2009.03.03(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 3, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 14-2007 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 1.
MODIFICATION #1 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7
Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 28.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47
Site Plan No. 50-2008 General Timber 29.
Tax Map No. 265.-1-28
Site Plan No. 5-2009 Randy Severance 35.
FW 2-2009 Tax Map No. 266.1-1-20
Site Plan No. 35-1989 Stewarts Shops 42.
MODIFICATION 2 Tax Map No. 266.3-1-11
Site Plan No. 6-2009 Greg Canale 47.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11
Site Plan No. 8-2009 John & Sandy Lambrecht 49.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-4
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 03/03/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 3, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD KREBS
THOMAS SEGULJIC
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll call to order a Special Meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board, Tuesday, March 3, 2009. If it please the Board, and if the applicant is
ready, I would like to move around the agenda slightly. I would like to hear the Gregg
Brown and Lizabeth Bitner case first. Okay. For members of the public, there is a copy
of the agenda on the back table, and also there's a handout on protocol for public
hearings. If you wish to speak at a public hearing at any point during this evening's
meeting, I would advise you to take a look at that outline to make sure you're familiar
with the process.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 MODIFICATION #1 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED GREGG
BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER AGENT(S) JONATHAN CAPPER, BARTLETT,
PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION
31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SITE PLAN WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE RAIN GARDEN.
MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-1992, AV 5-96 WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER WR-1A, APA WETLANDS, L G CEA
LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-9-010
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you'd like to summarize the Staff Notes when you're ready.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Requested action is Site Plan Review for modifications to an
approved Site Plan. Location is 31 Knox Road. Existing zoning is WR-1A. This is an
Unlisted SEQRA Status. Project Description. Applicant proposes a modification to an
approved Site Plan which would allow for the removal of a rain garden. Staff comments.
This Site Plan was approved on June 17, 2008 by the Planning Board. A subsequent
Article 78 proceeding was heard on December 30, 2008, with the only resulting change
to the approved Site Plan being removal of the rain gardens located to the north and
south of the boathouse. According to the judgment, rain gardens are considered
infiltration devices and such will either need to be removed from the plan and a variance
obtained for their installation. The applicant has elected to remove the rain gardens from
the plan, and this has been accomplished on the revised landscape plan, Page C-3.
Staff's only comment is what effect does the removal of the rain garden have on the
stormwater management plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie DiLallo Bitter here, as attorney for the applicant,
together with Karla Williams Bitner from Bartlett Pontiff. Clark Wilkinson is also here, as
well as Jeff Reddick. As Staff just identified, we're here seeking a minor modification to
the Site Plan approval that was given by this Board last June for the Brown parcel. After
the Board's extensive review of the Brown Site Plan, the Collins', the Brown's adjacent
neighbor, appealed this Board's determination to the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court upheld this Board's determination with the exception of the rain garden. The court
found that although there was no statutory definition of a rain garden, based upon its
review, this should be considered an infiltration device. Because the Queensbury
stormwater Regulations require infiltration devices to be 100 feet away from the lake, the
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
way that this plan was proposed would require a variance. As opposed to seeking that
variance, we're removing the rain garden, because the rain garden was only included in
the Site Plan per the Planning Board's request. It wasn't a mandatory item or something
that was deemed necessary by the Town Engineer. I'm going to ask Clark Wilkinson just
to go into more details. I know he had spoken to Dan Ryan on this issue, and will
comment or respond to Staff comment.
CLARK WILKINSON
MR. WILKINSON-Again, for the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon
Engineering. In regard to removal of the rain garden, the rain garden, actually none of
the rain garden components were included in the original computations of the stormwater
anyway. They were included in the storm report as an additional item, and mainly
because it's very difficult to model through the rain garden, and additionally because the
water that's getting there has already come from, if it's coming off the roof, it's dripping
into a stone drip edge along the house and it's trickling over the ground. So we felt all
along that it wasn't necessary, but, again we added it as part of our Site Plan approval
from this Board, and it's now, because of an infiltration device, is deemed that either we
get the variance or not. So, with that removal, it doesn't affect stormwater management
on this site, and, briefly, as you may or may not recall, stormwater on this site was
treated as a major project under Section 147, and as such was reviewed in that manner
by Dan Ryan. I had a conversation with him today. Based on his letter, I thought his
letter was a little bit on the vague side, as far as review goes, and I asked him specifically
what the meant. I said my interpretation is that here's all the data that was submitted
and you reviewed, and your statement is that there are no technical issues. So therefore
my opinion is that there are no technical issues and the stormwater's good, and he said,
yes, that is correct, and I believe he sent an e-mail to Staff, Keith and Craig, to clarify that
a little bit further. So, with that being said, we're here tonight, again, to get the, hopefully
the modification to this Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the
Board?
MR. FORD-Could you address the issue, please, of a rain garden and the way it would
or would not impact stormwater on site?
MR. WILKINSON-Sure. As I said the rain garden was added after all the computations
and things of the stormwater were done.
MR. FORD-I recall that.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. The main brunt of stormwater management on this site was
designed to address the area away from, on the road side of the house. That's where
most of the existing pavement is, and that's where we were trying to, and the reality is
that the net effect on the site with the, post development, is that there's a net decrease in
actual impervious. So, with that, we've already met Section 147, but to go an additional
step further, we additionally created the stormwater management area up on top of the
hill to capture all of the runoff from the driveway and treat that, prior to any trickling
coming down the hill as it does now. So, in effect, we've, through all those computations,
and everything was focused on those computations, the net effect is that there's zero,
and again, with the rain garden, because it was added after all the computations were
done, and the computations showed that it worked prior to adding it, I never added it to
the computations because to me it was a moot point. I just mentioned it in the storm
report that basically said that we added it, and it's an additional benefit that does
enhance rain water and runoff, and that's all I had to change in the stormwater report. I
had to take out the mentioning of that and basically no comps changed. Nothing
changed. Just a little bit of the narrative. So, I hope I answered your question, but really
with the additional plantings and landscaping that was, that is proposed along the lake,
that, as well as treating the site upon, prior to exiting the site, as soon as the disturbance
is done, we're putting in sod the same day. With those things in mind, the treatment that
occurs just from those natural processes that doesn't occur now, because there isn't that
upgrade of landscaping, will benefit as well. So whether we added the rain garden or
not, there's still a positive net benefit because of the landscaping things that are added at
the bottom.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. WILKINSON-Did I answer it?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. FORD-You addressed it. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-You said the stormwater management system worked without the rain
garden.
MR. WILKINSON-That's correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-What does it mean it works?
MR. WILKINSON-It functions adequately and meets the design intent of Section 147.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what's the design intent?
MR. WILKINSON-To meet the, whatever, I can't remember the exact storm year, but
whatever 147 says for a major stormwater, that's what we meet.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it says you've got to be able to treat the first half inch, if it's apre-
development.
MR. WILKINSON-That's correct, and we do.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you can capture the first half inch from all the developed areas? Is
that what you're telling me?
MR. WILKINSON-Through the stone drip edge around the existing house, which already
is there and through the natural flow of the rain water through the grass and the
additional landscaping areas, yes. The first half inch is trapped. There is no water
leaving the site with one inch of rainfall, as a matter of fact. That's what the
computations show.
MR. SEGULJIC-No water leaving the site with the first one inch of rain?
MR. WILKINSON-First one inch of rainfall.
MR. SEGULJIC-You're sure about that?
MR. WILKINSON-That's what the computations show.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you sure about that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that's what Dan Ryan signed off on.
MR. WILKINSON-That's what Dan Ryan signed off on with the review of the
computations.
MR. SEGULJIC-And where exactly were the rain gardens going to be on the site?
Because I couldn't find the plans that had it on there. I believe they were going to be
down in this area?
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. They were right down just about 10 feet behind the wall is my
recollection, towards the house from the retaining wall.
MR. SEGULJIC-There was one on this side. I believe the purpose was to catch the rain
water coming this way. I mean, my problem is you acknowledge that there was a
concern with the water before, and you said you're putting rain gardens, and now you're
saying it's not a problem.
MR. WILKINSON-No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
MS. BITTER-It was a request that was made by this Board. It wasn't something that was
brought up by the engineers.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's irrelevant. You agreed to put it in before.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and not included it in the computations.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I believe they still should be there.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the court doesn't think so.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-They'd have to get a waiver.
MR. WILKINSON-A waiver or remove it, and we request to remove it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think they should be there. You agreed to put them there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if the rain garden wasn't calculated in the process, then, and the
court has decided that they don't need to be there, what's?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I don't think that's what the court said. The court said you can't
have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake without the waiver.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my question is this. If the water garden, rain garden, was not
included in the stormwater management report, is it then even an infiltration device? I
mean, it seems to me like, well, just let me follow the logic through. Because, you know,
I remember the discussion that we had here at the Planning Board meeting, and it wasn't
so much that we wanted an infiltration device, but we wanted some additional protect.
MR. WILKINSON-To trap the water, exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, it would be no different than to say, I mean, if we had
said plant some native plants, and never called it a rain garden, would anyone have said,
well, it's an infiltration device?
MS. RADNER-If I may, though, we're kind of stuck with the court's made its
determination and this Board has to abide by it. What the court said, and this is Judge
Krogmann's decision of December 30, 2008, Page Seven, it is the decision of this court
that the inclusion into the Site Plan of the rain garden to be located some 10 feet from
the retaining wall, and therefore from the lake, is an infiltration device requiring a
variance from the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. The court finds no other error
of law nor any arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the Planning Board regarding
the approval of the Brown site. The petition is granted only to the extent of annulling the
effectiveness of the Site Plan approval SP 14-2007 of June 17, 2008 until such time, if
any, that the requirement for the rain garden is eliminated by the Planning Board or the
proper variances are granted approving the location of the rain garden.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to.
MS. RADNER-If you were to decide that it's not an infiltration device, you're going
contrary to the holding of the court.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, could you say that again?
MS. RADNER-If you were to decide today that it's not an infiltration device, that's
contrary to the holding of the court. You can't make that determination. You're stuck
with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to replace the term rain garden with native plants?
MS. RADNER-You could require native plants as a condition of the approval, but not to
the extent of being a rain garden.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. RADNER-And I'd leave it up to the engineer to explain exactly what makes this a
rain garden, what the distinction would be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-Well, I'll try to give you a Reader's Digest version. A rain garden is not
only the plants, but it's the whole soil of atmosphere and everything else. The actual soil
is removed and replaced with certain types of soils to do certain types of functions and to
also trap and hold rainwater within that volume. So that the plants feet are wet for a
given length of time or whatever. That's basically the design of a rain garden, and my
professional opinion, I disagree with the court, but the court made a decision. I don't feel
that it's an infiltration device, but that's what I'm stuck with.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and as counsel pointed out, we're bound by that decision.
MR. WILKINSON-That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-I have a, perhaps a related question. If the stormwater management
system meets Code and is approved by the engineer, can we, as a Planning Board,
require the applicant to include something which requires them to get a variance? We
can? If it's not required in order to meet, if it's extra in the stormwater management
system, and is in violation of Code requiring them to get a variance, how can we insist
that they add it, if it's not required, not requested by the engineer?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would pass that to counsel.
MS. RADNER-It's a gray area. That's exactly the argument that we would expect an
applicant to make if their application was denied after they had met the stormwater
criteria. The role of this Board, though, the Planning Board, is to review the entirety of
the plan and to consider a number of different factors, and you are allowed to place
reasonable conditions, for a number of reasons, including aesthetics, including
protection of the environment, including maintaining the character of the community.
You were allowed to put reasonable conditions on an approval.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that. I'm just focusing on, since the Site Plan has
already been approved, with the exception of this element of stormwater management,
that's specifically what I was talking about, not other aspects of Site Plan.
MS. RADNER-And I think that the applicant would be very pleased with that argument
and would agree with you, but I think that the opponents would say, you could still go
further and require additional protections, if you felt it was reasonable and necessary.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-My only thought was just enhancing the landscaping on that location if
the rain garden is out, but, you know, that's really not.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that's really what I was suggesting, too. Okay. We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience?
MS. BITTER-Can I just make a request?
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead.
MS. BITTER-I do realize that there are individuals here that will be making comments. I
just would request, I know that there's a five minute time limit, and if that could be
adhered to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Usually it's a three.
MS. BITTER-I'm sorry. Well, then, even better, and that we stick to the issue at hand. I
know that this was dealt with under numerous meetings and that there numerous
elements that were discussed during those days, but I would just make that request, if
the Chairman could adhere to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, thank you. Just to reiterate the applicant's comment, we
typically do limit public comments to three minutes. We do have written comments that
are part of the record, and are so noted. Having said that, I'll open the public hearing
and who would like to? Yes, sir. If you could identify yourself for the record and address
your comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JEFFREY BAKER
MR. BAILOR-Jeff Baker of Young Summer, LLC in Albany, attorneys for the Collins.
Thank you for the opportunity, again, and I will try and be brief and focused to the point.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
The court, among the challenges we brought is the court found that the rain garden is an
infiltration device. It wasn't a reach for them to find that, because the stated purpose of
the rain garden was to filter stormwater as a means of treating it, and they found is once
you're filtering it, instead of holding it and evaporating, it is, by definition, an infiltration
device. It did not say to take the rain garden out. It said you can either get a variance,
which a variance had not been applied for, or you can remove it and show it's not
necessary, but the court certainly did not make the technical determination that a rain
garden is unnecessary, or that the stormwater requirements could be met. That's not the
court's role to do, nor was it a question in front of the court. This Board, you went
through extensive review of the stormwater plan for this project. It was repeatedly
submitted as an inadequate plan as identified by your engineer. Your engineer and this
Board carefully considered and recognized that the full treatment of the stormwater from
the property was not adequate. The stormwater treatment of this property is not simply a
matter of volume, and capturing the one half inch volume, but treating it. It is a treatment
and a volume question. So it's a matter of detaining and filtering it and removing the
pollutants before it gets to the lake. The Town of Queensbury has made the
determination that in the Waterfront zone, even projects of redevelopment, not just new
projects, there is an affirmative obligation to retrofit the site, to try and make it as good as
possible. The words are to the maximum extent practicable, to control the stormwater
issues from the area. Now, all the applicant has done, we've never said that the
applicant is not entitled to a variance, or shouldn't apply for a variance or that it shouldn't
be granted. There has not been sufficient information or an application made for the
variance to do it. Instead, rather than apply for the variance, the applicant has simply
taken the rain garden out, without providing any new calculations showing both the
quantity and the quality, as to why it's necessary and (lost word) provided. A rain garden
is a way of capturing the rain that's coming off and treating it as a, it is a form of an
infiltration basin. Because the applicant is re-developing his site, adding to impervious
surfaces with new structures, changing the drainage patterns of what's going to be there,
it is a requirement to do a full analysis. It is absurd to say that you can take your
previous analysis of the stormwater plan, simply remove a few sentences, where it
referred to rain garden, to take the rain garden out, and say it's per se adequate, after
you went through extensive review with your engineer who keeps saying we need added
treatment measures. We need to show better ways of determining that this is
appropriate. Your record is replete on it, and I think it is either, if for some reason they
think it's impossible to do it, there needs to be far greater demonstration, on a quality and
quantity basis, of what's required, or simply go and get the variance, and then, if for
some reason the variance is denied, then it is a different question, but they have not
exhausted their administrative remedies, and they've not demonstrated that they're being
as protective as they should be under the Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Thank you.
