upon another agency enforcing some type of maintenance program for stormwater if, in
fact, that’s part of your basis for your consideration in approving this. It should be part of
your conditions so that the Town can send people out and say, hey, you’re not doing this.
You’re not cleaning out these sedimentation areas, because I don’t think the neighbors
want to get into a battle of who’s got what money or who’s, you know, the Lake George
Park Commission, whether they’re going to have enforcement people or not, I don’t
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
know, but the Town residents who pay taxes in here are expecting the Town to be able to
enforce the conditions. I don’t think the Town, and the Staff can correct me, they can’t go
enforce the Lake George Park Commission permit conditions. If they can I’d be
surprised. They need to have those conditions to be enforceable by the Town people,
the Town conditions, and not Lake George Park Commission permit. So I don’t want to
repeat myself, but I don’t think this thing is ready for you to act on it based upon what I’ve
sat and listened to tonight.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. If you could just clarify the deed issue once again. So what
you’re saying is that since it doesn’t meet the minimum zoning requirements, they have
to be treated together?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because it’s in the CEA?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I didn’t read it. Development of nonconforming lots in a Critical
Environmental Area and/or the Adirondack Park shall be in accordance with the minimum
yard setback, lot width, permeability, building height requirements as set forth by this
Chapter. In the event that a lot located within either a Critical Environmental Area, which
this is, or the Adirondack Park, which this is also, does not comply with the minimum lot
area, or minimum lot width requirements and adjoins other lands in the same ownership,
the lots will be treated together as one lot for zoning purposes. That’s been in our
Ordinance ever since I can recall. That’s the only place there’s a merger by operation of
law, and I think in part, that comes out of the APA regulations, and that’s the APA
approved our Zoning Ordinance, and that’s how we got blessed with that particular
provision.
MR. SIPP-So what is the remedy for that?
MR. O'CONNOR-They’d have to get a variance.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When Brock owned that land, weren’t there more docks there?
MR. O'CONNOR-There were docks directly in front of his parcel, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which have been removed.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, the docks have not been removed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They have not been removed.
MR. O'CONNOR-The docks are still in place.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The same number are there as when he owned the property?
MR. O'CONNOR-He has applied for a permit with the Lake George Park Commission but
has not acted on the permit, because it’s an incomplete application, I understand. You
look at the map that you have in front of you, you see the skeleton of the dock. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else to comment on this application? Yes.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. First of all,
I’d like to say that looking at the application, it does appear that the applicant may have
inherited some site concerns. I do know Mr. Pensel and I do feel that he will run a good
operation and that he would like to do what is best for the lake, and I think in the long run
that’s what will be done. Regarding, I appreciate the attention to stormwater. Regarding
the trench drain, I think that that is an improvement, and I do think that the suggestion
about a catch basin or something can be incorporated easily. We’ve done that in
previous designs where you have a trench drain come across and you can actually run
that into a drop inlet or something. Similar to a regular catch basin, which will allow
sediment to drop out and give you an area to remove that. I had also submitted a letter
previously. I do not know if there could be, or has been any consideration for pervious
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
paving, especially in that area. That could give you additional area to capture stormwater
going down the ramp. Regarding enforcement of stormwater, there was a good point
brought up by Mr. O’Connor, and I would strongly encourage the Town to take that on
themselves. From my experience working in the towns that have locally approved
stormwater management plans, the Lake George Park Commission keeps a hands off
approach, and will not step in. You have that on your shoulders. You’ve adopted those
ordinances, and, trust me, I’ve gone to the Park Commission and they will not step in. So
make sure that you do address that. I do feel the numbers do need to be clarified about
the quick launch and about docks that may have been removed from the property with
the subdivision. A couple of points that I would like to add, from the Lake George Park
Commission’s recent recreational study done in 2005, Harris Bay has the most docks of
any bay in the Lake George, of 253. Also it’s classified as a bay with high density boat
usage, and so I just think that stormwater is important. I do think we should try to get that
addressed as early as possible, and I also think that the burden of stormwater
management does fall on the Town, and that they should not rely back on the Lake
George Park Commission for that. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I think we’ll leave the public hearing open.
Other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I’d just like to comment that I think we should have a plan, a complete plan,
before we approve it, and if they’re not going to do anything until the Fall, we certainly
have time between now and then to have a complete plan proposed and we’ll review it. I
don’t see why we need to be in a hurry at this point to do this.
MR. MILLER-We’ve been here for a year. It was last year when we submitted our
original application.
MR. PENSEL-I don’t understand quite how this happens, in a sense that, you know, Mr.
Evans has attended every meeting until this meeting, okay, and we have met, personally,
with Mr. Evans, okay, and tried to satisfy his needs and his questions and concerns with
the trench, and initially he said that would be very, very good, and it’s not until this
particular meeting that, we’ve answered all the things that have been brought to us, that
all of a sudden he comes in with, that’s not good enough, and he never once
communicated that with us before, and new issues being brought up about the deed
transfer, you know, we bought a piece of property that has its own deed. It is a piece of
property that has a Special Use Permit that does not include the piece of property that
was the residence that is in question. There’s a Special Use Permit for this Marina to
exist by itself. Now, I am not increasing the number of boats on the property. The permit
gives me leeway to have a certain number of boats on the property in the summer and a
certain number of boats on the property in the winter, and my diagrams don’t show those
capacities. They show less than those capacities. We are not increasing the number of
boats on the property. We are asking for relief from the Town for removing a service
called renting boats. Ten rental boats, we’re going to remove them and not rent boats,
and in replacement of those rental boats, we’ve asked for a, something that we do very
well, which is quick launch boats. These rental boats were kept on the property. We are
not increasing the numbers on the property. If there’s 80 boats on quick launch, and I
have a permit for 80 boats, which I do right now, then if there’s 120 spaces for 100 boats,
only 80 of those spaces will have quick launch boats on them. The other 20 will have
boats that are being worked on or being repaired or whatever, but we have a permit to
have more than 80 boats on the property, and we aren’t going to exceed the number of
boats that we’ve been permitted. This piece of property, this Special Use Permit which
the Town adopted in 2005, the Park Commission permit, has been the infrastructure for
carrying 10 rental boats, renting 25 slips, and quick launching 80. Now what I’m
proposing is a reduction of three boats from that list. I’m removing 10 rental boats and 13
in-water slips that were being rented in the past. So I’m actually at 23. I’m asking for 20.
All of these boats have been on the property. When people go to their boat, they park on
this piece of property. They use the restroom on this property, and they use the facilities,
and they always have, and it’s the same number, only three less. This stormwater
situation. The water on the Evans’ side. First of all, they don’t want the water coming
over. They have been building barriers there. The pictures that you see are created as a
result of a dam, that one of which is created by a big mound septic system. Our water,
and none of our water is allowed to flow into the gutter system that runs along Mason
Road. It should be, it would be better for the Evans’. It would be better for me. I’m
required to hold on to about a half an inch of the first half an inch. I’m not required to hold
20 feet of snow, and that’s what, right now, I’m being asked to do. So, what we’re doing
is we’re saying, okay, you know, we’ll try and infiltrate it more into our ground, but it’s not
fair to put up barriers and dams and say we’re causing a problem, by taking pictures of
water sitting here. If that water could be piped and some of it be relieved off of the
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
property, this is a very big hardship on this acre piece of, two acre piece of parcel.
There’s no place for the water to go. We’re not creating the problem, but we’re trying to
help fix it, and I made application, the day that I bought the Marina, June 1, 2005, for this
Marina for this Marina modification. I went around and around with the Park Commission
for a year until they told me that I needed to speak with Mr. Brown, and the Town of
Queensbury. It took him about three to four months to give me an answer whether I
needed to go before the Planning Board or not, but he did get me an answer, and he said
we need to go to Site Plan Review for this application, and now we’ve been with the
Town for a year. So now I’m paying dock taxes on Mr. Brock’s docks that we’re not even
using anymore. The Park Commission permit is in the name of Mooring Post Marina and
John Brock, not George Pensel, and it’s time that we get this done. We will do the work.
It’s not physically possible for me in Springtime, in the marine business, to pour concrete
across my launch ramp and wait for it to harden. It’s just not reasonable to expect that.
It’s not reasonable to expect going into the season. I mean, a lot of these delays are not
my doing, that all of a sudden now I have to go in there and start digging. These
problems have existed on this piece of property for a number of years. We’re ready to go
ahead and fix it, but I don’t think it’s reasonable for the Town to sit here and change their
rules in front of us and say that you’re allowed 12 months to do it, but we’re not allowed
12 months to do it. We are allowed 12 months to do it, and we will do it within the 12
month period, and, you know, we’ve actually created a plan that we, in front of the Board
here, that we were asked to create the last time we were in front of the Board, to
accommodate, down that launch ramp, the first half an inch of rain, which Mr. Miller has
done. He has done that. Now, at this meeting, you’re asking us to deal with something
else, before you’re willing to give me the approval. Well, okay. I think we’ve really
cooperated with the neighbors and the Town, and I think it’s time that we move on with
this, and we’ll design a trench clean out system that will work, that we will clean out silt
from that catch basin. I think it’s a good idea and we’ll do it. Thank you.
MR. MILLER-I’d just like to respond to a couple of the comments. I think what Chris
Navitsky said was accurate. Everything that was done here was done back when it was
the Mooring Post, and George bought it, and, you know, what he bought is, you know,
what he’s got. So some of the issues with the storm drainage and things, that’s how they
existed when he purchased the property, and I think what we’ve submitted are very
detailed plans. The Town’s engineer has reviewed them. The Town’s engineer has
signed off on them. We’ve had one additional comment tonight where both Chris and
Dan Ryan had suggested that, you know, we basically provide at the end of that ramp, a
sump or a catch basin that traps additional sediment, and we’ve agreed to that, and I
think everything in the plan is detailed. I think the plans are detailed enough that the
engineer has reviewed it, and I think it’s detailed enough to construct it. So, I don’t think,
as Mr. O’Connor said we don’t have this design and we haven’t thought this out, we’re
basically trying to respond to the comments we’ve recently received, and are trying to
accommodate everyone’s desires. The issue of the subdivision, that was always Mr.
Brock’s house. It’s always been a separate tax parcel. I have no idea if it’s in the same
name or even in a different name. It was never part of the Marina, and it was not part of
the property that George purchased. So, you know, it was always a separate lot, and,
you know, not being a lawyer, and, you know, whether or not these things should have
been combined or whatever, somewhere in the past, that was never the situation, and I
think, you know, we’re not implying, when we’re talking about the stormwater
management as being something that the Park Commission does, this Town certainly
has reviewed everything we’ve submitted, and the Town certainly has full enforcement
rights, and we didn’t mean to imply that they don’t, and, you know, for sure Mr. Pensel
would comply with anybody from the Town wanting to come and review the systems. As
far as the number of boats, I think, you know, what we’ve done is we’ve shown, in our
letter, and we can argue why you shouldn’t look at the total number of boats, you know,
the slips, Mr. O’Connor was correct. There was 36 docks, which included, on the lake,
which included nine in front of Mr. Brock’s property. George has 27 now. Those nine
have stayed with Mr. Brock. They’re still in George’s permit, and Mr. Brock would need
to get his own permit, but one thing to remember about that is for him to get a permit to
be a marina in the Town of Queensbury, he needs a Special Use Permit. He has to be
here. So if he’s going to move forward and, you know, have a separate dock there, he’s
going to have to get a Special Use Permit, you know, from this Board. So, you know, it’s
not like he’s going off and he’s got this nine slip dock there, and I think, you know, our
letters, as George stated, you know, basically says that there’s a reduction in the number
of the wet slips, and a reduction in the ten rental boats. So those nine slips that are in
front of Mr. Brock’s property, most likely won’t be a marina, if you ask me. So those
aren’t, you know, those aren’t going to reappear somewhere. So I guess it’s a matter of
looking at the numbers. I think we’ve presented the numbers, and George has stated
them tonight very clearly, as to what we’ve asked for, and as we stated in our initial
letters, you know, George owns a large facility down on, you know, 149, and so
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
obviously, you know, a lot of his boat sales and a lot of stuff that you say occurs at the
Marina, occurs down there now. So he’s looking to, you know, utilize the building that’s
on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, just quickly, in summary, then, right now you’re converting 25 rental
slips, 80 quick launches.
