2009.02.19(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
INDEX
Subdivision No. 13-2007
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Subdivision No. 5-2008
PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE
Subdivision No. 12-2007
MODIFICATION #1
John Fedorowicz
Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11
Dariusz Jackowski
Tax Map No.265-1-73.2
Christine Germaine
Tax Map No. 301.18-2-34
1.
2.
9.
Subdivision No. 5-1968
MODIFICATION #1
Subdivision No. 1-2009
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
Site Plan No. 6-2009
Kathleen Daly
Tax Map No. 295.14-1-85, 86
Robert Gray
Tax Map No. 265.-1-21
Michael LaMott
Tax Map No. 296.5-1-7
12.
21.
24.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call the meeting to order, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting on Thursday, February 19, 2009.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN
FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN & LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ
ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND
6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183
MR. HUNSINGER-We did get a letter from their agent requesting that the application be
tabled to March. I think we have one opening left on the March agenda.
MR. OBORNE-There's one opening left on the 24tH
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We had three, we filled two the other night. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I think you had two and you filled one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had two and we filled one.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The same result, though.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it's the 24t" meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? I would like the motion,
though, to also include our understanding that previously the applicant had waived the
requirement that we render a decision within 62 days, and I just want that to be reflected
on the record in our tabling resolution. This goes all the way back to October when they
did that. Just say that the Planning Board affirms the October 27t" letter from the
applicant that waived the requirement that we render a decision within 62 days.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN
FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
This is at the request of the applicant. This will be tabled to the March 24t" Planning
Board meeting and the Planning Board would like to affirm the letter that we received
from their counsel on October 27, 2008 where the applicant hereby waived the
requirement that the Planning Board render a decision within 62 days under New York
Town Law.
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED
DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION BAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6+ ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF
3.0 ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 14-06; SKETCH 8/26/08 APA, DEC,
ACOE, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 6+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-73.2
SECTION A-183
MICHAEL &DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes,
please.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. This item was tabled to 2/24/09. With the change in date of the
meeting, this application was re-advertised for a public hearing. Application, Subdivision
5-2008, Preliminary and Final Stage. Applicant's name Dariusz Jackowski. Requested
action. The applicant requests the subdivision of six acres into two lots of three acres
each. At this point, Sketch Plan Review is not requested. It is actually Preliminary and
Final at the same time. It's the east side of Bay Road between Ellsworth Lane and
Pickle Hill Road. This is a Rural Residential Three Acres. SEQRA action is Unlisted.
The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination. Project Description: The
applicant proposes the subdivision of six acres into two lots of three acres each. The two
lots are to have one single family residence built in the near future on each of the lots.
Each lot will be accessed by a shared driveway located directly in the centerline of the
new subdivision. Staff comments. Both of these parcels will each need Site Plan
Review prior to issuance of a building permit per the condition of approval of the previous
subdivision. See attachment. Both parcels reside in the Lake George CEA, specifically
the eastern portion of the property. The following is for consideration. New comments
are in bold, and I assume that the Planning Board has reviewed the site plan review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. If you could identify yourselves.
MR. JACKOWSKI-My name's Michael Jackowski.
MR. D. JACKOWSKI-My name is Dariusz Jackowski.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOWSKI-The last time we didn't hand out elevation drawings. I didn't give
them to Keith, and we brought elevation drawings for each of you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOWSKI-The elevation drawings are on the back page. All we're trying to do is
subdivide the six acre lot into two, three acre parcels for a future building for my sister.
My sister might be interested in living next to us in the future, because she's in college. If
we need to sell it for hardship or for money reasons, we will. Hopefully this is our last
time and we get approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-So are you looking for Site Plan approval tonight, too?
MR. JACKOWSKI-We're looking for Final and Preliminary for the subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the subdivision. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-As part of their approval, when the initial subdivision came in, before
these folks bought it, there was a condition that anything that was built on these lots
would have to go through Site Plan Review, because of the environmental issues with
the property being in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have anything else to add?
MR. JACKOWSKI-We got the all okays from the VISION Engineering from your
engineer. Hopefully we addressed everything we need to.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-There were a couple of outstanding issues on the Staff Notes, the
February 19t" Staff Notes, concerning the driveway, erosion and sediment controls that
are planned, and as a result of the banks that have to be cut to put your driveway in. So
it's asking for stabilization and the percentage of the side slopes. Did you have that
information?
MR. JACKOWSKI-I'm pretty sure the engineer included all that in the drawings, because
he looked at everything.
MRS. STEFFAN-In the drawings that you just gave us.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Those are for the architectural drawings.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was part of the reason why I asked about the elevation
drawings. Any other questions, comments, concerns from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I certainly think that the Staff laid out in their Staff Notes what is
required. The difficulty is, I mean, we're supposed to be approving the subdivision, and
they're looking for Preliminary and Final. The difficulty, in my mind, is without the
elevations, like, for example, the driveway, what happens if they're too steep to build on,
and then they've got an approved subdivision and they can't put a house in there, at
some point in the future, so, whether it's for a family member or whether they're going to
sell at some time in the future, we may be, by an approval, without this information, we
may be approving something that's not buildable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we know what the slopes of the driveway are?
MR. OBORNE-I can calculate the slopes at approximately 10%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I've got a 120 foot run with a 12 foot drop, pretty easy math, and
obviously the Code allows fora 10 foot. That's the maximum, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-That's pushing it, and I'm not all too concerned about that, because I
knew it was compliant. It's the slopes on the cut that I'm concerned about stabilization,
and I know that the applicants have been working diligently with their engineer, taking
care of Dan Ryan's comments, and I think the engineer neglected Staff comments at this
point. Any type of seed stabilization, any type of jute mesh, some type of erosion control
is what I'm looking for specifically on the side slopes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we could certainly address that at Site Plan Review, right?
MR. OBORNE-I think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say the only concern is presumably they come in for
one house first and then the second later on, and it is a shared driveway.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How about the driveway with the first house.
MR. OBORNE-Well, they're certainly working through all the Site Plan issues. I mean,
that's been the thrust of this application is it's not just the subdivision, it's also Site Plan
Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So if we were to approve the Subdivision, they'd still have to
come back for Site Plan, when they're ready to build?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct, but that would be one meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-That would be, you have all the information in front of you, and it would
be just protocol at that point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Is that the only outstanding issue that members have is the
driveway?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. OBORNE-I think that's my main issue, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, everything else has been addressed up to this point.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the elevation drawings and the floor plans. The 147 requirements,
that could be added. We can make that a condition of approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-And also the Notation for Pond A, which wasn't noted on the plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-The houses being different sizes, I mean, that's what's proposed, but it
may not, I mean, it may be different when they come back for the actual Site Plan
Review when they decide to build. Silt fencing, that can also be done at some point in
the future. The location of neighboring wells and leachfield. That's a pretty rural area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what's your closest neighbor?
MR. JACKOWSKI-There's nothing on the left. There's a 54 acre lot for sale, and on the
right, it's real far back, real far back, there's a gardener, a farm, he has a.
MRS. STEFFAN-The nursery?
MR. JACKOWSKI-The nursery back there. That's really far back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm not as concerned about that last item.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wasn't either.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the stabilization would be part of Site Plan Review for, when they
want to build.
MR. HUNSINGER-Members comfortable with that?
MR. TRAVER-I think, provided, maybe if we make a note that the driveway design would
be completed for both structures when we do Site Plan Review for the first structure, so
you wouldn't have any modification to the driveway. We could handle it at one time,
which is probably what they plan on doing anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-We'd maybe want to make a note of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is
there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let the record show there's no one in the audience. Any written
comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Members comfortable moving forward? They did submit a Long
Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, or where the general
slopes on the project exceed 10%.
MR. TRAVER-No.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-So I think we're okay with that. Will there be an effect to any unique or
unusual land forms found on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DARIUS JACKOWSKI, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 19t" day of, February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Ready with a motion. We have to do Preliminary first.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 DARIUS
JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6+ acre parcel into two lots of
3.0 acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/16/08 & 2/19/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008
DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four E does not apply.
Paragraph Four F does not apply.
a Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
d. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e. NOT APPLICABLE ~ ;
NOT APPLICABLE
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now a motion for Final Stage.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 DARIUS
JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6+ acre parcel into two lots of
3.0 acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/16/08 & 2/19/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 DARIUS
JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, Negative. Paragraph Four E and F do not apply. This is
approved with the following conditions:
a Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
d. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e. NOT APPLICABLE ~ ;
NOT APPLICABLE
g. That the applicant will satisfy some of the conditions in the Staff Notes which
include Pond B noted on the plan, but Pond A is not noted and should be added
to the plan.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
h. That the application should be classified as a Major Stormwater project as per
147-8, Design Requirements, per 147-8. Design Requirements per 147-9 should
be followed for development of both of the lots.
That the applicant removes the D Box notation on Lot One B near Test Pit
Number Two.
That the driveway design must be submitted when the first lot is developed for
Site Plan Review.
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the one question I have is, do you want your elevation
drawings back, because I assume you'll want to re-submit them with Site Plan Review.
MR. JACKOWSKI-If you don't need them. Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-We certainly don't need them. Because you'll need to resubmit these
with Site Plan.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Thank you.
MR. D. JACKOWSKI-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 MODIFICATION #1 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED
CHRISTINE GERMAINE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) C.