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-We have a letter that I think you have before you from the Park
Commission regarding the major plan. These are the same points that the Town
Engineer made.
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, Dr. Collins, could you identify yourself, even thought I just did
for you?
DR. COLLINS-I'm Dr. Collins, Keith. Thank you. Sorry, Carol Collins. Nowhere in the
plan does it show that the computations, in any computations, that there is mitigation of
the first one half of precipitation. All they're saying is that there's less impervious now
than there was before, and they're calling that enough to meet the requirements of a
major project. That is not the case. We have an opinion from the Park Commission that
states that's not the case. We have to at least mitigate for the first one half inch. The
stone trenches around the house in no way are sized or designed to meet this
requirement. There's no calculation anywhere that shows that they are, and if they are, I
would like for Clark to actually provide them to us, because they have not been provided.
If you are going to have a stone trench around the house, as an infiltration device, it has
to be two feet by three feet. It has to have certain separation distance from the boundary
conditions, which is, you know, the hard pan or the water, groundwater. It does not meet
them, and we know that it short circuits because it's tied into the footing drain. In other
words, they were not designed in the first place as a stormwater device back in 1996,
and they can't miraculously be now. Also, they don't meet separation distance from the
lake and they don't meet separation distance from the septic system. So all they're
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
going to do cause the exudates from the septic system to go directly into the lake
because it's just extracting them. It's simply not designed, that is not a stormwater
device. It wasn't designed as such in 1996.
JOHN COLLIINS
MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins, 35 Knox Road. Our interest here has to do with
the lake. I know it was characterized earlier on in different meetings that we're the angry
neighbors from the north, and all we care about is making a garage disappear. We've
spent quite a bit of our lives trying to make Lake George a better place, and when we
look at this plan and we see the lack of detail and computations, it concerns us greatly.
When we look at the letters from the Town Engineer, for so long raising many concerns
about this plan, and then all of a sudden the comments stop. There was no information
provided, the calculations to prove that the Town Engineer's concerns were met, and
now the Town Engineer is supposedly satisfied. I think when you take a hard look at the
condition of the soils, at the design that was being proposed, at the septic system, all
relating to each other, we think it is clear that it does not meet the requirements of
Section 147, and I know the Board, in other cases, has determined that, in a major
project, 147 and Schedule B have to be met and proven, the Arkalian project back in, I
believe it was May '08, and the minutes to the meeting, it's important that this project
really show that they've met the standards that are required by the law. That's what
we're trying to accomplish here. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. KREBS-Can I ask a question? Did anybody from the Lake George Park
Commission visit the site and review?
DR. COLLINS-They took a look at it, and.
MR. KREBS-Because this just looks like a stating of the rules and regulations. It doesn't
say, and I doubt if Michael White, Executive Director, made a visit to the site.
DR. COLLINS-They saw the plans, and I reviewed them with them. They said that they
have to meet those requirements, and that's, you know, the whole point of it, it's not just
to. Well, the letter says it very well. I think it's going to be read in, but the point is that
the plans are only showing that you are reducing impervious area, and that the claim is
that that's enough. It is in no way enough. As a matter of fact and sometimes
hydraulically, it does nothing to improve stormwater runoff. If you're reducing
imperviouis area on a hard clay surface, there's nothing improved. That's the whole
point of the major stormwater plan, is that we have to treat it. We have to put in devices
and things like that. We are not doing that. This is absolutely one of the biggest
absurdities I've ever seen in a plan, and I've seen a few. That's why Mike was
concerned with the fact that they weren't treating any of the stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I'm going to
reiterate a couple of the things that were already said, but I'm going to re-state them just
for emphasis. The Water Keeper views the proposed modification application will result
in more impacts from the development than the originally approved plan, and we felt that
that was deficient at that time when it was approved. The claim of the existing
stormwater management facilities, the stone trenches, should be verified. Application
material and justification for the expansion of the site relies significantly on the existing
perimeter stone trench for roof runoff, and it claims to adequately address stormwater
runoff currently on site as detailed in the engineering report for stormwater management
system. Based on calculations, this trench should be two foot wide by three feet deep to
provide adequate volume to meet the Town of Queensbury's stormwater ordinance.
Additionally, it should be verified if there is a footing drain present along the house
underneath the stone trenches, which would eliminate any benefit from infiltration into
the stone trench by discharging the infiltrated runoff. The only stormwater management
controls proposed for the project appear to have been removed. The proposed rain
garden has been removed to eliminate a potential variance condition, regardless of the
stormwater management benefits from the shoreline vegetation that were stressed
during the initial review. In addition, it appears the depressed area off the driveway has
been removed. It's troubling that the proposed stormwater management controls have
been eliminated on this re-development project located within the Critical Environmental
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
Area. The existing site includes a house over the lake, a large dock complex, and a
large house with a deck overlooking the lake. The proposed development will add a
deck extension from the house, increasing that portion of impermeable surface that
would need to be treated as well as the existing. The entire width of the site will be
developed at the expense of open space and open space critical for buffering and
protecting Lake George. The existing on site wastewater treatment system should be
certified as compliant with applicable Codes. It appears to be constructed within 100 foot
separation distance to Lake George, does not incorporate a 50% reserve bed area and
may lack adequate separation to boundary conditions, meaning seasonal high
groundwater. In addition, Section 136-12 says that pre-existing systems continuation
requires an existing individual sewage disposal system, conforms to Part I of Section
136, and if used in connection with any existing structure in a Waterfront 1A residential
district, when the Floor Area has been increased on the property. So we would
appreciate re-looking at this. Whether we call it a rain garden or not, that additional
vegetation on the shoreline is very beneficial to this site, and we would definitely
encourage the Board to look at that and condition the approval with that. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I just want to make sure it's clear that the public comment that was
handed to the Board will be introduced into the record. I'm not sure if I missed that or
not, but at the will of the Board, do you not want me to read it into the record, or do you
want me to read it into the record?
MR. HUNSINGER-Has every member had a chance to?
MR. FORD-No. I'd like it read into the record, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-The 10 page letter.
MS. BITTER-Which 10 page letter? We'd like to have a copy of that.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it's public comment.
MR. FORD-And we received it when?
MR. HUNSINGER-This evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Are you referring to the Lake George Park Commission
letter?
MR. OBORNE-No. I'm talking about the Dear Chairman Hunsinger and members of the
Planning Board, dated March 3rd
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I didn't see that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It's right there. The will of the Board is to have me read it into the
record?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't you start with the Park Commission letter.
MR. FORD-That's the letter I thought you were referring to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't you start with the Park Commission letter.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. This letter was received March 3rd at the Department of
Community Development offices in Queensbury. It's dated March 2nd. To Carol Collins,
35 Knox Road, Lake George, New York, RE: Questions regarding stormwater
management related to major projects. "Dear Carol: This responds to your letter asking
about the way the Commission interprets several specific provisions of the stormwater
Management Regulations as those relate to major projects. 646-4.14 (b)(4)(vi) and
companion sections in approved local codes state.... "for development or re-development
occurring on a site where development has previously occurred, the applicant shall be
required to prepare concept plans and to develop construction cost estimates for
stormwater control measures to control existing stormwater discharges from the site in
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
accordance with the standards of this Subpart to the maximum extent practicable. At a
minimum the control measures shall include those reasonable and necessary to infiltrate
the runoff from the first one-half inch of precipitation from any storm event for all areas
within the site which have previously been developed. The phased implementation of
such controls for previously developed areas may be authorized." When a site is re-
developed the rules require management of runoff from newly created impervious areas.
The objective of the referenced section is to use re-development as an opportunity to
address the existing conditions as well. It may not be practicable to retrofit existing
development to meet the design standards for newly created impervious surfaces.
However, the referenced standard sets a minimum treatment of the first '/2 inch of
precipitation from the existing development as a condition of approval of the new. As
you know, the first "flush" of runoff has the highest concentrations of contaminants and
its management achieves the greatest return on the investment. Management of runoff
from new impervious areas and the infiltration of the first '/2 inch from existing areas in
suitable soils at the appropriate distance separations enables the Commission to make
the general water quality findings necessary for approval of major projects. I trust this
responds to your inquiry, if not, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michael P.
White Executive Director"
MR. HUNSINGER-Rather than read the lengthy letter, why don't we just give everyone a
few minutes to read it themselves, Keith. Is that okay?
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone okay with that?
MR. FORD-And as a general rule, let's make the point that we generally do not accept
written documentation the night of the meeting.
MS. BITTER-Actually, a lot of these issues were decided in the court's determination. If
anybody, the decision was attached to our application, and they were disposed in that
actual judgment. The subdivision requirement, the only item that I saw was new and
different, those two parcels are separate tax map parcels. It was obviously something
that Craig's considered to be subdivided, since this application wouldn't even be before
this Board if it wasn't. As for the reference to the Adirondack Park Agency, yes, when it
was being discussed whether or not that parking easement was going to be terminated,
we discussed with the Adirondack Park Agency if it was jurisdictional, and, yes, in 1973 it
was part of a larger parcel, but they understand and recognize that Gregg Brown owns
his own parcel at this time, and as for the utility pole location, Knox Road is considered
to be a Town road and was deeded over to the Town in the early 90's. Those, just to
kind of give you a summarize as to our response to that letter. I guess our main point
here, and what we already discussed in our main presentation, is that the Town Engineer
has reviewed the removal of this rain garden, and has found it satisfactory, period, end of
story. I understand that this Board had discussed it as part of an additional element to
protect this project, and it was something that they were interested in. It wasn't
considered as part of the stormwater plan, but when it went to the court, the court said
because of their interpretation of it, yes, it should be. Well, we're here tonight explaining
that our stormwater plan proposal never really incorporated the rain garden in its
calculations. Clark Wilkinson indicated that earlier, and again, I'm confirming that. I
understand that the court said we either have to go for a variance or we can remove it.
Well, we decided, you know what, we're going to go and propose to remove it and see if
the Town Engineer agrees with us, and they did. So, you know, the stormwater
management plan is at issue today and we're saying that the Town Engineer agrees with
what we're proposing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment, though, on the question that's kind of in my
mind, and it was addressed by at least a couple of commenters, is the requirement to
treat the first half inch of rainfall. Could you comment on those calculations and how
they were arrived at?
MR. WILKINSON-Sure. Those calculations are easily arrived by taking the entire site
area and doing, performing hydrocad computations that were included in my stormwater
management report, and were reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. Those
computations are in there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Dated December 17tn~
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. No, the, it's the same report, other than changing the narrative.
The computations are exactly the same, because I never computed any additional
benefit. The computations don't show any additional benefit of the rain garden.
MR. SEGULJIC-What I'm troubled by is why are you changing your tune? You agreed to
put the rain garden in.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. WILKINSON-Because we were told to by the courts.
MR. SEGULJIC-And because someone raises the bar for you, you skedaddle back.
MS. BITTER-Not at all. We obviously came back here with the proposal that we'll
remove it. If the Town Engineer said, no, no, no, no, we couldn't do that, we would
obviously say, well, fine, then we'll make the application to the Zoning Board, but he
didn't make that determination. He said, no, it's not necessary for the stormwater.
MR. SEGULJIC-I question the Town Engineer's review of the whole plan, personally.
MS. BITTER-I didn't hire the Town Engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-His review was not very clear as to what he reviewed, exactly.
MS. BITTER-I think he reviewed the removal of the rain garden.
MRS. STEFFAN-But, Tom, you know, this wouldn't even be before us. We had
approved it as it was designed, and it wouldn't be before us if the neighbor hadn't filed
the Article 78.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, but we approved it with a rain garden.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's correct, and then there was an Article 78 filed, and the court has
made a decision, and so that is why the applicant is back. Otherwise, they wouldn't be
here.
MR. HUNSINGER-There was reference, earlier, to an e-mail from the Town Engineer
today, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I do not have that with me. I apologize, but it basically was an
expansion of what his review entailed, and it dealt with the rain garden removal and the
aspects of how it does not specifically affect the hydrocad computations, and I'm
paraphrasing here, because I don't have it in front of me, and again, I apologize for that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, hydrocad calculation just take into account quantity of water,
correct?
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-They don't take into account quality of water.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That's my issue. You agreed to put them in.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Tom, the court has said you can't have them there.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, the court hasn't said that. The court said you have to get a
variance.
KARLA WILLIAMS BITNER
MS. BITNER-Or they have to be removed. The court specifically said the Planning
Board can remove the requirement or we can go for a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the Planning Board has said, in a past decision, we would like to
have the rain gardens. So I don't see what the issue is here.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MS. BITTER-Well, if it's necessary, we can seek the variance, but we didn't think it was
because we thought it was something that was an added element.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you be willing to put plantings in there, instead?
MS. BITTER-I'm sorry, plantings?
MR. HUNSINGER-Plantings, some native species, shrubs?
MS. BITTER-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does that?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-You said you would put a rain garden in. That's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of other members?
MR. KREBS-My feeling is if they do some additional plantings, that will accomplish
almost the same thing as the rain garden, and the court has already said that it doesn't
want the rain gardens there because they're considered infiltration devices. I feel that
the applicant has said they would do it, but the court said you can't do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, the court has not said you can't do it.
MR. KREBS-No, the court has said you can ask for a variance for it. The court said it's
an infiltration device within 100 feet of the lake, and that's not allowed.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you'll recall, we have granted several, the Zoning Board has come to
us, I believe, on two different occasions, asking us for opinion on that exact question. Do
you recall that?
MR. KREBS-Well, I haven't been here every meeting, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-It has come up before. This is not unusual.
MR. WILKINSON-So the Code should change then, is that what you're saying?
MR. SEGULJIC-No. The problem is we're dealing with pre-existing conditions along the
lake. That's the problem, basically.
MR. WILKINSON-I don't disagree with you, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's the problem we have, and if I recall correctly, I brought up the
point saying it's an infiltration device, and you were the one who said that it's not an
infiltration device.