MR. PENSEL-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. PENSEL-Twelve rental slips.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, you’re permitted for now.
MR. MILLER-Now, 25, yes. That’s correct.
MR. PENSEL-I’m sorry.
MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-five rental slips, eighty quick launch and ten rental boats.
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you want to have 12 rental slips and 100 quick launches.
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-A difference of three, I think, if I add the numbers correctly. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we had talked about at the last meeting, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then you also, I believe you’ve already improved the septic system,
you’ve replaced?
MR. PENSEL-We’re in front of the Town Board to have a new holding tank septic tank
put in.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and what did you have prior to that?
MR. PENSEL-It would be, the septic was.
MR. MILLER-It was a leach field.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re going to put a holding tank. All right, and then you’re going
to improve the stormwater along the lake. You’re going to actually put in what was
requested in ’97, get that done.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Plus what we’ve proposed in our most recent plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you’ve proposed additional details in your current
plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Proposed additional details. My other request would be what about
putting the, you know, a catch basin at the end of that trench, to help with the sediment?
Could you do that?
MR. MILLER-Yes. We’d agree to that, sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? What’s the feeling of
the Board?
MR. SIPP-I’d still like to see that one trench done before the summer.
MR. HUNSINGER-What do you mean, which trench?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SIPP-That trench at the bottom of the boat launch area.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’d like to see it done before this season. I’m sorry.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Stu, do we have enough detailed information from them for you to enforce a
stormwater plan? Not a formal stormwater plan, but to?
MR. BAKER-Well, there is a formal stormwater plan from 1997.
MR. KREBS-Okay, which hasn’t been enforced. It certainly wasn’t, because somebody
(lost words).
MR. BAKER-I can’t speak to the enforcement history on the ’97 approvals.
MR. KREBS-Right. I’m just saying, what we’ve heard tonight, is there enough
information for you to take their plan and be able to make sure that it’s implemented and
works?
MR. BAKER-Enough information provided in this current application?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-That’s really, the Town Engineer makes that assessment, if the design is
appropriate and functioning.
MR. BAKER-I believe you also need to understand that I don’t do the enforcement of the
approvals. That’s Bruce Frank. I certainly can’t speak for him, but I believe there’s
enough, if it’s to this approval that there’s enough for enforcement purposes.
MR. MILLER-Yes, and I think, you know, and Bruce Frank would do the inspections on
this, and during the construction and that would document that everything was
constructed properly.
MR. TRAVER-My concern, again, is, and we’ve observed this from site visits, is
essentially there’s no stormwater management at all in the ramp area. The water is
going right into the lake, and on the one hand, I can certainly understand the seasonality
of the business and the fact that the, you know, you’re anxious to start launching boats
and so on. However, I hope you can appreciate our concern that this uncontrolled
condition continues. So, we’re looking at an existing condition which is really
unacceptable, and in addition to that, we’re asking for a change in the use of the facility,
such that there’ll be an increase in the use of the very ramp that we’re concerned about,
and I guess I’m wondering if, not necessarily 100% of the system, but again, re-visiting
the issue of the stormwater management for the ramp, the trench, the catch basin and so
on. Is it really that difficult, is it that inconvenient to construct that part of the system now,
as opposed to in the Fall, so that all summer long, when these boats are going in and out
of the lake, they’re not doing so in an uncontrolled, no stormwater management
environment?
MR. PENSEL-We’re launching boats every day now. We’re going full boar. There’s no
way we can do concrete work and have it, it just is impossible, but what we could do is
that, and, you know, there are an awful lot of marinas on the lake that have nowhere near
anything like this. There’s nobody been regulated like this. It’s happening all over. It’s
not, Boats By George on the Lake. I mean, you go to every marina. There isn’t one
marina on the lake that has anything even like what I have now. This’ll be the first one,
but what I’m looking for and what we could do is run that northern side of the launch
ramp, that trench and that stone and get that all in there now. I mean, that isn’t disruptive
to the point where we couldn’t get things done. That we could do, and I would commit to,
yes, right away.
MR. SIPP-What are you talking about concrete work? Where would the concrete work
be?
MR. PENSEL-I’m sorry. The trench drain across the ramp requires concrete to hold the
grate.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but now let me propose this. It takes 30 days for concrete to cure. In 10
days, you’ve got 90% of the strength you’re going to have.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. PENSEL-We’re launching boats now, every day.
MR. SIPP-All right. Can you put some boards across what you pour in there? If you’re
going to do concrete work, you can over top it with a wooden framework that will do the
same thing.
MR. KREBS-Actually, Don, it would create an unsafe condition because when you’re
pulling that boat out, if you’re taking a motor powered, whether it be a truck or, you know,
a little tractor that’s, your wheels are going to spin those boards out all the time.
MR. SEGULJIC-Plus it might not get done right. Do it right.
MR. KREBS-Yes, do it right. I just don’t think you’re going to be able to do it now.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t do it like over Memorial Day weekend or something like that?
MR. SIPP-And we’ve got oil and antifreeze and everything else going from now until
October?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, remember, it’s getting installed, something’s getting installed there
finally. So it’s not ideal, but.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but I still say it can be done now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but.
MR. SIPP-As I say, in a week you’ve got 90% of the strength you’re going to get out of
concrete. For one week I’d find a way to launch boats somehow, if that’s the
consideration.
MR. MILLER-There’s no other way. That’s the only ramp.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you would cut the ramp and put the gravel in, right? You could
do that.
MR. MILLER-Well, yes, we could rebuild that infiltration trench.
MR. SEGULJIC-But just to clarify, you’re talking about the stone, the swale, in the
parking lot area, not across the ramp.
MR. PENSEL-We’d still also, you know, in the meantime, if you give us our approval,
okay, we still have to go finish up with the Park Commission. That’s probably going to
take until the end of the season anyway. We’re not going to be increasing the quick
launch this season. This is going to be something that, after the work is done that the
quick launch is increased, because we still have the process to then complete with the
Park Commission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Where are we at?
MR. SEGULJIC-Have we done SEQRA yet?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. It’s a Short Form. I haven’t closed the public hearing yet. All
right. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
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. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-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. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. HUNSINGER-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. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SUP 15-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BOATS BY GEORGE, 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
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
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 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Sipp
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of any conditions, I think, I know we heard several
comments. At our, I don’t know if it was our last meeting, or one of our more recent
meetings, we did ask for and received a stormwater management maintenance plan that
was reviewed by the Town Engineer, so, I mean, I guess I would propose language
similar to, that the applicant shall submit a stormwater management maintenance plan
that includes a minimum of twice annual inspections, and that said plan be reviewed by
the Town Engineer, reviewed and accepted by the Town Engineer.
MR. TRAVER-Also, Mr. Chairman, the applicant has indicated they don’t anticipate
approval of their Park Commission permit to expand their boating operation, but I would
like us to indicate that there not be an increase in activity until that stormwater
management system is complete.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that addresses the concerns that the Board has raised.
MR. SEGULJIC-The other one was the, shall we refer to it as.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the term was catch basin.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Clean out for the catch basin, yes.
MR. KREBS-That’s part of the maintenance plan that’s going to be approved by the
Town Engineer.
MR. MILLER-Yes. We’d make that part of it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Shall we say catch basin at the end of the trench? Or for silt or
sediment removal I guess?
MR. MILLER-Yes, for collection of sediment.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then another one that you mentioned early on in the meeting this
evening was that no vegetation would be disturbed along the southwest corner of the
property to install the new stone trench. Is there anything else? I think we got them.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes modifications to an existing Class A Marina. Modifications
to Class A Marinas require Special Use Permit by the Planning Board; and
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/26/07, 1/15/08, 2/19/08, 4/15/08; and
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
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 8 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 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
In accordance with the motion prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five,
Negative. Number Eight and Nine do not apply. The following conditions shall apply:
1.Applicant shall submit a stormwater maintenance plan that includes
completion of inspections at least twice annually. The plan shall be submitted
to the Town Engineer for review and approval.
2.No vegetation shall be disturbed along the southwest corner of the property
during the installation of the swale, in the area labeled New Stone Trench.
3.A catch basin shall be installed at the end of the stormwater infiltration trench
for the collection and removal of the sediment, at the ramp trench drain.
4.That signoff be obtained from the Town Engineer.
5.And number of quick launches cannot be increased until the trench drain
along the ramp is installed.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Sipp
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Thanks for your patience.
MR. MILLER-Thank you very much.
MR. PENSEL-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 SEQR TYPE II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S) ALBERT
MUGRACE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 274 QUAKER
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF THREE WORK BAYS & STORAGE
FOR TIRE WAREHOUSE. AUTO REPAIR AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC ZONE
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV
-07, SV 59-01, SP 44-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 0.58, ACRES
0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-39, 38 SECTION 179-4-020
AL MUGRACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes,
please.
MR. BAKER-Okay. The application was tabled by the Board last at the January 22, 2008
meeting and was subsequently tabled a couple of times primarily due to weather
concerns. The following information has been submitted by the applicant. A stormwater
plan for the site was submitted, specifications for the proposed wall pack lighting were
also submitted. There’s some additional comments regarding the site landscaping that
the Board should take into consideration. Site interconnects to the two adjoining
properties. One interconnect is shown to the Minogue property. The application does
not yet show an interconnect to the property to the east. Additionally, the Board may
wish to require that such interconnects are shown on the Site Plan and on the site by
pavement striping, and engineering comments were expected as well. Additionally the
Board had asked Staff to comment on whether the existing site development complies
with the previous 1998 Site Plan. There was an e-mail that the Board has previously
been distributed from Bruce Frank, our Code Compliance Officer, and just a reminder, in
terms of process, that this project was originally before the ZBA in January of this year
for Area Variances from two standards, and the ZBA had tabled the application pending
Planning Board review and recommendation. So consequently the Board can’t take final
action on the Site Plan Review until after the ZBA has approved the Area Variance
application. So your task at this time is to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Stu. Good evening.
BRIAN MC CALL
MR. MC CALL-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. MC CALL-My name’s Brian McCall from the Tire Warehouse.
ROB MC CARTHY
MR. MC CARTHY-Rob McCarthy, Counsel.
MR. MUGRACE-Albert Mugrace, architect.
MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours.
MR. MC CALL-We’re looking for a positive recommendation for the ZBA, and the items
that you had asked at the last meeting, we have addressed them all.
MR. MUGRACE-In terms of the stormwater management report that we had submitted, a
report prepared by Deb Myers Engineering. That’s as far as we went with that. We
received from feedback from VISION Engineering, and our engineer is looking at those
comments and is in the process of addressing those comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MUGRACE-The wall packs, we have four wall packs which are basically, I would
say directional, that we submitted some photometrics information on that, and it should
comply with the requirements of the Ordinance, and as far as the planting, landscaping
and so on, the site, you know, unfortunately there’s not much area there to really
implement a fully blown landscaping plan or, you know, to satisfy to the letter of the law
the Zoning Ordinance, because of the existing conditions and, you know, parking, the
size of the building, FAR and all of that. So we did the best we could under the
circumstances, and we actually are going to replace a couple of the, the berms and the
(lost word) hedges will be replaced with trees or shrubbery that are more in keeping with
the requirements of the Town. As far as comments, we haven’t received any real
comments from the engineer who’s reviewing the traffic patterns and so on, and the
interconnects, yes, there was one missing. That was just an oversight. There is one
that’s going to be implemented and shown on the plan.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You said you’re going to show the interconnect, an interconnect to
the east and to the west?
MR. MUGRACE-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. MUGRACE-Yes. There will be one.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you had any conversations with the neighbors? Because the
last time you were here they were pretty upset and there was some accusations of
trespassing back and forth, etc., etc. Have you had any discussions with them?
MR. MC CALL-I haven’t had any direct conversations with the neighbors, no. The
neighbor to the, the Adirondack Wine store, when the snow melted, the tensions kind of
eased there on that side at least.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it’ll snow again next year.