GERMAINE/D. BEATRICE ZONING SR-20 LOCATION 709 SHERMAN AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO
DECREASE LOT 8 AND INCREASE LOTS 9 AND 10. MODIFICATIONS TO
APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE FINAL APPROVAL 6/24/08 WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.68 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-34
SECTION A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 12-2007, Modification, Christine Germaine. Requested
Action: Modification to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and
approval. The location is at 709 Sherman Avenue. The existing zoning is SR-20, or
Suburban Residential, Unlisted Action. This is SEQRA determination is required. Final
subdivision approval was back on June 24t" for the Board's information. They may
remember this. Project Description: Applicant proposes modification of an approved
subdivision in order to change the size of three of the 10 approved lots. Lots Eight, Nine,
and Ten will change as follows. Lot Number Eight: The existing approved acreage is
1.03 acres, the proposed acreage change is 3.54. Lot Nine, existing acreage 3.10 acres,
proposed acreage, 0.92 acres. Lot Ten, 1.14 acres, proposed acreage 0.82 acres. The
proposed change to the approved subdivision will not create any nonconforming lots.
The applicant wishes to increase the size of Lot Eight in order to build and occupy a
single family residence. No changes to the frontages on Sherman Avenue are
anticipated. This application was approved by the Planning Board on June 24, 2008,
with the condition that VISION Engineering signoff be contained in the file. To date, no
signoff has been given. This condition should be carried over to this approval to this
proposed modification, with the applicant's understanding that this condition be met prior
to final signoff by the Planning Board Chairman, and what that one issue is, and I have
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
that, too, is that Lot 10 needed to have deep hole tests, I believe, and it just was not
stated on the.
MR. STEVES-On his letter of May 23, 2008, it says completed at the bottom of that
comment.
MR. OBORNE-I know, but now you're updating the plan, and it's not on the plan. That's
my issue.
MR. STEVES-On the new plan.
MR. OBORNE-I meant to call you today and I apologize.
MR. STEVES-Not a problem.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, what you're saying is Lot 10 needs a deep?
MR. OBORNE-The approval, back in June, required that it have a deep test hole
because of the presence of high groundwater in the area. With the new change in the lot
line adjustments, again, it's still a compliant neighborhood or it's still a compliant
subdivision. I was looking for that notation on the new survey. That's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Christine Germaine on the
application. As far as the Staff comments, no problems. We'll put that note on the
revised map. The reason for the revision, again, no significant change. If you've looked
at the maps, Germaine currently owns and occupies the house that is on Lot Nine. They
were going to stay in there and make some modifications. They have decided to build a
new house in the back and they wanted, they retained that acreage with the original
house. Now they want to retain it with their new house that they're going to build. So
that's the reason for the lot line adjustment, per se, between the three lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That's the only reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-I found the maps really helpful, you know, to be able to compare what
was approved versus what was proposed.
MR. STEVES-We think it's easier than putting a lot of lines on one map and trying to
decipher between them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-It seems fairly straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought so, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-When I saw this item on the agenda, again, I thought, this item has
been on so many times. We've looked at it so many times.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No comments, concerns.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly don't think we need to re-visit SEQRA on this for a lot line
adjustment.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don't think so, either.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there's just two conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the only issue on the signoff from VISION Engineering is that
notation on Lot 10.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-But it's actually two separate things. The notation has to be on the
plan, but VISION Engineering actually has to, the applicant has to obtain the signoff.
MR. OBORNE-No, he's already gotten the signoff for the lot. I'm not concerned about
that.
MRS. KREBS-Just the notation.
MR. OBORNE-Just the notation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It's that easy.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-This is a SEQRA Unlisted, because it is a change to the subdivision, so
you'll need to do a Short Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought we could consider it and not have to do it.
MR. OBORNE-If you want to just reaffirm the SEQRA findings, that's fine, through a
resolution, that would work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in
the audience that wishes to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and, seeing there are no takers,
written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there are no comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Now we can move forward with the resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION #1 SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 CHRISTINE
GERMAINE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
1. WHEREAS, A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury
Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification of an approved
subdivision to decrease Lot 8 and increase Lots 9 and 10. Modifications to
approved subdivisions require review and approval by the Planning Board
2. WHEREAS, A public hearing has been scheduled for 2/19/09; and
3. WHEREAS, This application is supported with all documentation, public comment
and application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. WHEREAS, The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered and the proposed modification[s] does not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
6. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION #1 SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007
CHRISTINE GERMAINE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies.
Paragraph Five, we have considered the SEQRA implications and have opted not
to open SEQRA again. This is approved with the following conditions:
a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the
Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet
with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the
beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including
building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of
this resolution; and
b) The applicant will provide as-built
developed according to the approved
occupancy; and
plans to certify that the subdivision is
plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
c) If applicable, Item b to be combined with a letter of credit; and
d) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
e) All previous conditions of approval apply.
f) That there needs to be a notation on the plan that Lot 10 needs to have deep test
holes.
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thanks.
SUBDIVISION 5-1968 MODIFICATION #1 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED KATHLEEN
DALY AGENT(S) KIMBERLY M. WELLS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A
LOCATION HUMMINGBIRD LANE & WHIPOORWILL DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN 295.14-1-85 AND 86 TO SWAP
1,328 SQUARE FEET IN ORDER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN A COMPLIANT LOCATION. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
WOODLAWN PARK SECT. II WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES;
0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-85, 86 SECTION A-183
KIMBERLY WELLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 5-1968, Modification, Applicant, Kathleen Daly, Requested
Action, subdivision modifications require Planning Board review and approval. Location
is Hummingbird Lane and Whippoorwill Drive. Existing zoning is SFR-1A . The SEQRA
status is Unlisted. Project Description. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between
Lot 47 and Lot 28. The proposal calls for an even swap of 1328 square feet between the
two lots. The purpose of this proposal is to allow for construction of a single family
residence in a compliant location. The owners of both properties, Kathleen Daly, has
advised Staff in written form that this application meets with her approval, and there's
just one little issue on a typo, and that's about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. WELLS-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MS. WELLS-I'm Attorney Kimberly Wells, here representing Kathleen Daly.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. WELLS-And then we also have Attorney Michael O'Connor who's an interested
party in this as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything further to add.
MS. WELLS-No. Like he said, the purpose of this is that my client wants to do a lot line
adjustment, switching two equal parcels in the amount of 1328 square feet, and she
owns both lots. They're two separate lots. Other than that, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Seems fairly straightforward to me.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can understand that.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-I won't confuse you, then. I've got all the maps, the history. I've got a
septic layout.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then let me ask the one question I was going to ask Staff.
There's an inconsistency in the materials. Was it a 1968 or 1998 subdivision?
MR. OBORNE-1968, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I made a typo also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. I think this might be one of the oldest subdivision
modifications that I've seen.
MR. OBORNE-Just to keep in mind, for clarity, that this is an approved subdivision. This
is an approved lot. The layout of the lot is such that it would be nearly impossible to get
a house on the lot without going to the ZBA for setback approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was pretty obvious, looking at that.
MR. OBORNE-It is a small lot, however.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The actual subdivision map is dated May 26, 1967. At that time I think
the only approval required was the Health Department approval, and that was dated
June 16, 1967, and that created Lots 47 and 48, and then later, Lot 48 was partially
divided, and that was by Planning Board action. When they created another lot or
another subdivision behind this subdivision, they used a 50 foot strip off of Lot 48 to
access that. That was done, map of the proposed subdivision Mountain View Estates,
1974, and that was by the Health Department, and I believe also by the Planning Board.
MR. TRAVER-See, you've got that historical information after all, Mike.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, my point, and these, the other thing I will show you, which I think
you are already aware of, and Keith has said, you have two existing lots right now. It's a
matter of adjusting the property line between the two of them. They both have their own
separate tax map. They both are assessed separately. They're shown on the tax map
as two different parcels. So you have two lots going into this. You're going to have two
lots coming out of it. The two lots coming out of it are going to be a little bit different in
shape.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have one. You can come up, sir, and if you could identify
yourself for the record and speak into the microphone, please.
BILL EICHLER
MR. EICHLER-My name is Bill Eichler. I live on Hummingbird. We have a petition here
from most all the residents on Hummingbird, that we do not want this to transpire. The
lot is much too small for the building lot. It is not consistent at all with our development.
The lot there, the size they're talking about, is the equivalent of my backyard. All the rest
of the lots in there are significantly larger. I can read this if you'd like.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, that would be helpful.
MR. EICHLER-"We, the undersigned residents of Hummingbird Lane oppose variance
tax # 295.14-1-85, 86. As proposed, the house that would be built on this lot would be
markedly smaller than all of the existing structures. The surrounding yard would also be
less than half the size of the existing yards. The average lot sizes range from 16,483
square feet to 25,332 square feet. This lot would be 9,500 square feet. We feel this
would be detrimental to our property values and would not conform in the least with the
existing neighborhood."
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, sir. In that petition, did I hear correctly that this was referred
to as a variance? I believe it was in the first sentence, when you quoted the.
MR. EICHLER-I may not have the exact phraseology that came off of the notice we
received in the mail.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just so you're aware, it's a modification. If I heard correctly,
they're not requesting a variance, it's a modification.
MR. EICHLER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-This didn't go to the Zoning Board, did it?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. EICHLER-No, it is listed as a modification, but I can include this with the cover
letter, if you so desire, so they match up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be great.