MR. WILKINSON-I disagree at the time and I still disagree. I don't believe it's an
infiltration device.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now we're stuck with the court decision.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my concern is, and I think, I don't know, I'm kind of getting far
afield from the discussion, but if we put an infiltration device in that close to the lake, with
the stone wall. I think we're actually creating a greater opportunity for pollutants to get
into the lake then without the rain garden.
MR. SEGULJIC-How is that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Because you're going to change the soil composition, and you're
going to provide for more porous soil. So you're going to provide for a greater
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
opportunity for stormwater to get into the ground, and if it's only ten feet away from the
lake, there's no additional soil between the rain garden and the lake because of the
stone wall.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you just said you had 10 feet of soil.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Between the rain garden, but the other way you have none. You have
no treatment of the water, other than if it gets caught up and up taken by the roots of
vegetation that's there. What we're asking to do is slow it down, allow it to infiltrate.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I think the rain garden creates a greater potential for
pollution than without it. That's just my opinion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why don't we then ask our engineer to look at that and give us his
opinion on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Personally, I don't feel a need to.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my problem is, once again, the applicant agreed to put a rain
garden in. What the court said is, you have to go get a variance for it. We have
recommended to the Board on at least one other occasion, we said we're okay with it,
given it's apre-existing condition, but I think it's a high hurdle to overcome.
MR. KREBS-The court said either remove it or get a variance.
MS. RADNER-The court said the petition is granted only to the extent of annulling the
effectiveness of the Site Plan approval, gives the date, until such time, if any, that the
requirement for the rain garden is eliminated by the Planning Board or the proper
variances are granted approving the location of the rain garden.
MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean the whole Site Plan?
MS. RADNER-The court found no other error of law or any arbitrary or capricious action
on your part.
MR. FORD-So we can either require the rain garden to remain on the plan, in which case
they go to the ZBA for the variance, or we agree to the withdrawal of it.
MS. RADNER-Correct. You can either eliminate that requirement, in which case the rest
of the Site Plan is approved, or you can refuse to eliminate it. In which case they're
required to see if the ZBA will grant a variance.
MR. FORD-Right. That's it in a nutshell.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, how would a motion go, then? The motion would be that?
MS. RADNER-One of you would either make a motion to grant the modification or deny
it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it would just be a motion to deny the modification. I will motion to
deny the modification.
MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 MODIFICATION #1 GREGG BROWN &
LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. OBORNE-Four to two, the modification has been approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
the following vote:
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MS. RADNER-Well, I would recommend that somebody make a new motion. What
you've done is you've not, you've defeated the motion to deny the modification.
Somebody should make a new motion, now, with any conditions, if any.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, before we do that, I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion for approval?
MRS. STEFFAN-This is where some of the debate comes in. Do we refer to the Zoning
Board for variance, or do we approve the plan as presented?
MR. HUNSINGER-Or do we approve it with conditions?
MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty of approving it with conditions is that our engineer has
called us, has made a recommendation, and so if we're making recommendations, we'd
be doing it without the input of our Town Engineer, and, I mean, we've talked about
consequences of having an infiltration device within 10 feet of the lake. I mean, do we
need an engineer for that? Probably not.
MS. RADNER-I'm not sure I understood that. You might want to clarify that for the
record.
MRS. STEFFAN-Based on the comment that we've heard tonight, if we ask the Zoning
Board of Appeals to consider a variance for this project to include the rain gardens, then
we'd still have the outstanding issue, I mean, we're recommending to the Zoning Board
in that situation, that they.
MS. RADNER-Well, you wouldn't be recommending at all. It would be the applicant
would go to the Zoning Board. They would have to file an application seeking variance,
and it would be up to them to plead their case. You wouldn't be taking any position for or
against with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MRS. STEFFAN-We wouldn't be making a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MS. RADNER-You would not.
MR. TRAVER-Unless they asked for one.
MS. RADNER-Unless they asked for one.
MRS. STEFFAN-So then we could prolong this for another three months.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think our comment should stand, the fact that in the past given it
was apre-existing condition, that we said we'd be okay with it. I think that's the way we'd
go.
MR. TRAVER-That's a good point. We approved the plan already, once with the rain
garden included. So in a way that's a kind of recommendation to the Zoning Board. It
does complicate the process for the applicant.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, remember, you've had to do an application to come before this
Board. You chose your path. They chose their path.
MR. FORD-And depending upon our action tonight, they can choose a different path.
MS. BITTER-Right. You just denied you're in denial mode. Getting a little mixed
messages.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the stormwater plan as presented by Paragon Engineering said that
in their stormwater plan that was presented, the rain gardens were not included, and
their stormwater plan met the requirements of 147, and our Town Engineer signed off on
that.
MS. BITNER-And there's been no other engineer to say one way or the other. The
Collins didn't present an engineer and never have, through the course of this, to dispute
that. I think, and I'm sure counsel will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, counsel will
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at this point, it's really more, we're looking for a motion
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
or you're looking for a motion to grant as is or grant with conditions, but not really to go
for a variance, and I know that member Seguljic says we need to go for the variance, we
should go for the variance, but we did choose to go this way, and the Town Engineer
said okay, that's fine. So now we're before you saying, we have two engineers saying
that this is fine. This meets Part 147, and there's no other empirical evidence before you
to dispute that. So I guess at that point, I mean, that's basically where we're at here.
MR. TRAVER-However, your application as originally approved by this Board did not
include the rain gardens in the calculation, and yet you agreed to add the rain gardens
because we were additionally concerned with treatment issues. Correct?
MS. BITNER-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So nothing has really changed, other than the court saying you need a
variance.
MS. BITNER-Or that this Board eliminates the requirement for a rain garden.
MR. TRAVER-Or that we decide that we don't mind the removal of the rain garden.
MS. BITNER-Correct.
MS. BITTER-Which the Town Engineer said was acceptable.
MR. TRAVER-Which is a subject that we met and reviewed a number of times when you
were before us before, and that's why we asked the rain garden to be part of the plan.
MS. BITNER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And they agreed to put them in.
MR. TRAVER-And you agreed to put it in.
MS. BITNER-But before you tonight you have engineers saying that we meet 147
without them there.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I don't have that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, how many times was this application in front of us, do you know?
MS. BITTER-Eight times.
MS. BITNER-At least eight times, over a year and a half.
MR. HUNSINGER-Over 14 months.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that sounds about right, and that's not including the zoning, did you
have any zoning issues before I came aboard?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You were literally here every other month for fourteen months.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'm not sure what that has to do with it, though, the number of
times they were here.
MS. BITTER-To say this wasn't a detailed review is an error.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just pointing out the fact, that's all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, my point in asking that question is, you know, did we have
sufficient time to, you know, certainly evaluate this Site Plan on its merits. It certainly
went through a lot of transformation from the time we first saw it.
MS. BITNER-And the court found that you did take a sufficiently hard look over,
specifically in his decision he detailed that.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. That's interesting you point that out, and we said rain gardens
would be an improvement.
MS. BITNER-But not a Part 147 requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would be an improvement, and you agreed.
MR. KREBS-And they probably would have put them in, if the court hadn't stopped them
from doing so.
MR. BITNER-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-The court has not stopped them from doing it. The court has said they
need a variance to do it.
MS. BITNER-Or come here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Or come here.
MS. BITNER-Correct, and we chose to come here.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think the court basically has made more of a procedural condition
than a planning decision, with regard to this issue. I mean, yes, they're saying we could
reverse our decision and change the Site Plan so that the rain gardens were not a part of
it, but really what they're saying is we need another step beyond what this Board can
authorize because of the zoning, or because of the variance required. So it's.
MS. BITNER-I don't know if that's what the court said. The court basically said the rain
garden is an infiltration device, based on a letter that actually wasn't before this Board,
during the course of the original review, and if you eliminate it or go for a variance, then
you're good. That's what it said. So you choose, applicant, and if you get one or the
other, you're good.
MR. TRAVER-That's my understanding as well. I'm sorry if I didn't express that correctly
to you.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if I can point out, I remember, and I believe you'll back me up, I said
I thought rain gardens were infiltration devices, and you said no.
MR. WILKINSON-And I still don't think they're infiltration devices.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if at that point you had recognized they were, we could have
shortened this whole process.
MR. WILKINSON-And who's to say that they definitely are?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the judge did.
MR. SEGULJIC-So he's a higher authority than me.
MS. RADNER-Yes. I think the argument about whether or not it's an infiltration device
has now been determined by the court. Whether you want to refer to it as a legal fiction
or whether you want to accept it as fact, in any regard, that's the determination of the
court. If you want to require the infiltration device, as deemed by the court, then a
variance will be required, and not just for this case, but for any case unless the Zoning
Ordinance is modified in such a way that it specifically addresses that issue, the court
has determined that it is an infiltration device. That debate's over.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we have started doing that, Zoning Board has sent us several
applications for review of that, in that context.
MS. RADNER-My memory is, and I could be wrong, but this was the first application
where a rain garden was proposed. I don't believe that this Board ever had to consider
those issues before, and that's just my memory.
MR. WILKINSON-And, Tom, I do agree with you. It would enhance. However, being an
infiltration device, and being that it wasn't included in the computations, our course of
action was to take the easiest course of action possible to try to get this thing to fruition
after so long a period of time, and that's why we chose this path.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-But remember, you also said the rain garden will help with the quality of
the water. The existing stormwater, it meets it on quantity, and this will enhance the
quality of the water. If we're looking to enhance the quality
MR. WILKINSON-Further.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's what we're looking for here. We realize when it comes to the
quality of the water in Lake George, if you can just nip and tuck on the edges, that's what
we're trying to do.
MR. WILKINSON-And I didn't dispute it at the time, and I still don't dispute that. The only
question before you now is on the particular project, based on the conditions, we're
asking you to release that requirement, based on the court. That's our process.
MR. FORD-Based on what again?
MR. WILKINSON-Based on the court's decision. They gave us a choice and this our
choice. We're asking you to remove that requirement. Whether you put other conditions
on it, that's certainly your prerogative.
MR. FORD-If there's assumption that we, in our original determination, had a rationale
for coming to that decision, I haven't seen or heard anything yet to mitigate that.
MR. WILKINSON-I agree, and again, I don't disagree with your comment. It would
further enhance. The merits on the stormwater stand on their own, and again, verified
and reviewed by the Town Engineer, it meets Section 147. That's all we're required to
do.
MS. BITTER-I just want to add that we did add additional landscaping to the lakeshore,
which Jeff Reddick is here to describe to you, if you need to have your memories
refreshed, in incorporating the Site Plan. So, the rain garden wasn't the only element
that was identified.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we appreciate that, but you also agreed to put in rain gardens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, has anything replaced the rain garden, though?
MS. BITTER-No. I think it was just eliminated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-But if that's something that this Board is interested in, like we said, we'd be
willing to discuss that.
MRS. STEFFAN-The rain garden space, according to Paragon Engineering, is just going
to be sod, in the new design.
MR. WILKINSON-The planting bed stayed the same because the rain garden was in
front of the planting beds, in addition to, and again, it was added after our discussion that
we need further enhancement, even though we had added all the plantings and done all
that stuff. So we said, okay, we can't have it too close to the wall. We don't want to
interfere with the landscaping that's already proposed. Let's put it in front of the
landscaping, and that's where we proposed it, the front being towards the house.
MS. BITTER-I have problem proposing, if this Board would be willing to consent to the
elimination of the rain garden with the condition that we add certain landscaping in that
area, and possibly have your engineer sign off on it again, so that everybody's appeased
that we've met the stormwater regs. I think that that is a possible way to solve this
problem.
MR. KREBS-Well, as far as I'm concerned, the engineer's already said that.
MS. BITTER-I agree, but just in case anybody else doesn't.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we have an engineer who just said the rain gardens will enhance
the quality of the water.
MR. WILKINSON-I said further, will enhance.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MS. BITTER-But it's not necessary for stormwater.
MR. WILKINSON-Further enhance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Further enhance. So there are positive aspects to the design, which the
applicant has already agreed to put in.
MR. KREBS-Right, but he's also met the law.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. KREBS-Okay. He's met the law of this Town, and that is what we are here to
administer.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I'm going to make a motion to approve this, and I guess the rest
of the Board can vote. I certainly think that the, based on the discussion, this is the best
remedy. I don't know if the rest of the Board agrees.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 MODIFICATION #1 GREGG
BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four approved. Paragraph
Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been reconsidered and the proposed modification does not
result in any new or significantly different environmental impact, and therefore no further
SEQRA review is necessary. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does
not apply. This is approved with the following condition. That the rain gardens be
replaced with enhanced landscaping to include native plant species, and the applicant
will obtain VISION Engineering signoff.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Did you submit the Plan C-3, did we get that, the revised landscaping
plan?
MS. BITNER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-We did?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. FORD-So this is withdrawing the requirement for the rain garden?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the rain garden will be replaced.
MR. FORD-As per our original determination.
MRS. STEFFAN-With enhanced landscaping that will include native plant species and
the applicant will have to get VISION Engineering signoff.
MR. WILKINSON-More or less accomplishing the same kind of thing without calling it a
rain garden because we're not changing the soil characteristics. That's kind of how I
understand it. Is that correct?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and then you're not putting an infiltration basin right next to the
retaining wall.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MS. BITTER-Exactly.
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Now we have a tie. Open for suggestions.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a suggestion.
MS. RADNER-If someone was dissatisfied with the conditions imposed, the might want
to suggest different conditions and try another motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-What are other options, folks? We've got to move along.
MR. FORD-Well, we can, could we not support our original position, all those many
weeks ago, and therefore they still have a course for redress?
MR. HUNSINGER-What do you mean?
MR. FORD-Could they not still go for the variance?
MR. WILKINSON-But that's what the first motion was.
MS. BITNER-That motion was made and denied.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the options would be for the applicant to provide
additional information. We could table it and if there's additional information that you
think could be useful to the Board.
MS. BITTER-Is there any suggestions about additional information?
MR. OBORNE-What information would you be looking for?
MR. HUNSINGER-I have no idea. I'm trying to move this along. It's three to three.
MR. OBORNE-Well, one thing to do, would be to table it pending a full Board. Another
motion would be to talk amongst yourselves to come to a conclusion as to what would be
palpable to all the members, to gain a positive, or a decision, I should say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-I think that's about where we're at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. RADNER-Yes. You're deadlocked at the moment.
MR. KREBS-I don't think we'll have a full Board, will we, until April? Because as I
remember, Don was going to be gone until the end of March, and so is.
MR. OBORNE-If you were to table it, I would table it with that in mind.
MS. BITTER-If you want to give us two minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MS. BITTER-Jeff Reddick's just going to show you what the existing conditions were,
what the proposed conditions are. He has a color rendering, just to kind of re-cap
everybody's understanding of the plantings, and then we'll be, go to your direction as to if
you want us to table this or if there's somebody who has other suggestions.