MR. MC CALL-Yes. For that hopefully we’re going to squash all of this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Refresh my memory. Wasn’t there some work being done on the,
stormwater work being done here by the Town?
MR. MC CARTHY-That’s correct. There was a master proposal for a complete
stormwater that is going to run to the south side on the west side, and there’s been an
agreement between the Town and the other individuals that have property, including
Time Warner, ourselves, and that agreement was sent around for signatures about a
couple of months ago and I believe it was relatively resolved, and there’s going to be a
pipe come through with a catch basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you already have a pipe on this drawing, which is labeled existing.
So it’s basically going to be going along this direction, and then to Quaker Road.
MR. MUGRACE-Right. Yes, it’s going to pick up your overflow here, and direct it to the,
it’s a big swale here, with several culverts on Quaker Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then will this area along Quaker Road act as a reservoir, shall I
say?
MR. MUGRACE-This here? I think that’s what it’s doing now. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you think they’re going to put some catch basins in there, then?
MR. MUGRACE-I don’t know what they’re going to do. VISION Engineering is preparing
that design.
MR. MC CARTHY-That’s in conjunction with the Town’s requirements, though. The
Town is really running the ship on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MC CARTHY-And all our consent was that we agree to incur some of the costs and
also permit the easement.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Then there was the issue of the parking space along the side
of the road. I’m trying to find his e-mail.
MR. MC CARTHY-We had resolved the parking issue. There was some, approximately
2000/1999, somewhere in that ballpark, there was some issue as to parking on the side
of the showroom, on the west side of the property, right next to the, adjacent to the
showroom. That has been resolved. We can do a couple of things. We can either do
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
parallel parking there, or, in the alternative, we can do parking on the other side of the
building, if the Town wishes. It doesn’t make a difference to us. There’s enough room
on each side.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re talking about spaces listed, labeled as nine through twelve?
MR. MUGRACE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So this drawing is not accurate. Well, those are the spaces
that are in question, and you’re saying you’re going to either put them parallel with the
building.
MR. MC CARTHY-Whatever you wish, we can do. This is being proposed. It doesn’t
necessarily mean, we can leave it the way it is, or we can propose it and make them
parallel parking, or, in the alternative, if you don’t wish them to be there, we can move
them around to the other side of the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. MC CARTHY-The option is up to you. We have no.
MR. MUGRACE-There’s room enough to parallel park three cars there.
MR. MC CARTHY-And what the Board should be aware that the variance that we’re
looking for is just approximately a foot or so to square off the building the way it is now.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, how’s the Board feel? Does it make sense to have them parallel
park along the building then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the issue that came up at the last meeting is that the
aisle behind the parking spaces on the west side of the building, the aisle is not wide
enough, on your own property, without, that’s right, they have that easement. I forgot
about.
MR. MC CARTHY-We have an easement. So it technically could happen. We don’t
have a final determination. That’s something the Town is going to look into, and we
haven’t got a response from that, but to circumvent that problem, we said we can do it
another way, which would be the parallel parking. Whatever the Board wishes is fine
with us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Put them on the other side, yes. Which side of the building would?
MR. MUGRACE-(Lost words) there’s enough spaces to put three spaces in line here,
parallel parking, with the building, and then there’s space for one additional parking
space here, but there’s also a possibility of putting something along this side of the
building. The only problem with this side of the building is that we’ve got several doors,
including several overhead doors, and (lost words) doors, but they’re willing to close off a
couple of doors if it’s necessary to put additional parking there. Am I correct?
MR. MC CALL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to ask. Is it necessary to have overhead
doors on both sides?
MR. MC CALL-No. We rarely use those doors.
MR. SEGULJIC-Stu, if I may ask, in the notes it says that the Town Engineer was to
review Page Two, Number Five, and he was going to give a report. Did I miss that, or?
MR. BAKER-Well, the last, and I believe only comment, review comments we have from
the Town Engineer are dated February 26, 2008, and I believe the Board had previously
received those, but I don’t believe the Town Engineer has addressed all the issues
raised for his attention at this point.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because if I’m correct, he didn’t address the parking and circulation in
th
his letter of the 26.
MR. BAKER-No, he didn’t.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment is I’d like to see more trees in the front. I don’t know if
you can accommodate that, though.
MR. MC CARTHY-We can put in as much as space permits. We have no objection to
that. There is an additional in the back that will get a lot more greenage and more trees.
There is, in this particular area as you’re aware, that the DOT property that runs along.
So you do have a lot of greenage, although I understand it’s not part of this property in
the front. We have no problem with planting, the question is where can we put it? And
then we can put it, you know, we can put some around the front or if there’s any
additional that you want on the sides, we can put there also. Plantings are arbitrary,
whatever the Board wishes that’s fine with us.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MC CARTHY-And as I said, we’re only looking for a favorable opinion so we can go
to the ZBA Board and then they can make a determination, and obviously we’d have to
come back for a final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there
anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board?
MR. MC CARTHY-Basically what we’re trying to do is just store, the building is
somewhat old, and we’re trying to change the appearance of it, bring it more up to date,
and the façade that we’re putting on obviously is very expensive, but we’re trying to have
a better presence in the Town, and that’s part of the plan, and that’s a rendering of what
we’re going to hopefully accomplish when it’s all done, and as you can see now, it’s an
old building. It’s been around for a long time and it’s time to repair it make it more
presentable, not only for the Town, but also our own business purposes.
MR. SIPP-Would that mean changing the façade?
MR. MUGRACE-Yes, we’re going to be changing the façade on the two facades, also.
MR. SIPP-And the same colors or different colors?
MR. MUGRACE-Well, this is (lost word) we call it, but it’ll be roughly, yes, those colors
that you see here, you know, it’ll be a grayish, but we will improve on those accordingly.
MR. SIPP-Are you going to change the sign out front, or will that stay the same?
MR. MUGRACE-The wall sign or the actual ID sign, freestanding?
MR. SIPP-The freestanding sign that you have?
MR. MC CARTHY-We’d like to have it remain there. If the Board has some suggestions,
we’d be more than happy to entertain them.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’d just like, I don’t like freestanding. I’d like to see a monument type
sign there. It could be the same size, just a little lower.
MR. MC CARTHY-That’s something we can address.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think when you do come back for Site Plan Review, we would like to
see color schemes and, you know, comment on those as well.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MC CALL-It probably won’t be purple this time.
MR. MC CARTHY-That was all. I just wanted to show you that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I will open the public hearing. We did have
at least one commentor. Good evening.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
ROB MINOGUE
MR. MINOGUE-Good evening. I’m Rob Minogue. I run Minogue’s Beverage on Quaker
Road. I had submitted, down at the office, a series of photographs. I don’t know if the
Board had a chance to take a look at those.
MR. BAKER-You submitted one copy.
MR. MINOGUE-Yes, one copy.
MR. BAKER-It wasn’t distributed to the Board, because we only had one copy.
MR. MINOGUE-Yes, could that go around and have?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, I mean, why don’t you start right down here.
MR. MINOGUE-Well, we’ve got the copy right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course your comments are on the record from January.
MR. MINOGUE-Okay. Yes, so that was my thing. We don’t have to go through that
again. Right? I don’t have to repeat. A couple of additional comments I wanted to
make. First I would like to comment about the easement for the parking on the west side
of their building, four parking spaces, that easement. There is not an easement at that
point. The easement off of Everts road comes from Everts, in the back, and ends
somewhere in between our east side and west side, but it does not extend all the way to
Quaker Road. So that, in relation to the 1998 decision, that’s why there is no parking on
that side of the building. On top of the fact that it infringes on our property line, and when
they park there, our customers can’t back up, and it makes it difficult for passage of
vehicles. Okay. The other thing I’d like to add was, and I don’t believe, I’m not sure if we
brought it up before, was the entrance and exits of fire trucks or other emergency
vehicles, either from Quaker Road to Everts or from Everts to Quaker Road, and as my
pictures will illustrate here, that that currently cannot happen, with what’s going on there,
and to make reference to answers that were given to questions that were asked
regarding tractor trailers, trucks, etc., blocking the passage of that corridor, I believe the
answer was we don’t have tractor trailers come in. Well, I think the photos that you’ll see
as they go around indicate quite clearly that that is indeed the case, and in order for
those tractor trailers to pull up to the current storage containers that are existing there
now, they have to pull onto our property. Fortunately it happened after a brief
snowstorm, and I was able to measure the feet on which that tractor trailer had to pull on
to the Minogue property, and it was 86 feet, and it blocked the corridor, and on my way to
work I have to pull around, go around to the front, back out onto Everts, come in through
Quaker. There are other photos there which I couldn’t have gone out at a better time,
and that truck couldn’t have been there at a better time, but you’ll see a car coming
around, trying to get around the tractor trailer, finding out that he could not make it,
backing up, and then exiting back and onto Quaker Road. He’s a customer of ours. His
father’s been a customer of ours for many years. So that was something that wasn’t
staged. That was something that I was very fortunate to capture pictures of. The other
comment I wanted to make here was, this is in addition to the other January, was that,
again, the current conditions do not provide for adequate customer and employee
parking, as well as snow placement. The removal of the storage containers would
provide the only solution to the problematic conditions as they exist today. The proposed
addition would thoroughly create additional unremitting problems, making it that much
more difficult for the adjoining property owner to successfully operate their respective
business. What the Tire Warehouse needs is an off site storage, and this will resolve
their warehousing customer, this will resolve their warehousing, their customer and
employee parking, and snow placement problems. I hate to make it as, to make it sound
like this, but to really put it basically, we’re trying to cram ten pounds of potatoes into a
five pound sack, and it’s just not going to work. Right now we’re bulging at the seams,
and we’ve got about eight and a half to nine pounds in there right now. We put this thing
up there, it’s just going to create further problems. It’s going to just create a mess, and
it’s not going to be, it won’t be able to be reversed. Currently there are structures on the
back of that building that can be removed to alleviate the current parking problems. As I
said, I believe that would be the only solution to what’s going on here. Another comment
is that that building really cannot support the business model that operates out of it
without infringing on the adjoining property owners, and adding an addition to an existing
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
building that cannot accommodate those needs is just going to create further problems.
There were additional photos there, but I think, I had additional photos here, some from
th
February 27, I had submitted them. I had taken additional photos, and what they show,
these were, did you have the additional photos, were they there?
th
MR. BAKER-We have photos dated February 27.
MR. MINOGUE-Yes, you’ve got it. Could you pass those around as well? And I won’t
do the March ones. They’re just a repeat of what we have here, but I could stand out
there and take more photos, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to make the point, and I
don’t want to be (lost words) I should say use of their property with lack of ability to
accommodate that use, and they’re doing it by parking in our parking, with their trucks
pulling up to the side of my building, my loading dock, within, where you can’t walk
shoulder width through my building and the truck, and I have those photos from March. I
think some of those there in February illustrate that as well. No, they’re not there, but I
have these photos here, and I can just send this one around to show the extent. That
last photo I just submitted was taken more recently, but it shows how close these trucks
that come in to deliver product, parts, whatever it may be to operate their business, how
close they pull to my building. Not once have I ever been asked do you mind if we use it.
Can we pull in the tractor trailer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else?
MR. MINOGUE-Well, the only other thing that I did want to mention, that was of concern,
too, is, well, I think it was taken care of really, I won’t continue. That was addressed
earlier. The last comment, though, would be that I would be in complete agreement with
the cosmetic attention that has been talked about tonight. That I would be in full
agreement with, and those photos are for the Board to keep. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. MC CARTHY-Just a few comments in response. The property is tight. There’s no
doubt the property is tight. However, we’ve got pictures, too, and it’s a situation, well, as
you can see, their truck is unloading on our property, on my client’s property on a regular
basis, three, four times a week, sometimes two, three times a day. I’ve been there
personally on the weekends, on the holiday weekend, where there’s no parking there
and they park on our, my client’s property on a regular basis. Clearly it shouldn’t
happen, and I’m not condoning it, but it’s going both ways, and I find it hypocritical to say
otherwise. I mean, here’s just one. I can take pictures, my client can take pictures all
day long. The big concern is the parking. We’ve alleviated that concern by having the
parallel parking on the sides or in the back, wherever you’d prefer, and in the scheme of
things, this will resolve many of the concerns that the gentleman had with regards to
coming in, the ingress and egress, and, you know, I don’t think he’s familiar with our
business plan, so I don’t know how he can comment on that, but the property does work.
