2002-07-23
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 23, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FW 1-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK
COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME WETLAND AFFECTED: HALFWAY BROOK
AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ON THE SITE. PORTIONS OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS
ARE WITHIN THE ADJACENT WETLAND SETBACK AS WELL AS WITHIN THE
WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 12-02, UV 44-92, FW2-92, UV 1226, OPS 21 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10/60-2-6 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES
SECTION: 179-6-100
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of announcements first. The application for the Girl Scouts of America, or Girl
Scouts of the Adirondack Council, which is Old Business, FW1-2002, that is tabled tonight, but I am going to
open up the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s pending a ZBA resolution, as well as Site Plan 30-2002 for the Girl Scouts of the
Adirondack Council.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK
COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR-
1A LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ON THE SITE. ALSO,
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A PARKING LOT EXPANSION AS WELL AS A FOOTBRIDGE
ACROSS HALFWAY BROOK. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 12-02, UV 44-92, FW2-92, UV 1226,
OPS 21 DEC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10/60-2-6 LOT
SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MR. MAC EWAN-That as well is tabled tonight, and the third one is Site Plan 34-2002 for Sandri Realty.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 34-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED SANDRI REALTY, INC. PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AGENT: HEIDI BUSHWAY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 GLEN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 48’ X 36’ SERVICE STATION CANOPY,
AND TO REPLACE THE OLD GASOLINE/DIESEL DISPENSERS AD ASSOCIATED
UNDERGROUND PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PIPING OF THE EXISTING FUEL ISLAND.
SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE SITE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2002, SV 58-2002 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 104.-1-15 302.7-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION:
ART. 4
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re also tabling that one as well, pending a ZBA determination.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-02 TYPE: UNLISTED HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 43 HANNEFORD ROAD
APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 8 BOAT
SLIPS AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-93, AV
27-94, SP 21-94, SP 38-94, AV 31-99 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX
MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-10
HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George.
MR. HILTON-After the last meeting, the Board instructed the applicant to submit information, a list of
information, which they have. The only, I guess it’s not outstanding, it’s been submitted, but the only
question that remains is the ability to park on Pilot Knob Road. I’m not so sure if what has been submitted
amounts to permission from the County, and that seems to me to be the only thing that’s outstanding from
what they have submitted.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MR. HILTON-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SMITH-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. SMITH-Harold Smith and Eleanore Smith.
MR. HILTON-I have a letter from Warren County, signed by Christian Venosa, which references a permit
from 1979. However, it seems, and I’ll read the first line. It says, “This department issued a Highway Permit
to Erwin H. Johnson of 24 Sherwood Drive, Glens Falls, New York on April 20, 1979 granting permission to
fill in an existing ditch, 100 feet long, for the purpose of off road parking.” To me, when they say the
purpose to fill in for a ditch, I understand he says for the purpose of off road parking, but I still have my
questions as to whether this is an official permit from the County.
MR. SMITH-There was a copy of the permit itself. You’ve got that.
MR. HILTON-Okay. I don’t have that.
MRS. SMITH-You should have that.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Along with the revised site plan, I have a list of information, yes, I don’t have that.
MR. SMITH-That was in the original package.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, this is the original, this is the file copy. It’s not here, but let me take a look.
MR. VOLLARO-The permit number was 136, and it was on Road CR 38. The permit was 79-10. I have it
in front of me if you’d like to see it.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, I have his copy now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but this is the permit we talked about last time which was to the previous property
owner.
MR. SMITH-And we got an additional letter, with this package you’ve got here, stating that that was still
valid, from the County of Warren.
MR. MAC EWAN-The permit applications that the County’s using now looks like these. Did you get one of
those?
MRS. SMITH-Like Mr. Venosa at the County said, the permit is still good. They don’t see any need to
reissue anything, and that’s why he was kind enough to write this letter, and saying it’s still good. They’ve
reviewed where the ditch was filled in for parking, and it’s still in compliance, and that even though
ownership of the property has changed hands, the permit is still in effect, and it remains so.
MR. STROUGH-Here’s what it says exactly. June 25, 2002, Warren County Department of Public Works,
from Christian Venosa, “As to the validity of a permit issued 23 years ago, I ascertain with this letter, that
even though ownership of the property has changed hands, the permit is still in effect, and will remain so,
until this department says otherwise.”
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MRS. SMITH-So we feel we have a permit, and that we’ve gotten a letter that backs that up.
MR. SMITH-That’s what it says.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have in my notes that there’s a conflict in response from Warren County
re: the parking permit, see letters from Venosa, which was just read by Mr. Strough, and then there’s another
one from Mr. Van Dusen that goes to the next applicant, which is the Hoppers, which is quite contradictory
to the one from Venosa. So I’m in conflict in my own mind about what Warren County is doing here. Van
Dusen said they have no responsibility to issue a permit at that time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yet here’s one that they issued for another application which is on Bay Road, and they did
it on January 15, or, let me take that back, the issuing date on this thing doesn’t have the issuing date on it.
th
It doesn’t have the date on it that this thing was issued, but was just for a recently approved site plan we did
for the Diet Center down on Bay Road, and it specifically says to construct and utilize two driveway and
parking lot partial within the right of way, which, if you go back and look at the permit that was issued for
Irwin Johnson, that permit was issued for that land owner to do grading in the area where he was going to
park, so that it wouldn’t affect a culvert, and if you look at this letter, which Mr. Vollaro just referenced,
which is from George Van Dusen, who says he knows of no such procedure for issuing a permit, and here’s
one that came out of his own office this year, and that’s where we’re confused. In my mind, and I’ll still
stand by my feelings on this, I don’t think this is a permit to utilize the right of way to park in.
MR. SMITH-What do we need from the County, besides the letter that we have that he’s?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be looking for something like that, which is exactly, and I know Cool Beans on
Quaker Road recently had the same thing done, because there is a 75 foot overlay zone there. Even though
their parking lot looks like it’s part of their parcel, part of that parking lot sits in the County right of way, and
they had to get a permit for six or eight parking spots, as I recall.
MR. HILTON-That pre-dates me, but the 75 foot setback does exist along Quaker Road. So that presents
the need for the parking in the County right of way.
MRS. SMITH-I would agree that you want a permit, but I guess what Mr. Venosa was saying is there’s no
need to issue another permit for us, because we have a permit that’s run with the land. So, as far as he felt.
MR. MAC EWAN-With all due respect to that position, I don’t agree with it, and this is just one person’s
opinion. I’m looking at something that was issued some 23 years ago, that was to do grading.
MRS. SMITH-For the purpose of parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at a permit that was issued this year for a different application but with the
same thought process in mind, which tells them they can have X number of parking spots in the County right
of way, and that’s, I think that’s what we were hoping to see.
MR. SMITH-We brought the letter stating that the original one we provided you is still a valid permit.
MRS. SMITH-And the survey that we had done, showing that we can get all eight parking spaces down on
that land.
MR. MAC EWAN-There is the point right there, and I don’t agree with the County. I mean, my fellow
Board members may disagree with me, but this is to do work in the drainage area. Grade it, not to park eight
cars in it.
MR. SMITH-Does it not say for the purpose of parking?
MR. MAC EWAN-How many parking spots was he given a permit for 28 years ago? How many docks did
he have 28 years ago?
MR. SMITH-Probably the same number.
MRS. SMITH-Yes, and whatever parking.
MR. SMITH-The parking requirement is mandated by the square footage, which is as you can see on the
survey can be facilitated. We have a permit to fill in for the use of parking in that area. We have a letter
stating that it’s still a valid permit, that there’s no need for another one.
MRS. SMITH-And it says for off road parking.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not comfortable with it, from the standpoint that we also have a conflicting letter
right from the same office that says they know of no protocol to issue permits, and yet, and here’s one that
was issued. So I think that needs to be clarified in my mind.
MR. SMITH-Chris, Mr. Venosa has requested any time any questions, he would more than be glad to
exchange phone calls or speak with someone.
MRS. SMITH-And I think he did talk to Chris Round.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what that conversation was relative to?
MR. HILTON-No, I was just going to say, I’m unaware of that.
MR. SMITH-That was in the last record. That was brought up at the last meeting.
MRS. SMITH-Yes, it’s in the notes from last meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the one that I did, I didn’t have a problem with the parking. I thought that the letter
was, to me, it was pretty clear that they were reaffirming the permission they had given them previously, but
the dock rental agreement, I thought you did a nice job with that. I thought the Hoppers did a nice job, too.
So what I did was I put them both together and I just want to share this with my Chairman. I made up
enough copies for Planning Board members. If the Chairman affirms that that’s okay, I’ll share that with
everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is this, you’re making up a dock rental agreement form?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I took the two agreements together, because as I started going through the
agreements, I thought that the Hoppers did a nice job with some things. I thought the Smiths did a nice job
with some things, and rather than use a lot of verbiage to punch and paste, in this kind of an atmosphere, I
just thought I would type out the best of both and put them together, and if it’s agreeable to everybody, I just
think we can go on from there.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to send them a bill, John, or what?
MR. STROUGH-And I will share that with everybody, once I have your permission.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you make copies for the applicants?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I did.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got?
MR. STROUGH-Well, basically, the only thing I wanted to get was clarification. I understand that the
Building and Codes Department has asked you to put a railing up.
MR. SMITH-Yes. We have a contractor who met with the building inspector to see what was needed, and
we have contracted, and it will be done, it should be done, it was supposed to be done by the end of the
month.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, but that’s going to get done.
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-No. I think everything seems to be pretty agreeable to me, as far as this application goes,
and, you know, the dock rental agreement, if you see what I mean, if you saw the Hoppers, they had some
nice input too. So I said, well, why don’t we put these together, and we come out with a nice product, I
thought, and a lot of your thoughts are in this as well. So, you know, if there’s anything disagreeable, you
should speak up and we can discuss it.
MR. SMITH-No. Everything looks fine.
MRS. SMITH-Did you put in there about them having their own insurance?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-Well, what I did leave was Number 16.
MRS. SMITH-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Because I noticed that there were some individual differences between the two of you. So I
thought, well, I’ll leave one, because everything else seemed to match. I’ll leave one, because you had
something of interest to you, and they had something. So that could be a write-in, but at least we’ve got in
the items that we’ve identified as important to us.
MRS. SMITH-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to make one comment on the dock rental agreement, then I’ll get into my own,
the one that John did. I would like the word “vessel” to replace anyplace it has the word “boat”. Because as
I look at the Lake George Park Commission, in their correspondence, they use the word “vessel” all the time,
and I’d like the word “vessel” to replace “boat”. That’s the only comment I have on Mr. Strough’s dock
rental agreement.
MRS. SMITH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to go quickly through some stuff, because I covered, the last meeting and this
meeting as well, I just wanted to quickly go across. I still am looking at our Comprehensive Land Use Plan
where it says each residential parcel will be allowed one dock for single family residence, and this is a
residential zone we’re talking about here. So I want all my fellow Board members to understand what the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan says about this and be aware that when we get to the end of this, that we
would be departing from that. We talked about the conflict in memorandums from the Venosa and the Van
Dusen, and I think that’s still paramount in my mind, as to, and I think I’d just make a recommendation on
there that Staff make an effort to contact Warren County and try to get that cleaned up, because I think it is,
it’s a problem. I don’t know whether Chris has done that already or Chris has agreed to something already,
but I have a very definite, I would like to see Warren County state their policy clearly, so it’s not interpretive
by us. Now, the Town Ordinance, our Town Ordinance, calls for greater than 500 feet of shoreline to
support four docks. Now this application asks for four docks against 102.7 feet. It actually asks for eight
berths. I don’t know whether we’ve looked at that or not, how we’ve handled that in the past, and what
we’ve said about it. I looked, I haven’t seen, I couldn’t get to the past minutes. I don’t think they’re ready
yet, actually, are they, Maria?
MS. GAGLIARDI-Not yet.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know how we’re handling that. I just want my fellow Board members to think
about what we’re doing on this. Because, frankly, this, and it’s burdensome on the applicants. I can
understand that, but we’re setting the bar here for the future, and what we do here tonight on these two
applications really set the bar for these Special Use Permits, and I want to make sure that we’re concentrating
on each of these items, and understanding what we’re doing when we’re granting them. The stormwater
runoff from the fill-in parking area discharges directly into Lake George. This still hasn’t been solved. My
fellow Board member, Mr. Strough, is usually right on top of that stormwater issue, and I don’t know where
we are on this one. Reference the drawing from Harold Smith. I think, Mr. Smith, you made the first
drawing, the dock setback from the property lines is 15 feet in both cases. Then we have a drawing from Joe
Fuerst, which is a stamped drawing by a stamped architect, that shows 14 9 and 19 2, respectively, on these
setbacks. Now, neither one of these meet the 20 foot setback requirements, and I’m just, first of all, I
wonder which drawing is applicable, which one are we really talking to here? I’ve got two of them, and I just
want to know which one this application is speaking to. Mr. Strough talked about the installation of the pipe
railing, and I can understand that you’re going to do that. Now I just want to read something that I want to
just, I was hoping Mr. Round might be here, might be able to answer my question, but in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and Neighborhood One, Page Nine, R1.8, and I’ll read it to you so you don’t have to go
scurrying for it. It talks about residential dock regulation, and it says, “In order to eliminate the redundancy
of regulations, it is recommended that the Town of Queensbury remove itself from the review of docks,
except for the issuance of building permits. It is recommended that dock regulations be the responsibility of
the Lake George Park Commission.” If this is the tact we’re taking, then this certainly ought to be removed
as an erader from our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I feel. It shouldn’t be in the present Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Now, one other question, what would be the status of these Class A marina permits, should
Fischer close its operation or refuse to accept pump outs in the future? How do you look at that?
MR. SMITH-There’s a number of marinas. They all do this. They do it for a profit. I had a letter from a
marina right across the way.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but in this application Fischer is particularly called out as the source that you would
use to do pump out.
MR. SMITH-Just to give you a letter, a signed letter to the fact that we do have an assigned area for it. If
need be, we would find another.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that if he doesn’t do it, somebody else will? In short, that’s the short of it?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John had another option on his proposed permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s Number Twelve in his, so he’s covered the fact that there may be another marina
to be used, and I kind of wish that Counsel was here, because I had a question for Counsel, but I’ll read it
anyway, and this doesn’t mean that this applies directly to you. It’s a question that I have for our Counsel
which is absent tonight, but I’ll read it in any event. It says could any denial be based on traffic where the
record shows proposed use would create greater traffic than as of right uses in the neighborhood? Would
this be considered one of the valid reasons for denial of an application of this type? And this comes out of
the Pace Law School on marinas, and it’s one of the questions that they had on there, and I wanted to just
raise that issue, because I, myself, parked up on Pilot Knob just this past week for about an hour, and it’s a
busy, busy road, right now, and I don’t think it’s, the as of right use, for people in the neighborhood, out of
season, probably very likely used, but right now I found it a very extensively used road, and I just wanted
Counsel to answer that question for me, and on this application, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have some questions regarding the density, the fact that eight boat docks, that’s what
you’ve always had there, and I wish I had Counsel here, too, because I know that everything I read and that if
you’ve been doing this for all these years, that basically it’s like it’s been grandfathered in, but I just feel that
eight docks is too many, and I felt that from the very beginning. I think John’s proposed agreement is really
good, and I think that the fact that you addressed everything is really good. I would like to have a definite
answer from Warren County on the parking. I mean, I have no problem with the parking if they say it’s, the
permit’s there, but I hate to have something be nebulous like that. It’s either a permit or it isn’t a permit, or
it’s got to be for parking for people that use the boats. The last time it wasn’t for that reason. So, that’s, I
would like to see some less of the density of the number of docks go down there. Instead of eight, I’d like
fewer.