MR. TRAVER-While he's preparing that, just a clarification. With the denial of the first
motion that was made tonight, the original Site Plan that we approved, that would require
them to get a variance is now not an option for them?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it's an option.
MR. WILKINSON-You have to make a different motion, right?
MR. OBORNE-Correct, that would be an option, if.
MR. TRAVER-So they could say we'll just accept the original plan and go for a variance,
at this point, if they wanted to?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. OBORNE-The applicant?
MR. TRAVER-The applicant. I'm sorry, yes, the applicant.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-They would have to withdraw this modification and go ahead and apply,
well, I wouldn't say withdraw the modification. I shouldn't say that. They would have to
table this modification pending the result of your ZBA determination.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then if their request for a variance were denied, they'd come
back to us.
MR. OBORNE-For a modification. That's why I would say don't withdraw that
modification.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Right. Okay. Thank you.
JEFF REDDICK
MR. REDDICK-Good evening. I'm Jeff Reddick from Redbud Development. Worked
with Paragon Engineering to develop the plan. In essence this is the completed Site
Plan, with all landscaping and what not, improvements included, and it may be slightly
difficult for you to understand, but I'm going to try and explain the existing conditions and
the way the site looks now, and then go through this plan and explain what we've
modified and how we've improved it. Essentially we'd have a house, property,
boathouse, lake, access into the property here. Currently there's a significant portion of
driveway, Clark, can you maybe help me out with the square footage? Approximately
4100 square feet of existing asphalt that we are going to be modifying and reducing
down to, I don't remember the exact calculations, but we're reducing, we're going to be
reducing the asphalt significantly to create a small driveway, small turnaround area,
create a garage for parking. Currently here sits an existing, actually it doesn't anymore,
but there was a carport that after the original approval was removed, and then once the
Article 78 was introduced we stopped work. So that carport is now gone, and in
essence, there's virtually, there's some landscaping or existing plant material along this
area of the property, and then existing trees that you can see within this drawing here,
and located on this part of the property, and virtually no plantings whatsoever along this
entire line, obviously the shoreline. So our proposal again, is to come in and modify the
driveway, reduce it's square footage significantly.
MR. WILKINSON-There's 3935 square feet existing and 1689 proposed. So a reduction
of over 2,000 square feet.
MR. KREBS-But for reality, you're also putting in a garage on part of that space, right?
MR. WILKINSON-That is correct, but the roof computations are also in here, and there's
still a net.
MR. KREBS-I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
MR. REDDICK-Again, incorporation of the garage, covered walk to the house, existing
house, expansion of a screen porch with a patio area here, and then essentially
everything else is landscaping. We've added significant landscaping across the entire
length of the shoreline, and we've also agreed, in earlier conversations, that no
pesticides or any herbicides or anything like that are going to be applied to any of the
plant materials or any of the turf. So all of those conditions have been agreed to, and
again, it should be noted, too, that the client believes in the quality of the lake. They're
making significant improvements to this property, on their own volition. There's no
requirement for them to do so. So, again, and they've agreed to all of these changes
and modifications in the betterment of the lake. Another good point. The plant material
within this plan, although this is a 2-D rendering, doesn't necessarily indicate or suggest,
the existing plant material on the entire property is a very, the existing and proposed
plant materials is a strong mix of upper story canopy trees, that have been existing on
site for a long period of time, and lower, mid level vegetation, honeysuckles, large
shrubs, eight to ten feet tall, and then the introduction of significant plant materials that
are going to, again, add to that middle level, middle layer of plant materials, and then
significant perennials and ground covers to blend this modification of the entire plant
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
story. It's coming from a very high level down to a very low level, which reduces the
amount of rain, it controls the rain as it comes down through the plant material, and just
doesn't allow it to hit a lawn and then sheet off. So we've got a strong mix of all sorts of
different types of plant material.
MRS. STEFFAN-Where are the rain gardens? Can you show them to us on the map,
where they were?
MR. REDDICK-The rain gardens originally, and they don't indicate on this plan because
this is part of the new submission, the rain gardens, there was one in this area here, and
there was another one in this area in here, and there was another one over on this area
in here.
MRS. STEFFAN-On both sides of the patio.
MR. REDDICK-Correct.
MR. FORD-Was that in addition to what you're showing here, or in place of some of that,
the plantings along the front there, lake side? Did you understand that question?
MR. REDDICK-No.
MR. FORD-Okay. They are not on this plan, the rain gardens.
MR. REDDICK-Correct.
MR. FORD-Okay. Can you point out whether or not some of those plantings that are on
your design there are being replaced by rain gardens or are in addition to?
MS. RADNER-I think the question is, did you change your landscaping plan after you
eliminated the rain garden?
MR. WILKINSON-No.
MR. REDDICK-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how wide is your existing buffer?
MR. WILKINSON-The existing buffer?
MR. SEGULJIC-The buffer that you're proposing.
MR. REDDICK-It varies, anywhere from 15, probably close to 30 feet in this area, to 10
to 12 feet in this area, to 10 to 12 feet in this area, to 15 feet in this area, and I believe
that goes back to Mr. Ford's suggestion of one of the previous meetings that we try to
meet one of those requirements.
MR. SEGULJIC-How about if we extend all the buffer 30 feet?
MRS. STEFFAN-We had asked the applicant to beef up that landscaping plan during
Site Plan Review, and they provided us with a plan that we thought was acceptable, and,
you know, I'm just, I have a hard time at this point changing the rules of the game.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Site Plan we approved?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because I know you're talking about the, but the rain garden, Tom,
I mean, based on what they have reported, it wasn't included in the stormwater
calculations. It was a new concept that we thought would be a good idea. I didn't
recommend it. I voted for it because it sounded like it was agreeable, and it would get
the applicant the approval.
MR. SEGULJIC-And rain gardens are not a new concept. Can I point out to the Board
what the regulation says? Is everyone aware of what the regulation says?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We read it three times tonight.
MR. SEGULJIC-It says to the maximum extent practicable.
MS. BITNER-With the court's decision, this is the maximum extent practicable.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MS. BITTER-So that every application's going to have to seek a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-We asked them to put in a rain garden. They agreed.
MRS. STEFFAN-And our Town Engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Their engineer has agreed that it will, I forget the modifier he used, it will
enhance further.
MRS. STEFFAN-Further.
MR. SEGULJIC-Further enhance the water quality.
MS. BITTER-But your Code doesn't allow it.
MR. WILKINSON-The Code is met with the current plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-And their stormwater design said that it meets the minimum
requirements of 147. Our Town Engineer signed off on it, that the rain gardens were not
included in the stormwater plan.
MS. BITNER-And there's no additional, empirical evidence before to the contrary.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the court has made a decision that having an infiltration device that
close to the lake is unacceptable.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, they did not say it's unacceptable. They said you need a variance.
MS. BITTER-Right, which is unacceptable to your Code.
MR. WILKINSON-Unacceptable to the Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-How much will the 400 new plants help in terms of stormwater
management?
MR. WILKINSON-Tremendous. That's what I, personally, count on to do a lot of it,
because it's not only the plants themselves. It's the multi-story plants, it's the low level.
It's the medium level, it's the upper level. On top of that, it's additional mulching, which
creates a stoppage of water as well, and naturally allows the, mulch is a natural holder of
water. It fills in the voids and the water sticks to that mulch, which is one of the reasons
why it's used in the bedding of a rain garden. You use mulch when you reproduce the
soil and you build mulch into the rain garden to hold that water in that soil so the plants
can uptake it. So we're accomplishing that already without calling. That's why I'm
saying if your condition is that we put further plantings on there, we're accomplishing the
same thing. We're just not calling it a rain garden.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was my suggestion, yes.
MR. WILKINSON-And again, right now, if you walk out there, and you can speak to this
better, there's not the multi-levels of plantings going on. That's why we're trying to fill
that in, to not only create the visual to try to hide the development from the lake itself,
which is part of the requirements of the LGPC, and other agencies around the lake, but it
also does enhance the rainwater getting to the lake. It has to filter through all those
plantings and things and get to the lake, and by the time it does that, there's so much
done with it, and so much uptake and so much storage, that there virtually is no runoff
from the site from the one inch storm, and that's what the computations show. We meet
the Zoning Code. We meet Section 147, and it was reviewed and accepted and verified
by your Town Engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to get further clarification from the Town Engineer, would
that make people comfortable, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that would make me, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, absolutely.
MR. REDDICK-I believe that was already submitted by e-mail to Staff, as I stated earlier.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. OBORNE-What information, specifically, are you looking for?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was about to ask them that, that would be the next question.
MR. OBORNE-Are you looking for the filtering capabilities of a rain garden? Are you
looking for a signoff from Dan Ryan?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the fact that there were questions brought up about the stone
trenches.
MRS. STEFFAN-But that was part of the, that was already reviewed in prior Site Plan.
Opening up the whole Site Plan again means that we would be starting from scratch, and
I'm not okay with that.
MR. FORD-I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be very unfair.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you know where I stand on this. They agreed to install a rain
garden.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the point that was just made by the applicant is that some
additional plantings, in place of the rain garden, would provide the same, or nearly the
same impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then I'd like an expert to comment on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, then that would be additional information, then, which we
could request. What do we request it of the Town Engineer or would we request that of
the applicant?
MR. SEGULJIC-I'd like an expert in that area. I don't know if our Town Engineer is an
expert in that area.
MR. WILKINSON-What area are you referring to, stormwater management?
MR. SEGULJIC-The absorption of various native tree species.
MS. BITTER-I understand your concerns, Tom, but we're kind of isolating this applicant
to be placed in a field that he has to get experts that you're saying your Town doesn't
even have right now, and obviously your Town Engineer has been held to the standard
to review all the applications that come before him. He's signed off on it. If you have
specific questions relative to the computations that have been identified in this
application, I appreciate that you want to bring that back to the engineer, but to now
identify his qualifications is really, is not appropriate in this instance. I don't want to
isolate Mr. Ford, but I know that, with regards to your votes, you voted one way on the
first motion and one way on the other. Is there something that we can specifically
answer that would address your concerns with regards to the plantings that we were
proposing in the area of the rain garden, with regards to the buffer? I don't mean to put
you on the spot.
MR. FORD-No, I don't mind being put on the spot. I found that our original determination
was appropriate. I still do, and that's where I want to be consistent.
MS. BITTER-I understand that, and unfortunately your Code isn't consistent with the
determination of Judge Krogmann. If I could just clarify, I understand the rain garden
was something that everybody wanted to see. Unfortunately, the courts consider that to
be an infiltration device and the stormwater regulations don't allow us to place that there,
and we're just trying to see.
MR. WILKINSON-Without a variance.
MS. BITTER-I'm sorry, right. You're absolutely correct. The stormwater regulations
don't allow us to put that there.
MR. TRAVER-And that's really the issue. I mean, let's face it. Is having to go and get a
variance. Right?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MS. BITTER-Right, and I guess, and if that's what the Board wants us to do, I guess
we're willing to do that. My concern is, is that, as we all are aware, we can't determine
what the Zoning Board's going to say. The Zoning Board could very well say, no, this is
unacceptable.
MR. TRAVER-And if they don't, if they don't, then you would come back to us with that
result and ask for a modification of your Site Plan, correct?
MS. BITTER-Right, and I appreciate that that's the Board's concern, but again, just
reiterating what Gretchen said, this application's been before you for many, many, many,
many, many months.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think you've made the point, or the applicant has certainly made
the point that we've spent a lot of, we've invested a lot of time together, in developing
that Site Plan, okay, which included these rain gardens, and the court did not render an
opinion with regards to whether they were appropriate for water quality treatment. They
just said it requires, if they're going to remain in there, it requires you to get a variance.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So, my feeling is, we planned our work, we worked hard to develop it, let's
work our plan. Just get the variance.
MR. WILKINSON-And my feeling is, is that those were additional things that were above
and beyond the requirements of the Code, and the plan, as it stands right now, meets the
Code.
MR. TRAVER-I understand, but the rain garden was part of a product that we, in
partnership, created, which was a plan for this site that we all agreed for a variety of
reasons, the applicant and this Board agreed we would do.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the problem here, in my mind, is that there's a contradiction, and
we thought it was a good idea, but because the Article 78 was filed, the court has made
a decision that, according to our own Code, having an infiltration device that close to the
lake is not an acceptable practice without a variance, and so we would be asking the
applicant to go to the Zoning Board to get approval for an unacceptable practice, when
what we're trying to do is make sure that the Site Plans that we approve are lake friendly,
and so we would be sending them away to ask the Zoning Board to approve something
that's not lake friendly, and so I'm scratching my head.
MR. SEGULJIC-I disagree with that last comment.
MS. BITTER-But I guess before the Zoning Board they would have to decide whether or
not there's any feasible alternatives for stormwater regulations, which, they're going to
have an engineering letter that says we've met all the stormwater concerns. So they're
going to say, obviously there's a feasible alternative, what they're proposing, which
would be the elimination of the rain garden. I mean, I'm not the Zoning Board, but I'm
just saying that that's a very, very possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why I thought if we could try to find something that wasn't a
rain garden, but acted similarly.
MR. WILKINSON-But accomplished the same thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that that would be a solution.
MR. TRAVER-But aren't we skipping a step of, I mean, we still haven't exhausted the
options to keep the original plan that we worked so hard to create.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess in my mind that's what I thought that would accomplish,
is we're really not, we're just trading the rain garden for something similar that's not an
infiltration device, and is not subject to that variance requirement.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that. I think that gets to Tom's point. Well, okay, then
let's make sure that's what we're doing by getting some evidence that, in fact, you can
trade off, that you really don't need a rain garden. You can accomplish the same thing
with something else. I think it would be simpler.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-But I don't think our Town Engineer would have signed off on that if it
wasn't okay. I mean, are we so in love with our motion that we want it and protect it at all
costs, even though we have evidence, now, to the contrary, of our initial decision? I
mean, on their landscaping plan, on C-3, it says that their materials, their landscape
materials, are from the native plants from the Adirondacks. If we're asking them for an
enhanced plan, they're just going to beef up that landscaping plan to accomplish what
we wanted to accomplish in the first place, but now we have new evidence that shows us
that what we wanted in the first place was not in the best interest of the lake, and so I'm
scratching my head here.
MR. OBORNE-Can I have a clarification on what, where it says, and this is for the
record, where it says that this is a negative impact for the lake. Where is the empirical
evidence that a rain garden is a negative?
MRS. STEFFAN-If the court said that an infiltration device at that location, they didn't find
that it was acceptable, under normal conditions it would require variance, because our
own Code states that you can't have an infiltration device that close to the lake. We
should be questioning that, because if our Code says that, and if a court pointed that out
to us, we should be re-thinking the logic sequence that we used to approve it in the first
place.