It is tight, but it does work. We will take steps to make sure that the drivers that come in
come in and park appropriately, but unfortunately they don’t check in with us. They pull
in. That’s something we can address, but we would ask, also, that they address it with
their customers and their drivers.
MR. HUNSINGER-In the proposed expansion, is there one bay or two bays that would
receive the bulk of the truck traffic in and out?
MR. MC CALL-We actually receive our product on the east side of the building. With
those bays, maybe once a week we’ll have a tire truck come in. They’ll park on that side
and access one of those overhead doors. The trucks that Mr. Minogue is speaking of,
we get one of those trucks maybe once to three weeks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my thought is the picture it was servicing one of the portable
containers that’s in your back yard.
MR. MC CALL-Well, those would be gone. So that truck will not be accessing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-But where would that truck pull in after the expansion? Would it be
on, still on the west side of your property, or on the east side?
MR. MC CALL-We haven’t determined. It’s just a matter of basically asking the driver to
park differently when he pulls up. Really it’s not a structure that sits there where it
cannot be moved or it cannot be accommodated.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. MC CARTHY-They have plenty of room to back in, but the guys come in, when they
come in, and they just do what they want, and that’s something that we’re going to have
to address with the drivers specifically, but something that the Board needs to be aware,
the new bays are not necessarily designed for more business. It’s designed because of
the fact that you have more SUV’s, more heavy duty trucks, and that’s what they are for.
It’s a bigger bay for a heavier truck, and that’s what we need them for, because there’s a
lot of times where something will come in that we can’t change tires on, we can’t do
brakes on, we can’t align because it needs a bigger bay than what’s standard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions?
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we did receive also an additional written comment dated
th
February 26 from Attorney Jeffrey Meyer, and due to the series of tablings on this
application, I don’t believe these comments have been distributed to the Board this
evening, or prior to this evening. So I’ll distribute them now, and I’ll also read the letter
into the record.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did the Fire Marshal look at this?
th
MR. BAKER-I don’t know. Okay. Again, the letter is dated February 26. It’s from
Attorney Jeffrey Meyer of the Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth firm, and it’s addressed to
Chairman Chris Hunsinger. “We have reviewed the revised plan submitted by Brian
McCall, and the proposal remains insufficient, detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the neighborhood and we request the Board deny the site plan
application. The Applicant continues to submit deceptive, misleading and inaccurate
information. 1. The right-of-way in the rear of the property that provides interconnectivity
between the adjoining lots has been narrowed. The survey submitted by D.L. Dickinson
correctly shows the right-of-way at the proper width. However, as the site plans are
submitted, they have consistently narrowed the width in an effort to force this ill-
conceived Application through the Planning Board. Additionally the alleged right-of-way
as it extends between the lands of Minogue and the Applicant’s property is not in the
same location on the revised plans, as it was on the original application. The revised
plans show the right-of-way five feet to the west, further encroaching on the lands of
Minogue. This new location contradicts not only the 2007 application just submitted, but
the original site plan application from 1998. Further, the Applicant has not submitted any
information that this right-of-way even exists. The deed and D.L. Dickinson survey show
the full extent of the right-of-way. The right-of-way does not extend all the way to Quaker
road, and should be removed from the plans. Even with the supposed right-of-way, the
site can not adequately handle the traffic that would be generated by the expanded use.
2. The revised plans do not comply with the parking requirements found in Section 179-
4-040 of the Town Code. The handicap parking spaces numbered 6 and 7 are not the
required 9 feet wide. Further, parking spaces 13 and 14 are not the required 18 feet
long. Lastly, parking spaces 9-12, which are being used in violation of their 1998 site
plan should be removed. These spaces restrict traffic movement and force vehicles to
trespass on the lands of Minogue in light of the new information showing the right-of-way
does not extend all the way to Quaker Road, as shown on the site plan. 3. The sign and
landscaping included on the revised Application also deviate from the actual conditions
on site. The landscaping plan that accompanied the original 1998 application was never
completed to the detriment of the entire community. Additionally, the plans submitted
contain errors as to the locations of certain improvements on the site. Most notably, the
sign on the revised plan does not match the location of the sign on any of the other
submitted drawings, nor its approval. Accompanying these comments is a survey
prepared by my clients that show the location of the sign as well as the flagpole.” We
have one copy of that survey. “Additionally, the 10’ spruce detailed on the plans is
actually located on County property, in front of my client’s business. 4. The revised
plans and stormwater management plans have not been reviewed by the Town
engineer. We request the application be tabled in order to give us time to fully review the
comments submitted by Vision Engineering upon their review. Additionally, this is of
particular concern because there is a culverted stream that runs through the Applicant’s
property which is rated as a Class AA stream by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. This rating signifies drinking water quality and we are concerned the
stormwater will not be properly treated before entering the stream. These comments are
to supplement the comments and letter submitted as part of the January 22, 2008
Planning Board Meeting. The comments submitted throughout the public hearing detail
the numerous deficiencies with the site and the detrimental that will occur if the Applicant
is permitted to further exploit the undersized parcel. Based upon the foregoing
information, we request the application be denied as the proposal is detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and community. Thank you for
the opportunity to present this material. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Meyer” And just one
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
comment for the benefit of the Board, applicant and public. Again, the Board, this
evening, is not being asked to approve a Site Plan application. Instead you’re being
asked to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. What’s the will of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I wish this was an easy one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do we feel we have enough information to make a
recommendation to the Zoning Board I guess would be the first question. Is there more
information needed?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m concerned that there’s an allegation here that the survey is not
accurate. I don’t know how we would resolve that.
MR. MC CARTHY-Excuse me. That’s a big allegation. I mean, the survey is, he’s
licensed with the State. I don’t know the gentleman personally, but I’m assuming he did
a proper job. To make that allegation in a document and not be here tonight is
somewhat offensive.
MR. TRAVER-I agree. It’s quite a serious allegation.
MR. MC CARTHY-And clearly, just for the record, my client just pays someone to do a
survey and says, survey my property, has nothing to do with any, if it is incorrect, it’s, by
no stretch of the imagination did he have anything to do with it.
MR. MUGRACE-If you notice, this access way, shared access easement, whatever you
want to call it, it’s not clearly outlined. It’s just a couple of lines there that run to the
façade in the rear of the property. That’s about it. There are no metes and bounds. No
actual engineering points.
MR. MC CARTHY-The issue of the easement running up the property shouldn’t actually
be a relevant issue because of the fact that we’re moving those parking spots. So it’s not
a question of coming around or not into that property, because we wouldn’t need to do it
at that point, and clearly the easement runs from the back of the property up, and the
question is how far it runs up, at least what’s alleged.
MR. TRAVER-And you’re looking for an Area Variance, but some of these auxiliary
issues that have been raised at this stage don’t really need to be addressed, as far as
the Area Variance is concerned.
MR. MC CARTHY-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s really no, I mean, the Zoning Board has asked for a
Planning Board recommendation. There’s no obligation for us to give one. It’s a
courtesy, but we can’t act on a Site Plan until the Zoning Board hears the application.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s really the issue. I mean, I don’t think there’s any question it’s a
tight site. The applicant and all the public commentors have admitted that.
MR. SEGULJIC-From one perspective it appears to be working.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it’s like sites in the City.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-It comes down to good neighbors.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Has the Staff had a chance to answer or respond or look at that
letter from Jeff relative to, I think it’s kind of a serious allegation he’s making there that
the survey’s incorrect.
MR. BAKER-Staff typically doesn’t respond to the letters that are addressed to the
Planning Board.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but did you look at it? Is that a legitimate charge or not?
MR. BAKER-At this point I’m unsure. I think those issues, if they’re indeed legitimate,
can be addressed prior to Site Plan Review by this Board. I’m not certain they’re
relevant to this Board’s current task of a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-And really what it comes down to is the Zoning Board, these issues are
really zoning issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-The setbacks. It’s really their decision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, like I said, there’s no obligation for us to give them a
recommendation. I mean, they’ve requested one. It’s kind of a courtesy kind of a thing,
but there’s no obligation.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, to me, the sites work, it’s just a matter of there’s going to be
inconvenience, give and take.
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t sound like I’m getting a recommendation one way or
another from the members of the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s difficult, because in looking at the Site Plan aspects of it, there
are, and certainly the applicant has indicated that they are prepared to be flexible with
some of the issues, even raised by the neighbors in regards to parking and all of that
kind of thing, and some of the modifications they’re talking about doing in the proposed
Site Plan could mitigate some of the existing problems, but that really doesn’t address
the Area Variance, and it’s, I don’t see how we can address the Area Variance issue, and
that not being the case, I don’t see how we can make a recommendation. I think all we
can really do is comment on our general assessment of.
MR. MC CARTHY-If I might interrupt, I think that’s what they’re looking for. I think they’re
looking for someone from this Board to say that, yes, in concept, this is something that
could go. So let me think about whether or not they’d give the variance. I think that’s
what they’re looking for. Nothing more, nothing less, and obviously I might get denied
there, you know, after a hearing there, but I think they just don’t want to waste their time
if, clearly, this Board is not going to move on the proposal before it. I think that’s what
they’re looking for, nothing more.
MR. BAKER-I do have the Zoning Board tabling variance, which was dated back January
16, 2008, and I’d like to read that to the Board, because it does specify exactly what
areas the Zoning Board was concerned about and looking for this Board’s input on.
“Table and refer Area Variance No. 1-2008 to the Planning Board. Looking to see what
their evaluation is of stormwater management and any other comments they might want
to pass back to us, regarding Site Plan type issues on this property before we make a
decision, and indicating to them” meaning this Board, “that we also have a concern about
traffic flow and parking, and if they can look at that in terms of the Site Plan issue, that
would help us.”
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we have discussed those specific issues. Stormwater
management is currently being reviewed by the Town Engineer. So, you know, those
issues will be addressed. We will require them to be addressed before any Site Plan is
considered.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have similar concerns about traffic flow and parking, and I think
there’s some options that are available that the applicant has discussed with us this
evening, as well as maybe some additional mitigation factors such as, you know,
specifying certain bays to receive deliveries and pick ups.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we can also, I mean, we can certainly expressed that the
applicant has indicated that they’re willing to be flexible to solve these issues related to
this site.
MR. SIPP-Does that road that accesses the rear of both buildings, is that connected with
Everts road, is it?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, it is.
MR. SIPP-Now, who’s responsible for that maintenance of that entrance road?
MR. MC CARTHY-How it is now is the landowners will plow, mow, you know, pretty
much self-maintain the property that’s in back of those.
MR. SIPP-But that road is not the Town responsibility?
MR. MC CARTHY-No, I don’t believe so.
MR. BAKER-That’s a private right of way.
MR. SIPP-Private right of way. All right.
MR. MC CARTHY-And it’s supposed to be maintained pursuant to who owns what.
Because it comes kind of off our property, off my client’s property, into my client’s
property, and then back out.
MR. SIPP-Does Time Warner access their facility through that road or through, off of
Quaker Road?
MR. MC CARTHY-They access it off of, well, both ways, but mostly off of Everts through
their right-of-way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to do anything more than the discussion that we just
summarized for the Zoning Board? I don’t know if we necessarily have to do any kind of
motion.
MR. BAKER-You can do a motion of recommendation if you feel it would be helpful.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not hearing consensus from the Planning Board members
to make a specific recommendation on the two items before the Zoning Board, other than
the general statements and comments that were just made.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would say if the Zoning Board members examine our minutes and
our discussion, comments made by the applicant and the neighbors, they could probably
get an idea that there’s potential for solutions to many of these issues.
MR. BAKER-Yes. Certainly we can be sure the Zoning Board receives copies of these
minutes.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, that’s probably the clearest thing they’re going to get, is a look at
our actual discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members?
We did leave the public hearing open. So after you’re done with the Zoning Board.
MR. MC CARTHY-Procedurally, this will be tabled here. We were before the ZBA next
week.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was about to ask Staff, if they had a definitive date to be
before the Zoning Board.