MRS. SMITH-It is four docks, not eight docks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s four docks with eight boats.
MRS. SMITH-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s what I meant, eight stalls. I was discussing this with my mother, we have a
place on Lake George, and we have our boat, and my sister’s boat. Well, what it is, it’s a U shaped dock with
two U’s, so the family boat’s here. My sister’s boat is in the other U, and then my mother rents out the end
one to help her pay the taxes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Clarify what township that’s in.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is in the Town of Dresden, at Hewlett’s Landing, excuse me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, I said to mom, well, what would happen if I wanted to buy a boat, mom, and dock
it here over on the other side, and she said, well, Cathy, then I’ve been told that I’ll be a Class A marina.
That’s definitely not allowed.
MR. VOLLARO-She could make application for a Class A marina, just like these folks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what I’m saying is that I understand, myself, that the density would be ridiculous
there, you know, but what I’m saying is I think that four docks, I think eight boats is a lot.
MRS. SMITH-That’s just what we’ve had all these years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that. That’s what I’m saying. If it’s been grandfathered in and it’s legal for
you to keep having it, that’s fine. I’m just expressing my opinion for what it’s worth.
MR. SMITH-Does your mother know she should have a Class B marina license?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-She’s got something.
MR. SMITH-Okay. It should be a Class B marina.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-She applies for permits and everybody’s happy. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have the same difficulty with this tonight that I had last month, and I see this as a
commercial enterprise in a residential zone, and I also refer to the Comprehensive Land Use Program that
Bob was also referring to, and I have great difficulty, as I had last month, with it this month, not for the
parking reasons or any of that, but mainly because I look at this as a commercial venture, even though it’s
been there, and I understand that, and that’s just one of the problems that we run into, and I just can’t accept
the way it is. That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-My comments kind of go along the same lines, and I’m sorry I wasn’t here last month
for the earlier discussion. In fact, I even wrote down some of the notes from Bob’s comments, and I sort of
took the same approach and view of this when I looked at it, not only the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but
also the Zoning Ordinance. I, personally, though did have some questions and some problems with the
parking layout as it is proposed and designed. I understand that probably not all eight boats would be out at
the same time, so the likelihood of eight cars being there at the same time is not that great, but I also think
you have to plan for that eventuality. I just think it’s too much, and even looking at the way, well, this
parking space numbered five and eight, the way that those are laid out, I’m having a difficult time
understanding how those cars could come in and out, if there were other cars parked in lot six and eight
seems to encroach onto the lot next door, in fact. So, I mean, I did have some specific concerns with the
parking as laid out as well. I think Bob mentioned the stormwater runoff issue, which has not been addressed
to the best of my knowledge, either.
MR. SMITH-The stormwater runoff issue has not changed. It’s always been there. The water runs down
that way all the way down to the culvert. There’s really no change.
MRS. SMITH-And the letter addresses that. It says that they inspected it and the surface water is still flowing
in the direction intended. So, they did re-inspect it.
MR. SMITH-But your parking position, that, basically the drawing there is to show that it facilitates the
square footage. Usually when they park, they all park at an angle, rather than a straight ins, and like that.
We’ve never had a problem with space, as you say that I’ve never seen all the boats out. The Fourth of July
there were four boats out, and even if need be, with the property up behind, we have ample parking,. If need
be somebody would need to move up there, but we’ve never had to use it.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other concerns I had is when we went out for site visits, it was a Saturday
morning, it was actually raining that morning, so there were no boaters out on the lake at all, and just having
our car, well, there were two cars that day, pulled over to the side of the road, created traffic problems, you
know, and cars would have to slow down as they approached, you know, from driving north on Pilot Knob
Road. It just seemed to me like, and I think you heard the comment already. It does seem like too much
congestion and too small a space.
MR. SMITH-It’s been, we’ve been using it for years. There’s never been an accident or a problem to my
knowledge in eleven years I’ve been there, and I’ve never known of a problem or an accident, and slowing
down, I hope they do, just coming to the corner, because that’s a 30 mile an hour zone through there anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Those were the only comments I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I think we’re in a tough position here. I drive by your residence on a daily basis, and it
dawns on me that, as I’m coming back down 9L south, I just cannot fathom all the number of boats that are
in the residential area, and I just wonder how this could have possibly ever happened. Because Lake George
regulations, for as long as I remember, and probably further than that, state that each homeowner can only
have one dock. There are exceptions to that around the lake, and I’ll never understand how some of these
exceptions have been made. Even new docks that have gone up in the last year or two receive permits to put
two, three docks, and in some cases boathouses on areas, and I’ll just never understand how this all
happened, because it clearly states, in the Town of Queensbury, which I am referring to, that every residence
can only have one dock. Do I look at the number of boats along that shoreline, and just cannot comprehend
how that could have possibly ever happened. We’re in a tough situation because now, I mean, you’ve been
doing this for so long. So, you know, I don’t know what we can do, because we can’t really issue you a, you
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
know, you technically shouldn’t be able to get a Class A marina permit with everything that is, if you went by
the rules of a Class A marina permit for the Town. It’s impossible. So it almost seems like, you know, we’d
have to issue variances for this, but that’s beside the point, and you’re not in front of the ZBA. I just don’t
have the warm and fuzzies about this. As far as your business policy is concerned, I looked at it, and it
doesn’t explain what type of business you have, and usually a business policy has a little clause in it that states
what type of business you are running, and in this case it could be for anything. So, again, I don’t know if the
Town could be held liable for something, if something happened on your residence, but the fact is is that we
just don’t know what this covers, and it could have an exclusion for the marina itself. I don’t know.
MRS. SMITH-I thought I gave you all the.
MR. METIVIER-Well, it doesn’t state anywhere what type of business you have. It says other business,
classified. So that could be anything. I just, if we had more of the declaration and the policy itself, we might
have a better understanding, but I don’t know if we could be held responsible, at this point, if something ever
happened. I mean, we brought it up, and now I think we probably have created a mess here because we
requested that we get this policy, and yet we don’t have any of the documentation to back it up to verify that
it is a business owner’s policy for this type of business. This type of business could be excluded from this
policy, and we don’t know. So, to me, I don’t know where we stand with that. We messed up somewhere,
that we didn’t ask for more, and again, it doesn’t list what type of business we’re talking about, and usually a
business owner’s policy does list exactly what type of business, be it a floral shop, a garage, a book studio,
whatever, a painter’s studio. It’ll specifically tell you what type of business it is. So I don’t know where we
stand there as well, but I just, I don’t know, I don’t feel comfortable with this, just because we’re setting a
precedence for everybody else who comes in front of us, and, you know, with all the boats on the lake and all
the docks and people that want to build new docks, new houses, you just are setting an example here that
could be held against us for years to come. So I don’t know what to do.
MR. SMITH-How long has the law been in where there’s only one dock per?
MR. METIVIER-Well, as long as I can remember. I mean, if you look back, going back into the, I think the
70’s, I’d have to say, it’s always been one dock, and it could be a U shaped boat slip so you’d have technically
two docks, but it’s one attached dock, and in no case could you have three or more docks, and it depends on
the footage, too. I mean, some instances, if you had more footage in front, you could have up to two docks,
but they’d always have to be joined, so you’d have the setbacks on either side. So, it’s like these docks just
appeared, and I’m not saying they appeared in the last few years, because I know they didn’t. I’ve lived up
there my whole life, and I know that the docks have been there for a while, but just how they got there. It
just makes no sense that they just got there.
MR. SMITH-Well, I’ve got to believe they were done by permits, and you’re saying they’re still issuing them
today. I mean, as far as I thought the limit was a 400 square foot, but to this day, you see larger docks going
in for sure, whether it’s by variance or which, I do not know, but I mean, they’re doing it, but these here, and
I believe it was 10 years ago, that the setback was only 10 foot, not 20, and that was within just the last 10
years that that law changed, the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. METIVIER-But again, it was for one dock, and the setback would be 10 foot, or a U shaped dock,
which technically is two docks. It’s not technically two docks. It’s one dock, but you have the ability to park
up to three boats there, one on either side and one in the middle. So, and, I mean, those were easily
obtainable if you had enough lake frontage, which most people on the lake do have, and I mean, you see
them going up all the time, but now that, you know, I don’t know. We’ll never know, one way or another.
Unless they go to the San Souci. They have a nice satellite photograph of the whole area, and I could take a
look at it. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, let’s jump back to a comment you made a few minutes ago, regarding side yard
setbacks and stuff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you give some clarification on that? Do you remember his comment?
MR. HILTON-Before I do that, I just want to speak to the number of docks allowed. I can’t speak for
previous versions of the Ordinance, but based on this Ordinance, it goes by the shape, which you mentioned,
and also by the feet of lake frontage you have. If you have 151 and over, you get into being allowed to have
two docks, 251 feet and over, three docks, 500 feet or more four. I know that’s very rare, but I just want to
clarify that it’s based on the shape and also how much lake frontage you have. Now you’re speaking to the
setback, I believe, on the south end of the property?
MR. VOLLARO-There are two drawings that talk to setbacks, one that Mr. Smith drew, I believe, and then
the other one is drawn by an architect or a licensed land surveyor.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. SMITH-That was due to the request from the last survey. I did not have, it was not a professional
survey. That I had done it and they wanted a more accurate stamped survey.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now the stamped survey shows that one dock is 14.9 from the extension of the
property line, and the other is 19.2, which is both short of the 20 foot requirement.
MR. HILTON-Well, I would have to do some research on that. I see that there have been some Area
Variances in the past.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I looked for variances on this and didn’t see any. So I don’t think the ZBA has
looked at these setbacks.
MR. HILTON-No, not currently. Historically.
MR. SMITH-These have been in well over 10 years, when the setbacks were only 10 foot. Those docks that
I’ve owned the property for over 11, and those docks were there before I got it.
MR. VOLLARO-My only problem is, and I guess the Board members here have the same problem, but we
have to look at what’s in front of us, as opposed to researching the archives for what existed 10 years ago.
What we have is all I can do to reach my decision is to take this mass of paper that we’re given on every one
of these applications and boil it down to how I view this application, based on what I’ve been given.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, George?
MR. HILTON-The only thing I can offer is that I can do some research to see if a variance has been granted.
Other than that, there’s no expansion or any change. Based on this, I’ll see if it’s been granted or if it’s
grandfathered, that it’s taken care of, because there’s no expansion at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what would cause something to be grandfathered?
MR. HILTON-If the setbacks were low enough at the time that they could build it that close to the property
line, but I will do some research on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When you requested the additional information from the County on this permit to
park in the right of way, did you submit your drawing to them and show them how you wanted to lay out
your parking and what you were trying to achieve?
MR. SMITH-No. It was just a matter of requesting if the permit was still valid.
MRS. SMITH-And trying to get another permit, which you requested.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can appreciate your frustration. I am equally as frustrated as well, because this
documentation from the County just doesn’t add up. You pretty much have three different pieces of paper
that say three different things. I’d like to get some sort of confirmation from them one way or the other.
George, have you got anything else?
MR. HILTON-I’m all set for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from the Board members? I’ll ask you folks to give up
the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SHAFER
MR. SHAFER-I’m John Shafer, the fourth house in on Hanneford Road, and I share the first dock in Warner
Bay with John Beals. On the parking question, I’m familiar with how DOT does it on State highways, and I
would expect that the County would follow fairly closely along those lines, and in this instance what they
would do is consider a use and occupancy permit allowing the Smiths to have a permit for the use of that
highway right of way. Before they could do that, of course, they would have to do a traffic study on the
safety issues relative to that use and occupancy permit, and my guess is they would also require an insurance
policy holding the County harmless for any accidents that would occur as a result of granting that use and
occupancy permit. So that may be the same process that Warren County uses. I would expect that it is, and
so that is something that you may want to think about or look into, as far as the parking is concerned. I guess
my other comment is that the Smiths are neighbors of mine, and they’re very honorable people, and I would
do anything to help them, but I think you all got to the heart of the matter, which is, does this new regulation
put us in the business of sanctioning more docks and more boats than would be under the current regulation?
We are in the position of having to have a Class B marina as well, and I guess I’m not clear why the Town
wanted to get into the business of creating, even by special use permit, and by looking at all of the specifics of
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
each individual case, what is clearly a commercial operation in a residential area. I think that you all have
commented appropriately on setting a precedent and it’s a very serious issue that you’re dealing with here, and
it ought to be contemplated very, very carefully. That’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHKO
MS. SHOUDY-BRECHKO-Good evening. My name is Heather Shoudy-Brechko, and I’m with the Lake
George Association. Just for your reference, and I know you all got this, but the Lake George Association
submitted a letter dated June 20, and I would just like to reflect upon a few more issues that we’ve thought
th
about as the month went by since last month’s meeting. The number of slips that were rented out prior to
the Lake George Park Commission regulations is important to know, because the number of docks right now
is conforming and the configuration of it. As you know right now, with the amount of shore frontage that is
there, if they were to start all over from the beginning, you would just be able to have one dock and one
mooring, and the configuration wouldn’t be appropriate the way it is right now. So, once the information is
provided by the applicant, you know, this number should be held to, the number of slips that the applicant’s
allowed to have for this type of operation, and also the residential area that’s addressed in the Comprehensive
Plan is something that I think the Lake George Association is concerned about. One of the ways to perhaps
figure out how many slips were there prior to the Park Commission’s regulations, the Park Commission has
aerial photographs. I’m not sure how far back those photographs go, but from those you can figure out how
many slips are there and how many docks and those types of things. In reference to the information that the
applicant has provided, the guidelines regarding the use of the docks, the LGA thinks that it’s comprehensive.