MR. EICHLER-It's not going to benefit our neighborhood by taking and putting something
that miniscule when, as I say, my backyard is the same size, if not larger, than this parcel
you want to put a house on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-And this is also the entrance to the development?
MR. EICHLER-Yes, ma'am. It would be the first house as you come in.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could give that to Keith, and it'll be in the record.
MR. EICHLER-I most certainly will.
MR. KREBS-Keith, they're still both one acre lots, right, even after the modification?
MR. OBORNE-No, there's no need for them to be one acre. It's apre-approved existing
subdivision.
MR. KREBS-Pre-approved. Okay.
MR. EICHLER-Yes, because it's not one acre. It's not even a quarter acre.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. OBORNE-There's very few lots in there that are one acre.
MR. EICHLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
MIKE SYLVIA
MR. SYLVIA-My name is Mike Sylvia. I'm a resident of Hummingbird Lane, and I, too,
would prefer not to see this transaction proceed or transpire, and the reason I don't is, in
keeping with Mr. Eichler's comments, it's certainly not in keeping with the balance of the
homes in the neighborhood. I've been there for 12 years, and, quite candidly, if I wanted
to live that close to my neighbors, I would have bought a home in the City of Glens Falls.
I realize it's an older development, and I realize that there are standards in place for
older developments that perhaps make this a bit easier to put through the process than
would be in place for today. That being said, I'm not injecting any personality into this
argument. I spoke to this Board, I believe, about a year and a half ago when Mr. Clute
came before you and proposed basically the same action on Bennett Road which was
behind my house, and I said at that time that the character of our neighborhood is slowly
being eroded, and it's being eroded by these very, very small lots being populated by
homes. The trees are coming down. The character of the neighborhood is going away.
Mrs. Daly's been a tremendously good neighbor for a good number of years, and I want
to make it clear that this is not a personal bias whatsoever, but at the same time, her life
has changed and she's moving on and the balance of the neighborhood is there to stay.
I have small children in the school district. We bought our home there for many reasons,
and one of them was the character of it, the utilities are underground. There's trees,
there's space between the homes. It's a nice place to be. I don't think that a lot size, half
the size of everybody, my lot's .41 acres. I don't think that a home on a two tenths of an
acre lot at the entrance of our development is in anybody's best interest. I really don't. I
know Mrs. Daly's primary residence is also for sale. I mean, that whole corner is going to
turn over, and we're still here. My secondary concern is that there are other homes in
the neighborhood that have a small, spare lot, and if this is the way it's going to go, then
we're going to have another two, or perhaps three homes in our development that, once
again, to my mind, wasn't part of the deal when I moved in. So, I would encourage the
Board to consider the fact that there's value to the residents that in the green space, in
the relative privacy that we have from the other development on the way in. It separates
us quite nicely from Whippoorwill. We have a nice neighborhood there, and to take all
the trees down and put up yet another house, pigeon-holed in on the corner, to me,
doesn't do anybody any good, and the last thing I would say is that the neighbor adjacent
to the parcel, Mr. Bennett, is out of town. He's been out of town for quite some time.
He's unaware of the proceedings that are happening right now, and I'm certain that he
would have quite a bit to say on the matter as well. He's a longstanding member of the
neighborhood and I believe was around when the whole thing was put together and had
some stake in that lot at some point, or at least tried to at some point. So, that's it. I
would hope that those comments carry some weight, and that at some point in time the
character of our neighborhoods bears a little bit of weight in the decision-making
process. That's it. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
JOANNE MC DONOUGH
MRS. MC DONOUGH-Hi. My name is Joanne McDonough and I live at 4 Hummingbird
Lane, which is diagonal from the proposed tear down of trees. We bought the house two
years ago. We happened to buy it next to my sister and brother-in-law, and it's a nice
little small area, quite, peaceful. We have a nice piece of property. It's not huge. It's not
the biggest piece of property, but it's ours. You're not putting houses on top of houses,
and he's right. I could have bought a house in Glens Falls but I love Queensbury. I
moved back to New York to Queensbury to raise my family, and I've seen a lot of
construction done in this Town. I was gone for nine years, and a lot of trees have come
down, a lot of houses being built on top of houses, even in my old neighborhood. I just
don't want to see anymore trees coming down and houses being built on top of houses.
I don't want to be looking out my bedroom window to look in my neighbor's window, and
that's all I have to say.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
NEIL LAVIGNE
MR. LAVIGNE-My name is Neil Lavigne. I live on Mountain View Lane. I've been there
for over 30 years. As far as this parcel of land turn around, I bought my land off of
Charlie Tissinger, which is the developer of this, in '68. I purchased my land, I believe, in
the mid-70's. I built in 77, at 1 Mountain View Lane. I knew Charlie. I see a good share
of these houses go up. This particular lot here, which they're trying to get a waiver, I
guess?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they're trying to adjust the lot line.
MR. LAVIGNE-Charlie Tissinger is no longer with us, the original developer, but his son,
turn around, this particular lot turn around is a misfit lot because of the 50 foot right of
way for the land that's back on Hummingbird and Robin Lane. Mike Woodbury,
Woodbury's, built those houses. Charlie built the house, had the houses built on
Hummingbird Lane. This particular lot was 50 feet, the depth from what you call the road
today was taken off so that Woodbury's could build on the back side over there. This is a
nonconforming lot, in my opinion. The next question, you go over to West Mountain
Road, there's 55 acres, or 48 acres of land across from there. That is zoned SFR-1,
future lots within the Town of Queensbury. You get back over here on the back side of
Shallow Creek Road, Mr. Don Kruger built houses on similar sized lots over there. The
back yard, you step out the back door, and you're in the next man's backyard. This is, as
far as the so called 9,000 square foot of that lot, should be a nonconforming lot in my
opinion. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Were there any written comments,
Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any responses to some of the concerns from the
neighbors?
MS. WELLS-Well, we would just like to reiterate that what we're asking today is that the
lot line be adjusted. As we said, indicated before, it's already two existing lots, separate
lots, and we intend on keeping them two separate lots. I mean, the lot is the size that it
is. We can't do anything about that, and we don't intend on changing the size of the lot.
It's going to remain exactly the same as it was.
MRS. STEFFAN-But without the lot line adjustment, you wouldn't be able to build a
house there.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's not necessarily true. It might be a different, smaller house. This
lot, or, first of, this is .24 tenths of an acre. It's not one tenth or whatever was said there.
This is not a variance, this is simply a lot line adjustment between two existing, pre-
existing, nonconforming lots. Both lots are pre-existing, nonconforming. The house
that's proposed on this lot is actually bigger than the house that's on Mrs. Daly's
property. So the house is as big as many of the houses that are in that neighborhood.
The setback is the same from the road. The setback from Hummingbird Lane is 35 feet.
The setback from Whippoorwill Road is probably 60 feet, maybe 70 feet. The setback
from the Bennett property, which is to the west of this, is 20 feet. Those are all compliant
setbacks. They're the same setbacks that the other houses have. I know change is
always difficult. Everybody likes to have trees in their neighborhood. Mrs. Daly has had
this lot for sale. If the neighborhood wanted to buy it, they probably could buy it, and
have it as a treed, corner lot, but nobody has come forward and offered to do that with
her. Her property is the property that is probably most impacted by the lot line change. If
you take a look at it, it's the back lot of this house, and that's her property. She's the one
that's going to be impacted. It's not any of the speakers that are going to be impacted.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-But she's selling her other primary house.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and she will have to adjust her value in that house, based upon
this. She will have to find a ready, willing and able buyer who will buy it with this house,
in this location with this proximity. We purposely had the engineer lay out a septic
system. I thought if you had planning issue, we would be prepared to answer them, a
compliant septic system, no variance is possible on that lot. We have the actual set of
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
building plans for the house that we built there. The house would be approximately 1582
square feet. The impacts, just the fact that you're going to have a vacant lot that's going
to be occupied, and the speaker was correct, that if there are other vacant lots that are
standalone lots, on a filed subdivision map, either on Hummingbird or on the other street,
they very well could be built on in the future. I've got the map. I don't know what your
map shows as far as the, does it show the same setbacks, 35 foot setback from the
road?
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a specific house that's already been designed for that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there is, right here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you know when that area was re-zoned? The existing zone
says it's Single Family One Acre.
MR. OBORNE-It should be on the survey itself. When it was re-zoned, it was back in
2002, is the last re-zoning. Prior to that I believe it was 1996. Do not quote me, but I do
know that the last re-zoning was 2002.
MR. TRAVER-So this wouldn't be coming back for Site Plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I was mistaken as far as public comment. There are two
more that were in the file. They were unmarked, and I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And maybe in the spirit of letting their process go forward, at the end of it,
if I could read it in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. You can read it now. I didn't close the public hearing. So, go
ahead.