MR. MC CARTHY-I think it’s next week. I don’t have my calendar, but I think it’s next
week.
MR. BAKER-Yes. I don’t have the ZBA agenda, but that sounds correct.
th
MR. MC CARTHY-It’s the 25.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it is scheduled for April? So we should make a formal tabling
resolution to table this to a specific meeting date.
MR. BAKER-Yes, that would be helpful actually.
MR. MC CARTHY-We would need comments concerning the traffic flow which we still
haven’t received. We haven’t received any comments with regards to the traffic flow,
which was one of the Board’s concerns, so we can address.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the two May meeting dates are the 20 and the 27.
MR. BAKER-I would pick either. If the Zoning Board does not complete their review, the
Board can continue to table the application, if necessary.
ththth
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The 27 is the second meeting date, the 20 and the 27.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll say the 27?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t we say the 27.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Tabled to May 27, 2008, pending Zoning Board approval.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. MC CARTHY-Can I ask I question? Can I ask that there’s no negative inference on
this proposal at this time? Because I think the Board, I understand they’re going to read
the minutes, but I just want to make sure that.
MR. TRAVER-We’re not making a recommendation one way or the other.
MR. HUNSINGER-One way or the other, positive or negative.
MR. TRAVER-We’re just encouraging them to read the dialogue regarding the issues.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to finalize the thought, though, I think, you know, clearly the
record shows that there was no showstopper.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, I just don’t appear before your Board that often that I don’t know
their procedures, that they say, it wasn’t something specific that we’re not going to go
forward there. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, and usually when they ask for a recommendation it’s
something more specific that addresses Site Plan Review, not Floor Area Ratio, which is
outside of the scope and responsibility of this Board.
MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you very much.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2008 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A RAY & WENDY KRAFT
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; B P S R ZONING WR-1A, LC-42 LOCATION
25 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 47.17 ACRE
PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.94, 6.09 & 39.14 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF
LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SUP 32-07, SUB 8-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 47.17 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 240.9-1-16.1 SECTION A-183
MATT STEVES & JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is Sketch Plan, there’s really no Staff Notes or anything.
MR. BAKER-Actually there are Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Go ahead, Stu.
MR. BAKER-Actually there’s a number of Staff comments on this.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to forego them in the interest of expediency.
MR. BAKER-That’s fine, if that’s your preference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-I can go through real quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the floor is yours. So wherever you want to start.
MR. STEVES-I can give you the abbreviated version. Good evening. Matt Steves
representing Ray and Wendy Kraft in this application, together with Attorney John Svare
and Ray Kraft. I’ll make it real brief, and then John may want to pitch in on a few things.
This is property, if you look on Sheet C-1, that is property up on Cleverdale Road, on the
west side of Cleverdale Road, and the Krafts also, with this parcel, it’s land hooked
across to a large parcel on the other side of 9L next to the firehouse, the old firehouse
there, and to property on the east side of Cleverdale Road. What their proposal is, is to
create one more building lot on the north end of the lot that is on the lake frontage side,
for sale, and have the existing house lot that is on that west side, that his daughter is
currently living in, as a separate tax parcel for her lot. There’s no proposed development
at all with the larger piece on the other side of 9L. We know it is land hooked by tax
mapping, but it is really a separate parcel by the division of 9L, and we have no problem
with the Town cleaning up that land hook with this application, and calling it it’s own lot, if
that’s the wishes of the Board. There were a few comments that Staff made. We have
no problem with any of those comments as far as like the northerly portion of the
property that’s highlighted. We just wanted to show to you all the land that was
controlled by the applicant but it is not part of this project. We will eliminate that piece on
the northerly portion of Cleverdale on the next application, and we’ll review, as far as the
number of lots in the areas, we will fix those up. There were a couple of engineering
comments which I’ll have to be honest with you, this is the first time I’ve gotten
engineering comments on a Sketch Plan that I can remember, but we have no problem
with any of those comments. One of them, from him and from the Staff, is, yes, we are
having the Adirondack Park Agency look at this for any potential wetlands. We will have
their either signoff or flagging of the wetlands, whichever it may be, and all the other
information that he has reflected in his letter will address it Preliminary. We have already
done the one foot contours on this property. Hutchins, Tom Hutchins of Hutchins
Engineering will be doing the engineering on this. We are prepared and are working on
a stormwater management plan for that lot, a grading plan and a septic design. So in a
nutshell, anything that’s written on the Staff comments and/or VISION’s engineering
letter we have no issues with and we will comply with all those. We’re just looking for
any input that the Board may have as to any other information they may want to see.
Like I said, we’ve already done one test pit. We will be digging another one at a deeper
depth, it went to four feet, and VISION’s Engineering letter asked for a test pit of at least
six feet. We will accomplish that. One foot contours are done. On this particular lot, we
show the areas that are currently vegetated and the proposed clearing area we will
depict on the lot, and grading. Again, this is a fairly large piece of property. It just
happens to be kind of convoluted because it’s land hooked at cross roads, but the
proposal here is for one new building lot. Whether you look at it as a two lot or a four lot
subdivision, because of the land hook, you know, that’s really the Town’s call. We’re not
trying to say what is your policy. We have no problem with calling it a four lot because
two of the lots are on other sides of, one’s on Cleverdale Road and the other one’s on
the side of 9L.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I shared in the one comment
that it was unclear to me what exactly we were doing. So if there’s a way to more clearly
depict the individual lots, that would be really helpful. So is it pretty much the four lots
that are shown on C-1?
MR. STEVES-Well, what it would be is minus the most northerly lot that is shown. That
is a distinct separate tax parcel. It is owned by the Krafts but is not part of this tax lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-It is the three, being the large lot on the south side of 9L, and the one that
is right on the shoreline and kind of the L-shaped one across Cleverdale Road. Those
are all one tax parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the lot on the west side of Cleverdale Road is being divided
into two?
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Correct. The only proposed development is taking place on that parcel.
That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-The lot on the east side of Cleverdale Road, and the one on the south side
of 9L, even though they are one tax parcel with the project we’re developing, they are
separated by the State and Town roads, and there is no proposal for those areas.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When we did site visits on Saturday, we did go to the
lakeshore. So the docks that are shown on, where the proposed house would be, are
those docks currently there?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And on the south end of that lot, if you look on Sheet S-2, we are
proposing to convey an area which would be the area around the tennis courts and a
strip down to 9L, and attach, that’s 1.54 acres, and just enlarge the two acre parcel that
they currently own that fronts on 9L. Then no future development. We’re just increasing
that holdings, that it would be portioned to this, but their daughter lives in the existing
house on Cleverdale Road that is shown, and so they’re proposing to create one new lot.
The two questions I had for the Board is one of the Staff comments, is just show the
entire property. I do have surveys of the properties, both on the other side of Cleverdale
and on the other side of 9L, previous surveys from eight, ten years ago from our
company on the other side of Cleverdale and from Coulter and McCormick, that I’m in
possession of, on the other side of 9L. I don’t know if you want copies of those with this
or just use C-1 and clarify the lots, which would be better? I don’t know why you want, in
other words, do you want a boundary survey of those other two parcels, even though
we’re not doing anything with those?
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re not doing anything with them?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then I think not.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but let’s be clear, though. They’re not currently identified as
separate tax parcels, though, are they?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s why I’m asking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It still begs the question.
MR. STEVES-Like I said, I’m not trying to set your policy. Whatever you would like,
that’s what you’re going to get.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would think, from the long term standpoint, that you’d want to
separate those properties.
MR. STEVES-Well, what I guess the question is, is it required, because we’re coming in
for a subdivision of one portion of it, is it required at this time for, does this Board have to
create four lots or look at it as four lots?
MR. BAKER-No, this Board doesn’t have to create four lots, but if you’re not proposing
four lots, you need to clearly show on the plan submitted land hooks.
MR. STEVES-Exist, that currently exist and we’re going to keep it in existence.
MR. BAKER-That currently exist and that are to be retained. So that it’s very clear how
many lots are being created by this project.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. STEVES-Okay, understood, and the only other comment that I have is there was a
comment that it may require a variance because we’re not utilizing the property line on
the driveway that exists. We really don’t want to create a new curb cut there. We could,
if I understand the Code correctly, which I’m sure I do, is to adjust that lot line to be in the
center of the existing road, and therefore it is accessing.
MR. HUNSINGER-The center of the driveway, you mean?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-And therefore I don’t believe a variance would be required, and we’ll figure
that out amongst ourselves whether we want to do it after the variance and leave it off
the driveway or move that lot line to the center of the existing drive and just, that way it’s
a shared driveway on Cleverdale Road, because the existing house lot that is currently
occupied has it’s own driveway, 300 feet or so to the south.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it says right of way. Is that a?
MR. STEVES-It’s a right of way to the other two lots that are currently owned by Leopard
and Julian.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not a right of way to the proposed Lot One?
MR. STEVES-They own the road and proposed Lot One.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Could you do it by a deed?
MR. STEVES-By deed, correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not trying to tell you how to do it, I’m just asking if it can be. Okay.
MR. STEVES-No, yes we would. We could center it on the driveway. I think that would
take care of the issue of whether or not we need a variance and then we’d also
incorporate it into the deed as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-We’ll discuss that and we’ll bring it back, but either way, it doesn’t really
affect the size of that lot. If anything, it’ll increase it by a little bit, but we’re trying to make
a, it’s a one acre zone. We’re trying to create a nice lot on the lake of close to two acres
without going to two acres, so that it can remain as one nice large lot, if you can see the
intent of what we’re trying to do there, and that’s it. All the other comments, like I say,
Staff comments and engineering, we wholeheartedly agree with all their comments. The
septic and the wells on the two lots, Leopard and Julian, have to be located and
depicted. We understand that. It’s actually in process right now. That’s typically
everything we do at preliminary sketch. We’re just making sure that you’re comfortable
with this concept of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. SIPP-And you require three test pits on each lot, is that what he’s looking for, three
test pits at least six feet deep.
MR. STEVES-Correct. Yes, we had the one test pit we did just to confirm that the soils
in there were suitable. We will go back and do the full test pit that we need for
Preliminary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s it. Thank you.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S)
HARLAND MC GEE OWNER(S) RANDY & DEBBIE GROSS ZONING HC-INT.; SR-
1A LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A
10,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH AND ASSOCIATED 7,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CLASSES AND A 2,560 SQ. FT. POLE
BARN/MAINTENANCE BUILDING. HOUSES OF WORSHIP REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE
SUB 19-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE 15.10 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-4-020
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please, when you’re ready.
MR. BAKER-At the time of the pre-application conference with the Zoning Administrator,
some mention was made of building a pole barn on the property as part of the proposal.
The description of this application references a pole barn, but such a structure is not
shown on the Site Plan submitted. The applicant has submitted a stormwater
management plan which was submitted to VISION Engineering for their review and
comment, and we do have comments from them. The applicant proposes to construct
the church, parking area and driveway, as well as re-locate the existing house on the
property to another area of the site as part of a first phase. The religious education
classrooms and additional parking are part of a proposed second phase. Staff
recommends that Phase II be reviewed by the Planning Board at the time of proposed
construction in order to review stormwater, lighting and other aspects of that proposal at
the time of development. The lighting plan submitted shows lighting levels in the parking
area and at the building face that are above the levels listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
There is some minor light spill onto Dix Avenue from the proposed fixtures. The
applicant has submitted cut sheets for the proposed parking lot lighting. Cut sheets for
the other lights have not been submitted. The landscaping plan shows landscaping
around the proposed building and the northern area of the parking lot. Consideration
should be given to including additional landscaping along the access drive and the Dix
Avenue street frontage. If there are concerns over impacts on surrounding residential
properties, additional landscaping could be used as a buffer. The applicant has also
submitted an updated plan showing the location of proposed tents and temporary
parking areas to be used for services from May to September. The plan shows the
proposed location of temporary parking and tents to be used. The proposed temporary
drive off of Dix Ave. should be relocated to where the permanent drive will be. The tents
in the front portion of the site could be shifted to the east to allow access from where the
permanent driveway will be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Again, I’m Michael O’Connor
from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant, and with me at the
table is Pastor Randy Gross, who is the head of the church, applicant, and with me also
is Wayne Clairmont, who is the project engineer. We have received the comments of
VISION Engineering, lengthy comments of VISION Engineering. We have done a
response and will be submitting new mapping for it. We think that we can comply or
answer all the answers that were raised. It’s a matter of detailing what was presented.