However, we think that there should be some kind of instructions and illustrations as to what aquatic exotics
could be in the lake, such as zebra mussels and Eurasian Water Milfoil, referenced in that, and where
somebody might be able to go to wash their boats and properly dispose of those species. The Lake George
Park Commission could be contacted to provide the right information about these types of matters because
they’re the official word on that. The suggestion by Mr. Vollaro to change the agreement to have all the boat
words in the agreement switched to vessels is a smart one that we agree with, and in addition, if there is some
water runoff running into the lake that was mentioned, that was something that the Lake George Association
was unaware of until today, if it does exist, we’d ask that it be looked into and addressed, and perhaps with all
these questions for Counsel and the issues that have been raised tonight, this application should be tabled to
get further information. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen and
as you know, we operate a marina in North Queensbury. Some clarification. There is great concern about
the subject of grandfathering and what existed when. On July 3, 1981, the DEC promulgated the first Part
646 of the regulatory program entitled Lake George Recreation Zone Regulations. Those regulations had
two components. The regulation of wharfs. Those are docks, moorings and others, and the permitting of
marinas, and they were two separate entities, okay. These present applicants are caught in this Class A marina
thing. Really the only thing they’re, the only reason they’re in the Class A marina hopper is that they’re using
their docks in a commercial sense, but the regulations, the Lake George Park Commission regulations, don’t
differentiate between commercial and non commercial marinas. It’s an A or a B, but if you use your docks in
a commercial sense, then you’re A, you don’t, you can’t qualify for B. Let’s go back to the 1981 regulations.
In summation, it says here all wharfs legally existing on Lake George, whether or not they meet the
requirements of this part, may continue to be maintained providing the property owner of such wharf
registers the same with the Department on or before January 1, 1982. The Park Commission maintains these
records. This was a registration program that was undertaken by the DEC at the time, and these records are
available. So these docks should have been registered, and the only way they can be considered to have any
grandfathering provision or benefit is if they were registered, otherwise they’re not grandfathered. They’ve
been there since 1981 illegally. You are a marina on Lake George, according to these regulations, if you do a
number of things, including the sale, lease, rental or any other provision of storage, wharf space or mooring
for vessels not registered to the owner of the facility. So any other provision of storage, wharf space or
mooring of vessels not registered to the owner you are a marina. This regulation goes on to say no marina
shall be operated on Lake George without first obtaining a permit therefore from New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. So, if they had wharfs that were being maintained by the
owner, in a commercial sense, they were a marina. If they were a marina, they had to have a permit. So, my
point here tonight is that unless they were registered, the docks were registered, unless a marina permit was
issued, way back in 1982, it’s an illegal, it’s a pre-existing illegal use.
MR. VOLLARO-John, is this, what I have in front of me here, it was submitted by the Smiths, the Lake
George Park Commission wharf registration expiring March 31, 2003, is this what you’re talking about?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s the outgrowth of this. This system came into being after 1987, when the Park
Commission got its expansion powers.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m wondering how the Commission issues a wharf registration like this if it hadn’t had
prior existence. There’s a lot of questions here I’m trying to resolve, and you bring up a good point, and I’m
trying to say to myself how does the Lake George Park Commission issue a wharf registration like this if it
doesn’t have a prior knowledge that it was in being before?
MR. SALVADOR-Unfortunately, they don’t busy themselves with trying to determine whether or not
something was legally pre-existing. What they’re doing, as you can see, they’re relying on you. That’s what
they’re doing.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got the brass ring here.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see.
MR. SALVADOR-A couple of other comments that were made, I’d just like to say a few words to. The
subject of the pump outs. At one time there were maybe a half a dozen pump out stations on the lake, and it
seemed to work pretty good. Those facilities leveraged the sale of gasoline and supply of water and even
some small stores with their ability to pump you out, and naturally everyone likes one stop shopping, and so
you’d go some place, have your boat pumped out, water put on board, fuel checked and on your way. The
Commission came along and required, initially they required every marina to have a pump out facility, every
marina. That would have been some 80, Class A marina, I should say, to have a pump out facility. It was
nonsense, and so they changed it to this concept called proven access, and if you can show, as the Smiths are
showing, with the Fischer’s being able to pump out their boats, that’s proven access. Then they can qualify
for the Commission permit. We have a pump out facility and we tell our people in our rental agreement
holding tank pump out facilities are available for a small charge. Use of these facilities is limited to members
of the Boat and Beach Club, and by appointment only. Port-a-potties are not to be emptied into toilets in the
restrooms, but can be emptied into our holding tank. It’s not taken very seriously that you handle the waste
from a boat, you’re handling a contaminant, and God forbid if you have a spill, and the reason we only pump
out by appointment is I want to know what’s going on. I want to know who’s doing this. It’s not hard to
have a wastewater spill when you’re pumping out a boat, if you’re not careful. The other thing we refuse to
do is pump out boats that we just don’t know where they come from and what’s in their holding tank. I
won’t take that responsibility. Others want to, that’s their choice, but the point is well taken. You don’t
know when this agreement will be just all of a sudden not available. We also say by appointment because
somebody comes along, and it’s not unusual, they come back off the lake, eight o’clock on a Sunday night,
they want their holding tank pumped out. We may not have someone there, and so what happens to the
Smiths’ customer that comes in and wants to go to Fischer’s and Fischer’s is closed eight o’clock at night on a
Sunday? That’s not very good service. So, this is how we handle what we think to be a very, very important
subject, and you’re dealing with wastewater and you get a spill, you’ve got some problems. With regard to
parking, if you notice along 9L, there’s no parking signs the whole length of the road. We take the trouble to
state in our rental agreement, parking is available in the immediate vicinity of the Boat and Beach Club. Club
member parking pass shall be clearly displayed on the dash of the vehicle. Lawn areas and highway shoulders
are not intended for parking automobiles. In no case should your guests park at the Boat and Beach Club
area. Parking is a serious problem. A serious concern when you have to have one parking place for each
boat that you dock. So, those are, just to give you the benefit of how we handle a couple of these problems.
The other thing that I think you should be very careful of, Mr. Strough, and that is coming up with these
rental agreements that you would have people agree to. We have a rental agreement. It’s tailored to our
operation. It’s tailored to what we furnish. It’s tailored to what we charge, and that’s our business, and I
wouldn’t want any governmental agency dictating to me what I have to and how I have to do, visa vie my
customers, but in any case, enough said there. The other thing that you’re trying to work yourself into here is
a, and by the way, I served on the Comprehensive Planning Committee, and I can tell you the long
discussions we had about this permitting marinas and the Lake George Park Commission, and I can tell you,
when we left the table, when our work was done, that sentence was in there, that Bob read, but this plan got
massaged. It got massaged after we ceased our work, and that’s why you have the regulations now. There
were people in this Town who thought better, thought they knew better and decided to put that in there, and
now this regulatory program you have is an outgrowth of that. It’s exactly how it happened.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which sentence are you referring to, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-Where Bob Vollaro said that we would leave to the Lake George Park Commission. Do
you want to read it again, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s R1.8, “In order to eliminate the redundancy of regulations, it is recommended that
the Town of Queensbury remove itself from the review of docks, except for the issuance of building permits.
It is recommended that dock regulations be the responsibility of the Lake George Park Commission.”
MR. SALVADOR-That’s pretty much the way we concluded it, but. The other thing you should be aware of
is that attached to every marina permit, A or B, that is issued by the Lake George Park Commission are a set
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
of general conditions, and they’re two pages long, and these general conditions are sort of requirements that
are gleaned from all sections of their regulatory program, and by the way this is the depth and length of their
regulatory program, but you should make yourself aware of that if you’re going to continue in this marina
permitting activity, because there are requirements, then, that the applicants are going to face when they get
to the Park Commission, and in particular, I would say that the information that’s required on the site plan is
very important, very important, and I’ve looked briefly at the site plans that have been submitted, but I have a
list here of things that I think should be shown on the site plan, simply because the Park Commission and the
Town regulate from these locations, and if I can find my list I’ll read it. The mean high water mark, that line
should be shown on the site plan. We regulate from the mean high water mark. The mean low water mark
should be shown. We regulate from that.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve gotten pretty good cooperation on that so far. Probably in the last 10 or so
applications the mean high and the mean low have been accurately described as required by, basically, the
Roger’s Rock gauge.
MR. SALVADOR-This should be accurately described from a benchmark.
MR. VOLLARO-It is. It goes from there, John. I mean, I’ve done all that, looking at how you get to that
number, and it looks like people are generally trying to comply with that. That’s my take on it anyway.
MR. SALVADOR-I would feel better if a surveyor was complying with it. Let me continue. The zoning
district boundary should be shown. The zoning district boundary should be shown on a site plan. The Town
boundary along the shore of Lake George should be shown. As I understand it and gather, the Pilot Knob
Road is an easement. I don’t think there are any property boundaries of the Pilot Knob Road. I don’t think
if you went to the County they could show you a survey map that showed exactly where their right of way
ended, and this is also true of Hanneford Road. It’s a public easement, and they should be shown. The next
application will probably talk about Hanneford Road and I would like to add a little something there, but I’ll
wait until that time. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, John.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. Thank you. I just wanted to say two things. I think you’re going to
be very sorry, in the long run, that certain people had this put into the Comprehensive Plan that these people
must come for site plan. When the Park Commission promulgated its regulations and all, it was supposedly
to eliminate all the towns having to do just what you’re doing now and all. You were supposed to get your
permits from them, work through them, and that was going to be it. Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked that
way, and, as you’re finding out now, it’s going to be very, very difficult for you to do this, and I feel very, very
sorry for all these applicants that are going to have to come before you and then before the Park Commission
also. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN BEALS
MR. BEALS-My name is John Beals. I’m the oldest resident on that side of the lake, in the area you’re
talking about, and I do have the aerial maps, if you would like to have them. My father had them, and they’re
certified, and they’re on file up at the County building, too, you can get them from there, and it very clearly
shows how many docks are at each one of the places. Incidentally, I’m 77 years old, and when I was a kid, I
came to that bay when I was a year old and stayed there a number of years until my folks built on Assembly
Point. There were very few docks there. Many of them were put in, this gentleman asked the question how
the docks got in. After the summer people left, they just went ahead and put them in, and the Town at the
time did not have the machinery to enforce this or go up and see what was going on. In fact, when I was a
kid, the Town office was in Miss Turner’s parlor down on Ridge Road and everybody kind of came there and
got what they wanted, but they did just about what they wanted to do after the summer people left, and I can
prove that, as a lot of people, Russell Harris certainly will testify to that fact, and that’s where it all came
about, and there are many docks that were put in that way, and some, as I recall, I think Mr. Salvador pointed
out, around ’80, ’81, when you set the setback at 10 foot, and that created problems, and then later on I don’t
know when you increased it to 20 foot, but there are a lot of docks that are still in violation of both of the
Ordinances that have been put in force by the Town, and I’ve had surveys. I am a surveyor. I’m registered
with George A. Fluer company, and I know from whence I speak, and a lot of them are still in, if you wanted
to really pursue it, you could come up with a darn good case for a lot of controversy up there, but the thing
I’m afraid of is, if this isn’t resolved, it’s going to open a real can of worms, all up through the lake, and all up
along the Pilot Knob Road. In fact some of the old deeds that I had I got from Bob Ellsworth said if you go
from a certain dimension, there’s a pile of rocks there, and it goes up 50 foot, and there’s another pile of
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
rocks, and you set back, and that’s the way it used to be when I was a kid, and some of the records still read
that way in the County. That’s about all I can give you. I hope the information is helpful.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Yes, sir?
GILBERT BOEHM
MR. BOEHM-My name is Gilbert Boehm. I’m a resident of Dunham’s Bay. I’d like to confront you with a
question that you’re going to be faced with as you consider grandfathering, and that is, if you have a site that
you consider to be grandfathered, but all along they have been encroaching on the adjacent properties, do the
adjacent properties lose their rights?
MR. VOLLARO-Under Riparian rights, I believe. Is that the correct term, as counselor? They come under a
term called Riparian rights.
MR. BOEHM-And? Which means what?
MR. VOLLARO-If they’ve been there a long enough time, it belongs to them. That’s what that means.
MR. BOEHM-So the adjacent properties have lost their rights, is what they’re telling me?
MR. VOLLARO-Only to that portion of the encroachment, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we should be speaking from a legal standpoint. We’re not lawyers.
MR. BOEHM-Yes, but you’re going to be confronting that, as you go through, and presumably reauthorize
some of these places. So you are, in effect, going to deprive the adjacent property owners, and is that really
what you want to do?
MR. MAC EWAN-My only comment to you is that no decision has been made on this application or the one
that’s following this yet.
MR. BOEHM-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Two minutes.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ve done a lot of research on the subject of Riparian rights. Riparian right is not a right to
build anything. A Riparian right is a right of access. That’s all it is. All a Riparian right says, along the
shoreline of Lake George, is the State, who owns the bed of the lake, can’t build a fence and keep you out.
That’s all it says, but a right to build, why do you think we have this permitting process for boat docks and
boathouses? You don’t have a right to build. You have to make application to build, but you have a right of
access. That’s true.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. How
about some discussion up here?
MR. METIVIER-Craig, I was sitting there listening to Kathleen Salvador speak, got me thinking. There’s at
least five of these situations in Queensbury that I can think of, and that’s just the one’s I can think of, and
every time I stop thinking, I think of another one. Is there any way we can get out of this? I mean, seriously,
is there any way we can back out and say, you know what, this is not our problem? Because we are in big
trouble.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The short answer is not, because in the Town Zoning Ordinance, it’s our
responsibility to review these Special Use Permits.
MR. METIVIER-But every single one of these that I’m thinking of has the exact same.
MR. MAC EWAN-And as each application comes in, we’re going to have to take each application on its own
merits and make a decision based on that. That’s the only way we can do it. We can’t just throw a blanket
across every marina up there and say we’re either going to approve or deny every one that comes along. We
have to look at each application on its own merits.
MR. METIVIER-But we also have to remember that, with each application, we have to remember what we
decided the application before.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-So long as we’re in discussion, I think that, didn’t Chris Round say that when we were
approaching these Special Use Permits for Class A marinas we were, he would, and I think Planning and
possibly the Town, would take a look at how well, or not so well, we were proceeding here, and whether it
turned out to be a burden we couldn’t really overcome.
MR. MAC EWAN-If that was the case and they made that decision, it would require adoption, and changing
the Town Zoning Ordinance. It would require a public hearing. It would change an actual Town law. So I
don’t see that as being a quick fix to get anything done. I mean, we’re dealing with this, and I think we just
need to move forward and deal with these applicants as they come through.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Tony has a point. Mr. Salvador has one as well. We’ve been handed a ring, which is
a difficult one for this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-At this stage of the game with this application, my position is I don’t want to move
forward on this until I get a little bit more information that I think I need to have to make me feel
comfortable to vote one way or the other. I just think I’m lacking some information I need to have.
MR. METIVIER-And, you know the problem, too, and I shouldn’t even bring it up, but if you look at this,
the survey map for the Smiths, the resident owner to the north of them is out of compliance, too. I mean, so
where does it end? I mean, do we clean up all of Pilot Knob? And I’m not saying that in a snooty way. I’m
saying that, you know, and I guess, I’ll be honest with you, I’m changing my tune a little bit on this, because I
don’t think there’s any end to it, and just from what I’m thinking about with all these docks in Assembly
Point and Dunham’s Bay and, you know, there’s no end, but if we, you know, say to the Smith’s, no, you
can’t do this, you know, Rooney is the same way, not that I’m bringing him up, but I’m just saying the same
thing. They’re out of compliance as well, and I know what you’re going to say to me, that’s not the
application in front of us.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, actually I wasn’t going to say that.