MR. OBORNE-Okay, and I apologize for missing this. This is from Donald and Lisa
Lehman. "To whom it may concern, Please accept this letter as comment in the
application of Kathleen Daly to change property boundaries to allow subdivision of a
piece of property for development, Tax ID # 295.14-1-85, 86 on Whippoorwill Drive. We
are unable to attend tomorrow's meeting. Changing property lines would allow this home
to be built virtually on top of several other homes. This request is being made by a
landowner who is selling her adjacent home, and apparently has lost concern for the
aesthetics of the neighborhood and safety of her neighbors. Putting a home here would
cause more traffic problems in an area where there are already concerns about speeding
drivers and limited visibility on the curves of Whippoorwill Drive. We would ask that this
request be denied. The landowner purchased this lot knowing that it was not buildable
under town ordinances. The town needs to stop bending the rules for developers. Also,
we would request that the board please try to give residents more notice of these
proceedings. We received the letter from the town about this request in the mail on
Friday, less than a week before the meeting. That leaves little time to arrange
schedules, particularly during a holiday week when many people travel. Thank you for
your consideration. Donald and Lisa Lehman" And one more, from Jere and Cindy
Bennett, 3 Hummingbird Lane, Queensbury, New York. This one was received today. I
was not aware of it and I apologize, again. "To whom it may concern, We are long-time
residents of Queensbury, and are writing to express our concerns regarding the
application for subdivision between 295.14-1-85 and 86 that I scheduled for hearing on
February 19, 2009. We are unable to attend the public hearing as we are currently out of
town. We are strongly opposed to this subdivision. The irregular shape and proposed
increase in lot size does not provide for adequate housing in proportion to the existing
homes and will therefore devalue the existing properties in the neighborhood. Sincerely,
Jere & Cindy Bennett" And that is all that is in the file. Okay. Thank you. Mr.
O'Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR-The existing lot, the one comment said something about traffic on a
curve. The existing lot actually has frontage of 32 feet, I believe, on Whippoorwill. We're
taking that frontage away when we make this lot change. One of the first designs for this
was to put a driveway out to Whippoorwill and come out onto Whippoorwill, but when we
went through the gyrations of making this lot line change, everything gets switched over
to Hummingbird, which is a less traveled road. It actually probably improves traffic, or
traffic flow, if there is an issue in that subdivision, which I'm not aware of. Again, we
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
comply with the setbacks. We're in excess of the Town setbacks because we're abiding
by the subdivision setbacks which are in excess of what the Town requires. We're
having the same setbacks on this house that the other houses in that subdivision have.
MRS. STEFFAN-But if it were evaluated under the Single Family Residence One Acre,
those setbacks would be different, correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it would, on every house on that street.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not just this house. I mean, part of the Ordinance also says that when
you're in apre-existing subdivision, you abide by the setbacks that were in place at the
time that the subdivision was created. So, if this were to be, actually, this is in excess of
that.
MR. TRAVER-So actually this proposed house would have the same, meets the
requirements for setbacks as the other houses in this development. The difference,
essentially, is that the remaining land, because of the lot size, after you build the house,
is smaller.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This lot, I think the original lot was, the original lot.
MR. KREBS-I thought you were talking equal amounts.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, no, no. I'm going to say the original lot was 17,000 square feet.
They took a 50 foot strip out of that, which left us with what we have left. After they took
that strip out, and they built that road, they downsized the lot, but when we're done here,
we're going to have the same size lot that we had before we came and asked for your
approval. We're not changing.
MR. TRAVER-You're just adjusting the boundary line.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's square foot for square foot. We're taking out.
MR. KREBS-1328.
MR. O'CONNOR-1328 from one, and putting 1328 back in. So it's identical.
MRS. STEFFAN-And where would the leach field and septic go, in that spot?
MR. O'CONNOR-I apologize, because I thought that that might be a planning issue, so I
had them do that today, or yesterday I think they did it. There's the leach field, three 50
foot runs. I've got another copy I can show you, make that part of the file. Why don't you
keep that copy.
MRS. STEFFAN-Where is the septic on the existing parcel that's got the two story
structure?
KATHLEEN DALY
MRS. DALY-It's directly in front of my front door.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's in front of her front door, she said.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there's sufficient distance between that septic and leach field
and the proposed septic and leach field.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know that this is a requirement between septics. There's a
separation requirement between septic and water, but this is Town water. So the only
septic separation distance, I think, is from a stream, water body, or from a property line.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or a well.
MR. OBORNE-Or from a foundation also.
MR. O'CONNOR-Or from a foundation, and a well.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. OBORNE-And a well, right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I didn't realize there was Town water.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is Town water.
MR. KREBS-It's similar to what we just approved.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have a problem with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional comments? I mean, I think that the dilemma for the
Board is, as you have pointed out. You have an existing lot. You could go and pull a
building permit tomorrow and start building a house there, and what you're asking us to
do is simply adjust the lot line. We're not adding the ability to build a house that isn't
already there.
MR. O'CONNOR-We think we've presented a better house, with less impact on the
neighborhood with this design and with this lot configuration. I represent the fellow who's
buying the lot, truthfully. That's my assistance. We want a lot that's going to sell.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-No, I think you've framed it exactly, that's our situation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any setback issues, other than the fence that's in the back
yard? There's a chain link fence in the backyard of the existing lot. Are there any
requirements?
MR. OBORNE-No, you can run it up to the property line.
MRS. STEFFAN-You can?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have a chain link fence that's pretty close to my property line. Okay.
What's the will of the Board?
MR. KREBS-I'd like to move that we approve the extension.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted action. So we can, I guess it would be a
Short Form?
MR. OBORNE-Make sure you close the public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to do SEQRA, or do we just consider SEQRA in the
resolution, as we did the last one?
MR. OBORNE-Sure, that's fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can someone else do the motion, please?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION #1 SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1968 KATHLEEN
DALY, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
1. WHEREAS, A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury
Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment
between 295.14-1-85 and 86 to swap 1,328 square feet in order to allow
construction of a single family residence in a compliant location. Subdivision
modifications require Planning Board review and approval
2. WHEREAS, A public hearing has been scheduled for 2/19/09; and
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
3. WHEREAS, This application is supported with all documentation, public comment
and application material in the file of record; and
4. .WHEREAS, Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. WHEREAS, The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered and the proposed modification[s] does not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
6. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION #1 SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1968
KATHLEEN DALY, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number
Five, that there are no modifications requiring SEQRA be reconsidered, affirming
the SEQRA resolution that has already been made, and approved with the
following conditions:
a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the
Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet
with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the
beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including
building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of
this resolution; and
b) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
c) If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
d) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
e) All previous conditions of approval apply
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mrs. Steffan
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'd like to get back the plans, but I'll leave that septic, do
you want that septic map there?
MR. OBORNE-I have no need for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No need for it? Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Are you going to discuss the Lake George Park Commission stream
corridor proposal?
MR. HUNSINGER-We got notices that I was going to announce, but I don't, other than
that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town Board has to act on that, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-The Planning Board's in other towns have acted on that.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. It was the Planning Board's in Bolton, Lake George,
and Hague.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you want to stick around, we have two items left.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2009 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEAR TYPE N/A ROBERT
GRAY AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A
LOCATION WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
AN 11.56 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.18 AND 8.38 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE BP 829 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A APA, DEC,
ACOE, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 11.56 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-21
SECTION A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 1-2009, Sketch Plan, Robert Gray, Subdivision of land
require Planning Board review and approval. Location is on the west side of Bay Road.
In fact, it's directly across the street from Jackowski, for visual purposes, and
Fedorowicz. Parcel History, two car attached garage. SEQRA Status, not applicable at
Sketch Plan. Applicant proposes subdivision of an 11.56 plus or minus acre parcel into
two lots of 3.18 acres and 8.38 acres. Density calculations work out. There's a few little
issues that I'm sure can be resolved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, again, representing the applicant, Robert
Gray. Again, this is property located on the west side of Bay Road, approximately 11
and a half acres. Mr. Gray wants to be able to subdivide this into two compliant lots. Lot
One would contain his existing home with 3.18 acres, and Lot Two, proposed house with
8.38 acres. We did do full two foot contours on the entire property prior to coming in for
conceptual, so that we could prove the density calcs, that we didn't have to go through
that at Preliminary, and so we understood that that may be an issue. We have denoted,
on the map, by shading, that are over the slope requirement, and you deduct those, and
you end up with 3.55 acres of slopes that would be usable in that zone, and you need
three acres. So they are both compliant lots. As far as the Staff comments, we have no
problems with any of their comments. The existing driveway they're talking about, the
only one they have is, the approximate percentage of slope they have is 12, it's like
11.53. It's an existing asphalt drive. So, it's, you know, we could try to see if we could
re-grade that a little bit, for that slight amount, and they're going to share the existing
driveway so there's not going to be any new curb cuts, and it has been a suitable
driveway for Mr. Gray for quite a few years, and we can look at that. I don't think it's a
sticking point for us. It works very well it is. We will provide a turn around at the top, but
we can review that at Preliminary. We can see if there's some changes we can make
near the top. We would hate to tear the whole driveway out to try to accomplish one
percentage point, as far as slope.
MR. TRAVER-And basically you'd be extending the upper part of that up to where the
new proposed?
MR. STEVES-That's correct. If you took the overall length from Bay Road to the new
house, and divided the slope by the length, we would be at that percent, but that would
be the average of the entire driveway, but the existing driveway, Staff is actually correct,
is just over 11 %.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. You can tell is, Steve, when you see the topography on the
Site Plan.
MR. STEVES-I know I have about a 15% driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you really?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. HUNSINGER-I hope you have four wheel drive, right?
MR. STEVES-Yes. Not always, usually just front wheel drive. There's not a problem.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. STEVES-Make sure it's paved. That's all.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How far is it back to the proposed house?
MR. STEVES-To the proposed house from Bay Road?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the driveway, because he's going to put it on a right, he's not
going all the way to the house with the driveway, right?
