2010.04.20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 10-2009 New Hope Community Church 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 308.15-1-37, 38
Site Plan No. 61-2007, FW 1-2008, Wal-Mart Stores 2.
Site Plan No. 17-2009, FW 2-2009 Tax Map No.
EXTENSION REQUEST
Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian & Eustacia Sander 2.
FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 278.-2-29, 30
Subdivision No. 13-2008, FW 1-2010 Mary Sicard 3.
SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17
289.10-1-4
Site Plan No. 24-2010 Jolley Associates 4.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29
Site Plan No. 8-2010 Steve & Debbie Seaboyer 7.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36
PUD Site Plan No. 44-2000 Michaels Group 24.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.8-1-8.11
Site Plan No. 18-2010 Chris Gabriels 29.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-29
Site Plan No. 20-2010 M & W Foods 43.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43
Site Plan No. 25-2010 Rifenburg Construction, Inc. 50.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-89.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD KREBS
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board on Tuesday, April 20, 2010. The first item on the agenda is approval of
thrd
minutes from February 16 and 23. Would anyone like to move those?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 16, 2010
February 23, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 16 & FEBRUARY 23, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have several administrative items this evening, before we get into
our regular business. The first one is Site Plan 10-2009 for New Hope Community
Church.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 10-2010 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH:
REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THEIR APPROVED PLAN
MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a one year extension of their approved plan.
Keith, did you have anything else to add?
MR. OBORNE-Just that what’s up on the screen right now is the current condition of the
property. They do have a slip. A Notice of Intent has been issued, and as they obviously
have not started the project. So they need to ask for an extension.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Any discussion by the Board, comments, questions?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it looks fine to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move that?
MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 10-2009
NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, 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 construction of a 13,244 square foot church
facility including worship area, offices, classrooms, recreation area, and parking
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
with associated utilities. Place of Worship in a CI zone requires Site Plan review
and approval.
2. The Planning Board granted approved on 5/29/09; and
3 The applicant seeks a one year extension of approval to 5/19/2011 [see letter
dated 2/23/10]; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 10-
2009 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN 61-2007, FW 1-2008, SP 17-2009, FW 2-2009 WAL-MART:
REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THEIR APPROVED PLANS
MR. HUNSINGER-They have also requested a one year extension of their approved
plans. We did get a letter this evening asking us to consider that at our first May
meeting, which I find kind of confusing, but I don’t see any reason why we just don’t
consider the request this evening. I don’t see any reason not to just approve it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, let’s just do it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because we spent a lot of time on that. Let’s give them the
extension.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was my feeling.
MR. FORD-Yes, I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO.
61-2007, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2008, SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 &
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2009 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1. The Planning Board granted approved on 7/21/2009; and
2. The applicant seeks a one year extension of approval to 7/21/2011 [see letter
dated 3/15/10]; and
3. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE
PLAN NO. 61-2007, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2008, SITE PLAN
NO. 17-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2009 WAL-MART
STORES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER:
FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience here on that project? Okay. We will
open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-We did table that item to this evening’s meeting, and they have
requested a, they haven’t submitted the information.
MR. OBORNE-Actually, Staff is requesting that, the 30 day process, right. You have to
wait until the Zoning Board of Appeals consents to your Lead Agency Status. They can’t
do that until tomorrow night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So they’ll be back on next week.
MR. HUNSINGER-But we scheduled it for this evening.
MR. OBORNE-Right. It’s been advertised for next Tuesday, also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So do we have to table it until next Tuesday?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
th
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the 27.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
th
On March 23, 2010 the Planning Board tabled this item to the April 20 meeting; and
On March 25, 2010 the Planning Board passed a resolution seeking lead agency status,
involved agencies have 30 days to respond to the request; and
Therefore, Be it resolved, that
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
Tabled to next Tuesday’s meeting on April 27, 2010.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION 13-2008/FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2010 MARY SICARD:
PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS PER SEQRA
MR. HUNSINGER-All we’re doing this evening is requesting Lead Agency status for
SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008,
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2010, AND AREA VARIANCE 20-2009 MARY
SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a subdivision application for: a 6
lot subdivision on the west side of Glen Lake Road [Clearview] with a new road. The lots
on the east side of Glen Lake Road are within Lakeview Acres. Subdivision of land
requires Planning Board review and approval. Relief requested from lot size, lot width,
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
road frontage, road access, shoreline frontage, side setbacks and more than 1
accessory structure per lot requirements, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to
be a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead
Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning
Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I
of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals, NYS DOH, NYS DEC
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008,
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2010, AND AREA VARIANCE 20-2009 MARY
SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’re now into our regular agenda. All the regular items do
have public hearings scheduled. There is information on the back table regarding the
purpose of the public hearings and the procedures for public hearings.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 24-2010 SEQR TYPE N/A JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) SEAN
CRUMB OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 777 GLEN
STREET THE APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR REPLACEMENT OF
EXISTING 944 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A 2,288 SQ. FT.