MR. METIVIER-Really?
MR. MAC EWAN-I was going to ask George, what’s the Town’s procedure for notifying anyone else who’s
running a Class A marina that they need to come in and get a Special Use Permit? How are we handling it as
a Town? That’s what I was going to ask.
MR. RINGER-Well, we wouldn’t handle it. It’s when their permit expires the Commission would tell them
they have to come to the Town.
MR. HILTON-How it’s brought to our attention, I can only assume that it happens a number of ways. Once
it’s brought to our attention, we can direct them to apply for a Special Use Permit.
MR. METIVIER-Can I make one more point?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. At first I thought it sounded kind of stupid, and I might be wrong,
but why does the Lake George Park Commission have all this authority as to dock installation and issuance of
permits in all the other towns, but they don’t in Queensbury?
MR. HILTON-My understanding is that they’d still have to get a permit from the Lake George Park
Commission, in addition to ours.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, which one comes first?
MR. HILTON-The Park Commission has, my understanding is they have said they’re waiting for us to act.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do you mean they’re waiting for us to act? Before they issue their permit?
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, with any State agency that requires a permit from them, you have to obtain your
local approvals first before those permits are granted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. You answered my question.
MR. MAC EWAN-DEC, APA, they all fall in the same realm of review.
MR. METIVIER-I have another point to make or an issue. All these docks are registered and it’s proven that
they’re registered through these stickers that they have. Why can they, the Lake George Park Commission for
registered docks and then not have them be legal?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good question.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. METIVIER-You know what the answer is to that? They have no way, I’m going to get myself into
trouble, they have no way, on the other end, to verify. Do you know that if you don’t, never mind.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. What do you mean they have no way to verify it?
MR. METIVIER-They took it upon themselves back in ’87 or whenever it was, to have you, the resident
landowner, register your dock.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Register you dock.
MR. METIVIER-And basically said you have to do this, and there’s going to be a $25 fee, and from that they,
every year, send you your bill, you know, around the Christmas time, hey, you’ve got to register your dock
again, and there’s no other police for involved in it, except for the honest, good faith effort of people that pay
those bills, and you know what, you don’t get a second bill. If you don’t pay it the first time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But Tony, I always though the LG comes driving around and when they see that
you’re, like your registration on your car, it’s 2001, and now it’s 2002, then they just get right out of their boat
and go up and knock on your door.
MR. METIVIER-And that might be the case. They used to do that. I don’t think they do that, but I think
they send you a nasty gram, that you have to pay, but, you know, I don’t know. It makes no sense if they can
take your money for a dock that you registered. Listen to me, I’m totally changing my tune. It is the
applicant’s responsibility. Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some other thoughts here?
MR. STROUGH-Well, my thoughts are we asked the applicant for a surveyed map. We got it. We asked
them for a rental agreement. We got one. They show where the Warren County Department of Public
Works seems to have addressed the off road parking in the parking area.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re in a minority on that one.
MR. METIVIER-Can I chime in on that as well?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, let him finish.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I see also in stormwater that the Warren County Department of Public Works also
addressed that, where they said that the parking area be graded so the surface water flow into the existing
cross culvert which is part of Warren County’s drainage systems, and they’ve pointed out that all conditions
pertaining to the permit were strictly adhered to. So the stormwater seems to be satisfactory on the County
level, at least, and we asked them to show us that they are insured. They did. They have provided the fact
that they’ve ordered some signs. They show us the wharf registration, which we’ve discussed.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re telling us, then, you’re prepared to move forward on this?
MR. STROUGH-My feeling is that, you know, given the nature of the situation, and what we have to deal
with, and considering the fact that these docks have been there and may in fact be grandfathered, so setbacks
and other issues are really not an issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-How did you determine they were grandfathered?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that is one thing that may need to be resolved, and Mr. Salvador pointed out a couple,
suggested a couple of ways that we might be able to verify that they are grandfathered or not, and in Staff
comments, they point out that, when you do a Special Use Permit, you have to be very careful in denials, and
that when you do proposed conditions, that they be reasonable and easily enforceable. Given the, looking at
the full picture, I mean, if this was a new application, I certainly would not allow it. I would not allow the
number of docks. I share the concerns of many of the Planning Board members.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is a new application.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not a new application. They’re not installing new docks. These docks are there. I
mean, I wouldn’t allow it if they were installing new docks in this.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s the way you have to look at it, John. You have to look at as a new application.
It’s fresh.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I disagree with that, respectfully, Mr. Chairman.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. RINGER-I think, really, we should, we’ve asked both the Hoppers and the Smiths to go and do an
awful lot of work. I think we should really poll the Board and see how we feel about this application, even if
they get additional information.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, Larry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We already did that.
MR. RINGER-No, we haven’t done that, Cathy. We asked them, last month, to go out and get a great deal
of information and we never did poll the Board to see if what our.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. You just asked for our comments just now. You’re right. We haven’t polled
the Board. You’re right.
MR. RINGER-I felt bad, last month, asking them to go out, because I wasn’t in favor of it last month and I
thought we asked them to do an awful lot of stuff, and I felt I was probably the only one, but I don’t think,
necessarily, that I am the only one tonight that feels that, you know, we should not approve this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, in all fairness to the applicant, I mean, there are probably members of the Board
who at the time were teetering in favor or not in favor of it. By asking this applicant, no more than any other
applicant that’s ever walked through those doors, that we are requesting additional information, I mean,
you’re making it sound like that we’re putting them through the meat grinder for just this application.
MR. RINGER-We’ve asked more of these two applications than we’ve ever asked of any application since
I’ve been on this Board, but last month, but I think now we should poll the Board, before we ask them to go
through any more, to see if there is a majority here that feels we would want to approve this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I’m not there yet. I’m teetering. I need more information.
MR. RINGER-Well, that’s why we should poll the Board.
MR. METIVIER-Could I make a comment on the parking situation? Parking on County or State roads is an
enforceable police action. So if there’s anybody parking on those roads that shouldn’t be, either, A, there
should be put signs up that says no parking here, which you have a lot on 9L, on Bay Road, on Ridge Road,
Assembly Point, parts of Cleverdale, and there is not any here. So, is it assumed, then, that you can park
there if there are no, no parking signs? Again, if you look on Assembly Point, there’s areas that have no
parking signs, but most areas that don’t, and you have these docks, the same situation, where the cars line up
down the road, 10, 11 cars, because they have docks and boats there. It’s the same situation. Dunham’s Bay,
going onto Bay Road, where you have all those docks, back in Parillo’s area. They park, on Sundays,
Saturdays and Sundays, park cars and trailers on Bay Road, and there’s no regulation there either. That’s a
terrible traffic hazard over there because, you know, it’s a busy road, and I would think that would be more of
a police action for illegally parking there. I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-If it’s not posted, it’s probably allowed.
MR. METIVIER-It’s not posted. It’s not posted.
MR. RINGER-Parking is allowed, I would think. Every place else in the Town where it’s not marked no
parking, parking is allowed.
MR. METIVIER-So I guess my point there, too. You’ve been stressing the whole parking situation, but,
again, you know, cars have been parking there for so many years. There haven’t been any situations that we
know of, and even though it’s very dangerous, I guess it would be a park at your own risk type of thing, cross
at your own risk. I guess we’re not encouraging, you know, expansion, we’re just settling something that’s
been there for a long time. I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-It’s very difficult. It’s absolutely very, very difficult.
MR. METIVIER-It’s very difficult.
MR. RINGER-But I feel we have to make a stand some place. It’s a commercial use in a residential area is
the way I feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. At Larry’s request, I’ll poll the Board. John?
MR. STROUGH-I’m in favor of this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, my feeling is I need a lot more information before I can approve this application. I
need clarification on the Warren County. I need Staff to look into this Town Ordinance that calls for greater
than 50 feet to support these four docks. This application asks for four docks, and it’s got 102 feet. I’d like
that resolved. I want the stormwater runoff resolved from an environmental point of view. We’ve got to do
SEQRA, so we’ve got to answer questions on stormwater. I’d like Staff to also research the setbacks, which
George said he would do. These are all the things that I would, I’m just not ready to even vote on this up or
down until I know the answer to these questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I would approve it, but I would like the answers to the following: That George
do the research on the setbacks, that we do get some documentation from Warren County, and the
stormwater issue, I think, is going to surface when we do the SEQRA, and I want to really know about, I
mean, if this is grandfathered in, then I have no problem with it, but I have to really want you to go through
those avenues that Mr. Salvador had mentioned, which I wasn’t really familiar with, as to whether or not it is
grandfathered in, and, personally, I would like to see six boats there instead of eight, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-So based on what you know right now, you’d approve it, or are you saying that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I would approve it with the answers to these questions. That’s what I said. I
would approve it with the answers to those four questions, and then I would also like a condition that six
boats only be allowed. Then I would approve it if I get the answers to those questions, fine. I mean, good
answers to the questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re comfortable with the answers.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-If I’m comfortable, yes. If there’s a stormwater issue and it can be mitigated then
okay, fine, but I think that, and I think as far as the water quality goes, and as far as setting a precedent,
maybe the density has to go down to six boats instead of eight, keep a deck to sunbath or something.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I’ve made my position quite clear, and I do still feel this is a residential area that we’re voting a
commercial use into. Granted, the docks have been there, but now we have an opportunity, I feel we will set
a precedent by looking at these and approving either of them. I’m talking about the Hoppers now, as well,
which I probably shouldn’t be, but I feel the same about both of the applications.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-My original feeling is along the lines of some of the comments that Cathy made. When
we review boathouse applications, we frequently will ask applicants to document the fact that an existing dock
was pre-permitted, and I feel strongly about that in this case, provided they could provide verification that the
docks were properly permitted, or grandfathered, based on prior precedence, then I would be in favor of the
applicant, but I have a real dilemma, when you look at our Zoning Ordinance, because when you look at the
table of allowed uses, in all due respect to some of the other comments that were made this evening, the
definitions in our Zoning Ordinance, this is classified as a commercial boat sales, service and storage, and it is
not an allowed use in the Waterfront Residential. So, I mean, I do have that difficult dilemma in looking at
the Zoning Ordinance. If we can say that it’s grandfathered, that’s one thing, but I do have that problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-To me the only issue would be the docks. If we can prove that either they belong there or
they don’t. If they were grandfathered, I hate that word, but, or if we find that we can go and find out some
satellite pictures and see that they were put in after a certain date and they should have been permitted and
they’re not, we should have them taken out, but otherwise, if we see on satellite photos, that are all over the
place, that those docks have been there for many years, then, you know what, there’s nothing we can do, and
that’s just how I feel, and as for everybody else, I mean, if we do require them to take docks out, I sure hope
we just keep going, right down the line, and set an example for everyone.
MR. MAC EWAN-George?
MR. HILTON-Just a couple of things. The proposed use, the existing use, has been classified as a Class A
marina, and in our schedule it’s listed as being subject to a Special Use Permit review in a Waterfront
Residential zone. So that’s really where it’s allowed. Just to address your, and also on the.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I went through the table several times, and I mean, I realize it’s covered in a
different section. Maybe we need to have the table modified.
MR. HILTON-Well, the table I’m looking at, Table 1.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-What page are you on?
MR. HILTON-If you look on the left at Class A Marina.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry.
MR. HILTON-The only other thing I have concerns the setback issue that seems to be coming up, and the
original notes for this application were prepared by the Zoning Administrator. There’s some parcel history
that he’s included in the original notes from last month. My feeling is he’s done an exhaustive review, and I
think he’s probably, I don’t know, addressed in his own, he’s looked into the setbacks and determined
whether they received variances.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Then there’d be no problem getting us a copy of it.
MR. HILTON-Exactly. I’m going to look into it anyway. You seem to want some more information, but if
that’s the only thing that’s holding you up.
MR. MAC EWAN-I share a lot of thoughts that both Chris, Cathy, and Bob had. I’d like some more
information. I’ll reiterate it again. I’m really hung up on this County Highway permit thing. You have three
letters there, and they all seem to, on the surface, portray the same kind of permit usage, but when you really
look at them, they don’t, and I think we need clarification on that, and I think one of the commentors, during
public hearing, raised some good issues, and there is a procedure that you need to follow, and if we’ve seen
the County follow that procedure in other parts of Town, in a County right of way, then they should follow
the same procedure for this application and anything else that may be along Pilot Knob Road or 9L or
whatever the case may be. What I’m looking for is some clarification from the attorney on some questions
that Bob had. I think that’s important. In my mind, I don’t see us moving on this thing tonight. I’d like
some more information, and I would hope that the applicants would be patient with us, and the applicants
that are probably going to follow you. I mean, this is all new territory to us, too, and we want to be sure, on
behalf of the Town and the community, we’re doing the right thing, and in order to get that decision made, I
think we need to have all the information that we can possibly have in front of us to make an informed
decision. I hope you’re understanding of that.
MR. SMITH-Just let us know what we need.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think at this point, what we really need from you is not much. I’m going to put Staff on
that. I want Staff to take that lead. I want the County to have a copy of that survey map, so they can
understand exactly what the applicant’s trying to achieve with the parking along the road, and if you need to,
bring up that permit application and show it to them up here, so they know what their office issues. I say that
facetiously. I think what I’ll do is I’ll take a ten minute break here and I’ll ask Bob, Cathy, and Chris to pen a
resolution to table this thing with the issues that were brought up. All right. I’ll call the meeting back to
order. I think we’ve got a resolution drafted here. Chris, do you want to introduce it, please?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-2002 HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Pending clarification of the following items:
1. Documentation that the four (4) docks were installed in accordance with the rules and regulations
enforced at the time of installation by the appropriate agencies, this would include any setback
requirements.
2. Clarification from Warren County as to the issuance of parking permits on County roads, specifically
Pilot Knob Road.
3. How would stormwater runoff from the parking area be mitigated?
4. Could any denial be based on traffic where the record shows proposed use would create greater
traffic than as of right uses in the neighborhood, and that really means that, during the off season,
you take a look at the traffic on Pilot Knob Road, and during the in season, or the boating season,
where that shows it would be greater traffic, could you, in some way, deny an application based on
that, and that’s a question that legal should answer.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, you had a question for legal?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I had a question for legal.
MR. MAC EWAN-You didn’t want it part of the resolution?
MR. VOLLARO-We can. It was just my personal question for legal, but we could certainly put it in if you
thought it was appropriate, and I could read it off, into the record. Could any denial be based on traffic
where the record shows proposed use would create greater traffic than as of right uses in the neighborhood,
and what that really means is that, during the off season, you take a look at the traffic on Pilot Knob Road,
and during the in season, or the boating season, where that shows it would be greater traffic, could you, in
some way, deny an application based on that, and that’s a question I want legal to answer for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that anybody wanted? Second?