MR. STEVES-No, he's going to go to the left, to get up the existing trail. So off the
existing driveway, the proposed new driveway would only be about 110 feet long.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. STEVES-The extension, I should say, of the existing driveway.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But he's going to go up the left side, where he's got that, to the left
of the existing septic?
MR. STEVES-That existing trail there. That's correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the driveway will be about 500 feet.
MR. STEVES-Correct. We could peel off and make a "Y" right there where his existing
driveway widens out and stay below the house. I mean, there's a couple of different
options. It really is going to depend on the type of house that he constructs up there. He
hasn't decided what he wants to do at that point.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what's marked as a trail, that's already there?
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-What was its use? Was it a logging trail or something?
MR. STEVES-I really couldn't tell you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I'm sure it was a farming road for grazing or something.
MR. STEVES-I think it was a farming. It's been there a long time. It's not like a logging
road that has been recently bare in like the last 10, 20 years. It's been there a long time.
MR. TRAVER-There must be quite a view from up there, I would think.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-It depends on if you take the trees down or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the clearance for the house, that's not an existing clearance, is it?
MR. STEVES-No, that's a proposed clearing. There is some, a little clearing up there.
We are proposing to just enlarge it, and keep the buffer between the new house and the
existing house.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that is something, you know, we'd want to see is the clearing
limits.
MR. STEVES-Yes. What is shown is exactly what Mr. Gray wants.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-He definitely wants to keep the buffer, because he's anticipating moving
up to the upper house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Interesting. We have a buffer between our house and the house next
door, and it's very interesting, in the summer it's not a problem. This time of year, it's just
unbelievable, spot lights, driveway lights, house lights, they're all shining in our direction,
and it's really frustrating.
MR. TRAVER-Even noise.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have the same issue.
MR. STEVES-No question. The other house is about 15 foot in elevation difference and
is about 180 feet, as proposed, separation from the front of the house to the back of the
house. I mean, it's a large lot, and at the smaller scale. So it kind of looks like it's a little
closer than it is, but we understand, and we definitely would leave buffering in between.
He did not want to try to move it up the slope too far. He wanted to make it a viable lot
for himself. So he wants to be able to make sure that he has room to put the house.
You try to utilize the existing clearing, the existing path, and obviously, like I say, buffer
himself from the lower house that he'll probably be selling.
MRS. STEFFAN-There's a driveway right next door to this lot on the left. Is that, how
close is the house over there?
MR. STEVES-Quite a ways onto the southerly side of that lot. I can depict that for you, if
you'd like, at Preliminary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would it be off the map?
MR. STEVES-No, it would be on that lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, because that's a, it's a very small, you know that, obviously it's
bigger than it looks, but that's a very rectangular lot. So the house can't be all that far
away.
MR. STEVES-Two hundred and fifty foot wide, and it's about, I would say, about 150
south of the line.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Would the septic be an issue? The distance to the septic for the
neighbors?
MR. STEVES-A couple of hundred feet, three hundred feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And as far as like Staff said, the 100%. We have no problem. This is a
substantially large enough lot that we can have 100% reserve area. That's not an issue
there.
MR. OBORNE-If I may add, I think the main
just anticipating that, and I know that you'd
because you're going over the driveway.
issue with this would be the 10% driveway,
have to have a deeded access, obviously,
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the difficulty with these kinds of things, you know, in my mind, the
slope is one issue, but when you're sharing a driveway, then you've got the maintenance
issue and, you know how you deal with that, but obviously the homeowners work that
out, but it is.
MR. STEVES-It's just like in your Code, you require a shared driveway or double the lot
width, and he's conscious to that, and he's well aware of it, and he doesn't want any
more curb cuts, even if he had the lot width. He'd rather share the driveway. So he
came to us and insisted that we share the driveway. Maybe it's a relative, you know.
He's been looking at this for a couple of years trying to come up with the best scenario.
You look at the date of my map, I think it's February '06.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. STEVES-So he's really looked at this in a lot of different ways. It's his personal
property. He wants to retain it as his personal property. So, he's really kind of looked at
it over the years of how he wants to do it. It hasn't been a rush kind of a deal for Mr.
Gray.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's the same gentleman that has the house right across from
Dunham's Bay, right?
MR. STEVES-I believe he does, yes. I believe he has a rental unit up there, maybe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I mean, he rents out part of it.
MR. STEVES-He lives here on this lot here.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can see why he wants to move up here, because it's quieter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we give you enough direction?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL LAMOTT OWNER(S)
GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONING WR-3A LOCATION PARADISE LAKE APPLICANT
PROPOSES REMOVAL OF BRUSH AND TREES WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE.
REMOVAL OF SHORELINE VEGETATION IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 4-94; UV 75-90, SP 83-90
WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/11/09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ROUND POND CEA;
NWI WETLANDS; DEC [ENDANGERED SPECIES UNIT] LOT SIZE: 34.73 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-7 SECTION 179-6-060
MICHAEL LAMOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 6-2009, Michael Lamott, removal of shoreline vegetation in a
WR zone requires Site Plan Review and approval. The location is Paradise Lake. The
existing zoning is WR-3A. This is a Type II, no action necessary, which I might have to
come back to that one. No, this is a Type II, no action is necessary. Project Description.
Applicant proposes removal of a brush and trees within 35 feet of a shoreline. Staff
calculates proposed area to be disturbed at approximately 41,700 square feet, or 0.96
acres. Total shoreline to be impacted is approximately 550 linear feet. The project
location is on the south portion of Paradise Lake. Quickly on the Staff comments. The
applicant has explained in the DEC letter dated November 24, 2008 that the purpose of
this removal is to restore the view from Paradise Lake from the parking lot. This removal
appears to be for aesthetic purposes only. Igo on to explain why it's important, and from
then on there's a Site Plan Review and we talk about a DEC letter, and I'm sure Mr.
LaMott and I will discuss that throughout the proceedings here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAMOTT-Good evening. My name is Mike LaMott, and I'm here to see about
getting permission to clear some underbrush and some small trees and some trees up to
maybe four, five inches, on the south end of Paradise Lake. I'm sure everybody's
familiar with that. It wasn't that many years ago, probably within the last 15 years, that it
started to grow up heavy. Fifteen years ago there was nothing there. Because they had
taken down the Pavilion and the rest of the structures that were there, and people lately
have said, you know, you can't see the lake anymore when you park in the pullout there,
and it's true. Even this time of year, it's pretty heavy. There's some pine trees that are
still there and a lot of smaller trees. There are two very large trees. Those two right
there are two of them. They're dead. This time of the year, if they go down, they'll go
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
into the lake, which is not going to hurt anything because the ice is on it, but if they go
down in the summertime, have you looked at those two trees, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-These are the pictures I took a couple weeks ago.
MR. LAMOTT-Yes, and there's two more further down to the left that were probably left
over from the original structures or the original property, and then all of a sudden they
stop and from there on down around the lake, it's all lawn. It's grass. So you go from
this heavily wooded area, which wasn't there at one time, because the Pavilion and
everything else was, to down around the bend with nothing on it. The lake just opens up.
Unfortunately, there's no parking lot there to sit. What people do is drive in there, go
under the pole line, push a boat into the water and go fishing, but the rest of it you can't
see, and that's all we want to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I certainly think the DEC letter gave you direction on what needs
to be done. I mean, they suggested the pine tree.
MR. LAMOTT-Yes. I've got to thank the Town for that, because, I, you know, (lost word)
where to go first, and they were.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the pine trees coming down will actually help the protected
species, right, well, it's the Karner blue and then that little butterfly or moth or whatever it
is.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the concern I have is, not with the tree removal, but with the brush
removal. As you know from the Staff comments, that undergrowth, not necessarily the
entire width that you're talking about, but it's very important and we've worked very hard
to try to establish or maintain and in some cases reestablish buffers around bodies of
water within the Town.
MR. LAMOTT-Let me just say, there was a comment made that I shouldn't have said
brush, and they're right, I shouldn't have said brush, because there is no brush there.
There's small trees, and next year they're going to be bigger, and the year after that
they're going to be bigger, and so you're going to be right back where you are now. All
we want to do is take out everything that's there. I'll be honest with you.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So there would be, what, you're talking about putting grass, then, in?
MR. LAMOTT-Not doing anything at this point. In the letter, the DEC does say
something about, if we wanted to mow, we could.
MR. TRAVER-Mowing, yes.
MR. LAMOTT-But the rest of it is mowed. If you go down to where the trees stop, and
you go around the bend, that's all mowed in there.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, could you limit your cutting to the larger, could we agree on a
caliper or something, at least in the area immediately along the shoreline, so that there's
some vegetative buffer there for the runoff and so on going into the lake? I understand
that there's a lot of lawn around the other area. That makes this, in some ways, even
more important, that we try to maintain some vegetative buffer there, particularly as it
goes right on, by Round Pond Road. I understand you're trying to open it up for visibility,
but I'm wondering, can you do that without having to cut everything down?
MR. LAMOTT-I don't know how. If you would go there right now and look, you would see
that, you know, without taking down everything, everything is blocked. You have to take
down the pines.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. LAMOTT-And you've got some big dead ones, but the ones that are small now,
they're going to be big pretty soon. The intent was to take it down so you open it up,
which it was. It wasn't that many years ago, either, that it was that way.
MR. OBORNE-I will say, as Staff and the one who did the review on this, I welcome the
removal of the pines.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, for Karner blue and for Frosted Elfin habitat, it's essential that
those pines get removed.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Obviously there are certain species of pines that help the Karner blue.