MR. OBORNE-For infiltration devices specifically.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you're comparing an administrative decision to a scientific decision.
I think, I don't know for sure, but I think 147 was intended for all new development. Then
at the end of it they throw in this thing for pre, for things that were previously developed
you have to catch the first half inch.
MR. WILKINSON-And we've accomplished that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you've also admitted that this will enhance.
MR. WILKINSON-Further.
MR. SEGULJIC-Further enhance. The Code says you have to do the maximum extent
possible. The Board made the conscious decision.
MR. WILKINSON-Practicable.
MR. SEGULJIC-Practicable.
MS. BITTER-Well, it's a key word.
MR. SEGULJIC-Rain gardens are very simple to install.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but a Cadillac gives you an enhanced drive, but a Volkswagen will
do the exactly the same, will transport you from one place to another.
MR. WILKINSON-And if the computations show, and have been verified by a Town
Engineer, that we meet Section 147, my question is.
MR. SEGULJIC-From a quantity perspective.
MR. WILKINSON-No, from a Section 147 perspective. The entire Section.
MR. SEGULJIC-I still don't have that in front of me, for one thing.
MR. WILKINSON-And again, I agree with you that the first letter from the Town Engineer,
or the letter from the Town Engineer doesn't specifically say that.
MS. BITTER-And you can condition your approval on that.
MR. WILKINSON-That's why I sent an e-mail to him as soon as I received it and said, I
don't believe your letter states what you implied to me, and we had a conversation that
you felt it met Section 147, based on the presentation. Is there any way you can clarify
that? He responded with an e-mail to Staff with regard to that to further enhance what
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
his approval was, and again, the Staff does not have that in front of him right now, but it
is certainly something that I know was sent to him.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and if the Board wishes for me to go down and print it out, I have no
problem doing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that e-mail likely to sway?
MR. SEGULJIC-Because they agreed to put in a rain garden. They could very simply
decide to go to the Zoning Board. They decided to take the easy way out.
MS. BITNER-Well, we shouldn't be prejudiced because of that, though.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because of the fact we requested a rain garden and you guys agreed to
put it in?
MS. BITNER-No, because we decided to go this way. I don't think, the court gave us the
alternative to go either way.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but that's your decision. So as far as my saying you have to go
to the, the fact that it's going to take you more time because then you have to go to the
Zoning Board does not impact my decision one way or another.
MS. BITTER-No, no, no. We're indicating, too, that the Zoning Board doesn't
necessarily have to give it to us because they also have a standard that they have to
determine whether or not there's any feasible alternatives. You're adding this as an
additional element for stormwater which isn't necessary, and the Town Engineer already
stated that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So why don't you just go to the Zoning Board first if it's so easy?
MS. BITTER-I didn't say it was easy. I said they wouldn't probably approve it.
MR. FORD-This latter part of the discussion has really been helpful to me. Igo back to
our original determination and what we voted on and approved a few weeks back, and in
looking at that in retrospect, we very well may have been gilding the lily, so to speak. We
were asking for something that went beyond Code, because we thought that it was going
to be an enhancement, and in placing an enhancement on this plan, we found that we
opened up something else as a result of this court ruling. We approved something that
required an applicant to get a variance. I think that probably at that time we were, as a
Board, in error.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that was why I opened the evening with that question. I wondered
about that. That's what I had been thinking about, but I think, and I certainly understand
that the applicant has had an extraordinary process of coming before us in review, but I
think at the same time we also have to recognize that this is an extraordinary piece of
property near an extraordinary body of water, and I think it warrants extraordinary
measures to preserve it, and I understand that, you know, going for a variance and so on
adds another step in the process, but I think we skip a step by considering modifying the
Site Plan when it's possible to continue with the plan that we worked so hard to develop,
by going before the Zoning Board and asking them for a variance. If they deny the
variance, then we, in that light, we can take a look at it and say, well, then I guess we
cannot have the rain gardens. We need to come up with an alternative plan, but right
now we still have a viable plan that we've all agreed to and everybody's happy with.
Let's exhaust our remedies and try to make that work come to reality, even if it requires
this extra step. If that fails, we haven't exhausted all our remedies. We can still, then,
review it, knowing that the Zoning Board would not allow them to have the rain garden as
we all agreed, and then we can take a look at, how can we change the Site Plan so that
they don't need a variance or we can do some other kind of thing, but talking about doing
that now, I think we're skipping that step.
MRS. STEFFAN-See, and I think we gave this, you know, rigorous Site Plan Review,
eight meetings, a year and a half, as well as other Zoning Board meetings, and I
remember this specific project. We have spent a lot of hour, if they visited us for eight
hours, I know we spent about two hours per meeting on this particular project. So we
scrutinized it.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I even remember talking about the rain garden proximity to the
lake.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-So it's been scrutinized. Certainly even the retaining wall. I mean, I
remember different elements of this. The retaining wall in itself was quite extraordinary,
and so, you know, I think we've given it our best shot.
MS. BITNER-And we could be, we could be sitting here at the Zoning Board meeting
with a Zoning Board member saying the same exact thing you're saying. Saying, well,
you know, maybe we'll wait and see what the Planning Board has to say. You should go
to the Planning Board. The court said go to the Planning Board first. Well, the court said
go to the Planning Board. So, go to the Planning Board. So, I mean, we're kind of stuck
in a Catch-22 at this point that we're hearing, well, you should go to the Zoning Board,
but we could go to the Zoning Board and hear, well, you should go to the Planning
Board, and we're just going round and round, and while I appreciate your comments, at
this point, I think, you know, we're before you.
MR. TRAVER-I understand what you're saying, but I think the practical reality of it is
you'd be walking in to the Zoning Board with a plan that you can clearly point out has
been exhaustively worked on by us as a team, and we've all agreed that this is the plan
that works best for this site, after eight meetings and X number of hours and so on. I
think that they would appreciate the effort that had been put into this. Now, again, I
understand that's an assumption, and they certainly have the right to deny it, but then we
have additional remedy.
MR. KREBS-But, Steve, aren't they going to say, yes, but look at this court order. This
court order said, this is an infiltration device. That's what the court determined.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and therefore they need a variance.
MR. KREBS-So therefore they need a variance.
MR. TRAVER-But they're also going to look at the fact that the Planning Board and the
applicant have worked very hard on this plan, and that this is the plan that we want to
see happen.
MR. FORD-We worked very hard on it, Steve, but I believe the court determination has
shown that our best intentions lead us to be in error with our final plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'd like to point out something, too. I don't believe any site could
be developable along the lake as the lakefront properties exist now. Correct? How
would you design on the lake, if you couldn't put an infiltration device within 100 feet?
MS. BITNER-Yes, but we're stuck with that.
MR. WILKINSON-You'd do the plantings and stuff that we're proposing as buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. WILKINSON-Do everything you possibly can before the water gets into the lake,
which is we're doing.
MR. SEGULJIC-You'd have to infiltrate the water, though.
MR. WILKINSON-No, you don't. You have to filtrate the water. You have to try and slow
it down to get contact with the soil and the root systems with the mulch, with everything
else, which is exactly what we're doing.
MR. SEGULJIC-We've had this discussion already. I said rain gardens with infiltration
devices. You said no.
MR. WILKINSON-They're not. In my professional opinion.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the court has said they are, though.
MR. WILKINSON-But the court is not a professional engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe 147 says you have to infiltrate, and it gives you five different
options, and a sequence of choices. Therefore, if we adhere to what you guys are
saying, no project can get done.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. WILKINSON-So either the Code has to change or you don't allow development
along the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Or we need to set up a Zoning Board who can consider times when we
want to make an exception.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, such as existing conditions and things like that.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that's what they have started to do. They have sent some
recommendations to us. I can recall at least one, and if it comforts you, we had no
problem with it because there were no options.
MS. BITTER-Right, but here there are options. That's our point. There's extensive
landscaping on the shoreline that's worth thousands of dollars and we're even
suggesting that we would put more for the purposes of putting it in the area of the rain
garden if the Board finds that's necessary.
MR. WILKINSON-And we've met the Code with all the (lost words).
MR. SEGULJIC-How about a 30 foot buffer along there?
MS. BITTER-The buffer that exists there right now, or it's being proposed, is about $30 to
$40,000. So to add an additional buffer would be extensive.
MR. WILKINSON-Double that.
MS. BITTER-I mean, it's not practical.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'd like to try a motion one more time and see what happens.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 MODIFICATION #1 GREGG
BROWN &LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan which
would allow for the removal of the rain garden. Modifications to approved site
plans require Planning Board review and approval.
2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/3/09; and
3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4)
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 GREG
BROWN /LIZABETH BITNER Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This modification 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
reconsidered and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
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
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
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. If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g) That the rain gardens as initially proposed be replaced with an enhanced
landscaping plan to include native plant species as noted on Drawing C-3, the
shoreline plant materials referenced from the native plants for the Adirondack
Park, as compiled by the New York State Adirondack Park Agency and
distributed by Cornell Cooperative Extension.
h) After this enhanced landscaping has been designed, then the applicant will need
to obtain VISION Engineering signoff.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
MS. BITTER-If I could just make one request of the Board. For Northway Plaza
Associates, it's set to be tabled, and I just want to reiterate that. The Zoning Board has
tabled that application, to be heard on March 18t". March 18t" is Wednesday. We were
hoping to table it to March 24t", which is the Tuesday following that, with the hope that if
we can come to an agreement with the Cemetery, which we have a meeting tomorrow
morning at nine a.m. with regards to the buffer, we can hopefully get our variances that
are necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there additional information that needs to be submitted for our
consideration?
MS. BITTER-We submitted on March, by Monday.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. They have met the requirements of their submittal.
MR. HUNSINGER-They have?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-So if we can just table that, that would be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don't we introduce the item, then.
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT.
LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
14,820 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 4,642 SQUARE FOOT
CHILI'S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-08; SV 74, 75-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08
LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-4-020
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
This will be tabled to the second Planning Board meeting in March, which is March 24tH
Application submission deadline would be March 6tH
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that they need to submit, Keith, do you know?
MR. OBORNE-No, I think that works.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. SEGULJIC-One quick question. When is it tabled until?
MR. HUNSINGER-March 24tH
MR. SEGULJIC-24t", okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEAR UNLISTED GENERAL TIMBER AGENT(S) KURT
KOSKINEN OWNER(S) FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC ZONING LC-10A LOCATION
LAND LOCKED PROPERTY WEST OF FRENCH MOUNTAIN APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVESTING OF TREES 14" AND LARGER ON A 167.31 +/-
ACRE VACANT PARCEL ON FRENCH MOUNTAIN. TIMBER HARVESTING IN THE
LC-10 ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER
APA LOT SIZE 167.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-28 SECTION 179-6-010C
KURT KOSKINEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan No. 50-2008, General Timber, Site Plan Review for
Timber Harvesting. This is a landlocked property on the west slope of French Mountain.
The existing zoning is LC or Land Conservation 10 Acres. This is an Unlisted Type
SEQRA. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this
application. I believe you had, just for clarification, at a previous Board meeting that you
listed this as an Unlisted Action. There's additional information that is before you on my
Staff Notes, and the applicant was tabled to this date to address the following. It was to
supply us with a letter from DEC regarding a site endangered species. At this point a
boilerplate submittal was given, and not the letter that we were looking for from
Warrensburg DEC, and to provide appropriate site specific details of the following:
stream protection, erosion control, harvest schedule, skid road construction, hazardous
materials, post harvest wrap up, log decks and landings, stream crossings, and I do
reference the timber management plan supplied by the application. I think for reiteration
and clarity the applicant proposes to timber harvest approximately 138 acres of a 168
acre parcel which is on the west slope of French Mountain. There is parts of the property
that is inaccessible due to two DEC Class A streams. Moving on. As far as any
additions to my Site Plan Review, I do want to state that on February 3, 2009, the Town
of Lake George Planning Board agreed to a resolution to seek Lead Agency status with
concerns to SEQRA for this project. Craig Brown has written you a memorandum, and I
think at that point, we're ready to open up a public hearing or solicit the applicant.
MR. KOSKINEN-I'm Kurt Koskinen, the forester from General Timber. At this point, we'd
like to request a tabling for 30 days, to an April meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. KOSKINEN-The time constraints got us caught here tonight. The counsel had to go
to Lake George for the same property.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just commented we should have heard you first, and I apologize for
that. I couldn't have anticipated that we would spend most of two hours on the last
project.
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Sure, but I'd just ask for that basic request if we could do that,
table for 30 days somewhere in early April maybe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think one of the big issues that we need to discuss this evening
is the whole SEQRA process, and I don't know if you're familiar with how that works, but
Lake George has requested that we acknowledge.
MR. OBORNE-Acknowledge their Lead Agency.
MR. HUNSINGER-Acknowledge their Lead Agency Status and do a coordinated review,
and at the meeting that you were here last, you know, we felt that it was a Type I action
that only would require a Short Form. So that would be a change for us, if we were to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Unlisted.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, Unlisted. It would be a change for us to now seek a
coordinated review on this project. So I think really we need to talk about that this
evening, before we consider the tabling request.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think that's fair, obviously, to the applicant, and for the record and
for clarity purposes. We probably should read in Craig's memorandum, because that
spells out what the requirements are for a Type I action. Upon further review, it appears
that this should have been listed as a Type I, due to the fact that vegetation removal is
considered disturbance of the land, under the definitions. Now, again, it is still something
that the Board will need to determine, and if that's strong enough, we would request and
recommend that this is a Type I, that you direct the applicant to submit a Long EAF, with
a visual addendum. Now, we should just take it one step at a time and make sure that
you're comfortable with the Type I action designation, which means you would have to
reject your previous SEQRA finding and open up a new one.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess before we do that, I'd like to consider what the options are,
given that the Town of Lake George has proposed this to be a coordinated review, and
what our options are visa vie their request.
MR. OBORNE-With Counsel by my side, I will attempt to do that, and if I stray, I'm sure
I'll be put right back on the path. At this point, they have asked to do coordinated review
with you, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury. Under an Unlisted Action,
and we also have not received any forms or SEQRA forms for that, which is the typical
protocol for that. Now your option, let's say aside from that, your option is to
acknowledge Lead Agency Status for Lake George and do a coordinated review. Or
your option is to not acknowledge it and do your own review under your own SEQRA
determinations.