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as, you, you meaning Staff, clarification from County regarding that permit process,
you know what we’re looking for. Be sure that they get a copy of the Smith’s site plan map so they can see
how they want to utilize the parking in the right of way.
MR. HILTON-I can do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to amend that motion to table to our first regular meeting of next month, just so
they know.
MRS. SMITH-May I ask a question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. SMITH-Just on, with the stormwater, is that County, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. SMITH-That’s County also.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s directed toward County. Okay. See you next month.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 27-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY, MATTHEW FULLER ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS
APPROVAL OF THE RECONFIGURATION OF AN ENCLOSED PEAKED ROOF
BOATHOUSE TO A BOATHOUSE WITH A FLAT ROOF/SUNDECK. THE PROPOSAL IS
SIMILAR TO SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 21-99. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2002, SP 21-99, BP
99-338 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.16-1-14 LOT
SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on June 20 was tabled.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-The same comment as the application before. The information was requested by the Board.
Such information was provided. However there appears to be questions still concerning parking on Pilot
Knob Road and whether the County has really given permission or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. RINGER-This is on the sundeck, not on the.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This is a site plan review for a modification of a sundeck.
MR. HILTON-I understand that. However, we have been treating the two applications as one, my
understanding of the last review, because it’s going to be a combined SEQRA. So that’s the only comment I
had.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-We did do that the last time.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, yes, we did, but we haven’t approved this site plan. I think this is a relatively simple
site plan approach here. This is only half of it. It may be half of a SEQRA, but we’ve got to look at it as an
entity.
MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct, and that’s why we reviewed the two of them jointly, and that’s why we got
hung up when we did. Based on past legal advice, we’ll continue to review them as jointly.
MR. FULLER-Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, the attorneys for the Hoppers. From our
standpoint, just so that we get the most concrete decision, because it’s definitely more advisable for our
standpoint, on the applicant’s behalf, to have them coordinated review for SEQRA. That way we don’t, if
somebody wanted to challenge it, then, hypothetical, they’re not challenging a bifurcated review. It’s one
review to comply with SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours.
MR. FULLER-Are we on the docks now, the marina? On the boathouse?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do the boathouse first, because I don’t think there’s going to be a whole heck of a
lot of questions relative to that. Mr. Vollaro, we’ll start with you, if you want.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got minor questions, you’re right, Mr. Chairman, there isn’t very much to discuss here.
My only comment to the rest of the Board is does the revised drawing that was dated 4/29/99 adequately
describe this modification compared to other similar drawings we’ve received for these conversions? What
I’m driving at here is that consider the drawing records for future referral. These drawings go into file.
Somebody downstream is going to look at these one day. I just don’t think the drawing that I looked at,
dated 4/29, revised 4/29/99, really reflects, you know, good practice. It doesn’t have to be done by a
professional, but I don’t even have a basic north pointing arrow, I don’t believe, on this one. So I just have a
problem whether or not this drawing fully reflects what they’re doing. I understand what it is, I guess. If you
study it a little bit you can come up with it, but we’ve had other applications before us where we’ve asked for
drawings with better clarification than this. So I just, that’s a comment, that’s all. Just to be fair to this
applicant, I spotted something in this packet that’s been given to us that I want to discuss, and it’s the general
inspection report. It starts off with the name of the Hoppers, and then I think this is probably a pen note by
our Building Inspectors that says, Joel, can you see check and see if they started building, because he says
there’s no drawing yet, and then the response from Joel is, no work at this time, and that’s dated 6/19/99.
Then it goes on to 7/30 where they’re starting to show the floor system and some stuff like that happening,
and then it goes on to 7/28, and it says site plan review 21-99. It sounds to me like, to be fair to this
applicant, that the Building Department seemed to think there was a site plan review no. 21-99, and I’m
confused by that. Because if there was a site plan review dated 21-99, these folks wouldn’t be in front of us
for a review of this boathouse conversion.
MR. HILTON-The boathouse itself requires site plan review, separate from any Special Use Permit or site
plan that you have before us.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct. I agree with that, and it just seems that the general inspection report that’s dated
7/28/99, are you on the same page as I am?
MR. HILTON-No. I’m looking at the parcel history in our Staff notes.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I’m looking at the inspection report. For whatever reason, it was included in our
packet, and when I get a piece of paper, I tend to look it over.
MR. HILTON-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-And I see something in there that has SPR 21-99. That sounds, it looks like it was written
by the Building Inspector, that there was a site plan review.
MR. FULLER-What’s the date on that? I have those, too. I foiled those.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have those?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at the date inspection request received 7/28/99, and you’ll see it says SPR 21-
99 on it?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Somebody put site plan review 21-99.
MR. FULLER-Yes. I think we hit that last time.
MR. VOLLARO-Did we?
MR. FULLER-And I apologize for the drawings point you brought up. We had Frank DeNardo that I
thought hit the actual drawings, and if I had known we were going to do this again, I would have brought him
back, but that site plan review was the one that was revoked. That’s why we came back, and that’s why we’re
here again.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. So that, okay.
MR. FULLER-That’s where the drawings came from. We took the exact same application. Nothing had
changed.
MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify, under Parcel History, Site Plan 21-99 for construction of a covered
boathouse, and then the most recent one, 27-02, covered boathouse.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. All right. I just wanted to clarify that, and then as far as I’m concerned,
there’s no further questions on this application, other than if you could take the new drawing, you have a
drawing that’s better than this one?
MRS. HOPPER-No, that’s the only drawing that we’ve got.
MR. FULLER-I thought they were accepted the last meeting. I could be wrong.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just went, being when this was tabled, I like to go back over it and take a look at
what we were doing and make sure that I, personally, as one member of this Board, do not consider this
drawing adequate, but I have six other members that have other opinions here.
MRS. HOPPER-Mr. DeNardo agreed with you, and I think last time he was here told the Board his drawings
would be a lot better the next time he comes before you.
MR. FULLER-They are now.
MRS. HOPPER-They are now.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing on the boathouse.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have to agree with Bob that I don’t understand those drawings whatsoever. They show a
20 foot setback and the dock is in the middle of it. So, I would, too, prefer to see a much better drawing
explaining a little bit more what’s going on with it and a true height to scale, as opposed to not to scale,
showing the mean high water mark, mean low watermark, whatever we’re using, just to know that we’re going
to be at 13 feet or less, 14 feet or less, excuse me.
MR. FULLER-Again, Craig, I think, and Frank, the minutes will have a great discussion of how those
numbers are and exactly what, how they read. I apologize. If I had known we wanted that again, I would
have called Frank back.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s why I brought the builder here last time, if there were any questions at all about the
boathouse, the builder himself was here to answer all questions last month. I didn’t realize that he would
have to be back here again this month.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. METIVIER-It shows the peak at 11’ 6” existing. If you’re going to at a three foot railing to that, you’re
at 14’ 6”.
MRS. HOPPER-We went through all this last month. I don’t know. I’m not a builder. That’s why I brought
Frank with me, to answer all of these questions.
MR. FULLER-I’m positive Craig, they dealt with that, and Craig said it is, that number is confusing, and.
MR. METIVIER-Did I miss something?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was on the record. It was not over the legal limit, height.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, Craig went all through this. .
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I remember that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, one of the problems we have here, and Tony’s having the same problem I am.
MRS. HOPPER-I know.
MR. VOLLARO-We operate in somewhat of a vacuum. All six members here, when they’re home reviewing
this, are in their own knothole trying to understand these applications, and when you look at a drawing like
this, you know, I don’t have your builder sitting alongside me saying, hey, Bob, this is what we mean by this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We addressed that last time, Bob. You don’t remember?
MR. VOLLARO-I was here, but I still want a drawing for the record that depicts that. Why shouldn’t this
drawing actually identify clearly what this boathouse is all about, so when it goes in the archives and
somebody looks at this, two or three years from now, understands what happened. I have a real problem
with that. I just do. I can, Tony and I have had the same problem. This 20 foot setback is right in the
middle of the boathouse.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why didn’t we mention that last time?
MR. VOLLARO-You go to the record and take a look. I did mention that the last time.
MR. FULLER-There’s a variance for that from the ZBA, for that setback.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not concerned so much about a variance as I am a drawing that clearly depicts what
you’re doing. That’s my only problem, and I’m going to tell you right now, I’m going to vote for this, okay.
I’ll vote for it, but I’m just trying to get on the record that I want better drawings in front of this Board, so it
clearly depicts what people out there are trying to do, when I review it.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, our new committee that we established last month will certainly see that
that’s done. Right, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sir. Larry, are you with me on that?
MR. METIVIER-I’m sorry. I just don’t remember it. I apologize.
MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. Do you have anything else?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll concur with Bob on the quality of the drawings. I would also like to make the
same note as he did. Now you’re going to be removing the finger like projection that’s part of this dock?
MR. FULLER-That was a concession, yes, granted at the ZBA during the variance, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and Mr. and Mrs. Hopper would relinquish in writing to Mr. Harris any and all
interests that they may have by adverse possession and the like to any property they or their predecessors may
have obtained to the Riparian rights of Mr. Harris, etc. That’s all going to apply. Well then my next thought
is, just how much are we going to remove?
MRS. HOPPER-You mean the of dock itself?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MRS. HOPPER-All of it. All of the dock.
MR. STROUGH-But again, according to the drawing, it’s not real clear exactly what will be the dimensions of
the removal.
MR. FULLER-I think you’re looking at the (lost words) on the back of the application?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, exactly.
MR. FULLER-Yes, it points right to it. You look, the actual shaded area, and Frank actually expanded upon
what probably, structurally, has to be removed. It actually goes beyond the property line, and when I say that,
I mean into the Hopper property, so that the dock, they can’t remove the part and leave it standing where it
comes to a point and just cut it off, like on the property line where you see it there. Because the part of the
dock into their property will not free stand there on its own. It’s got to be under the crib. There’s a crib right
in that area. So, it will come right to where you see “dock”, and it says “personal” right next to it. That
finger that says “dock”, it’ll come straight into the property line from there.
MR. STROUGH-So from the property line north.
MR. FULLER-That’s right. Actually, this side of the property line, on the Hopper side, north, maybe,
however many feet.
MR. STROUGH-So from the property line north.
MR. FULLER-And a little bit south of the property line.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s what I’m saying, how much south?
MR. FULLER-I think the language with the ZBA was as it could support itself. It’s got to be a structurally
sound structure.
MR. HUNSINGER-So basically the dock would be straight?
MR. FULLER-Straight in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-As it appears right there, yes, straight. A straight line in.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the dock will be how many feet above mean high water level, in height?
MRS. HOPPER-It doesn’t change.
MR. FULLER-As it stands. No alteration.
MRS. HOPPER-No alterations are done.
MR. STROUGH-Well, how many feet above mean high water?
MR. VOLLARO-She’s talking about no alteration on, John, I believe, what Mrs. Hopper is speaking of is no
alteration to this dock. This is the portion of the dock that they have to.
MR. STROUGH-No, they are going to alter that. This is all being removed, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All right.
MR. STROUGH-See, this is getting removed as per this agreement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s only the half that’s on the other side.
MR. STROUGH-My question, though, right now is what is the height above mean?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have the same question. This drawing does not depict what this dock is going to be
adequately, as far as I’m concerned. Mean high water, all those things are not shown on here.
MR. FULLER-We don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Code says it can’t be any more than 14. So it can’t be any more than 14. Okay.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. FULLER-Right, and the dock is, the usable dock for use to get on your boat.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m just trying to assure that it’s not going to exceed 14.
MR. FULLER-No, in no case will it exceed 14.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t have a problem with.
MRS. HOPPER-This is why I had Frankie here last week, because this gentleman built these docks. He’s
going to remove these docks, and I figured any questions that the Board had concerning the boathouse, the
docks, the removal of the docks, any of these questions, this gentleman is the one who built them. He could
have, I can’t answer some of the questions you’re asking me, sir, because I’m not a builder.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The only thing I’m going to ask the Planning Board, too, is to assure, in our
conditioning, that the letter from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, and Firth, dated May 22, 2002, that refers to the
removal of the finger like projection, and the relinquishing of all rights that would go along with that removal
be included as a condition of approval, and that the height of the dock will not exceed Town Code, 14 feet
above mean high water level, but otherwise it’s fine. Okay.
MR. FULLER-I’m amenable to that, sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d just like to make a comment on that, and I understand what John is saying.
However, conditioning an estimate that something will be 14 feet or less, I don’t like to condition that kind of
thing. I would rather see it revealed in a drawing so we don’t have to do that, and I know you brought the
man here and he talked about it, but still and all, this application is not served by a drawing that represents
what you’re doing, and that’s been my problem. I told you I was going to vote okay on this, and I am, but I
want the record to show that what we’re trying to do on this Planning Board, at least from this spot, on this
seat, is to get these applications so that they really look and reflect what the applicant is trying to do, and
that’s going to be a problem for Larry and I who sit on this special thing and review these, and if I get a
drawing like this coming through on that review, I can guarantee you, that is not going to make the next cut.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. For me. I’m sorry, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to the boathouse?
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY MATTHEW FULLER ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS
TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 5 BOAT SLIPS AND
ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2002, SP 21-99, BP 99-
338 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.16-1-14 LOT SIZE:
0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-10
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing last month was tabled.
MR. MAC EWAN- Let’s move on with the Special Use Permit. George, Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-The only thing I can offer, again, is the comment I made at the site plan. The information
has been provided. The only outstanding issue I can see is the information regarding parking on Pilot Knob
Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, I’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m kind of confused on what the Warren County Department of Public Works is
saying to you in their letter dated, I think it says June 14, but I’ve got a Photostat problem.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-The 24 is it? Well, it’s something four. So it’s got to be one or the other.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s 24, John.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and it’s from George VanDusen, and it seems to be quite a contrast to what we saw
with the Smiths. I mean, I’ve researched the vehicle and traffic laws, so says Mr. VanDusen, and the
Highway law, and find no status whereby the County is required or authorized to issue permits to allow cars
to park alongside of County roads. The vehicle and traffic law describes how parking ordinances are to be
established and adjusted with no mention of the County. This is not implied to be an exhaustive search of
law. However it is consistent with the understanding of this topic within our office. I’m not quite sure what
Warren County is saying.
MRS. HOPPER-I talked to Mr. VanDusen at length. He didn’t just issue this the same day. He said, let me
talk to the people in my department. Let me research this. They will issue me a Section 136, which is the
County right of way permit to improve the rating of Pilot Knob Road if I wish one. They’ll issue that to me
tomorrow. He said to me, you don’t need one. The County does not issue parking permits. They do not
give you permission to park along the highway. He said to me, if you want a 136 Section, which is to fill in
the ditch in front of your property, then he will issue me one, and then, and the reason I would be doing this
was to park off road. Right now, they’ve looked at my property. He got back to me two days later. He said
to me what is there is fine. You don’t need to fill in the ditch. You don’t need to do anything to it. He said
to me, if the County did not want you to park there, or had a problem with it, or there were a lot of accidents
on that, they would put up no parking signs, but it has been widely known, for years, that people park along
Pilot Knob Road. It’s one of those situations where, do you know what I’m trying to say, sir, they don’t say
anything.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know what you’re saying. I’d like to see that document.