Karner blue is not the issue here. It is the Frosted Elfin habitat at this point. I do take
just a bit of exception. There is a lot of brush there. It's a very diverse area for wildlife,
including the butterfly. There are trees, and the larger trees, absolutely, as Staff, I have
no problem, but again, we defer to the Board, and that's why we're here. My Site Plan
Review is based on my experiences.
MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I have, and I don't know if either one of you can
clarify. The last paragraph on the first page of the DEC letter, where Jed Hayden states,
should Terra Majestic wish to mow and to maintain the open shoreline, they may mow
within the lupine patch only after October 1St
MR. LAMOTT-When I was there with them, that particular day, there was a lupine patch
maybe 20 feet this way and 10 feet wide, but that's a much bigger area. Somebody
would have to come and tell us where the patch is, and I think they make mention of that
somewhere in the letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. They do, yes.
MR. LAMOTT-Because I was standing right in it, and I didn't know I was standing in it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I wouldn't know what it was, either, if I saw it. I remember we had it
printed out once before in an earlier project, a few years ago, but if I walked the site, I
would never know.
MR. LAMOTT-I suppose it would change every year, too, but they've said they would,
there's no problem with coming back and updating it and put it on their maps, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I found that comment kind of interesting, because once the
lupines are done flowering, they go to seed, and usually by the end of July into August
the seed pods have exploded and then they start to break down, and by September you
don't even know they're there. So, you know, they're using October 1.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that's for the chrysalis, though. That's for the chrysalis for
the.
MR. TRAVER-Hanging on to the.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and you don't want to disturb that undergrowth.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it's just grass.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the chrysalis is on the leaves. They attach themselves to the
leaves, and that is one of the processes they tell you to do is not to disturb the leaves,
you know, if they get approved, when they cut this down, they need to take it off site to
chip it. Not off site, but like into the parking lot or however it's going to happen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Schonewolfjust pointed something out. DEC said that they would
mark the area with temporary flagging, but you would have to make arrangements to
mark the area permanently.
MR. LAMOTT-But they told me they would come back and do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAMOTT-But temporary is, I suppose, this year. Next year it may change. So, and
that's, you know, something beyond my scope.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAMOTT-They are very helpful. I'm a little surprised.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence, because I haven't lived here all
my life. I've been here for a lot of years, though, and I remember when I first moved
here, and that was all clear. I mean, the Pavilion was there. So what's there now is very
different than it was 30 years ago.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Did you want to comment
on this? Were you here to comment on this application? Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. LAMOTT-We're not taking everything down. We're limiting which, in the direction of
the Country Club, we're not going all the way up.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Just what used to be the beach part.
MR. LAMOTT-Well, you get up there, the trees start to get like this, and, you know,
there's no point in taking them down. It would ruin everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the map that was submitted, is that a pretty accurate reflection of
where you want?
MR. LAMOTT-Yes. On the left hand side, it stops exactly where the trees stop, the
brush and everything else. Then it goes up to, there is a flag there on the fence, if you
look at it, and it's just below the double poles up there on the transmission line. So, it
won't go any further up than that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you actually show it maybe 40, 60 feet short of that.
MR. LAMOTT-Yes, it's at least. The trees start to get much larger up there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If that's the right scale, if that's 75, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Do you have any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Let me check. No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, since there are no comments from the audience and no
written comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what's the feeling of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have no problem with it.
MR. LAMOTT-Well, the letter also says we have to do it before the first of April. Either
that or we have to wait another year.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. You'd have to take action pretty swiftly.
MR. HUNSINGER-How available is DEC to come down and mark off the area, before
you start cutting?
MR. LAMOTT-I called them on Monday on another matter. They have not returned my
call yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I asked.
MR. LAMOTT-They get busy. I know they get busy. I mean, usually they respond much
sooner than that, but they don't leave the messages on their machines the way they
should, because I kept trying to get Jed for two weeks, and it seems that Jed was on
vacation, but his machine didn't say that. I'll be back in the office tomorrow it said.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the expectation, I mean, obviously they looked at this in October,
and they won't be able to do any kind of delineation until the snow's gone.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. LAMOTT-The snow goes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the trees would be down by then.
MR. LAMOTT-Well, when she left that day her last word was, well, call me if you need
anything and I'll come right back up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-If I can add just one more thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Go ahead.
MR. OBORNE-If you cut this brush back, it's going to grow back, unless you root it out.
So, I mean, does the applicant plan on coming back in 10 years and doing it again?
MR. LAMOTT-Unless there's some way, now, of getting something through that says
we'll maintain it that way.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be up to the Board, obviously, and you'd probably want
to see a plan, I would imagine. I know I would, as Staff. The Conservationist is coming
out in me, and that's my background. We've had discussions about it, and I can
appreciate where everything's coming from, for what it's worth, but just keep in mind that
keeping the roots in there is not a form of erosion control.
MR. LAMOTT-That was not me. That was DEC.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it was in your narrative.
MR. LAMOTT-Because she said what do you plan on doing all around there, and I said,
well, not much, we're just going to get it out of here, and she said, well, if you leave the
roots in, which I assume you're going to, then that's going to prevent erosion.
MR. OBORNE-It does the opposite, actually, over time. With that said, it is a pretty good
area now for wildlife. However, it will grow back. It'll grow back very quickly. So, I
mean, if you are to have a maintenance plan, you might want to get that back to us to
have it vetted, I guess.
MR. LAMOTT-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the beach used to be maintained by the Glens Falls Country
Club?
MR. LAMOTT-No.
MR. KREBS-As a kid, I used to ride my bicycle from Glens Falls up, and go swimming up
here.
MR. TRAVER-I can remember swimming there as a kid.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who operated the beach, though? I mean, was it the Town?
MR. KREBS-I don't remember.
MR. TRAVER-I think my parents just dropped me off. I remember there were
bloodsuckers in there. I don't know if there still are, but they scared me as a kid.
MRS. STEFFAN-Leeches?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the feeling of the Board? It is a Type II action,
according to the Staff Notes, but on the agenda we have it listed as Unlisted.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I was going to mention. You may want to go ahead and, I don't
have my SEQRA book with me, and shame on me, it's not going to hurt to do an Unlisted
Neg Dec. It's not going to hurt anything. Just to cover, whatever faux pas I've made
again.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Short Form?
MRS. STEFFAN-Short.
MR. TRAVER-Keith, I have a question. Just for my own curiosity, they've taken the step
of involving EnCon because of the threatened species and so on. Does that, and it
sounds as though there will be some ongoing involvement there, as they monitor this
habitat.
MR. OBORNE-That's my assumption, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Hopefully, right? Would it be your assessment that that involvement
would help mitigate the problem created by cutting down all of this? I mean, obviously
the vegetation, if it's cut down, it's gone, but presumably if a problem develops,
especially with this habitat there, EnCon is going to react in some way if we start seeing
a problem, environmental issues developing.
MR. OBORNE-This is for a view shed, and it's understandable. I mean, I know you all
know the area.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-This will, in fact, help the habitat for the Frosted Elfin. There's no doubt
about that.
MR. TRAVER-Right. It's very clear, EnCon.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, however it's at the expense of a thriving habitat for other
species, too.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, it's a one to one trade, I think, and as far as it developing, with
the blue lupine and the other endangered species that are in the area, it certainly could
help. It's not going to hurt, that's for sure. Will they, it would be up to the applicant to
make sure that the guidelines that Jed has set out, you know, are to be followed, and
where they want to go from there is fine. Typically they would mark it off so people don't
trample on it and the like. So it's certainly not there to open up access to the lake. I
know that.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. LAMOTT-No. I don't think you'll ever see anybody inside that fence.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. LAMOTT-Further up, they put in a couple of boats and go fishing, but not there.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, the applicant did submit a Short Form.
MR. LAMOTT-Trout, a lot of trout, too, stocked by the Country Club.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?"
MR. HUNSINGER-And this would be yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We're actually going to increase the habitat.
MR. OBORNE-What's the explanation for the yes?
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a potential impact, but the habitat for the endangered
species will be enhanced.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?"
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?"
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?"
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MICHAEL LAMOTT, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 19t" day of, February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. HUNSINGER-So are people comfortable with what's been proposed, provided they
follow the letter provided by DEC?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. The DEC's got to come out and flag it, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other conditions that we want to impose?
MR. OBORNE-Do you want them to come back after growth or do you want them to cut it
back after it reaches six feet? I mean, do you want to do anything along those lines to
streamline this process for the applicant? Or would you like to review it under, there may
be a different Board in five years?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Why don't we ask them to come back before any additional cutting.
MR. OBORNE-Additional cutting. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Things may, we don't know what even environmental changes may or
may impact. So we'll cut it and then not cut it unless they come back, and we'll take
another look at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But how can we phrase that, dramatic cutting? Applicant will come
back to the Board at a future date should?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. OBORNE-Further cutting be desired.
MR. HUNSINGER-Further cutting be desired, yes. Yes, that works for me.
MR. OBORNE-Not to put words in your mouth.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2009 MICHAEL LAMOTT, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes removal of brush and trees within 35 feet of a
shoreline. Removal of shoreline vegetation in a WR zone requires Site Plan
Review and approval.
2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/19/09; and
3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2009 MICHAEL LAMOTT,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four E & F do not apply.