We don’t think there’s anything significant from an engineering point of view, at least that
we’ve discovered. There are a couple of errors that we had in some of the information,
which, in fact, makes it simpler to respond to some of the material that was requested.
One, that the septic demands for this project will probably be in the area of 900 gallons
per day. Somehow or other that got translated in one of the documents to 10,000, and
obviously the system that we were providing didn’t meet 10,000. So that’s a problem.
The one issue that we saw, or I saw, and again, I’m not trying to play engineer, is the test
pits that we submitted showed groundwater at 36 inches, I think at the shallowest pit, and
apparently Dan Ryan was out to the site within the last month, and has determined that
perhaps the groundwater is at a higher level. Our test pits were done in January. We’re
still within the window of re-doing the test pits. So we’re going to re-do the test pits
immediately and make sure that we have sufficient separation for our septic and the
groundwater. This is a big site, and it’s not congested. There’s generally good soils. So
we think that it’s a matter of coming up with the right engineering design, putting it
together and doing it. I would ask for, I guess, the Board comments in general, you’re,
the Board is, I haven’t had an application down in there in that area. I know that the
Board has had some different applications recently, what your main concerns are with
that part of Dix Avenue, and our main concern maybe is having you focus, even tonight,
on the application that would allow us to do the two small tents that we propose for
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
temporary operations this summer. We think by that time we would be able to get the
application complete and get underway with the full facility that we propose. Right now
the church is operating in leased facilities. They’ve been in leased facilities for some
time. They’re trying to give a notice to get out because they own this property and want
to utilize the property. The one good thing is they have a track record which they can tell
you about. They know what their demands are, and I think probably, I think that we had
it, where did we have it. Right now their maximum for attendance appears to be about
80 people. They think that that generates a maximum of about 30 cars. There appears
to be about two and some fraction of a family that travels in each car. So they know what
they need for parking, and they know what they need for facility. They have proposed
two tents, and they’ve shown you on a separate filing, in addition to the big role of maps,
where those two tents would be. They would like to use the existing driveway for access.
Pastor Gross has been going on the site on a regular basis. He thinks if you go up the
driveway, you can go out onto the lawn area behind the driveway, without a problem.
The engineer consultant has told us that if you have 50 to 60 to 80 people in there, the
bathroom of the house that’s in existence for the limited time that they’re on site would be
sufficient for flow. So the idea would be to be able to get the tents up and start. I think
we’ve asked for operations from May through September, and, other than that, we know
that we’ve got a lot to do, and a lot of it has to do with satisfying engineering. We are a
permitted use. We’re here for Site Plan Review. We don’t think that we’re going to be
overly burdensome on the neighborhood. So I don’t know what concerns you have or
where you want to start. Do you want to talk to the Pastor about his operation or, I mean,
the typical number of people that use his facilities, what he thinks his plans are for the
next five, ten years, where he’s going, and then talk to the engineer, or how do you want
to do it?
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess you’re talking about really two phases, then? The first phase
is installing the tents and the second phase is the church, shall we say, the permanent
features?
WAYNE CLAIRMONT
MR. GROSS-There’s a lot of staged portions to the plan. For example, up until such
time as we get approval to build, we’d like to place tents on the property near where the
existing house is, and the parking behind it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, now that’s in the back portion of the property?
MR. GROSS-No, that would be the front, and you’re at a disadvantage because the
existing house doesn’t show on that particular page. The roadway that you see at the
front of the property cuts right through where the house, existing house is.
MR. SEGULJIC-So initially what you want to do is install the two tents, for argument’s
sake, along the road or near the house?
MR. GROSS-Yes, sir.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at C-1, the two tents, you have the big roll.
MR. SIPP-You hit probably the best lot on Dix Avenue, because I worked in this area for
14, 15 years, and just down the road from there, your soil (lost word) from zero to six
inches, and then you’re on to a limestone rock configuration. In fact the whole area
behind this is all limestone rock. So where your soils are well-drained there, you’re
lucky, but I do think that you may have some problems with the septic system in the fact
that there is a high water table there.
MR. O'CONNOR-I was looking at C-1, and you’re looking at a single map. You almost
have to look at both of them, but C-1 shows the existing driveway and shows the house,
and shows the swimming pool. The map that shows the two tents, if you were going to
place those tents, you’d put them behind the pool. Is that correct, Randy?
MR. GROSS-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that would be, for argument’s sake, phase one?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the very first thing they would like to do.
MR. GROSS-Prior to the actual approvals for construction.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
WAYNE CLAIRMONT
MR. CLAIRMONT-I don’t think I would refer to it as phase one. There’s really no
construction taking place.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m just trying to understand what you’re trying to achieve.
MR. SIPP-Is there any demolition going to take place? When are you going to remove
the house?
MR. GROSS-All that will be staged after all the approvals are granted and permits and
then we will move the tents to the back of the site beyond the construction limits, and
parking beyond the limits, and we’ve made provisions for bathrooms near where the
tents are, connected to the new septic system for the house, where we’ve relocated the
house to.
MR. O'CONNOR-The intent is not to demolish the house. The intent is to move the
house to the back of the site, as the parsonage for the church operation, and that’s
shown on the plans, I mean, one of the sheet shows, Sheet Two shows the new location.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the first tent location?
MR. O'CONNOR-Is behind the pool.
MR. HUNSINGER-On, well, it’s NBCCC-2, that Site Plan that shows a temporary
bathroom. Would that be constructed?
MR. GROSS-Yes, we’re preparing to construct two bathrooms that would be handicap
accessible and they would be tied into the house septic.
MR. HUNSINGER-The house septic.
MR. GROSS-And the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you would build a bathroom facility when you put the two tents up?
MR. GROSS-And it would be one that could be picked up and moved with a piece of
equipment easily to the rear, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the plan, when you move the tents to the rear, you would actually
drive through the construction to get to the tent?
MR. GROSS-Well, as we plan the work, we would, once we started to peel the topsoil,
one of the first things after that is complete would be the bringing in of Item Number
Four, and at that point I don’t see it would be a problem to drive on that to, and then they
would just have a small area they would cross from parking onto the grassed area where
they would be parking near the tents.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I was just thinking of, you know, the members of the public
driving through a construction site, you know, possible liability issues related with that.
MR. GROSS-Well, I am communicating with our insurance carrier, you know, the plan,
so (lost words) there yet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When would you build the road, then, in that scenario? Obviously
if the tent’s up front, you’re not going to build the road.
MR. GROSS-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But when you move the tents to the back, you’d almost have to
have a road.
MR. GROSS-Yes. I anticipate probably a good two week window there where there will
be a need for them to be able to drive across to the sand, because what we’ll do is we
will peel the topsoil first, and then there’ll be a period where it could be a week to two
weeks where they would be driving on the sand, which is a subsoil, to get to the rear of
the property.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. TRAVER-I have a concern with regards to the tents, and sort of the pre-phase one
that you’re talking about. In the summertime, and we did do a site visit this past
weekend to that area, and the, wouldn’t there not be a lightening strike danger with
having a large number of people in this, and it’s a relatively high spot, big open area, and
I’m just thinking, does the tent that you’re talking about setting up have some kind of, you
know, I don’t know if you’d call it a lightening rod or whatever, but I’m just thinking, if you
get a lightening strike on this tent sticking up with metal poles or whatever the support
structure is using, you’ve got a group of people inside, you could have a real incident.
MR. GROSS-I’ve used tents prior, and, yes, they have put a ground rod off the center,
aluminum into the ground.
MR. TRAVER-So that’s part of the design?
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MR. SIPP-There’s a high line right next to this property. I don’t know how many volts
that carries through there, but it comes, from the rear, goes across Dix Avenue, and it
parallels the east side of this property. So you’ve got some pretty tall towers there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, I don’t know, it’s not going to guarantee that there’s not going to
be, but that answers my question. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Out of curiosity, why, if you already have the tent set up in front, then
you have the sanitary facilities up front, are you going to move them in the back? Why
not just leave them in front, construct everything, and then take them down or whatever?
MR. GROSS-Just for accessibility. That with the tent set at the rear of the property, it
would be in close proximity to the tents to the restrooms, as opposed to leaving the
restrooms at the front of the property where it’s like 600 or 700 feet, if I understand your
question.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think part of the major site work includes the moving of the house,
and once they move the house, they lose the septic system.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. GROSS-That’s the sequence, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-The first thing they’re going to do is get the site ready, other than the
tent operation, is get the site ready for the moving of the house, and get the house
moved and set up. That’s going to take a little bit of time, and get a septic into the house
that will accommodate the temporary bath and then move the tents out there, and then
the rest of the site is open for construction. This is not a heavily used site, and it won’t
be a heavily used site.
MR. GROSS-For church use.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you saw a good representation of the families that go to the
church that were here earlier. They’re all very much participants. A lot of them will do
some of the work that’s on the site. This is the church that they will build together.
MR. SIPP-Will this require a change of zoning?
MR. GROSS-No, sir.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a split zone, and both zones allow places of worship and schools.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, big picture wise, approval wise, how does this work?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was about to ask Staff a question, and I don’t mean to put you
on the spot, but you know I always do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me just offer this. I don’t think you have an application for tents.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to ask.
MR. O'CONNOR-If it was a commercial operation.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-If it’s a commercial operation and it’s tent sales, it requires Site Plan
Review, but if they’re using the tent for worship services, does that trigger Site Plan
Review?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The tent has to meet the fire code.
MR. GROSS-It does. I’ve gone through that with Craig, and Mike Palmer, yes, sir.
MR. BAKER-That would be a question I’d pose to the Zoning Administrator. My
understanding is that, because of the phasing of this project, with the tents being an
integral part of the project, they are subject to the Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s only because the applicant is kind of making it part of the
Site Plan Review. You know what I’m saying?
MR. GROSS-Well, this was per a conversation with Mike, or Craig Brown.
MR. HUNSINGER-So he encouraged you to include that in your Site Plan?
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MR. BAKER-I would say that that counts as a determination, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Pastor’s had a number of conferences and meetings with Craig,
trying to figure out what he needs to do and what he needs to present.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I could see if you came in with just tents, we’d say, well, (lost
words) with the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So can we parse the Site Plan and say go ahead with this but not? I
guess that’s the intent.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that that’s a logical way of doing it.
MR. TRAVER-I can see the logic. I’m just wondering, again, about the procedure wise.
MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly don’t think that there’s anything that would prohibit us from
granting a partial approval just for that one piece.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I think we’d get maybe a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for
the tent occupant.
MR. TRAVER-Well, except that you’re not occupying it, you’re only. I mean, nobody’s
going to be spending the night there, at least that’s not the intent anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you said in your application that you hold services twice a
week?
MR. GROSS-Yes, Sundays and Wednesdays.
MR. SIPP-With the requirement that our engineer signoff on the tents when they’re put
up?
MR. TRAVER-That’s reasonable.
MR. SIPP-In other words, if they were assembled or installed correctly.
MR. TRAVER-And grounded.
MR. SIPP-And grounded. Are these fireproof?
MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. They are certified.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-So when would you actually start construction? Because you
mentioned in your opening that the tent would be used from May through September. Is
it your plan to be into the main facility by October then?
MR. GROSS-No, we anticipate that there might be a couple of month window after,
between, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-That you would go to some other type of rental operation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GROSS-This would be a great room for us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Talk to the Town Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-They may even go to Queensbury Central or some hall facility like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to condition it that it was only until a certain point in
time, that wouldn’t be a problem?
MR. O'CONNOR-That would be fine. That’s the way we presented it. I’m thinking if
weather permitted, they wanted to go an extra month.
MR. GROSS-Definitely don’t want to be out there past October.
MR. SIPP-I’ve seen them in operation, with portable heaters, I’ve seen tents in operation
quite a long time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GROSS-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t know what the Fire Marshal would say about that.