MRS. HOPPER-So, he has no problem. He suggested that if I want to show parking in front of my
property, and I told him what I needed it for. I needed to show parking in front of my place, on Hanneford
Road, or Hanneford Road, excuse me, for three cars, and I said they needed a surveyed copy. I got my
surveyor. He did it. He said that was adequate for the County. If that’s what I wanted to do in front of my
property on Hanneford Road, that’s what I could do, put up signs which I’ve done that say private parking
and they showed parking for four cars. I only need three, and that’s with a lot of research that he did with
this, as well as I did, and that’s all they came up with.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I don’t think I’m going to be alone here, and in light of what I saw the
Planning Board move in the past application, I think they’re going to ask for another step, but we’ll see.
Okay. The next question is that, you’re requesting, this is how many berths will be in this marina?
MRS. HOPPER-Three.
MR. VOLLARO-The application is requesting nine, I thought.
MR. STROUGH-Five boat slips, the rental of five boat slips.
MRS. HOPPER-Two of the boat slips go with my cottage that is located, that I also own. So I’m really only
asking to rent three boat slips, but for whatever reason, why have to show them as five, but there’s only three
boat rentals that we’re asking for.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-Two are personal, that are mine. One goes in the boathouse. One goes along side the
boathouse, which would be personal. Two go with my cottage, the southernmost dock, and then it would be
the three that are designated in the middle. So I’m asking for three.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So there won’t be any boat docking on the north side of the boathouse that we’re
just talking about, right?
MRS. HOPPER-No.
MR. STROUGH-So there’ll be one boat in the boathouse.
MRS. HOPPER-I see, where the finger is now?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MRS. HOPPER-There’d be one next to my boathouse on the north side. That’s mine.
MR. STROUGH-So there will be one on the north side?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, on the north side. We’ve already had an agreement with Mr. Harris concerning the
berth of the boats.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-And there’ll be one in the boathouse.
MRS. HOPPER-In the boathouse, correct.
MR. STROUGH-And there’ll be the third one on the south side of the boathouse.
MRS. HOPPER-Will be a rental.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then we have the “E” dock. Will there be a boat berthed on the north side of
the “E” dock?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Is four, and then one in that five, six, and then on the south side of the “E” dock?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, those two, that one in the one finger would go with the cottage.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s seven berths, and what you’re saying is that four of those are two for you and two
for (lost words)?
MRS. HOPPER-Two for my cottage, correct.
MR. STROUGH-So that leaves three to be rented.
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-I understand. So, really, you only need three spots on Pilot Knob Road for those three
rentals?
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Everything’s fitting in now. Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Now, the only thing that, that’s good.
MRS. HOPPER-Good, yes.
MR. STROUGH-The only thing that concerns me is moving back up to your cabin.
MRS. HOPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-You’ve got, and you show, five parking spaces adjacent to the cabin, just north of the cabin.
Do you need five spaces up there?
MRS. HOPPER-No. What I did, the first time it came before the Board, they said, well, no, not the Board,
Craig said to me that they wanted parking shown on Hanneford Road. I showed more parking than I needed.
That’s why they’re up there. Because when I first came before this Board, this is what they said. Craig lead
me to believe this is what the Board wanted. So I got my surveyor in. I showed him what I had to have
done, and that’s what he drew. When it came before the Board, the Board said, no, that’s not where we’d like
you to park. We would like you to park down on Pilot Knob Road. I called the surveyor back again, I said,
we need you back again. This is the fifth time he’s been on my property. Five times he’s been there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-So he says, now what, Jane? I said, now I need to show parking on Pilot Knob Road.
Would you please come up, and he said, how many do you need. I said, I have to show them three. He said
we will give them four, if we can fit them. So that’s why they show the four parking places. I went to show, I
don’t need four. Two of the people that rent from me live within a mile, but I showed four, but I would only
need three.
MR. STROUGH-Why do you need three for the cabin?
MRS. HOPPER-I don’t. The cabin only needs one or two.
MR. STROUGH-You need two.
MRS. HOPPER-Right.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-Let’s say two.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, that’s for my cabin.
MR. STROUGH-So then I could just scratch three of these, because we don’t need them.
MRS. HOPPER-Right, take them out.
MR. STROUGH-Because if you show, then you can do it.
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-If I have you remove them, then.
MRS. HOPPER-They’re gone.
MR. STROUGH-They’re gone.
MRS. HOPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-That was my only problem there. So problem solved.
MRS. HOPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I chime in, John, while we’re on parking?
MR. STROUGH-Sure, go ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about the other four proposed parking spaces, though, on the west side of
Hanneford Road?
MRS. HOPPER-That’s my house. I showed, as I said when I had the surveyor go up, this is what I thought
the Board wanted, was to show parking for my cottage, for my house, and for my three renters, on my own
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-You wouldn’t park on the existing gravel driveway?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. According to Craig Brown.
MR. FULLER-This is essentially how it really went down. When I met with Craig in a pre-application
meeting to discuss all of these, and he gave me a list, the pre-application meeting list, this is what you need to
show. He gave me a number. This is how many parking spaces you have to go, and I don’t want them on
Pilot Knob Road. So I said to Jane, I said, Jane, you’ve got 24 hours to get your surveyor out there, have him
stake these parking spots, have him show them on the map, and get it submitted to the Town, to get on for
the deadlines. So that, all the spaces that we see there, that’s where they come from. They show the potential
to have those spaces if the Planning Board wants to see where those spaces can be. Certainly I agree with Mr.
Strough. You can, in any approval, say, those parking spaces shown on this map are just for your
information. They don’t have to be used.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to understand how many you really need, following John’s discussion. You
need two for the cabin. How many spaces do you need on the west side of Hanneford Road for the house?
MR. FULLER-One in the garage and one they just park next to the garage. I think we have pictures with the
application of the Jeep parked in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the other three spaces that are shown that on this map you don’t need also?
MR. FULLER-They were shown just because Craig had said you need to show them.
MRS. HOPPER-And also, as far as the gravel driveway, the (lost word) that I got from Craig Brown is I can’t
shown any vehicles parked within that spot.
MR. FULLER-Right, it has to be a free driveway.
MRS. HOPPER-They’d have to be away from that driveway.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have property on that side of the street as well? Or is that just your house?
MRS. HOPPER-That’s my house. Right now, I have a young couple staying there, because I won’t live in
that house, gentlemen. Four years ago, this house would have been torn down, and it would have been,
hopefully, a brand new cedar log home there, but I’m not going to put any money into this property anymore.
I’ve already put over $220,000 in this property, and I can’t get by the waterfront, but right now there’s a
young couple that stay in that house, and they have one vehicle, maybe two if they have somebody stop and
visit them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, but all that’s there is a single family home?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Sorry, John.
MR. STROUGH-That’s okay, Chris. I think what Chris is further pointing out, and I think you’re going to
find this, and feel fairly comfortable here. We’re trying to preserve the compatibility of your proposal with
the residential area, and Hanneford Road, we’re trying to make sure that the parking gets down on the Pilot
Knob Road and not be congested or congestive looking up on Hanneford Road, and I think some of your
neighbors share the same concern.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s good that we’ve eliminated, I mean, we don’t need that parking, and that’s
good, and, let’s see, and the rental agreement, was there anything on that that you found disagreeable?
MRS. HOPPER-Absolutely not, it’s fine. That would be fine, gentlemen.
MR. FULLER-We would offer to use that, if that would be permissible.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-And I think what your input, and what I did was just combine that with the wishes of the
Planning Board, and we’re talking about a Special Use Permit and trying to make that compatible with the
given environment that’s going in, as well as both the social and the natural environment, and okay, and I
guess that’s it. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m going to be repeating, I guess, some of the stuff I did on the Smith application,
but I’ll go through them anyway. Again, in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I keep going back to that
because that’s what we’re supposed to, one of the things we’re supposed to look at as a guide, where it says
each residential parcel will be allowed one dock for single family residence. I just can’t get by that one. It’s
difficult for me to do. The next one is really the Town Ordinance concerning at least 250 feet to support the
number of vessels that you’re talking about. I think it’s seven, but I can be confused real quick with this, but
I think it’s seven vessels that we’re talking about here. So you’d need at least 250 feet of shoreline to support
that, and the shoreline in this application is 100.5 feet. Now I have two drawings describing parking, one
with no date showing yellow color coded parking of four spaces on Pilot Knob and four on the Hopper
property. Now I think John has just cleared up the fact that the five spaces shown next to the cabin are no
longer in play. Is that correct? They’ve been taken off the table?
MR. STROUGH-Well, three. I think we agreed that the cottage would need two. You may want to say is
there need for four over here.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I’m, how many of these are we taking off the table? This can be very
confusing when somebody, in the future, looks at it.
MR. STROUGH-They said that, correct me if I’m wrong, they just showed the potential for parking spaces,
because they think that Staff wanted them to do that. They don’t need that. They only need one or two for
the cottage. So three they agreed was certainly not needed.
MR. VOLLARO-So the two for the cabin are not in any way related to the number of boat docks?
MRS. HOPPER-These people rent the cabin, and with that cabin comes.
MR. VOLLARO-A parking space.
MRS. HOPPER-Right, and they have a boat.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-It has no bearing on.
MR. FULLER-It is related.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, it is related.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two parking spots and a boat dock.
MR. VOLLARO-And they get a boat dock down at the southern end.
MRS. HOPPER-The get the south dock. They get two slips and the south dock.
MR. VOLLARO-They get two slips and the south dock.
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they get two slips.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, they get one on each side.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I remember you saying that last time, right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, we can eliminate the three spaces that are currently shown on the drawing
dated 5/29/02. Get rid of those. I’m trying to understand this. Now we move onto your property, and we
show, in this colored drawing we show that you’ve, this is not dated, but we show four parking spots on Pilot
Knob Road.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And four parking spots on your own property, two next to the garage and two of them
south of that. You color coded those yellow yourself, I believe, somebody did. You didn’t?
MRS. HOPPER-I color coded the ones on Pilot Knob Road yellow.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s strange.
MRS. HOPPER-The Board can put the rentals anyplace they’d like. I showed them both places.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, just the four by the road.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re just, in terms of the boat dockage itself, the four on Pilot Knob Road are what’s
applicable? And the two in the cottage that serve the southern two docks.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HILTON-I just want to try to clarify the parking, just to tell everybody what’s required, and I’ve looked
at the Ordinance, and I’m reading the pre-application notes, and two spaces per residence and one per two
boats that are being rented. So, just, those are the regulations, however you.
MR. VOLLARO-Say them again, George, so I can.
MR. HILTON-Two spaces per residence, and one space provided per two boats, one parking space per two
boats that are being rented.
MR. STROUGH-No, one parking space per berth, and Lake George Park Commission wants one and a half.
Our Code says only one.
MR. HILTON-Right, one for each two boats, as listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One parking space for how many boats?
MR. HILTON-One space per two boats that are being rented.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he said.
MR. HILTON-They’re renting two slips, they need one parking space.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, like the people that live in the cabin get two berths.
MR. HILTON-No, I’m saying two parking spaces per residence. So you’d need, it sounds like four there,
two for the Hoppers and two for the cabin, and then one additional space per each two boats.
MR. MAC EWAN-So if they have four boats, they only need two parking spaces.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, they get four.
MR. HILTON-If they have four boats that they are renting, or slips that they are renting, they would need
two parking spaces.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, see, I understood you to say that they get two parking spots for their cabin, and
then if they have the two boat docks, if they can rent, they can put their two boats down on that southern
dock, then that gives them two more parking spots down below.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s put it in easy terms. They need to have four parking spots for their residence, that’s
a combination of both the cottage and the house.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-For every two boats they have, they’re going to need one parking space.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. FULLER-I believe you are allowed to consider the fact, if you want the other spaces, we can show them.
I believe you’re allowed to consider the fact that the cabin also has with it two slips. So those two slips
utilized by the cabin.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I meant. So those two slips get two parking spots, and then the cabin
gets two parking spots. So the total is four.
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MR. FULLER-You are allowed to take notice of the fact that the people that rent that cabin will be parking
there, and that as part of their cabin use, they are also allowed to use those slips.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if they have friends that come in, their friends can park down their on Pilot
Knob Road?
MR. FULLER-As with any other property on the lake, if there’s parking on their property, they’d park there.
If not, no. They would have to be shuttled in.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but they’re renting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s keep things moving along here. What else have we got.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m still up, I guess. Again, I have two drawings describing the parking, one with no
date and the other one, I guess it’s this one that’s color coded that describes the latest. Is that correct?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, that exact one, this was done July 16, 2002, 6/24/02. I took this map, and I put it on
my computer, and it came out with this one. So that one was done 6/24. It’s just been done.
MR. VOLLARO-This is dated 6/24/02. Okay.
MR. FULLER-I see what he’s talking about now. This is the one he’s looking at.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. I tried to make it easier. That’s where I put my little red X’s and my, yes, I did this
about two o’clock in the morning.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess, going down through this thing, if we’re talking Pilot Knob, then the conflict
in the letters from Warren County certainly come into play here, and I think we mentioned that in the last
application, that we want clarification for that, and I still feel I need clarification for that, what the County’s
actually saying here. If we’re talking Pilot Knob, then the stormwater runoff onto the lake, is, again, in
question, for me. Now I noticed that in this application that next month I believe it is there’s a building
permit for septic alteration for residential, a residential septic alteration, the application number is A2001-
0640, and it’s issued by Mr. Hatin.
MRS. HOPPER-I went to, they would have expired in August.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-August 24, 2002, correct.
MRS. HOPPER-Right. I went to Queensbury and had the permits renewed in the hopes that maybe this fall
I could line up contractors to put the new septic system in, take the old house, possibly start building in the
spring. I wanted those permits valid so I wouldn’t have to go all through site plan review and re-do it all. I
wanted the permits valid, so I had them renewed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now this is a septic alteration for residential. That’s what it says.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. It’s a brand new septic system.
MR. VOLLARO-All I can do is read from the paper. I can’t get clairvoyant and know what you’re thinking.
I’ve got to read what’s on here. It says type of construction is septic alteration, residential, meaning that this
alteration of this septic tank doesn’t consider the commercial application, because you’re going to be having
folks, where you’ve got it in red, the restrooms, you’re going to have folks coming up and using your
residence for restrooms. Now I’m just concerned that that septic alteration for residential doesn’t include the
component in here that’s really talking to commercial use. I just want to make sure that Mr. Hatin
understands that this septic tank going in here has got a commercial component to it, not just a residential
component.