MS. RADNER-There is a process, well, let me back up a little bit. First of all, I should
state on the record that my firm represents both the Town of Lake George and the Town
of Queensbury. I have not been involved in the determination of whether this is a Type I
or a Type II or an Unlisted. My understanding is that there's been some discussion
between Craig Brown and his counterpart at the Town of Lake George, who would be
Rob Hickey, or Robert Hickey. When I spoke to Craig, in anticipation of this meeting, he
still had not heard back from Rob Hickey, but was expecting to today. I don't know if
that's happened in the interim or not. One town has determined it to be a Type I. The
other Town has determined it be an Unlisted action. How it's treated for SEQRA
purposes is different under each of those, and again, I don't know whether Rob and
Craig have managed to reconcile that or not. Assuming that we come to an agreement
whether it's a Type I or Type II, if two towns both assert Lead Agency status, there is a
procedure to go through to determine who wins. In most cases, the towns are able to
agree, and the Town with the greater interest, or the, there's usually a reason why one
town's more interested, either more of the property's located there, or they're more likely
to be impacted, and that's as much as I can tell you this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm sorry, the Town of Lake George determined it to be a Type I?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. OBORNE-That is not my understanding.
MS. RADNER-The Town of Queensbury determined it be a Type I.
MR. OBORNE-No, the Town of Queensbury has determined it be an Unlisted, at this
point, as well as the Town of Lake George.
MS. RADNER-Okay. Then it's changed from.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because an Unlisted action.
MS. RADNER-I'm sorry, it's Craig Brown who's determined it to be? I'm lost, now, as to
what your difference was.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. What, our Board has made a SEQRA determination that this is an
Unlisted Action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's right.
MR. OBORNE-The Town of Lake George's Board has determined that this is an Unlisted
Action. Under that Unlisted Action, they're seeking a coordinated review with the Town
of Queensbury. Well, we have not gone, they have not gone through the proper
protocols to send us, see, usually you send a Long Form to explain what other agencies
are involved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that didn't happen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Here we are today with new information that looks like it's leaning
towards a Type I. Now that is where we are as we stand at this moment.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if both Towns determine it to be a Type I, it requires a
coordinated review.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and a Long Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but if it's an Unlisted Action, it doesn't require coordinated
review.
MR. OBORNE-It does not require a coordinated review. That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that's why I wanted to review those options, because one of the
options that we can determine is that we still consider it to be an Unlisted Action, which
doesn't require coordinated review, and therefore there's really probably no need for us
to acknowledge Lead Agency status to the Town of Lake George.
MR. OBORNE-True. I do want to, although I am not Counsel, I do want to apprise the
Board that it is pretty plain in the SEQRA regulations of what this should be typed as,
and that might open you up to certain litigation, if that was to not be determined.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to acknowledge the Town of Lake George as Lead
Agent, and then rescind our determination and affirm that it's a Type I, we would
probably put that in the motion, then, to accept the Town of Lake George as the Lead
Agent.
MR. OBORNE-If you are comfortable with the Town of Lake George being Lead Agency
on this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So those are the options.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how does a coordinated review work?
MS. RADNER-A coordinated review means that one of the involved agencies, an
involved agency has a special definition for purposes of SEQRA. One of the involved
agencies takes Lead Agency status. They, then, have the responsibility for conducting
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
all SEQRA review for the project, and that SEQRA review has to be done before any
determination can be made by any other involved agency. They would seek input from
other involved agencies. Other involved agencies would have the opportunity to present
evidence, to appear and participate in any hearings, but they would take the lead, so to
speak, and they would coordinate the review amongst all involved agencies and also
seek input from what are called interested agencies that don't raise to that level of
involved, but still might wish to somehow have input on the project.
MR. SEGULJIC-You're saying that it's Craig's opinion that it's clearly Type I?
MR. OBORNE-Right. It is Craig's opinion, but he cannot make that determination. Only
the Planning Board alone can.
MRS. STEFFAN-Let me read this memorandum into the record. This is a memorandum
dated February 27, 2009, to Chris Hunsinger, Chairman of the Planning Board, with a
carbon copy to the Planning Board members from Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator,
and this is regarding General Timber, Site Plan No. 50-2008. "Please note that the NYS
DEC SEAR definition of Physical Alteration is: (ab) Physical alteration includes, but is not
limited to, the following activities: vegetation removal, demolition, stockpiling materials,
grading and other forms of earthwork, dumping, filling or depositing, discharges to air or
water, excavation or trenching, application of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals,
application of sewage sludge, dredging, flooding, draining or dewatering, paving,
construction of buildings, structures or facilities, and extraction, injection or recharge of
resources below ground. As this project includes the removal of vegetation on lands totaling
318 acres within the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Lake George, as well as an
undetermined amount of roadway /skid trail construction it would appear as though this
project is a Type I action. Attached please find the NYS SEAR definitions, §617.2,
Definitions."" And then there is an attachment.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just highlight for me once again. They didn't attach, what is it, 617.4, where
it lists the different types of actions. I guess I'm just asking what would it fall under, the
project itself? He gave us a definition of alteration of the land, but like is it a disturbance or
10 acres or something?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is the 10 acres, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it's a disturbance of 10 acres, automatically makes you a Type I.
MR. OBORNE-A Type I.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. OBORNE-Now, through your discussions in the past, originally when this application
came before the Board, you discussed the tree removal was actually disturbing the land.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Well, under the definition of Physical Alteration, it states that vegetation
removal is, in fact, disturbance of the land. You're disturbing 138 acres on this one parcel.
So that's where the logic comes from.
MR. SEGULJIC-But now, having not dealt with a lot of these types of projects before, is this
a new determination or is this common for any harvesting to be a Type I?
MR. OBORNE-I think that, outside of municipalities that do not have Site Plan Review, it's
not an issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that's the difference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was one of the discussions that we had, and the applicant's
attorney was saying how there's all kinds of precedent where this is an Unlisted action.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and that very well may be true. I did not vet that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because they do not have Site Plan Review.
MR. OBORNE-But it is because this is a Site Plan Review by our Code, well, then we follow,
obviously everything else gets triggered.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it sounds we have to, it sounds like a Type I, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems pretty cut and dried to me, to, but.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what about the Lake George, okay, let's say we solve that issue, now
we've got to deal with Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I cannot speak as to what Lake George is, the determination of Lake George
is going to be, nor would I even attempt to do that. As we speak, General Timber could very
well be in front of the Planning Board at Lake George at this very moment discussing that
very issue. I know that they want Lead Agency status under an Unlisted, based on the
previous resolution from last month, and now that this has come to light and discussions
between Robert Hickey and Craig Brown, our Zoning Administrator, it appears that they are
leaning towards a Type I also. I cannot, again, and I want to emphasize this, I cannot, again,
specifically state that they are going to make a Type I determination.
MS. RADNER-I'll point out to you, though, that the applicant here has given you the easy out
for tonight, which is that because they are before Lake George right now, they've asked to
have this table. So you can simply grant their tabling motion, find out what the status is from
Lake George, and with more information proceed in the future.
MR. FORD-When should we address the issue of Lead Agency status?
MS. RADNER-It must be addressed before any determination is made.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don't we have 30 days to respond?
MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that if you make this a Type I action and you seek Lead
Agency status, you do have to send a Long Form to the involved agencies, and they must
reply within 30 days.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-If they do not, then I think you are Lead Agency status. You have that honor.
MR. HUNSINGER-So because Lake George didn't submit the Long Form with their request,
we don't have to respond?
MS. RADNER-They haven't given you enough information to act.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It would be nice to resolve the Lead Agency status and the
SEQRA determination.
MS. RADNER-But you really can't because you don't have the (lost word) anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I didn't mean tonight, but I mean in short order. I mean, maybe we
could do it in two weeks. Because once we know what Lake George determined, it's a five
minute discussion and a vote.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just refresh my memory. This becomes a Type I action, and then what
happens with the two agencies, Lake George and Queensbury, we have to do a coordinated
review?
MR. HUNSINGER-It has to be a coordinated review.
MR. SEGULJIC-And one of them has to rise up to be the Lead Agency?
MS. RADNER-Right, but they're supposed to, at that point, if it's determined to be a Type I,
you need a Long Form EAF, and part of the process of a Long Form EAF, Environmental
Assessment Form, is to identify other involved agencies and to make sure that all involved
agencies participate in the process, and I don't believe that's happened yet. Again, I don't
know the specifics of this application.
MR. TRAVER-Wouldn't it make more sense for us to be Lead Agency, since actually more of
the land is in?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. FORD-I wanted to determine the comparison of land between the two Towns.
MRS. STEFFAN-I believe, based on the Site Plan Review, we have more land affected, but
the log landing itself is in Lake George itself, off of Bloody Pond Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I did have that conversation with Staff, and, you know, and I
think it's one of those things where, you know, you could argue it either way, you know,
because all the traffic will be in Lake George. The, what's the terminology?
MR. OBORNE-Header.
MR. HUNSINGER-The header, the landing is all in Lake George, and that's really where
more of the impact is. Lake George required some variances. So, I mean, you could almost
argue it either way. There's more land in Queensbury, but there's more impact in Lake
George.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Right. I see your point.
MR. SEGULJIC-So let's assume Lake George becomes Lead Agency. They send us the
Long Form. Then we fill it out as a Board?
MR. OBORNE-You would acknowledge their Lead Agency status. I have not ever gone
through that.
MS. RADNER-Right. Typically they send it to, the applicant fills it out, or, you know, gives
you the information. You review it, determine it. Decide, yes, we're going to acknowledge
their status, and you send them a letter back acknowledging that, or, no, you don't want to,
and then the process starts to determine who is, in fact, the appropriate Lead Agency, which
doesn't happen often.
MR. SEGULJIC-But we get to comment on any impacts via that process?
MS. RADNER-Right. You get to participate in the process regardless. That's the whole
purpose of identifying other involved agencies.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Can we bring them back in two weeks? Obviously we have a
package of information in front of us.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm thinking it'll be a five minute discussion to either accept Lead Agency
status or not.
MR. OBORNE-Well, we can certainly have it in as an Administrative Item.
MR. HUNSINGER-Put it in as an Administrative Item.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine. As far as taking up a spot.
MR. HUNSINGER-And all we'll be doing is the SEQRA review, Lead Agency status and
which type of an action it is.
MR. KREBS-Because he's actually asking us to table it until April anyway.
MR. OBORNE-So I would suggest that you also do that and make a resolution to table them
to the April date. I think that that is a fair timeframe. As far as a resolution for an
Administrative Item.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the SEQRA review.
MR. OBORNE-I think it would be clean if you could do that, if you could make a resolution to
have him on the 17t", is it?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That would make it clean for me.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-And like I said, all we'll do is consider Lead Agency status and the type of
action it is.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion. Do you have to open the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we'll open the public hearing and leave it open, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MOTION TO ADD THE DETERMINATION FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE
MARCH 17T" PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL
TIMBER. THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND IT WILL
BE JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
To the first Planning Board meeting in April, which is April 21St. The submission
deadline for any materials for that particular meeting would be March 16tH
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of weeks.
MR. KOSKINEN-Okay. So you need us to show up on the 16t" or the?
MRS. STEFFAN-The 17t", two weeks from tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if they need to show up, do they?
MRS. STEFFAN-It's just going to be Lead Agency status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That would be up to the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's entirely up to you. You don't need to present us with anything.
Let me put it that way.
MR. KOSKINEN-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we will see you on April 21St
MR. KOSKINEN-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. We're sorry about the agenda.
MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, do you need Counsel for anything further?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think so. You're all set. Thanks, Cathi.
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2009 FW NO. 2-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY
SEVERANCE OWNER(S) RANDY & CINDY SEVERANCE ZONING RR-3A
LOCATION 7 FOX ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY FOR A
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
2,360 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50
FEET OF A WETLAND AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND
REQUIRES SITE PLAN/FRESHWATER WETLANDS REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE SEPTIC VAR.; AV 4-09; SUB 1-70 WARREN CO. PLANNING
2/11/09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.79 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
266.-1-1-20 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-6-060
RANDY SEVERANCE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready to summarize the Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Site Plan 5-2009 and Freshwater Wetlands 2-2009. The
applicant is Randy Severance. Requested action is for Site Plan Review due to hard
surfacing within 50 feet of a wetland and development within 100 feet of a wetland. Both
of these actions require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 7 Fox Road.
Existing zoning is Rural Residential Three Acres. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. This is a
SEQRA recommendation required. Project Description: Application has partially
constructed a 2,360 square foot single family dwelling within 50 feet of an APA classified
wetland. I would like to note that the Zoning Board of Appeals has rendered a decision,
which should have been attached to your Staff Notes. The Town Board of Health has
approved septic variance on February 23rd, and as a result, the Planning Board
previously issued a recommendation, a positive recommendation, and now you're back
doing your Site Plan Review. I do want to add that there are two additional notes on the
plan review at the very end, and it deals with lawns near the wetland, and any type of
fertilizing that is in the areas. So I just want to draw your attention to that. There should
be a handout in front of you, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. SEVERANCE-Good evening. My name is Randy Severance. I also saw the notes,
or the latest comments, and I don't have any problem with not using fertilizer, as far as
when I put the grass seed down between the house and the wetlands. I understand the
repercussions of using fertilizer, what it would do to the wetlands. I don't have any
problem whatsoever with that, and if there's any other considerations from the Board, I
will follow. I've been here to work with every Planning Board, or every Board that the
Town has had.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think you've visited them all, correct?
MR. SEVERANCE-Yes. This is my fifth, well, two for you, but four different Boards now.
It's been a learning experience, but we're looking, we see the daylight and we're hoping
to get through.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Question. On S-1, there's reference to the heavy duty septic tank, and in
one area it refers to a thousand gallon, and another 1200 gallon.
MR. SEVERANCE-That should have beE
Department of Health had pointed that out,
why my engineer did not correct it.
i corrected. Mike Shaw with the State
and it's a 1200 gallon tank. I do not know
MRS. STEFFAN-The Staff Notes identify that there's a couple of issues. Stabilization
plans may need to be submitted for the erosion and sediment controls. Do you have that
on your? These were Staff Notes. We just got them tonight. So I'm not sure whether
you have a copy of those or not.
MR. SEVERANCE-Yes, I did.
MRS. STEFFAN-But one of the other questions. Has the test pit, have the test pits been
performed, in other words, do you have them dug and?
MR. SEVERANCE-Yes, they were done.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and what's the perc rate?
MR. SEVERANCE-The perc rate where the septic system is going was, I've got it here.
It was 55 minutes to 58 minutes. There's a lot of clay there, and there is also
groundwater at three feet down, I believe it was, where the septic system was going.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Hence the mound system?
MR. SEVERANCE-Yes, exactly. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Did you do the test pit in the stormwater basin? I believe you did, right?
MR. SEVERANCE-Yes. We also did one over there, and that's the same conditions over
there, clay as well, but there was no groundwater there.
MR. SEGULJIC-No groundwater?