MR. SIPP-Yes, well, that’s true.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s hope we have more information by the time you’re ready to take
down your tent.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would be ready to start the arranging for the tents and construction
of the tents as soon as we get a nod from you folks. I think we talked today that we
would certainly want them up by mid-May, so that we could use them at the end of May,
and you’re almost, if we’re going to start that, we need to do it now. We probably need to
find out what Dan Ryan would need to make sure that we’re putting them up per his
approval. We don’t want to put them up and then have him come up with something that
we’ve missed.
MR. TRAVER-Are these tents going to be leased, purchased, a combination?
MR. GROSS-Loaned.
MR. TRAVER-Loaned, okay.
MR. GROSS-Yes, a guy is letting me use them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, because you probably have, you can get mill specs or whatever on
them that the engineer can look at.
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Because you’ll want to get that together and have that ready.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, we don’t even know if we can grant approval for the tents alone.
Can we? Can we grant approval for the tents alone?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why we can’t.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s not even an application.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s part of their application.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’d get a Special Use Permit for it, and we’d say yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’d need a Special Use Permit? I guess my problem is we don’t
know exactly what we’d have to do, or what we can do within the Code, right?
MR. TRAVER-How about if we make it a condition that they use the tents as part of the
tabling resolution?
MR. BAKER-Well, the use of the tents is part of this broader project. In effect, I would
recommend looking at this as a phased project, and phase one is just permitting and
allowing the use of the tents by the church on this site, and then the latter phase is
essentially everything else, you know, proposed in the project.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I word it in the sense that phase one would be construction or
placement of the two tents as shown on the plan that has been submitted and utilization
of the existing driveway for access to those tents for occupancy by the church from May
through.
MR. GROSS-Let’s extend it to October if it’s okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-May through October of 2008, and by occupancy, we mean for their
worship services, not as a habitat space, with the understanding that they will hook up
septic to the existing house septic for people that will utilize the tents, and that we will
proceed diligently with the balance of the application and respond with appropriate
mapping and engineering for the Town Engineer, and I would like to address what,
whether we could actually file, I know the April filing date is today. We aren’t going to be
able to go out into the parking lot and pull out the maps. Could we have a week or ten
days to file and hopefully get into your May agenda, or is your May agenda already
plugged?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we have full agendas so applications are getting
bumped, but, you know, earlier this evening we tabled an applicant to a May meeting.
MR. BAKER-I don’t know what the submittal volume was like at the end of today, but I
would venture to guess it’s likely if you submitted an application for the May deadline,
you may be looking at July.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, we were talking before, we thought that we could respond
to the comments that were made by a week from Friday, whatever that is, and if we
could get into the second agenda meeting on May, we’d be more than pleased. If we
can’t, we can’t. You’d give us permission to go ahead with the tents, we’ve got a lot of
work to do. So, you haven’t handicapped us. We understand where you’re at.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you think you could get the new materials in to Staff by the end of
st
next week or certainly, if we gave you a deadline of May 1, which is two weeks
Thursday.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I do need to make a comment at this point. In the past few
months, there’ve been a handful of applications that the Planning Board has set special
deadlines for for placement on specific agendas, and quite honestly, it’s becoming
cumbersome and confusing for Staff, and we’ve set up the current system of applications
by a deadline to be placed on the next available meeting, for reasons of efficiency and
being able to properly track applications, and I would respectfully request that the Board
try to stick to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Point well taken.
MR. O'CONNOR-I guess my only comment is, and it’s not the Board’s fault and it’s not
th
Staff’s fault, but I hate to go to the May 15 filing thing, and then two days before the,
th
even if we make the May 15 filing date, and then two days before the July meeting, we
get this three page engineering letter that we are again looking at saying, my God, how
are we going to respond to it? There’s got to be, it’s tough to play catch up. I thought
Wayne, and he hasn’t spoken much yet, Wayne did a great job. He got a letter dated
thth
April 11 from VISION Engineering and he responded by letter dated April 7.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
th
MR. O'CONNOR-But I mean, it’s not your fault. This is dated April 11. That was, what,
Friday?
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I’m sure Staff got it out to everybody as soon as they could get it
out, and try to get people to respond to it, it’s just impossible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Are these phases going to overlap some? In other words, if you, phase one,
put up the tents the end of May, you’re going to immediately start digging a foundation
for the church building, aren’t you?
MR. GROSS-No, sir.
MR. SIPP-No?
MR. GROSS-No, we’ll have to have full approval for the remainder of the Site Plan.
MR. SIPP-So one phase is going to have to carry you through until we get to a point
where you come back to us and ask for?
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SIPP-I think that’s going to be cumbersome.
MR. GROSS-Well, you know, I would like, if you would consider giving us the opportunity
to make all these revisions say within a week here, and bring them in and at least then
allow the engineer then to go over our changes and then if there’s further revision, then
we can know where we are so when we do come back before you, we’re complete.
MR. O’CONNOR-The only thing I could think of, Don, that would speed it up is if you had
approval for the tent phase and re-location of the house, which I don’t think you really,
this is a very small house. It’s going to be like the parsonage in the back site, that, you
could get that underway, but that becomes problematic because then you’re doing
grading, and you’re doing things that you may have other impacts on stormwater and
stuff. So we’re kind of stuck with our own.
MR. SIPP-And also this getting to us, when we’ve got seven other applications on one
night, and you getting bumped or somebody else getting bumped in order to get this.
There’s got to be an overlap here I think somehow, and I don’t know how you do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we’re going to get our stuff in as soon as we can, and maybe we
can communicate. You tell us, you know, what, I don’t know what your agenda is. You
don’t know what your agendas are. I don’t see them getting any less busy, though. I
don’t. The economy has not slowed down yet. So I guess my first suggestion was, can
we get the approval to put the tents in, utilize the tents with the temporary bath facilities,
and then we’ll respond. If you thought my adding on to that some timetable was going
too far, then I understand what you said to me.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I have no problem with approving the tents. Can we?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t, either, if we can do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we can do it. I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is
how do we do it and follow proper procedures and protocols? For example, we would
have to consider SEQRA.
MR. BAKER-And it would still be an Unlisted Action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So when we consider SEQRA for the tents, do we consider the
whole project or just the tents, because you can’t segment the project for purposes of
SEQRA review.
MR. O'CONNOR-You can segment. That’s a misstatement, I think. You can segment
where you do it with reason and justification.
MR. HUNSINGER-For a temporary use.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that’s a typical reason for that.
MR. BAKER-Yes, and I think following that reasoning, I think that would be easiest to do
if Phase One did not include approval of the location of the home.
MR. HUNSINGER-I do, too.
MR. BAKER-If Phase One only dealt with the location of the tent and to put in place the
temporary bathroom facilities, I would be, personally, less concerned about
segmentation.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’d be using existing driveway. So there’d be no grading or.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because nothing would be permitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So in theory, what we would do is grant approval. We’re going to
have to do SEQRA, and just placement of the tents and approval of the tents. In the
meantime they have to respond to all of the comments, and then you’d be, I guess, in
theory, when do you want to have the permanent buildings, the church constructed?
Before winter?
MR. GROSS-Well, yes, sir. We’d like, by the first of the year, to have completion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, before we get too far, we do have a public hearing
scheduled. So I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that had
comments to make? If you could identify yourself for the record, and address your
comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL VAN ARSDAL
MR. VAN ARSDAL-Yes. My name is Paul Van Arsdal.
DIANA GILLIS
MS. GILLIS-Diana Gillis.
MR. VAN ARSDAL-We own the property at 499 Dix Avenue. It’s property that runs along
the National Grid power line. So we’ll have a common border. Our two main concerns
are water runoff and privacy. You already heard there’s a high water table in that area.
We’ve been there seven years, and we’ve had to put in another sump pump. It’s been
running constantly for over a month now, and there’s been a lot of development in that
area. I think Schermerhorn apartments are still going. So we’re really worried about.
MS. GILLIS-The drainage is horrible.
MR. VAN ARSDAL-It’s awful, and the privacy thing. I mean, we have nothing against the
church. That’s great, but, you know, we like to entertain also, and like I say, we’re going
to be sharing a border, and there’s going to be some traffic going on, things like that.
MS. GILLIS-Well, yes, we were in here a year or two ago when the bus garage next door
paved, and they had to put in some type of basin, drywells.
MR. VAN ARSDAL-We’re really concerned about the water, actually, the whole area is
bad.
MS. GILLIS-The water table.
MR. VAN ARSDAL-And there’s going to be a lot of development going on with this
project, and I’d just like to make sure that it’s going to be done right. That’s about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VAN ARSDAL-Thank you.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing open. So that you’re welcome to
come back at a future meeting.
MS. GILLIS-Will we be notified by mail of?
MR. HUNSINGER-You’ll know, when we’re done, when we’re tabling the application to.
MS. GILLIS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Also the plans submitted by the applicant are available for examination at
the Planning Office, if you want to look at their stormwater management plan and that
kind of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir.
DAVE DISCENZA
MR. DISCENZA-Hi. My name is Dave Discenza. I live on 30 Berry Patch Drive in
Queensbury, and I just wanted to voice and, you know, for what good it does, but Pastor
Randy purchased the property from my grandparents who basically owned the property
for about 52 years, and I know before my grandfather died this past November, he was
very enlightened and encouraged by the fact that Pastor Randy wanted to put a church
on his property. So I just wanted to convey that. I know the property very well, and as
far as the folks that just addressed the Board, as far as where the church is being placed,
toward the back of the property, for the most part, I mean, the property kind of has a high
area and then a low area, and I know where the folks have their house is the lower part
and borders the property. As far as from a privacy standpoint, I understand that the,
why it happened as far as the construction phase is to run the driveway across from
Belle Avenue, which is, you know, a good distance from the property line to the north, I
guess, and so, as far as where they’re wanting to put the church, way in the back corner
of the property, it’s also shielded by, you know, trees and vegetation. There’s a wooded
area there. So as far as a property standpoint, I don’t see where that would even come
into play. So, I just wanted to share that with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. DISCENZA-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Pastor Gross has indicated that he’d be very happy to meet with these
people that live, apparently I think they live to the east, you live to the east of it toward
Hudson Falls? Okay. Very happy to meet with them and show them the actual plans
and show what’s going on. If you look at the site, and you looked at the plans that they
have, the church proper is going to be quite a ways back on this site, and the parking
that’s going to take place is actually going to be on the west side. So it’s going to be
away from their property, and those other properties that we show a piece of, that adjoin
the property on the west, just along it, as we’re talking about it, they actually front on
County Line Road. They’re very deep parcels. I don’t know if there’s an area location
map here, but if you take a look at them, what did we figure they were? These are
about? They’re about 600 feet, and for the most part the houses are built right along
County Line Road. So nature will take care of a lot of the issue of us being there I think.
Behind our site is where the Industrial Development Agency is building, or wants to build
a Light Industrial, and we’re aware of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So do we want to consider the applicant’s request for the
temporary tent use from May to October? Do you have a Short Form, Tom, that you
could read off?
MR. BAKER-Just one additional comment. I would ask the Board to be very specific as
to what elements of Phase One you’re approving for both the SEQRA and an approval
resolution, and I would ask that any approval resolution include a requirement that the
applicant submit a plan that shows Phase One only for final signature and approval by
the Chairman, and review by Staff. That way we keep it as simple and clear as possible.
MR. O'CONNOR-Isn’t NBCCC-2 Tent Site Plan sufficient, or not?
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. BAKER-Yes, and that includes the church and the re-location of the home and also
sorts of activities beyond what’s been described as the Phase One. So for the purpose
of having a very clear record.
MR. SEGULJIC-Phase One is going to consist of the installation of the two tents along
Dix Avenue, construction of the temporary driveway, and then the connection to the
existing septic system?
MR. BAKER-And the May through October use.
MR. SEGULJIC-The May through October use.
MR. GROSS-Yes. Just a point of clarity, not to confuse Phase One construction of the
buildings to Phase One of having tents on site. I just want that clarity. Is that clear?
MR. BAKER-I’m just trying to make sure that we have as clear a record as possible of
the approval process here.