MRS. HOPPER-This septic system design would not only take care of the big house, it’s also incorporated
the small house. There would be, part of what we worked out with Town of Queensbury was it’s a very
expensive septic system going in that, well, in the future, for example, if Dave and I decided we wanted to re-
do the cabin that’s on the other piece of property, well, it would easily accommodate a two bedroom or a
bigger home. So this would, between the two buildings, the two residences I have on this property will easily
accommodate three people renting boats. It should have no problem at all. Because you’re talking two
separate residences here, and I own both of them.
MR. VOLLARO-In a residential septic system, I don’t want to depart from this, but I’ll just give you what I
know about it, is that the capacity of the septic system is based on the number of bedrooms. Usually it’s
based on a flow rate of 130 gallons per day, per bedroom, and it doesn’t say in there that, by the way, we, this
design can also handle the commercial component connected with the marina, the Class A marina. I think
that it might be apropos here for Staff to discuss with the Director of Building and Code Enforcement that
question, whether or not this septic system is designed to handle the commercial component associated with
this application.
MR. FULLER-Does that apply to the previous application as well? Just for consistency. I know we’re setting
bars here.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the previous application didn’t have a permit that’s going to expire next month. I
have before me an expiration date of a permit. That’s my concern, and I want to make sure that the
permitting agency, and this happens to be the Director of Building and Code Enforcement, understands
when he’s approving a septic alteration for residential, that he understands that there’s a commercial
component associated with this.
MR. FULLER-But Mr. Vollaro, with the utmost of respect, with the fact that they are going to install a new
septic system, and they’re not going to utilize the septic system that’s there, is going to create an additional
burden?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want Mr. Hatin to know that when he re-permits this, as a residential alteration,
that he understands that there’s a commercial component associated with this, and I want that septic system.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not yet there isn’t. Should they get those approvals, then you make those notes to him.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine, but right now, he’s only approving a residential, on August the 24, there’ll be
th
a septic alteration for a residential system.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s something that should be directed to Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I think so. I think that’s correct, Cathy. That’s why I said I would like George to at least
talk to the Director of Building and Codes about it. Now, you know, he may say, fine. It’s up to him. I’m
just highlighting the fact that a permit is expiring, and that it’s for a residential alteration, and that there are
some commercial components to be considered, if and when this is approved, I agree with that, and then I go
to the same questions I had for the Smith application, what would the status of the Class A marina permit,
should the Fischer close their operation. I think that’s been talked about, that there’s probably enough on the
lake. I think Mr. Smith adequately addressed that point. There’s enough on the lake where you can get
additional help, and I said go to 10 on the Smith application. Just let me take a look at that for a minute.
This is quite a learning experience for this Board, I’ve got to tell you.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. FULLER-The applicant’s as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This question only had to do with my question to Counsel, in that could any denial be
based on traffic where the record shows proposed use would create greater traffic than as of right uses in the
neighborhood? I just want to understand whether that would be considered an undisputable reason, Article
78 kind of thing?
MR. FULLER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you know what I’m talking about? Right.
MR. FULLER-Counsel’s office called my office today. Again, I’m surprised that they’re not here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. FULLER-The indication was that there were some concerns, and they wanted some legal advice here.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorely missing legal advice tonight here, I feel. I think this Board is absent a Counsel
that should be here, particularly when we’re doing brand new kind of ground, and we’re moving across
ground we don’t know anything about, or not anything, but we don’t know a lot about it. Mr. Chairman, did
you get any information as to why Counsel wasn’t present tonight?
MR. MAC EWAN-Prior obligation. They’re short staffed this week.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s not my problem to do that, I suppose, and I think that that’s all I have, Mr.
Chairman, on mine. That’s all the comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just basically have the same questions that I would like answered from before,
as I had with the Smith application, and the fact is, if you were coming to us from scratch, with all those
docks and boathouses on that amount of lake frontage, that there would be no way where that would be
allowed under those laws. So I just want to make sure that all of that was put in before the DEC and the
appropriate agencies did enact their laws in the early 80’s, or whenever that might be, and if there is a
stormwater issue, I just want that to be addressed and get some mitigating measures. That’s about it. I know
you’re very frustrated, and I feel bad for you, but I’m pretty frustrated myself. I think we all are. So, you
know, it’s not as if you can’t keep going as you have been. We’ll get a resolution. We’ll resolve this. You just
have to be a little bit patient, but right now, I would, if you were to poll the Board, I would say I would
approve it if I had some of those conditions answered, questions answered, and another thing, I don’t think
that that cottage needs to have two boat spaces. It should have one, because each cottage, each house is
supposed to have one boat space. Maybe the cottage that you rent should only have, be allowed, even though
there’s one dock, you can put a boat on each side of the dock. I think really only one boat should be allowed
there. I keep saying I want to reduce the density, but I guess nobody’s listening to me.
MR. FULLER-We’re taking out one.
MRS. HOPPER-We’re taking out one of the docks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you’re still talking seven boats.
MRS. HOPPER-They had boats when I bought it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re still talking seven boats.
MR. FULLER-And the concession was to the ZBA on the cabin. That those two slips stay with the cabin
and are not rented.
MRS. HOPPER-I had to deed them over to the house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the ZBA, run that by me again?
MR. FULLER-That was also in the concessions with the ZBA, those slips remain with that house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m talking about the cabin.
MR. VOLLARO-She’s talking about the cabin.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-He just said house.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. FULLER-I’m sorry. I apologize. The cabin.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the cabin.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’re saying not even one? They don’t want any?
MR. FULLER-Two slips go with the cabin, on that southern most dock. One dock. One actual structure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One dock, but I only think one boat should go there.
MR. FULLER-I understand.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What does the ZBA want? Run that by me again?
MR. FULLER-That that southern most dock, the actual finger of the dock, that has the capability to have
two boats on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, two vessels, right.
MR. FULLER-Stays with the cabin. That was the concession made there. Otherwise, one side of the dock
could have gone with the cabin, and then it would have been a proposal for four rental slips, until we said,
well, and that’s only, you get two boats on that dock, if the person having the cabin has two boats. If there’s
not, you cannot sublease. That’s in our agreement.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MR. FULLER-If the first people staying there have two boats, and they get the ability to have those two
boats there. If not.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MR. FULLER-That’s where that concession came from.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then the people that are renting the cabin, their friends can’t come along and just
stick their boat in, can they?
MRS. HOPPER-No. They can’t let their uncles use it. They have to use it. They have to use it. They have
to have, if they’re renting the cabin.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got you. I know.
MR. FULLER-That would be a breach of contract. They’d have to prove that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand what you’re saying, but I would like to make sure that those docks were
all there before, you know, this whole grandfather issue. I would like to have that somehow.
MR. FULLER-I’m not sure if I submitted those with the application. We have some letters that were dated
way back. If they aren’t, we can certainly submit them. They were really old.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t remember seeing them. Did you see them? I’d like to see those. That would
be great. I would feel a lot better about that. That would be part of the motion.
MRS. HOPPER-I think I have them. I think I have them with me, because I presented them and I’ve got a
big packet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but when we table this for everything we’re looking for, you can submit, because
what they’re going to do is end up giving it to us. You didn’t really expect we were going to move forward on
this tonight, did you?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, I did.
MR. MAC EWAN-You really did?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, I did. I was fully prepared. I thought I brought everything that was required. I really
thought, I called Molly Gallagher and asked to go before the Park Commission next month. I lined up a
sewer man, Queensbury Septic, hopefully to work forward in September.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-You shouldn’t have done that without your approvals in place.
MRS. HOPPER-I guess not. It hasn’t been a good week anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing further. I certainly understand your frustration in this, and I think, to some
degree, you understand ours. I stated my position on the Smiths. I feel the same way about your application,
unfortunately, but I don’t have anything to add.
MR. FULLER-Just for what it’s worth, for Mr. Ringer, I certainly understand your concern with the
commercial use in a residential area. I don’t think anybody wants to live next door to a commercial use when
it’s their residence. My thought, in looking at this, it came to me between last month and this month, is that
that’s where your Special Use comes in. The Town Board has said, yes, you know, we don’t like a
commercial use in a residential area, but we will permit it, in certain instances.
MR. RINGER-And our Comprehensive Use says we should avoid it wherever we can, and that’s what I’m
looking at, and I’m looking at all the exceptions you’re asking for, another location to clean the boats out, the
restrooms up in the house, stuff like that. It’s just, to me, not an acceptable situation. I mean, I apologize for
feeling, and I really do feel and share your discomfort there. However, I feel what I’m doing is what I have to
do. I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s really already been discussed, and that’s documentation on the existence of the
docks. You say in your letter dated May 29 that the rentals pre-date the Town Ordinance and pre-date Lake
th
George Park Commission regulations, but there’s no documentation provided, you know, with all due
respect, without the documentation, it’s just your word. The same comments as we’ve talked about the other
application. I don’t think there’s really any reason to dwell on them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further to add. I have a question for you. Did you say you don’t live in that
home anymore on Hanneford Road?
MRS. HOPPER-I own the house, sir. I own the motel which has been in the paper. I have a lot on my plate
tonight. I don’t live in that house right now, sir, because I don’t like the house. That house would have been
torn down three years ago, if I had my druthers. There’s a nice young couple that live in Latham, that live
there right now during the summer months, and they enjoy the lake. I don’t.
MR. METIVIER-I guess my only question, are they aware that there’s going to be people using their
restrooms?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, they are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just want to request that Staff verify that those docks are legal. Please.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll
open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-The registration of docks, in accordance with Part 646 of the July 3, 1981 regulation. The
registration of docks under that program, the permitting of docks under that program, the registration of the
marinas and the permitting of marinas are all a matter of public record. I can’t tell you how many times I
have FOIL’d these records from the Lake George Park Commission. There’s a complete file on all of this.
This file serves as the basis for their issuance of Class A and Class B marina permits today, which can be of a
various varieties. They can be a new permit. They can be a revision of an existing permit, a modification if
you will, or a renewal, a modification or a new. Those are the three categories, and the reference is the 1981
program. That’s the baseline.
MR. VOLLARO-John, just for my, this was July 3, 1981?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Is Staff willing to take a look at that? I mean, I think what we’re getting at here is Staff
really has to do this research to determine whether these marinas come underneath that July 3, 1981
requirement. It’s a Staff requirement that they do the research. Is that how we all feel here, that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think Counsel has to be aware of this, too, to see if there’s any other legalities
that are.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think it’s Staff’s responsibility to say that, I think it’s the applicant’s responsibility to
prove that they were there, if we asked them.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine. I’m happy with either one, so long as we get it from somebody.
MR. SALVADOR-But they are a matter of public record. I go back to the fact that you’re in this because the
present Zoning Ordinance says that marinas shall obtain a Special Use Permit, and in accordance with the
Lake George Park Commission regulatory program of Part 646, and it sounds like what you’re evaluating here
are standards, much less stringent than what Part 646 calls for. For instance, it says here, one on site parking
space or adequate off site parking shall be provided for each vessel berth, unless otherwise specified in
Schedule A, which would be an attachment to this. Parking described in Schedule A shall not be diminished.
One onsite parking space or adequate offsite parking. When we talk about the use of the right of way and
Mr. VanDusen’s comments in that letter, I think what he’s saying is, the public at large has the right to use the
right of way. It’s sort of first come, first serve, unless no parking is posted. If there’s a restriction of no
parking, no one uses it. However, unless someone has exclusivity, an exclusive use permit, use and
occupancy permit, the public at large is entitled to use the right of way, for parking, for standing or whatever.
So I think that has to be clarified. If they’re going to furnish one onsite parking space or adequate offsite
parking, what’s the definition of adequate offsite, this, the right of way would seem to be offsite. What are
the conditions, and there has to be a degree of exclusivity here, to meet the Park Commission regulations. In
other words, a boater comes to the lake to use his boat, he’s got a parking place, a place to put his car. He’s
not going to be forced to park on the, you know, half in the right of way, half on the shoulder, double parked,
park on people’s lawns, whatever. It’s going to be orderly. Not what we have on Bay Road today.
MR. VOLLARO-See, what’s confusing us, John, is here we have a permit to work in the County right of way.
This is a recently issued one for a site plan that we did at the Diet Center here on Bay Road, but it says
construct and utilize two driveways and parking lot partially within the right of way. See attached sketch.
Now here’s where they are talking about allowing parking in their right of way, and you say, essentially, that’s
a right by use, essentially.
MR. SALVADOR-No. They have.
MR. MAC EWAN-May I interrupt for just a second. I’d ask you to just let him make his comments, with all
the speakers, let me make their comments and we’ll just move it along.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sure, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is back to you, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, to answer, Bob, that’s, there’s nothing wrong with that document. They have been
asked to, and they have granted a degree of exclusivity to that applicant. That’s clear, but these others aren’t
quite that clear. With regard to wastewater, I think that’s a real concern, and should be adequately addressed.
The Park Commission says here in their general conditions, restrooms including toilet facilities, for use by
customers, shall be available at all times, May 1 through October 31 of each year. Now, a good point was
stst
brought up in this application where you have an onsite system designed to accommodate a single family
dwelling of a certain number of bedrooms, and then you, that’s the design basis of that unit. Now you take
the wastewater load from a number of boats and put it on top of that. The question arises, what is the
incidence of use, that is the loading rate, and is the system, the present system adequate to handle it, and I
always bring up the subject of these port-a-potties. Most boats have port-a-potties on them, and they get
dumped some place. It shouldn’t be in an onsite wastewater system. That’s it. With regard to Hanneford
Road, I wanted to say something about that, and I think the site plan should reflect this. I have before me an
inventory sheet that is available at the Town Clerk’s office, where all of the Town’s property is listed. It’s the
obligation of the Town Clerk to have on record Town property, and all of the roads are on record there.
Some roads, as you know, there is a deed for the underlying land. Hanneford Road, however, there is no
deed. It is this conventional, we have a lot of them in Town, a road by use. You’ve heard of Fuller Road.
Hanneford Road is a similar kind of a road. It’s a public easement across people’s private property, and the
public has that right to pass, but that easement has a definition, and the Town and its Highway
Superintendent have defined that easement to be 15 feet in width, and the road is eleven hundredths of a
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
mile long. Other than that, Hanneford Road has no other description. Maybe a solution to the problem in
the area is that somehow, some way, we get the Town and its Highway Superintendent to enforce the
Highway Law, Section 189, talks to roads by use, highways by use, excuse me. I’ll read the paragraph. It’s
short. “All lands which shall have been used by the public as a highway for a period of ten years or more
shall be a highway, with the same force and effect as if it had been duly laid out and recorded as a highway,
and the town superintendent shall open all such highways to a width of at least three rods.”
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you’ve got three rods there.