This is approved with the condition with the following conditions.
a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies
with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration; and
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the
Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must
meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or
the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution.
d) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate
of occupancy; and
e) Not applicable ~ ;
f) Not applicable
a
g) That the applicant must comply with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation letter of November 24, 2008, and also that the
second condition is that the applicant will come back to the Planning Board at
a future date should further cutting be desired
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. LAMOTT-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. O'Connor, do you want to come up? Just under
additional business, Mr. O'Connor had asked us about the Lake George Park
Commission Stream Corridor Protection, and when I came to the meeting this evening, I
did have two notices in an envelope. There's a series of workshops next Tuesday. Let
me rephrase that. It's a public hearing on a Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for Stream Corridor Protection. There's two hearings, one at 11 in the
morning and one at six o'clock in the evening, and there's also two meetings of the Lake
George Park Commission Law Enforcement Committee on the same day, at nine o'clock
and at ten o'clock.
MR. KREBS-Are they at the Hotel?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the Holiday Inn. The evening meeting is at the Fort William
Henry Conference center, and I'll pass these around, but I didn't know, Mr. O'Connor, if
there was something specific you wanted to bring up or ask us?
MR. O'CONNOR-I was wondering if you were going to take a position on it. Other local
Planning Board's have. Other Town Board's have, in addition to the Planning Boards.
I've been doing this, I think, since 1967, land use, and we used to have a very active
committee on the Bar Association that would review any proposed regulation or
ordinance. I've tried to get them involved in this particular project, and haven't been
successful, but there are a lot of people that are looking at this thing. We all complain
about mandates from the State, and how they're expensive and how they create red tape
and they do all kinds of crazy things to you. We've got a local Board here that is now
looking at making a mandate which is going to make it very difficult and cumbersome to
go forward with all kinds of things. They're talking about a stream corridor protection, a
stream corridor of 100 feet on each side of the high water mark of streams. They're
talking about perennial streams and intermittent streams. They're definition of
intermittent streams almost includes every stream that you can think, even streams that
only have snow melt flow in them. Their definitions that they use are terrible, and I
looked at it. I don't have an axe to grind. I don't have a client I'm representing, and I
probably should shut up and just enjoy the fact that there are going to be 1500 other
people that are going to need are services or the services of people like me because
they've got more dumb regulations, but in towns where you have an APA approved local
land use plan, in towns where you have a stormwater regulation that's enforced, and
you've got DEC looking over everybody's shoulder for any timber operations, and stream
crossings in connection with timber operations and what not, I don't see where it adds
anything. I think they're just building their little kingdom. They're talking about acting for
Site Plan Review. They're willing to give you, and the variance procedure that they put
in there is like for Area Variances, which is not bad, except that they say Single Family
Residential can get variances if they already pre-existing within this corridor, 100 feet
from the stream.
MR. TRAVER-If they're pre-existing they need to get a variance?
MR. O'CONNOR-If they want to do anything to expand their hard surface.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-But they don't say anything about pre-existing commercial.
MR. KREBS-Right, and I didn't see anything about the Commission or anybody else
compensating these people for the 65 feet of land that is being taken away from them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's a land grab. It's simple, outright thievery.
MR. O'CONNOR-Bolton is very strong. They say it's a land taking.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it's poorly drawn because it doesn't recognize the other entities.
MR. TRAVER-Well ,with the number of streams and the topography in the Town of
Bolton, that probably is the area most impacted. Right?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know. They've put together a lot of information. The Generic
Impact Study is like 58 pages, and you go through it and you read it, but if you read it and
it talks about suggested setbacks, most of them say and more study needs to be done,
and they also don't say whether or not the areas that they've looked at those setbacks
whether they have a stormwater plan that's strictly enforced. Bolton, Lake George, and
Queensbury all have stormwater. I mean, you looked at, tonight, and I think I'll get a
copy out of our regulation. Your shoreline cutting requirements are applicable to
streams, as well as lakes and, tonight you were doing one for this fellow for the Round
Pond. You already have that. They want to do that for you, or they want to do that in
addition to you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But does the Town have to let them do it?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. TRAVER-When they say more study needs to be done, isn't that an enormous
loophole?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, they have to let the Town do it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but if the Town takes a stand against these regs, then what
happens?
MR. O'CONNOR-They can still adopt them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They can adopt them. They can't enforce them in that town, can
they?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they supersede us.
MR. O'CONNOR-They're a State agency. They're going to become a miniature APA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-They're talking 5500 acres that they're going to affect in the Lake
George basin.
MR. HUNSINGER-We've been hearing for a while that they're going to start to have
greater enforcement of the, you know, upland land uses.
MR. O'CONNOR-They don't distinguish.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it doesn't come as a surprise.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's one thing. I can see the upland. I can see the ridges. I can see
the mountains, and that type of stuff, but, you know, they do the same 100 foot strip, or
200 foot strip up there that they do down by the lake, and the funny part, they exempt all
municipal stormwater, but in the beginning of the 58 page Generic study, they talk about
the seven streams that are problematic. They're all highway streams. They're all
streams that run along highways that get dumped into by the highways.
MR. HUNSINGER-Highway runoff's the biggest problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-And, you know, the areas of development where they think they've got
the biggest problems are the areas that already do this. Igo to Lake George as much as
I come here. In fact, I probably go to Lake George more. They have stormwater
regulations. You go to cut within 35 feet of that lake, you've got to justify what you're
doing.
MR. KREBS-But what do we do? We allow the State, on Route 9, to have no stormwater
sewers, and we've dumped that water directly into West Brook, which goes directly into
Lake George, okay. So we were worried about Rush Pond with Schermerhorn, and yet
we have Route 87 that gets dumped salt all the time, all winter long, and there's no
retention basins on either side of either north or south highway, and all that goes directly
into either Glen Lake or into Rush Pond.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it goes down into the Rush Pond stream through Story Town or
through Great Escape into Glen Lake. That's why you have the green algae blooms at
the head of the Glen Lake Fen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because of the salt.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I just, the problem is they've been threatened with lawsuits, the
Lake George Park Commission, and they're caving to them. The Water Keeper and the
Lake George Fund have said they're going to sue them if they don't adopt them. State
procedures says that, first of all, their enactment, when they were enacted, said that they
will have rules, but the State procedure for enacting rules and regulations says you don't
enact rules and regulations if there are already adequate rules and regulations on the
subject in place, and they're choosing to try to ignore that, but there's going to be a lot of
people at these public hearings. I think they've got a citizens group now in Bolton that's
formed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the ones that took out the full page ad in the Mirror?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They seem like they're well organized. I would think that they'd
want to go to court.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that they intend to do that. I've told, and I think the Town, I know
the Town of Lake George is going to send their attorney. I think Bolton is sending their
attorney. I've told them I'm not going to represent anybody on it, but it's just, we don't
need another APA. I just did a three lot subdivision in Fort Ann. We spent almost
$5,000 for archeological. The three lots are 15 acres each.
MR. TRAVER-Did you find anything?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we did. We found some old pottery. It was an old farm, and
you're going to find it any place you have old buildings. The old, they didn't used to have
dumps. They used to open up their back door and discard it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. You'd put it along the stone wall, it went around the edge of the
field. When I was a kid I used to go dig for old antique bottles in the old farm dumps that
way. We'd follow a stone wall until we found the dump, and that's where we'd find the
antique bottles. I still have most of them.
MR. O'CONNOR-I used to talk to Dr. Bob Kuhn. He's no longer the head archeologist,
and at one time we were doing something, he said, and he turns around, we had, I think
there were 11 people there, I figured out that it was costing the applicant someplace
around $3700 per hour. This was a quarry we did over in Hartford, and he said, Mike,
do you believe this guy? And I had Phil LaPorta, who was probably the head, probably
best archeologist/geologist on chert mining, which supposedly happened five to ten
thousand years ago. We don't know by whom. We don't know where they came from.
We don't know where they went, but we have evidence that there were human people
here chipping away chert on some rocks, but the last one I did with the APA was three
lots over in the Town of Fort Ann, and I can't believe what we ended up doing, and I
think, the other night I was in Lake George, and I think they mean well, the Lake George
Water Keeper, but they have lost a lot of credibility because they never recognize
anything good, like the last time I don't know if I was before you or before the Zoning
Board, when we were here for Takundewide. We got rid of seven or eight cess pools.
MR. KREBS-Yes. Right, and all they did was criticize you.
MR. O'CONNOR-And they came in and criticized because they thought we should have
counted the stairwell in the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. KREBS-Not only that, but then they went in the water and they took pictures, at
Takundewide, and then they went up the lake and took pictures, and of course, the
farther north you go, the cleaner the lake gets. I was here, and you were around, when
we were talking about putting the sewer, the Warren County sewer in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. KREBS-And we had the EPA come up and we did studies on the lake. We had, we
called it the pooper scooper boat, but it was a boat that had the ability to look at
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
phosphorus and it would go, it had an intake three feet below the boat, and we went all
around the lake, and we thought we were going to have a lot of problems around
Cleverdale and Rockhurst. Where we had the highest readings were coming out of the
swamps in Warner Bay, Sandy Bay, Dunham's Bay, okay, because the phosphorus that
we were getting into the lake was a natural source. It came from the decaying wood that
was in that swamp, and every Spring it would be flushed into, you know, from the snow
runoff into the lake. We couldn't find readable amounts, except at the end of West
Brook. There just weren't, and all those places that we thought, you know, with septic
systems, and some of them with 50 gallon cans, etc., were not contributing to the
pollution of the lake that we could decipher at that time.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's a Glen Lake study that says that the septics on Glen Lake do
not contribute to the, to any degradation of the water quality on Glen Lake. That was
done, I think, either by ACC or by some, maybe it might have even been the Darien
Water Institute. It's old now, but the last time I looked at this, my point, though, as to the
credibility of the Water Keeper, at the Lake George Planning Board meeting, it was the
Planning Board or the Zoning Board, I forget which, they came in, in three different
applications, were citing the new Lake George Park Commission stormwater regulations,
and somebody said, you mean the ones that are proposed? Yes, those are the ones.