MR. O'CONNOR-What my understanding of this is, you’re talking about the parking area
for 40 cars on grass, lawn driveway is grass until construction, a 40 by 40 tent, a 40 by
60 tent, and a temporary bathroom connected to the house septic system. All as shown
on Site Plan NBCCC-2 Tent Site Plan, with the access from Dix Avenue being along the
existing driveway to the point of the grass, and then they will go across the grass to the
parking area.
MR. BAKER-The existing driveway will go through one of the tents.
MR. GROSS-No, sir. What you see is a finished driveway on your.
MR. O'CONNOR-The existing driveway is, there’s an existing driveway shown on C-1.
MR. BAKER-Okay. This is why I’m asking for one revised plan that shows everything.
So that we don’t have to cross reference multiple sheets to know what was actually
approved this evening, and I believe the Board can do the approval, but as a result of the
approval, we should get one sheet submitted that shows exactly what was approved.
MR. GROSS-I can generate that for you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We will try to generate that. We can generate those.
MR. BAKER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-With that, can we go forward with SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone’s clear on what we’re doing then?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-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
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we need to make it clear that this is just a temporary.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think you could conclude that this is inducing the full
project or resulting in an other effect.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity
or energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-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. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-In light of this being a temporary project, then I will make a motion for a
Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RANDY GROSS, 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 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Sipp
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-When you’re preparing the Site Plan, make sure you put the label, the
electricity for the tents will come from the house on site, before and during construction,
the way it is currently labeled.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. What do we want to do from here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we’re, you know, just making up a resolution as we kind
of go. I mean, we can’t really use a prepared resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So we’re going to have two motions, then, in reality?
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re going to have one motion to approve the temporary tent usage,
and then a second motion to table.
MR. SEGULJIC-The project to address the engineering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Engineering comments and Site Plan issues.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’re going to make a motion to approve the installation of
the temporary, and then we should just list what (lost words), right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, actually, couldn’t it just be one motion tabling the Site Plan but also
allowing the, we don’t need a resolution to approve the tents, do we?
MR. BAKER-Well, since we’re dividing this up into phases, two motions would probably
be clearer. I’m just trying to think in terms of keeping the administrative record as clear
as possible.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So to install temporary tents along Dix Avenue?
MR. KREBS-I wrote this down if you want, if it sounds good.
MOTION TO APPROVE TEMPORARY TENT INSTALLATION FOR SITE PLAN NO.
10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
The temporary installation of two tents for a period from May through October 31, 2008.
Construction of handicap bathroom facility using existing house septic system. The use
of existing driveway and electricity from existing house, as depicted on NBCCC-2 Site
Plan, and conditioned upon the applicant submitting a map showing just what has been
approved.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, use of the existing driveway.
MR. GROSS-And should we add electricity to come from the residence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think, you know, and say details as depicted on, you know.
MR. BAKER-I’ve got a question, and I apologize if I’m confused due to the late hour, but I
just want to be clear on the driveway here. We’re talking about use of the existing drive
as it’s depicted on C-1, correct?
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Okay. So the temporary drive and the permanent drive shown on the
NBCCC-2 Site Plan are not part of the Phase One approval. Correct?
MR. GROSS-Correct.
MR. BAKER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we have a motion from Mr. Krebs. Do you want to read it
again?
MR. KREBS-Yes. The temporary installation of two tents for, and we should specify the
size, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s as depicted.
MR. TRAVER-It’ll be as depicted on.
MR. KREBS-Okay. For a period from May to October. Construction of handicap
bathroom facilities using existing house septic systems. The use of the existing driveway
and electricity from existing house.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then just say as depicted on.
MR. KREBS-Okay. As depicted on NBCCC-2 Site Plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-And conditioned upon applicant submitting a separate map showing
all, showing just what has been approved.
MR. BAKER-Absolutely.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we need a tabling motion.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, is that motion, when it’s read, is it going to read through
October?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Not to October. Somebody said they thought they heard you
say to October.
MR. SIPP-I think you should put a date in there, too.
st
MR. O’CONNOR-To October 31.
MR. SIPP-Well, 2008.
MR. O'CONNOR-2008.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Let’s be formal about this. We have an amendment to
the motion to specify that it’s through the end of October 2008, by Mr. Krebs. Is there a
second?
MR. SEGULJIC-Second.
MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO APPROVE TEMPORARY TENT INSTALLATION
FOR SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
To specify that it’s through the end of October 2008.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. SEGULJIC-Then we have to do a tabling motion, and we’ll request that the VISION
Engineering and Staff comments be addressed, and we’ll table it to a specific date.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-If we table it to June, the first meeting is the 17. I mean, you’re
certainly welcome to get your comments back in as soon as you’re ready, and, I mean, I
can’t speak for the engineer, but I would hope that he would address them and respond
in a timely manner, so that maybe there could be a back and forth a couple of times
before the Board meeting, you know, to give you additional time to submit.
MR. O’CONNOR-I’m not sure how the Town has it set up, but does he respond only to
what’s on the agenda for that meeting? I mean, I have the impression.
MR. BAKER-That is the current set up, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that once he’s working with an applicant, I mean, certainly there’s
give and take all the time with applicants that are, you know, ones that have been before
the Board. I don’t think he just looks at the projects once a month, does he?
MR. TRAVER-Well, and he has his own workload.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I said I can’t speak for him.
MR. TRAVER-We could maybe ask Staff to communicate to him that, you know, the
applicant.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. BAKER-Yes, we can certainly discuss it with him, but I don’t know the formal
contractual arrangement we have with him offhand, in terms of his review
responsibilities.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don’t think it specifies procedural issues, other than,
you know, what our practice is.
MR. BAKER-Yes. I understand the Board and the applicant’s concerns, and I’ll convey
that to Dan Ryan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are we ready, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Requesting the following additional information.
1.That the engineering and Staff comments be addressed.
2.The application will be tabled to our June 17, 2008 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate your patience at the late hour. I take it that
there’s nobody here for David Dutra, for the David Dutra application. It was scheduled
for this evening. We did have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I will open the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And we will table it. He did submit the new information. So I think it
goes back into the queue. If we table it until June.
MR. BAKER-No, there was no new information submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m saying, he didn’t. So I think we, you know, we table it
until June, and, you know, convey to the applicant that they didn’t submit the requested
information.
MR. BAKER-I would ask that you pick a specific date. Otherwise we have to re-
advertise.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I will. Yes. I might as well stick to the 17.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARY LOU DUTRA,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
th
To the June 17 Board meeting. So that the applicant can submit the requested
information, and I would further request that Staff contact the applicant and find out if he
intends to follow through on the application or not.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-The other item is the letter that was received from Robinson and
Company. I think everybody got a copy of it, where they sort of outline a hardship case
and request a Planning Board meeting, request to get before the Planning Board during
the month of April. I did talk with Craig Brown about this yesterday, informed him that I
would discuss it with the Board this evening. Personally I could go either way, but we
didn’t create the hardship. I also think that, you know, we have somewhat of an
obligation to try to be flexible and unusual in circumstances beyond people’s control.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, I haven’t seen that letter.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I haven’t seen it, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-You didn’t see the letter? It was with our Board package.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not in mine.
MR. TRAVER-I didn’t see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was it passed out tonight? Because I got more than one copy of it.
MR. BAKER-I don’t believe that was passed out tonight. Let me take a look at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know where my extra copy came from.
MR. BAKER-No, we didn’t pass this out this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll read it quickly, or I’ll hit the highlights. It’s submitted by this
company that’s looking to locate an office, put in an office use on River Street in a Mixed
Use zoned area, which requires Site Plan Review, and it says I’ve been in touch with
Craig Brown about where we stand in getting our schedule for April. He has been most
th
candid and helpful. The letter’s dated March 7. This morning he advised we were
th
scheduled for May 20. Also, the morning I received the attached letter from our present
landlord which indicates we must be out of our present office space by mid-May. So they
were looking to get before the Board in April so that they could, you know, re-locate to
this office space prior to vacate by their current landlord.
MR. TRAVER-I think we’re opening up a real can of worms if we adjust our schedule to
accommodate somebody’s lease or somebody’s needs. It’s certainly very
understandable, but I don’t think there’s an applicant that comes before this Board that
doesn’t have grounds to want their application heard and approved in a timely manner,
but I’m not sure that it’s within our power to really do anything about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the date of that VMJR?
MR. TRAVER-That’s the last Tuesday of the month.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-April 29.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have they submitted a complete package?
MR. BAKER-Yes. You had it on the table in front of you, somewhere.
MR. TRAVER-We just got another one, and is that to replace the package that we just
got?
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-For VMJR? I’ve got you. Okay.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But for Robinson.
MR. BAKER-We do have the materials for Robinson for distribution to the Board tonight
depending on your decision.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the application look like?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it a complete application?
MR. BAKER-I haven’t reviewed the application. I don’t know if it’s had a completeness
review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would say we look at it the night of VMJR.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-April 29?
MR. SEGULJIC-We do want to be accommodating.
MR. HUNSINGER-The question is how far do we go?
MR. TRAVER-Well, and also, VMJR has asked us, and we agreed, to give them a
Special Meeting to consider them. If we are considering another application, and I think
Tom has a good suggestion. However, for VMJR, you know, in that sense, are they not
entitled to this Board going into that meeting with them being the only consideration? So
if we have two items, now, on our agenda, does that change the nature of the meeting
that we’re providing to them?
MR. SEGULJIC-No. I don’t think so.
MR. TRAVER-They might think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-We set the agenda. We’re accommodating them. We have something
else that came up.
MR. KREBS-Yes, they’ll be first on the agenda.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’ll be first on the agenda, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Then why not, I mean, there are certainly other applications, including
another one that we had tonight, that is, to some degree, under a hardship as well, and
would certainly like to get their construction going. Why are we not considering that? I
mean, I’m not opposed to having a, which I think we did last year, especially in the
Spring when we have so many applications, we did have an additional meeting, just to
try to get kind of caught up with the applications that we have. I think that’s one thing,
because then we’re not accommodating one applicant. We’re trying to address the issue
of the sheer volume of work that we have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-I’d be more comfortable with that than sort of setting a precedent of.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a consensus one way or another? Like I said, I brought it to
the Board. I could go either way. We didn’t create the hardship. They submitted their
application in time in March to get on the April agenda. It wasn’t until, well, it was, the
st
memo to me was dated March 31. So, like I said, I could go either way. On the one
hand I have a hard time believing that a landlord can’t be a little flexible, especially when
they know that there’s issues, you know, like Planning Boards to go before. Anyone in
the real estate business knows that that’s not a certainty.
MR. TRAVER-I can identify with their, you know, they’ve got to meet their need, but I’m
very concerned that if we do this, how are we going to turn down another applicant who’s
going to be in greater need? Because this applicant may feel highly justified, and they
certainly may be in need because they have a problem with their landlord, but I’m pretty
confident that there are going to be other applicants who can make an argument that
they’re in greater need.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/08)
MR. BAKER-Either take action or no action.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sitting at the other end of the table, I think we can accommodate them
th
on the 29.
MR. TRAVER-I agree that we could accommodate a backlog of applicants by having a
meeting for that purpose, but I think if we do it for a specific applicant, I think that’s a
mistake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess that’s a, you know, I mean, it’s kind of a late hour, but I
guess there’s two things I want everyone to think about for next week, since we’ll be
back here next week. The first one is to appoint members to a traffic study to review the
VMJR Companies traffic analysis. I think the only requirement is that we not have a
quorum. So if it’s one person or up to three people, so if you want to think about that,
and we’ll do that next week, and then the other item is to consider whether or not we
want to have a third meeting in May to catch up some of the backlog, and maybe Staff
could research potential meeting dates when the room would be available in May for a
third meeting.
thth
MR. KREBS-Besides the 20 and the 27?
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Besides the 20 and 27, which are regularly scheduled
meetings, and if it’s the consensus of the Board that we don’t want to have a third
meeting to work on the backlog, that’s fine, too. Just give it some thought and we’ll
spend ten minutes at the end of the meeting next week to talk about it. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we have two possible agenda items for such a meeting if we
decided to have one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is there any other business? If not, a motion to adjourn is
always in order.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL
15, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Traver
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
74