MR. SALVADOR-Now, in our neighborhood, where we have as much of a parking problem with the three
marinas in that area that they do in the Pilot Knob Road area, we have a Town road. It’s called Alexy Lane,
and we park in the shoulder of that road, public parking, all the way. You’ll see the cars lined up there. Do
you know why? It’s a three rod road, and the public has the right to use that, the shoulder of that road, to
park in. There are no parking signs up so the public, first come, first serve. You park there. Maybe this is
the solution at Hanneford Road. The public has the right to use this road. It should be as it says here treated
as a highway, even though it has not been laid out.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s certainly not three rods. That’s for sure.
MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s barely one.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s barely one.
MR. SALVADOR-And I can recall also, I believe, during the Comprehensive Planning, the zoning in this
area, in this neighborhood, was changed. It used to be LC-42, and that was changed to residential zoning
midway through our Comprehensive Planning, because there was a tremendous pressure on for variances in
this area for a lot of the development work that’s been going on, and the Town Board, before the
Comprehensive Plan was finished, the Town Board did, in fact, effect a zoning change in that area. So, you
know, we’ve got a lot of things cascading here all at one time, but some real planning in that neighborhood is
required. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHKO
MS. SHOUDY-BRECHKO-For the record, Heather Shoudy-Brechko from the Lake George Association.
We would just like to reiterate, I’m not going to go through each point again, but the same comments as the
previous application, the Smith application, we still think apply in this particular case. In addition to, for
emphasis and also to clarify some points from our comments before, we believe that a professional engineer
should certify that the wastewater is adequate for all the uses on the property, including the one that’s
proposed, and the status of the grandfathering of the marina use and the dock registration needs to be
researched, and this we believe, too, applies to the previous application, just for clarification. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else?
JOHN SHAFER
MR. SHAFER-I’m following up on my point on the.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your name for the record?
MR. SHAFER-John Shafer, the fourth house in on Hanneford Road. Following up on my point on the
parking that I made on the Smith application, I think the letter that was read here earlier and Mr. Salvador’s
comments are right on target. I expect the County would not issue a use and occupancy permit in this
circumstance. Under the law they have no statute to do that. Certainly for the traveled way for the shoulder.
The shoulder, under the Vehicle and Traffic Law, is for emergency purposes only. So they would, as I said
before, have to do a traffic engineering study in order to determine whether or not the right of way was wide
enough for the safe parking off the shoulder, and so that letter that was read here tonight is perfectly
consistent with that and with what Mr. Salvador said earlier.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the letter from Mr. VanDusen that you’re referring to?
MR. SHAFER-Yes. There is no statute that they can provide parking on, it is indeed first come, first serve.
Their only statutory ability under law is to do a study and put up a no parking sign, if they find it’s in the
public interest and it’s unsafe to allow parking in that instance. So I expect that when you ask them that
question, that’s the answer that you will get, and that they will come out and do a traffic engineering study
that’s required under the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I’m still not clear what the Hopper
application is for. I mean, we heard the applicant say that she rents the house. We heard the applicant say
that she rents the cottage. I can tell you as a matter of fact there are seven boats docked there as we are
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
sitting here. I was told, I don’t know this for sure, the Hoppers own one boat. By my arithmetic, that means
there are six rental boats there. So I don’t understand where the three came from, where the four came from,
how the parking is being calculated both on Pilot Knob and on Hanneford, and also to clarify and expound
upon something that Mr. Salvador said. Hanneford Road may be a 15 foot wide by use public highway. The
fact of the matter is, the pavement is about 10 and a half feet wide. It is a two way, one lane roadway. So
that when cars meet, they have to go on private property in order to traverse the road, and in many cases on
my property and many others along Hanneford Road. It seems to me when you evaluate parking spaces on
Hanneford, you need to be aware that it’s 10 and a half feet wide, two cars cannot pass on 10 and a half feet
wide of public highway, and must go on private property in order to operate at all on Hanneford Road.
That’s all. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
GRACE HANNEFORD
MRS. HANNEFORD-My name is Grace Hanneford, 15 Hanneford Road, and I’m against the parking on
that road because you all know that it’s a very narrow road, and I’ve lived there since the 1930’s. I don’t want
it to become commercial, with all these cars coming up and down, especially now in my old age. I’d like to
live there like I have, and as far as Mr. Salvador saying it should be made a wider road, Mr. Salvador doesn’t
live there. He doesn’t have anything there. I most certainly don’t want it made any larger and have my garage
right on the edge of the road. That’s what would happen, because there are houses up there, the first house
would be right on the road, and I think this thing of making the road wider is ridiculous.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two points for you to understand, ma’am. This Board does not have the authority to
widen roads in the Town of Queensbury. That’s done by the Highway Superintendent. Secondly, I think
that that plan would be remote at best.
MRS. HANNEFORD-Thank you very much. I appreciate that, and I don’t see how a small cottage would
have two boats. As Mrs., just said that the cottage gets, it’s for two people that’s about as large as that cottage
is, and would they bring up two boats, and then if they have friends come up, they’re going to be able to park
there besides the two parking places. I don’t think they should have any parking on Hanneford Road for the
slips. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? You’ve got a letter?
MR. HILTON-The letter is dated June 24, 2002 from Barbara Lynn, 11 Hanneford Road. It says, “Dear Mr.
Chairman: I attended the Public Hearing on Thursday, June 20, 2002, and expressed my opposition to the
“associated amenities” required for the Special Use Permit No. 2-2002. In particular, I am strongly opposed
to the use of a section of Hanneford Road as a commercial parking lot. However, my additional purpose of
this letter is to request a clarification of some questions that I walked away with after the meeting. 1). It is
my understanding that the reconfiguration of the boat house was approved in 1999 with the understanding
that there were no docks being rented, and with the condition that the “finger dock” attached was to be
removed. In truth, the applicant is now saying that since the docks have been continually rented, this makes
their particular request for the special use permit the best choice of those on our road. In addition, the
applicant is now advising the town that they will remove the finger dock – as required with the original permit
– only if all governing agencies allow them the right to a Class A Marina at that site. My question. How is it
that when an applicant as not met the requirements as originally set forth in one permit, they can attach those
requirements as a condition that they will comply if granted a later request? 2). I do not see how the 2
applications can be considered together. They are separate requests. The first, as I see it, has to do with a
location totally residential, as it was presented as not having any rentals attached, and therefore, not a
commercial endeavor. The second is a special use permit requesting the location be identified as a
commercial marina involving the rental of boat slips and associated amenities. My question: Should the
applicant not first be required to meet the conditions of the 1999 site plan review/permit? In closing, I wish
to further express my concern over the use of a portion of Hanneford Road as a commercial parking lot.
Hanneford Road is a residential, narrow, dead-end road that cannot safely handle additional traffic. I
understand that the applicant presented the request showing 10 parking spots. At the meeting that changed
to 5. She also stated that “usually” only 1 of the 3 rented docks would be needing a parking spot for a car.
My feeling is that no one could ever guarantee that and once the commercial parking lot is granted, it will not
go away. I will attend any upcoming public hearings on this request but will appreciate a response to these
questions before that to help me understand the process. Thank you. Sincerely, Barbara Lynn” And then
there is “Additional thoughts:”
MR. MAC EWAN-Who is that letter from?
MR. HILTON-Barbara Lynn.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-L-y-n-n?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. HILTON-L-y-n-n. And then there were “Additional thoughts:” attached to it, and they read, “Perhaps
it is because of being new to the neighborhood and not appreciative of the distinct nature of the area which
led her to make the comment that the only thing the waterfront is good for is renting of dock space. Does
that mean it is worthless to her if she cannot personally benefit financially? Perhaps if there were fewer boats
docked there, the water may be able to flow through a little better. Is it time to give that a chance? Are there
sufficient marinas already in existence to handle more boat traffic than the lake can bear? Is that tiny cottage
really going to be using 2 dock slips for its tenants? Last year, a person renting it said she was not allowed to
use a slip. Does she really live on this road? Does she understand the concerns homeowners on the road
have regarding additional traffic? At the meeting I heard about a motel in the village & a Florida home.”
And that’s that. Secondly, we have a petition signed by 18 individuals, saying, “We, the undersigned,
residents of Hanneford Road, Queensbury, NY, wish to express our opposition to the use of a portion of
Hanneford Road as a parking lot as proposed with the application for Special Use Permit No. 2-2002 This
would adversely affect the nature of and quality of life in this residential neighborhood. Hanneford Road is a
narrow, dead end road with many residents owning and utilizing both sides of the road. The road could not
safely handle the additional traffic.” If you’d like, I’ll attempt to read the names, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all right. Is that it?
MR. HILTON-That’s all I have, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. FULLER-Just, if you could grant me a little bit of leeway, Mr. Chairman. Last time we had a bit of a
heated discussion about the grandfathering question, and what I had addressed with Craig previously. If Staff
is able to prove that these docks were here in ’81 or whatever has been proposed that they be proven, then
I’d put it back to Staff again, much to Mr. Metivier’s question, is that, we’re leaving your problem having to
deal with this. Are they grandfathered at that point? Isn’t that, based on what, if that’s proven, then
essentially you’ve proven to the ZBA’s standard that that is a nonconforming use, and I don’t want to, you
know, I’m not arguing about it. I just want to put that out there for the Board, that that’s a big consideration.
If Staff is able to prove that, that those docks were in existence, used as they were, that we are saying they
were, been used this way for X number of years, then haven’t we just proven that that’s a nonconforming
use? We don’t have to be here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, speaking for myself, I would agree with you. That’s why, in my comments, I was
purposely vague as to what form that documentation would take.
MR. METIVIER-But I believe you said in your last meeting with us that those docks, originally in ’99 were
not rented. So you’re just contradicting yourself right there.
MR. RINGER-No, it was the Smiths.
MR. METIVIER-It was the Smiths and not you? I apologize.
MR. FULLER-That’s all right, but again, I’m not being argumentative. I just wanted to.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just one small part of the equation.
MR. FULLER-Certainly.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, given the fact, the way this new Zoning Ordinance is written, and regarding our
review of Special Use Permits, I mean, it’s just one small part of what we have to look at. All right. What I
think I’d like to do is take another 10 minute recess, and I’d ask John, Tony, and Cathy to do this one, if they
would, please. Before we take that recess, I was thinking about this after we tabled the Smith application.
Don’t go away. We tabled the Smith application to the first meeting of next month. I want both these
applications on a special meeting. I think it’s fair to everybody, and we’ll move this along. I do not want
them on a regular agenda. So we’ll apprise you of the dates, as soon as we get the hall available.
MR. HILTON-Okay, and one thing, the public hearings have been opened and have been left open on both
applications.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. HILTON-And we’re not going to re-advertise.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, and let me, what we can do is, I’d like the neighbors to be informed about
this, so maybe anyone wants to leave their phone number or something before you leave here tonight, we’ll
be sure to contact you and let you know when the meeting date will be. How’s that? Is that fair? That way
we’ll keep everybody in the loop on this. All right? Let’s take a ten minute recess. Have you got everything
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
the way you want it, so we can go right through? All right. I’ll call the meeting back to order. We have a
resolution ready, I guess.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2002 DAVID & JANE HOPPER,
Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier
Pending clarification of the following items:
1. That the boathouse and docks were installed in accordance with the rules and regulations enforced at
that time of installation by the appropriate agencies, including setback requirements.
2. Clarification from Warren County as to issuance of parking permits on County roads, specifically
Pilot Knob Road.
3. How is the stormwater runoff from the parking area going to be mitigated?
4. That we get a Staff response to concerns mentioned in Barbara Lynn’s letter dated June 24, 2002.
5. This is a legal question, and we would like some legal answers concerning the parking on Pilot Knob
Road which is supposedly going to be delegated by the County on a public road to private
individuals. We’d like to have some legal clarification of that.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go for a second, that was the consensus of the three of you guys doing that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So if that legal needs to have clarification on that, who are they going to call? Can
they call, you, John?
MR. STROUGH-No. That’s something we wanted. We’re tabling it because we want more information.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. What I’m saying, if Counsel doesn’t understand what you’re really asking him,
who’s he going to call to ask and say, what do you guys really mean? Can I have him call you?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. Have him call John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a second?
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-And as I said earlier, everyone will be notified of the special date we’ll set up for this.
Okay? Thank you.
MR. FULLER-Does the new rule apply with the date of the month? Is that going to apply to us? Are we
going to be able to get on for September? Don’t we have to have it in by the 15 now?
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. We’re going to give you a special meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to be on August.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In August, a special meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll coordinate it with you and you’ll be notified. I’ll have Staff notify you of the special
meeting. It’s contingent upon this room being available.
MR. FULLER-Beautiful.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing, I’m going to take a shot in the dark, it will be on a Thursday night. Okay.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MR. RINGER-Did that resolution say that they were responsible for?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Everything that we asked for tabling tonight is directed toward Staff.
MR. RINGER-Staff’s responsible for getting all that information?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that is.
MR. HILTON-The only thing I understand is that the clarification of the parking on Pilot Knob Road, that’s
going to be provided by the County.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, you’re going to pursue it and get those answers for us from those agencies
involved.
MR. FULLER-Thank you very much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. The next thing is. Okay. Craig, could you give me some dates for next
month?
MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are the 17.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the 20 and the 27.
thth
MR. RINGER-Are the regular meetings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I have to tell you something really serious. Today I got a notice for serving
jury duty, and I am supposed to report, call in Sunday night, August 4, and hopefully I won’t have to report
th
for jury duty on the 5, which is Monday, and that’s the day that I am supposed to go to the Staff meeting for
th
the agenda for the month for the Planning Board, because I missed July, and John went for me because I
climbed that mountain. So, who can I call up if I have to go to jury duty on Monday morning, July 5, to do
th
the Staff meeting at 10 a.m.?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me look at who we’ve got, at who is supposed to be the month following you, and see
if we can’t switch.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I haven’t done it this year. Because John and I can only do it in July and August, with
our jobs, and I screwed up on July because I climbed Cliff Mountain. So, John, you don’t want to go again?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t mind going again.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know what, Larry just raised a very good point. Seeing I’ve established this
committee with Bob and Larry to review application completeness, I really don’t see a necessity to have a
Planning Board member now attend the regular agenda meetings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. We’ve got, you’re right. You guys are.
MR. VOLLARO-When are we on the docket next?
MR. RINGER-You’d have to ask George.
MR. STROUGH-Can they do that at the same meeting, then, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, there’s no point in having a Planning Board member attend the Staff’s
agenda meetings, because by the time Staff’s got it, it’s a complete application, at that point. Right?
MR. HILTON-Our deadline, Craig, just to give you an example, our deadline for August is July 31, a
st
Wednesday, I believe. Our first, we have an in-house meeting that Friday. The following Monday is when
we’ll have our completeness review committee in. I can’t think of the date.
MR. RINGER-The 5.
th
MR. VOLLARO-August 5.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Getting back to these Special Use Permits, can you shoot for the week of the 12 and see
th
what’s available here in the room?
MR. RINGER-Counsel’s got to be here for that one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/23/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So then I’m relieved of my duty on August 5, right? Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Terminated.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
41