MR. SEVERANCE-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there's the two foot differential between the bottom of the, there's
going to be two feet between the basin and the groundwater. Correct?
MR. SEVERANCE-There was no groundwater where the basin's going to be, near Ridge
Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SEVERANCE-But the perc rate was the same.
MR. FORD-Your test pit only went to the depth of the, of what?
MR. SEVERANCE-For the, well, I'm sorry, I'm new at this, but for where the septic
mound system is going, it was done at a six foot hole was done for the test pit and
groundwater was coming in at three feet down. That's why we're using the mound, and
also a perc test was done there as well, and that was 55 minutes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEVERANCE-That's a tough neighborhood there. The clay conditions are terrible
up there, and I'm surprised that no other houses needed mound systems. Everybody
else has conventional systems up there, but I feel better, actually.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they've also, those systems have been there a little bit longer,
and so I'm sure that the regulations were different then.
MR. SEVERANCE-Yes. I actually feel better with a mound system, what I'm going to
have. I feel assured.
MR. SEGULJIC-Other than those couple of conditions, I don't have any issues. I think
it's been a long, educational trip.
MR. SEVERANCE-It has. It has been very educational.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? We did table the
public hearing until this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address
the Board on this application? Okay. We do have one.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. Under normal conditions, the
Water Keeper would not support development activities in such close proximity to the
wetlands within Lake George Watershed. However, it appears that this was a result of a
lack of adequate wetland information on available resources, and one of the
recommendations would be that wetland information should be added to the Town and
County database to avoid future oversights and impacts to wetlands. That appears to be
no fault of the applicant. stormwater management basin should be modified to be a bio
retention or rain garden to improve stormwater treatment and infiltration to the soils that
are present, and again, bio retention or rain gardens are generally amended soils that
are a little bit more nutrient rich, that will be able to uptake through decomposition the
nutrients that would go in. So we would recommend that the planting and the
stabilization near this wetland area after it's restored would be advantageous. The
existing wetland and buffer plantings should be re-established and the APA has stated
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
that the restoration is required and was initiated last Fall, I believe. It should be
determined if additional plantings should be established along the wetland boundary,
and we would definitely support that, after the wetland is restored back to its original as
much as it can be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. BOZONY-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I do have public comment that was read into the record on
the 17t" of last month. I don't intend to read that in again. I just want to reiterate that it
was in. I do want to draw your attention to VISION Engineering's comments dated
February 13t", if you have them in front of you. If not, a quick synopsis would be that a
stormwater plan, some type of stormwater plan would need to be reviewed by Dan Ryan.
So I would recommend that you, in fact, as a condition of approval, I did not put this on
my notes, but as a condition of approval, that they get VISION Engineering signoff for
stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Do you know what we mean by that?
MR. SEVERANCE-I do believe so, yes. I don't know if Dan Ryan has, he hasn't seen my
Site Plan Review, I'm guessing, is that what that means?
MRS. STEFFAN-He has, but he hasn't seen, he wants you to clarify your stormwater
design.
MR. SEVERANCE-And then re-submit?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEVERANCE-Okay. Yes. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And probably if you take into account some of the comments that
were just made, that that's the kind of thing he's looking for.
MR. SEVERANCE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board?
Are members comfortable moving forward?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted action. I think they submitted a Short Form, if I'm not
mistaken.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So whenever you're ready.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?"
MR. 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.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SP 5-2009 & FW 2-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RANDY SEVERANCE, and
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
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:
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 3rd day of, March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NOES
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any special conditions other than the three that were noted,
the two Staff comments and the comment from VISION Engineering?
MRS. STEFFAN-What about, the Staff Notes say consideration should be given to
screening with the Wisconsin Mound with evergreens if the system is determined to have
negative visual impact on the community.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we had talked about that last meeting, right?
MR. SEVERANCE-On the Site Plan I put it along one side where I cannot manipulate the
slope. So I was going to put it, arborvitae every three feet, I believe, for the whole length
of the mound system. The rest of it I can manipulate, as far as just trying to blend it in
with the existing grade. I don't know if it's too late to make a comment here.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, go ahead.
MR. SEVERANCE-The letter I just got handed from VISION Engineering, I did receive
that a while back, and I believe that letter was after the initial Site Plan was on my septic
system design. I updated that, after that letter. Not that it matters. He's probably going
to still want to see the updated, but I did make drastic changes after that letter was
received, to the Site Plan, but I do still have to make some additional notes, though.
MR. TRAVER-You just need him to sign off on it.
MR. SEVERANCE-Sign off on it. Okay. All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-That was February 13tH
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2009 & FW 2-2009 RANDY SEVERANCE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant has construction underway fora 2,360 square foot single family
dwelling. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a wetland and development within 100 feet
of a wetland requires Site Plan /Freshwater wetlands review and approval.
2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/17/09 & 3/3/09; 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. 5-2009 /FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-
2009 RANDY SEVERANCE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 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;
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 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g) That the applicant will make a correction on their plans to denote the 1200 gallon
septic holding tank
h) That the applicant will provide stabilization plans for the erosion and sediment
controls, which will include the location of silt fencing and soil.
i) The applicant will denote the test pit data on the plan.
j) That the applicant will provide screening for the Wisconsin Mound System to
remediate any negative visual impacts to the neighbors. The applicant has
identified that he had planned to plant arborvitaes.
k) That lawn should be precluded from abutting the wetlands to the rear of the
property. If this is not feasible, fertilizer use should be limited on site. Seed
should not be affixed via hydroseeding.
I) That the applicant will need to obtain a VISION Engineering signoff. There was a
note in the February 13t" letter from VISION Engineering that Dan Ryan would
like clarification on the stormwater design, and so he will need to sign off on that.
Duly adopted
this
3rd day of March, 2009, by following
MR. OBORNE-Can I interject? Number One, you need to close the public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, thank you.
the
vote:
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. OBORNE-And on the screening, specifically what type of screening or where would
you like to see the screening on there?
MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant indicated it was already on the plan. I thought I
remembered seeing it on the plan.
MR. OBORNE-So you're talking along the property side line? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we take the motion and the second, I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. SEVERANCE-Thank you, Board, I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You're welcome.
SITE PLAN 35-1989 MODIFICATION 2 SEAR TYPE II STEWARTS SHOPS
AGENT(S) JENNIFER HOWARD OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NC-1A LOCATION
977 ST. RT. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A 600 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND ONE
ADDITIONAL POLE LIGHT. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 18-03
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-11
SECTION 179-4-020
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. LEWIS-Good evening everyone.
MR. FORD-Good evening.
MR. LEWIS-We are looking to make a shop that's not large enough, larger by adding a
50 by 12 foot addition that'll give us a men's room and a ladies room and a new freezer,
a new cooler, and just make things work better. That's kind of about it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you read the Staff Notes, Tom?
MR. LEWIS-And we, I have some handouts. I know the Board doesn't accept new
information. I could hand it out and come back next month, if you want, but on the notes,
on the light, here's the cut sheets, and the lights, if the Board didn't even want the light,
we could get rid of it, but it's just a safety factor, because this Board knows, when it
comes to lighting, we are very cooperative. So, here are the cut sheets, and then also
here's the sheets.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm assuming that the cut sheets, this is Code compliant, the lights that
are provided?
MR. LEWIS-I assume that, too. I don't know that, but.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I need them, I'm not going to review them now.
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If the Board wishes to review them and give them their blessing, then
that's more than enough for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the question that I had on the light, maybe we can kind of cut to
the chase pretty quickly, is the wattage and is the fixture the same as what's already
there?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-So it matches all the existing lights?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-And then on the truck, on the radius, I re-did it and said, it's a mistake. So
here it is again, and, you know, if the Board, again, wants me to have the engineer look
at it.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it works?
MR. LEWIS-Yes, and it works out. Let me just hand it out. You can look at it.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. LEWIS-And Number Four says, about the new door proposed, there is no new door
proposed. That's the door that's there already.
MR. OBORNE-There's a door on your elevation drawings.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. Existing, and, so it's the same door.
MR. OBORNE-Is there one on the rear?
MR. LEWIS-I don't think there's a new door.
MR. OBORNE-There's no door on the map?
MR. LEWIS-What I've been told by our engineers was that there is no new door. Unless
he's fibbing to me.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, proposed west elevation.
MRS. STEFFAN-That is the back of the building.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you look at the floor layout.
MR. OBORNE-Staff was mistaken, and withdraws that comment from the Staff Notes,
concerning the light over the rear door.
MR. LEWIS-I'm sure my guys must have messed you up.
MR. SEGULJIC-A question on the proposed lighting. As I look at it, you have a
maximum of 10 foot candles, if I'm understanding you correctly? Is that the correct
interpretation?
MR. LEWIS-Is the Code 10?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think you have 10. Code, as I look at it, is two and a half.
MR. OBORNE-2.5.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I think that's a very nicely lit station there.
MR. LEWIS-I think you had a hand in it. No, I'm not sure you were on the Board then.
I've been before more Boards than that other guy, by the way.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think this is going to be more lit than the other areas of the station.
MR. LEWIS-We will make it whatever the Code is, period.
MR. SEGULJIC-Two and a half.
MR. LEWIS-Two and a half it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because when I saw 400 watts, I thought that seemed odd.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. LEWIS-Whatever the Code is, that's what we'll do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how much area are you going to disturb there, about, during the
construction, roughly?
MR. LEWIS-I think about, well, the addition's about 600 feet, and so I guess there's a
little bit, you know, back here, but it's not going to affect the drainage at all, if that's
where you're headed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Five thousand square feet?
MR. LEWIS-Yes. Your guess is better than mine.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just want to point out you're in the Lake George basin. Are you aware
you're in the Lake George basin?
MR. LEWIS-No. I am not aware.
MR. SEGULJIC-You're in the Lake George basin.
MR. LEWIS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which potentially puts you subject to 147.
MR. LEWIS-Okay. What does that mean?
MR. SEGULJIC-But this project isn't subject to 147.
MR. LEWIS-Good.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just wanted to make you aware of that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Heightened stormwater.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my goals is to make people aware of the Lake George basin.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you. My wife is very good at making me more aware.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-She is.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if you were disturbing more than 15,000 square feet, you'd be in the
requirements, or you installed more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface you'd
be in 147. So when this was developed, it should have been reviewed, I don't think it
was, but that's okay.
MR. FORD-For the record, could you remind us of the signage for the cost of gasoline
that you utilize there?
MR. LEWIS-The signage? Are you saying that you want me to have one of those little
signs?
MR. FORD-No, no, no, just confirm for us what you're doing.
MR. LEWIS-Because there actually is one, when I get off Exit 19, every time I get off Exit
19, I look at that sign, that gorgeous, attractive huge number sign. I didn't understand
your question. I'm sorry.
MR. FORD-You just answered it. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We like the little plastic numbers.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're not changing the number of parking spots.
MR. LEWIS-That is correct.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Because on the Site Development Data Sheet, Page Three, can you
just put a dash across proposed? I assume that you meant it was unchanged.
MR. LEWIS-No, I don't think we're changing it. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, Tom, the Item One under Plan Review, is it 536 square feet or 600
square feet?
MR. LEWIS-It's 536 actual, but we're removing part. So, I mean, it's really, you know,
600. Although there's something there, but we're removing what's there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-If you look at this thing over here, the hatch marks, see right over there,
there's a little box.
MRS. STEFFAN-A little jog.
MR. LEWIS-So actually that's there now. So technically I guess it's 536. Actually, since
we're going to remove that and build something 50 by 12, that's why we put down 600.
So, I mean, that's there already, that little jog out there. So I guess, technically, it is 536.
Because that's there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-You're going to wind up with a unisex bathroom, correct?
MR. LEWIS-There'll be two bathrooms.
MR. FORD-Two? I thought you were going two to one. No?
MR. LEWIS-No, no, there will be two. We try to do that more often now, because they
get a lot of use, and the men's bathrooms are like never clean.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, Keith, are you satisfied with the explanation on the 536
versus the 600? Do we have to clarify that or correct it on the plan? What do we have to
do here?
MR. OBORNE-I think that you, it's fine. We know it's a 600 square foot expansion for
FAR calculations, you do minus that one out. Absolutely. It was nebulous and I just
wanted clarification on it. So, yes, I am. The short answer is, yes, ma'am.
MRS. STEFFAN-You're good on that? Okay. So it appears that the, what we need to do
here is that the truck radius obviously has been corrected on the plan, but we just have
to get a VISION Engineering signoff on that to ensure it's okay, and then the other thing
we can do is just say that the illumination for the new pole light needs to be Code
compliant.
MR. LEWIS-Meet Code. Sure. We don't even really need the light, but it would make
sense, you know, it's just a safety thing. I mean, I don't care what the wattage is.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you've pointed out, we often, in the past, have used the
lighting on that site as an example of what we're looking for.
MR. LEWIS-I get hate mail on that. I get people calling me up, why did you do that? I'm
just kidding.
MR. OBORNE-If I could add a suggestion to any, it looks like you're going towards an
approval. To get the Fire Marshal's signoff on this truck radius. That's specifically why
we put them on there is for the Fire Marshal and for fire apparatus, and I respectfully
request that, as a part of an approval condition.
MR. FORD-It makes sense to me.
MR. OBORNE-If you want to put Dan Ryan, VISION Engineering on it, that's fine, too. I
don't think it's necessary, but if there's a level of comfort that the Board needs, then
that's fine, obviously.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I don't suppose
there's anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No takers. I will open the public hearing and, provided there
were no written comments.
MR. OBORNE-There were no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II action. We're good.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 MODIFICATION 2 STEWARTS
SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan.
Modifications include a 600 square foot addition and one additional pole light.
Modifications to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval.
2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/3/09; 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. 35-1989 STEWARTS SHOPS,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolutions prepared by staff; 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 with the requirements
as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b) This is a Type II action, no further review required; 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; and
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 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f) NOT APPLICABLE The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
f) That the applicant will obtain a Fire Marshal signoff on the truck radius plan; and
g) That any new lighting that the applicant installs will be Code Compliant.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
NOES: NONE
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
MR. LEWIS-Now, how come you guys didn't want to be Lead Agent or you want to be
Lead Agent, it's mostly in Lake George, so you're not? That was kind of interesting what
was going on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-We don't know yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-It's a very big project. It's a timber harvesting project, which is very
unusual for us. It's the first time most of the Board members have ever done this, and it's
a 300 acre site, but the property is split between, actually I think the predominant amount
of property is in Queensbury, but the log landing, where they pull all the trees out, is in
Lake George, and so it has a visual impact on the Lake George basin, in addition to, you
know, timber harvesting, and it's also a very significantly sloped property.
MR. LEWIS-And they said they want to be Lead Agent, it must be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We initially were going to be Lead Agency on it.
MR. LEWIS-Interesting.