You've got to look at those. I mean, and those guys, one reason they have such poor
credibility in Bolton and Lake George, they're the ones that are suing the towns.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're Mr. Negatives. Peter Barris is just as bad.
MR. O'CONNOR-They were so happy to get rid of him.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. He was one of my customers up in Blue Mountain Lake,
and he, well, his father-in-law was involved in the APA, and he's the worst of all. He
makes the Water Keeper look an angel.
MR. O'CONNOR-He was telling somebody, he was telling one of our local legislators
about all the things that their organization wanted and all this that the legislator was all
wet and shouldn't be sticking their head out of the sand and stuff like that, and the
legislator said, you know, I'd like to meet with your Board of Directors. Okay, you can do
that, and she said, I want to see what your Board of Directors. They set up the meeting,
had everything all set, he cancelled it, and somebody went around him and found out
that he never went to his Board of Directors. He's on his own little horse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would the Board like to take a position on the proposed stream
corridor? I mean, I, personally, don't know if I have enough information, but I also would
be willing to go to the hearings, and to go to the workshop.
MR. TRAVER-I wouldn't be in a position to comment at this point.
MR. O'CONNOR-My suggestion would be, at the most, because you don't have the book
in front of you, and it is a book that you want to read and take a look at, is simply ask
them to recognize those that have asked them to slow down. There is no need to rush to
judgment, and if they're talking, now, about, one thing, they've got 12 Towns. Lake
Luzerne's in this. I mean, they've got Ticonderoga, anything at Putnam, everything that
touches the lake, the whole Lake George water basin is in this thing. I didn't know part of
Lake Luzerne was in the water basin, but it is, apparently, but they have not gone to
those Towns.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would certainly be comfortable to attend the public hearing and
make a comment that we haven't had a chance to look at the impacts that it might have,
so we certainly can't take a position.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can't judge those impacts until they have a final proposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Which sounds like that's going to be quite a ways off.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the question is do they need it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're going to try to implement it without it, I think.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. My thing is I'm going to get a copy of our regulations, in
Queensbury, I'm going to get Bolton's regulations. I'm going to get Lake George's
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
regulations. I'm going to go into the public hearing and I'm going to say, guys, you're just
duplicating this. Why are you duplicating it? We're supposed to be helping taxpayers.
We're supposed to be helping the economy. They're stepping all over it. The only one
they're helping is the lawyers and engineers, and for the people that can afford to hire
them.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they're also increasing the enforcement load. We're having a hard
time enforcing some of the fundamentals of our zoning and so on, within the Town. So, I
mean, for them to increase the demand on the need for enforcement seems silly when
we have, sometimes, issues with enforcement of very basic kinds of things.
MR. O'CONNOR-They have one regulation in there that says that if anybody is going to
do timber harvesting and it is going to involve a stream crossing, I think, of any nature,
they have to give them notice that they are undertaking this project. It's kind of like the
SWPPP, it's kind of like registering your stormwater, but how many people are they
going to have to hire to go out and look at that? You've got a lot of people that are
employed in the forestry business, above, you know, 149. Now you've got forestry
regulations. Lake George has got forestry regulations. I think Bolton's in the process of
adopting them.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the stream crossings, particularly, are a DEC issue. You have to
have a crossing permit for that. It's a perennial stream. It's a classified stream.
MR. O'CONNOR-Double A something, Double A S. The other thing they're saying is
that if you're doing a subdivision and there's a stream on the property, they only want
one crossing. Now that doesn't mean, you know, what happens to the idea of this
conservation subdivision or planned subdivision where it makes more sense to have
more than one crossing. I'm not sure, it's kind of like, the guy out of Manhattan that's put
all this stuff together, and said here's your cookie cutter and here's where you're going to
go. It's going to create all kinds of issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was Staff planning to attend any of these workshops or hearings?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely, and I do want to mention just a couple of things.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, but how do I tell somebody that comes in and basically, they
bought this 45 acre lot and said I only want to create three building lots, and it's in Fort
Ann, which I don't think has got a big market to start with. How do I tell them, you know,
you're paying X dollars for the land. You better add maybe five, seventy-five hundred
per lot before we get this thing approved? And that doesn't go into building. It doesn't
go into infrastructure. It doesn't go into the assessment. It just goes into the paperwork
that you go through.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm sorry. Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Just two things. We are planning to attend the workshop. I know Stu is
and I am.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-If I can break away from it, and break away from my Site Plan review
duties that I have to do. Another thing is, if you were to make a stance on that, I would
ask, just as an observer, that you don't have a full Board to really make a complete
recommendation or stance.
MR. O'CONNOR-You don't have the book, either. I think you want to have the book.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the hearing, for the members here, is that we don't have enough
information to take a position, and there ought to be more time for us to take a look at
this. I mean, maybe I'm being naive here, or maybe oversimplifying things, but I would
think that if the Lake George Park Commission is going to adopt great regulations, that it
would be incumbent upon them to come and tell us what it is that they're proposing to do,
and to give us an opportunity to.
MR. O'CONNOR-They didn't. I challenged somebody on that, because Bolton was so
upset and they made that part of their resolution, why didn't you ask for our input. We're
experienced. We do this on a monthly basis and all this other stuff. They said, well, we
held our meeting in Bolton.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Did they hold a meeting in Queensbury, though?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know, but that was their comment as to why they didn't ask for
particular input.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I had one more thing, and I'm not saying this tongue and cheek, but
as Staff and a representative of the Department of Community Development, we do our
Site Plans on an unbiased basis, and anything that said is said tonight, as far as the
Lake George Water Keeper, who we recognize as, not necessarily a partner, but
somebody that we do respect some of their, if not all, of their inputs, we do, not
necessarily welcome, but we do accept their inputs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm glad you brought that up, because I have a comment on
that, and it's just my own opinion, but one of the concerns that I have about the Water
Keeper, specifically, is that they are not a regulatory body. They do not have, their
opinion is merely theirs, and it really should not be treated any differently than any other
public comment that we receive.
MR. OBORNE-And it's not, and they're not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, I'm just saying in general, because I think, you know, just the
way that they approach their business, the implication is that they have some greater
authority or some specific knowledge that no one else has, and I just want to point out
that, you know, and oftentimes I will make that comment during the proceedings to say,
you know, their comments should be taken just like any other public comment.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. They are an advocacy group. They are allowed to speak
their piece, and that's all I just would say. They're not a partner of the Department of
Community Development, nor do we necessarily welcome everything that they say, but
we do accept everything that they say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We have to, we have to accept it and consider it.
MR. OBORNE-Just like public comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The other night we voted the other way before he got his
paperwork over to you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for letting me make comment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you. I enjoyed it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The only other item I had for any discussion is the two
modifications this evening where we had a public hearing scheduled, that kind of threw
me off because that's new.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe in our workshops, to allay any possibility of unfairness, I
can't remember the words. I'll have to look at it again, that we were going to open up
public hearings for modifications. In the new Code, I believe that that will be a
requirement for subdivision modifications.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to ask the question, because it was certainly a
new policy.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We did discuss this, amongst many other things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business? Mr. Schonewolf was just asking when
the Town Board might be adopting the Code. I just want to remind everyone that the
public hearing is next Tuesday evening at seven o'clock.
MR. OBORNE-Hence why we're here tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly. I plan on attending that also.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-When I was at the Town Board workshop, it appeared that this was
going to be an Expedited Review, that there would only be one public hearing before
they would adopt it, and so it's important for the Planning Board members, I think, to
review the document and if you have any issues, Tuesday night's your opportunity to
address them.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think I had asked previously if there was a marked up copy that
shows changes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the copy I got was not marked up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-No, there isn't. Maybe Craig has one.
MR. TRAVER-Even if that could be distributed electronically, if it exists, in like a word
format.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen suggested that maybe Stu has one. I'll follow up with him
tomorrow.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if we could get it e-mailed to the Planning Board members, that
would be a big help.
MR. OBORNE-Send it out as a PDF or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Either way.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it would probably be easier, probably the easiest for him would be to
just send a word, because you can just track changes with everything like that and it
stands right out.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don't know what the process is. I'm not privy to the process. In
fact, I've looked at it in a cursory way at this point because I need to focus on what the
Code is and I do not need to get more confused than I already am.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I'll send everyone on the Board a reminder, too, about the
workshops with the Park Commission.
MRS. STEFFAN-The marked up copy is the copy that the Planning Ordinance and
Review Committee recommended to the Town Board. The new zoning that was
proposed by the Town Board is a project of their own. They did not take the Ordinance
Review's comments.
MR. KREBS-Did they incorporate it in to the original?
MRS. STEFFAN-My understanding is they did their own modifications, and so that's why
it's important to look at the two documents, because they are different.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I only got one.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's why Chris was going to ask to get the second one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's why I asked for the second one. Okay. Any other
business?
MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 19, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/09)
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
40