MR. TRAVER-We have most of the rattlesnakes, though.
MR. LEWIS-I didn't know you guys had rattlesnakes here. Do you really have
rattlesnakes?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, there are rattlesnakes around up there.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-They like the wetlands, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, Keith, you have copies of these, the new plan and?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma'am, I do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2009 SEAR TYPE II GREG CANALE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &
STEVES OWNER(S) HARRY RUECKER ZONING PO LOCATION 456 BAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE EXISTING DWELLING AS A RESIDENCE AND
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE I A PO ZONE REQUIRES SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-614, SIGN; BP 05-898
SEP. ALT.; BP 890 ADDITION WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/11/09 LOT SIZE 0.22 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-11 SECTION 179
MR. OBORNE-It appears that Greg Canale's representative is not here. I know that, as
you read my Staff Notes, it states that there's additional information that they've put on
their plan, and as such, they will need to get Zoning Board approval, and if I may read
this into the record, to get it on the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead.
MR. OBORNE-This is Site Plan 7-2009, Greg Canale, Site Plan Review for a
professional office at 456 Bay Road. Existing zoning is Professional Office. This is a
Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes to use existing dwelling as a
residence and professional office. The structure is currently used as a two family home.
The applicant wishes to use the front residence as office space while retaining a
residence to the rear. Staff comments: The applicant has commenced construction for a
professional office on this property. According to the Director of Building and Codes, the
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
plan has changed since this application was submitted on January 14, 2009. There
appears to be discussion of a handicap access that will include chairlift, a different
parking configuration, and an expansion in the front to include a deck. I'm going to go to
the bold on my notes. On February 26, 2009, plans were presented to the Town for the
addition of a 397 square foot deck and other site improvements that were not shown on
the original Site Plan submittal. It appears as though Area Variances may be required
for this revision to the project plans. Consideration should be given to tabling this current
application in order to allow applicant time to submit revised plans for the Planning Board
and potential ZBA review. My recommendation is to table them to the second meeting in
April or the first meeting in May, and that's all I have. This is a straight tabling.
Obviously you may want to open a public hearing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, since this is the 3rd, the applicant would have one and a half
weeks in order to submit new information, and it's highly unlikely that they would be able
to do it in that time period.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if they require an Area Variance, they're going to have to go to
the Zoning Board first.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I was thinking that possibly they can get on for the April agenda.
That's why I suggested that second meeting in April.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I have to agree that we may as well go ahead and table it to May.
MRS. STEFFAN-We have only one meeting scheduled in May. Has there been an
alternative date identified? Isn't the 26t" Grievance Day?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, it's the 28t", it's a combination meeting date, deadline day
and final agenda.
MR. FORD-Keith, what is the current status of construction at that site while all of this is
pending?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it's stagnant at this point.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. OBORNE-They obviously did some interior work and renovations, but they have
been told to stop.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-You're welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the new plan, is it your opinion that it's definitely going to require
an Area Variance?
MR. OBORNE-It will require an Area Variance. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the Warren County Planning Board has denied without prejudice.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
This will be tabled to the May 19t" Planning Board meeting. That will mean they'll have
an application submission deadline of April 15tH
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that the public hearing was also tabled until
the 19t" of May.
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHT
AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION
32 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SHORELINE STABILIZATION
OF 60 LINEAR FEET OF LAKE FRONTAGE FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE BY THE ADDITION OF ROCK RIPRAP. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50
FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/11/09 APA, DEC, ACOE OTHER DEC, APA LOT SIZE
0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-4 SECTION 179-6-060
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 8-2009, John and Sandy Lambrecht. Site Plan Review for hard
surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline. Location: 32 Russell Harris Road Existing
zoning, Waterfront Residential One Acre. This is an Unlisted SEQRA Status, and why
that is I'm not sure. I'll have to look that up. Project Description. Applicant proposes 60
feet of additional shoreline stabilization to an existing armored shoreline for an existing
single family residence. Staff comments. According to the Site Development Data
Page, the total square footage of the project is 150 square feet, and the applicant
expects a total of 300 square feet could be disturbed. New rock will be placed on
existing shoreline rock. A silt boom will be incorporated off shore to limit any off site
movement of disturbed soils, and what follows is plan review. I would have to say that,
as they are going forward with this plan as a hard surfacing, as opposed to a soft, I think
one of my biggest concerns would be that we make sure that the material is free and
clean before being laid down. That's one of my main concerns.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I am Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design,
representing the Lambrechts. They live out of town and are also away on a business trip
so they weren't able to be here. The property in question is a twenty-eight hundredths of
an acre property on the west facing shore of Cleverdale. The request or the action is a
supplementing of existing riprap that's along the shoreline to help further stabilize and
protect the shoreline. It's a pretty simple and I would say standard procedure of any of
the lakeshore properties. There is a DEC permit that is required. We have clearly stated
that on the plan that's a part of the package. There's Site Plan application. There are
some photos as well in the package. I do have a copy of the, joint application for the
project file, which hadn't been submitted for that, but that's the application. The issued
permit would follow, and that would be submitted to the Town as well. So, we have, as
of yesterday, received comments from, Staff comments and VISION Engineering
February 13t" comments, and I've responded to those. Staff got a copy of those this
morning, or I actually e-mailed them last night, and Dan has received a copy of that as
well. So they're relatively minor comments, and I think that, you know, we've addressed
them satisfactorily, in our opinion, hopefully yours.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you talk about where you're going to get the rocks from?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the standard round rock, probably from a pit. I think that was
addressed in my response. There's O'Connor's pit, just south of 149 and Ridge Road.
Standard type operation, gravel pit operation that would screen, and the larger rocks are
piled and used for whatever purpose, but that can be a clean operation, as far as the use
of that stone at the shoreline. Another comment was related to, you know, how you'd get
it to that site, and I'll either be a labor intensive wheel barreling down the, from the
driveway, or a small machine can actually (lost word) or perhaps even by a little work
barge, which is not uncommon in dock building. Certainly the same type of thing could
be used here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you speak to the VISION Engineering comments and the Staff
comments about using the soft and natural approaches?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's, as they, Dan and, both Dan and Staff asked about
consideration of that, you know, we've considered that. It's not really practical in that
type of situation. We're supplementing some existing riprap in that area. I talked
specifically with DEC about their requirements. Riprapping is certainly an adequate and
permissible way of stabilizing the shoreline, and they will be issuing a permit for that. So
Mark Migliore is the individual that I spoke to. I've had many dealings with him over the
years on this, and, you know, that's a, there is a pamphlet that Staff provided. It covers
all sorts of situations, and in this particular case, the various types were considered, but
the riprapping is the approach that's been chosen.
MR. FORD-Are there existing erosion issues on site?
MR. MAC ELROY-There's some stabilization that could occur there. There is some
evidence of erosion. I don't know how well it's picked up in Staff comments. They
weren't sure if they saw that, but I know from being on the site, it's a site that doesn't
necessarily get a lot of wind wave action, but the location of it is just south of the Lake
George Boat Company. There's a lot of moorings out in front of that, and also, and
probably more importantly is the traffic that comes out of Harris Bay Yacht Club. It's just
at that transition from the five mile an hour zone. So, there's a certain amount of wave
action. I think that's, and always ice, you know, ice, no matter where you're located,
there's, you know, ice can do a job on the shoreline. So this will help to protect that
further as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you did or did not look at the soft approaches?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we did, we considered those.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what did you find?
MR. MAC ELROY-What did we find? We found that in this particular case, as along
many of the shoreline properties, that riprapping would be the appropriate way to go, as
far as this approach.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why is that?
MR. MAC ELROY-Because we're supplementing the existing riprapping that's there.
Now I don't know if it's suggested that we should remove the other riprapping to put in
vegetation, but, based on what exists there, and we're supplementing that, and my
discussions with DEC, that it's not necessarily an applicable situation.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you're saying there's riprap there now?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-These boulders are riprap?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's a natural, I mean, in this case it's a round rock, but that's
very common. That's the typical shoreline situation with rock along the base of the bank
and up the bank, and this is just going to supplement that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what type of rock are you going to be bringing in?
MR. MAC ELROY-It probably will be a round rock type situation, a cobble rock, and it
won't be limestone.
MR. TRAVER-Probably a granite, right?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-How big will it be?
MR. MAC ELROY-We've called it, from the eight to twelve inch size.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, you know, I'd still like the soft approach to it. It makes a
lot more sense.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Soft approach. Bio Engineering, soft structures. Where
planting is not sufficient to stop erosion, a Bio Engineering approach may be more
appropriate. Bio Engineering incorporates plants in combination with natural materials
such as logs, live stakes, cuttings from species like willows, brush bundles, branches
from live, woody, plants, creating a natural appearance and it's not appropriate for that
situation.
MR. SEGULJIC-You still really haven't said why it's not appropriate.
MR. MAC ELROY-These are developed properties along the shoreline. There's
vegetation at the shoreline. There's plantings. These property owners have plantings at
the top of the bank. Some of them you could somewhat pick out from the photos.
There's existing riprapping there. It doesn't make sense to disturb the existing riprapping
in order to put in plantings or brush bundles or logs, in order to stabilize that area. It's,
you're somewhat going backwards to create an approach that is an acceptable
approach, but just as riprapping is. I've had the discussions with DEC about that. They
have no problem with riprapping along the shoreline. I mean, it's one of the acceptable
methods.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, it is acceptable. It's lower on the list, but it is acceptable, and I
think, as Staff having reviewed this, if this was new development, I would highly
recommend the soft approach, regardless of what the banks are. I mean, those can be
cut back. Those can be engineered correctly, but with this plan being an existing rock
riprap, I don't know if it would be more detrimental or not to rip it out and re-do that, and I
think my whole exercise, to explain why I go through a soft approach, that's always the
preferred approach, regardless, it's always preferred, and, with that said, there's not any
soft actions going on there right now. So, just wanted to let you know that that was my
thinking when I broached the subject.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that I would have, in putting in more riprap on
this site, is that then going to create a greater potential for erosion or damage on the next
door neighbor's property?
MR. TRAVER-That's one of the comments that was in the brochure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-When it talked about the hard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it's almost kind of obvious, too, when you look at some of
these pictures.
MR. FORD-If you go soft it would.
MR. MAC ELROY-The neighboring properties have. You got the black and white, too?
MRS. STEFFAN-I got the black and white.
MR. FORD-Yes, so did I.
MR. MAC ELROY-Queensbury's requirement for 15 copies of everything uses up a lot of
colored ink. The neighboring properties have, in one case it is riprapping similar to what
you see. A little bit further on the neighboring property to the south is a vertical seawall,
which is the hard approach, which is the thing that's being discouraged by DEC.
MR. TRAVER-So we're not going to start a riprap cold war where the neighbors have to
build up their wall because you built up yours and so on. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you put down landscaping clothe before you put the riprap down in
this situation because you've got the erosion started?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I mean, there are recommendations to use maybe a filter fabric
and maybe a slight gravel or stone, small stone crushed stone bed to that, but as far as
that size rock, it's going to be stable in place. It's going to lock in. The round rock is
what I talked about. It's possible, well, and that was from input from the owner, and
that's, another comment I would have is that if both techniques are acceptable, and
certainly permissible by DEC, where does the owner's preference come into this? There
has to, a property owner has to have the ability to make a decision about, you know,
what they would prefer, and in this case, that's what they.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-And certainly from my point of view, I mean, there's riprap there. You
can see there's different kinds of stones that have been used over time here, and I
certainly understand the need for riprap. When I read about the shoreline stabilization,
and certainly didn't say it was out of the question, but based on what's already there, I
think it would be appropriate to continue with the same kind of products that are already
there, but my concern would be to make sure that there was some kind of clothe that
would prevent the sand and silt and those kind of things from leaching out when the
water hits it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think that the purpose of the rock is to dissipate the energy of
waves or whatever, and that's what would help prevent that erosion behind it.
MRS. STEFFAN-You certainly can't walk on it. I mean, it certainly wouldn't be in your
best interest.
MR. FORD-In my black and white photo, I don't quite get this impression, so maybe you
can clarify. There appears to be a pipe.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like an electrical conduit.
MR. FORD-Is that what that is, or does it draw water?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that probably their water line, or it could be power out to the
dock.
MR. KREBS-Yes, that's what I would think it is.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's an electrical conduit.
MR. FORD-What is that structure on the water side of that line?
MR. MAC ELROY-What is the structure? That's their dock, the boat dock.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like there's landscape timber.
MRS. STEFFAN-There's a four by four.
MR. FORD-It looks like a four by four or six by six timber, possibly on top of another one
or two.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, he's got daylilies planted, the second page of the pictures, bottom.
It's a four by four tiered.
MR. SEGULJIC-Almost looks like a landscaping or a drainage way.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it just segways one property from another.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, is that a property line?
MRS. STEFFAN-It's got daylilies.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I think it is a pressure treated timber.
MR. FORD-And the purpose of that is?
MR. MAC ELROY-I think it's a, somewhat a grade transition as well. There's a, you
know, about a six inch step down at that property line, I guess, or that's not necessarily
on the property line, but it's close to that.
MR. FORD-Okay, and instead of that being a pipe, that very well may be the top of that
same structure that continues on, up and away from the lake. I'm referring to this one
here.
MR. MAC ELROY-The pipe that's in the other photo?
MR. FORD-Yes, I see the pipe you're referring to. This is a different photo, and I think I
understand what this is here.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-That's the landscaping, that's the landscape tier, right there.
MR. FORD-Yes, that's a barrier.
MRS. STEFFAN-You can see there's mulch and daylilies along there.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled. Do we have any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-There's no one in the audience. So I'm assuming that there are no
commenters.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-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.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?"
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHT, 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
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
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 3rd day of, March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
(SOME DISCUSSION LOST DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH TAPE)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2009 JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHT,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes shoreline stabilization of 60 linear feet of lake
frontage for an existing single family residence by the addition of rock riprap.
Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Site Plan Review
and approval.
2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/3/09; 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. 8-2009 JOHN & SANDY
LAMBRECHT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 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) Type II, no further review needed.
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. If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g) All materials used should be free of dirt and organic material. Under no
circumstances should rock from the lake be incorporated into the project as this
will disturb existing habitat.
h) The shoreline stabilization detail should include the dimensions identifying the
extent of rip rap to be installed and the slope of the embankment.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/03/09)
i) The applicant will be required to obtain NYSDEC permit for shoreline activities.
The applicant should provide a copy to the Town upon receipt of the permit prior
to construction.
j) To the largest extent possible a layer of gravel, small stone, or filter cloth should
be placed under and/or behind the added rock to help prevent failure. It also will
prevent the release of sediment -which can be harmful to fish, their eggs, and
their food supply -into the water body.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
56