CONVENIENCE STORE AND NOW PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE AND
REPLACE EXISTING CANOPY. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT REQUESTS
RELIEF FROM FRONT LINE SETBACK AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK FOR
NEW GAS CANOPY. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE
AV 19-10, SV 18-10, AV 24-08, SP 18-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010 LOT
SIZE 0.81 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION 179-9-010
SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and as this is a recommendation, a public hearing is not required for
this, but the following ones will be.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. This is Area Variance 18-2010 and Site Plan 24-2010 for
Jolley Associates. The requested action is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as the
potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community.
Location is 777 Glen Street. This is in a CI or Commercial Intensive zone. This is a
Type II SEQRA. Project Description: The applicant received approval for replacement
of an existing 944 sq. ft. convenience store with a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store and
now proposes a modification to remove and replace existing canopy. Basically, the
Board is to look at the following variances: 27 feet of northeast front line setback relief
requested for new gas canopy; 27 feet of Route 9 Travel Corridor setback relief
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
requested for the same canopy; 61 feet of north front line setback relief requested for
new gas canopy, and 61 feet of Route 9 Travel Corridor setback relief requested for new
gas canopy. I’m just going to jump down, skip the Site Plan Review because you’ll get
another crack at it next month, additional comments. The Planning Board may wish to
direct the applicant to provide any additional anticipated modifications to the site plan at
this time, and for the applicant’s information, snow storage for this site should be
discussed at the Site Plan Review, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CRUMB-Good evening. I’m Sean Crumb. I represent Jolley Associates.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. CRUMB-No, I don’t. We, just to kind of give you an explanation on the canopy,
when we were in for our original Site Plan approval, we had proposed to re-skin that
canopy, and once the engineers got to working on it, they decided that the structural
steel needed to be updated as well. So that’s the reason we’re back in here. We had
the original approval to skin it, but now, not to take the structural steel down and put it
back up, and also discussing the second ID sign, the freestanding sign, which we also
discussed in the Site Plan process that we would be replacing both of those signs with
monument signs, and so we’re after a variance for that as well, and some building signs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Could we have the rationale for needing to change the actual dimensions of
that canopy?
MR. CRUMB-No, the dimensions will remain the same, once it’s done, but again, after
the engineers reviewed what was there, they felt that the structural steel had to come
down and be replaced. So the dimensions of the canopy overall will remain basically the
same, but we need a variance, apparently, to put it back up.
MR. FORD-Perhaps I misread, then. I thought there were some changes in dimensions.
MR. KREBS-There are some minor differences, Tom. It’s 121, the new one is 121 feet
10 inches. The old one was 120. They’re both 30, and then there’s a difference
between 17.6 for the new and 16.6 for the old.
MR. CRUMB-And basically the width difference is actually the illuminated blue banding
that’s on there. So the actual siding of the canopy, for all intents and purposes, is the
same width, but the six inch illuminated blue band brings it out a little further.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? You haven’t proposed to
change the lighting at all, have you?
MR. CRUMB-No. We’re going with the original lighting plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The plan that was submitted was kind of hard to read.
MR. CRUMB-The lighting plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because it was the smaller, it was the 11 x 17, and since I didn’t
have the old one in front of me, you know, I wasn’t sure.
MR. CRUMB-No, there’s no proposed lighting changes at all.
MR. KREBS-After getting those prints today, I went and got mine so I can read them
now.
MRS. STEFFAN-So where’s the additional signage?
MR. CRUMB-Well, we are proposing two canopy legends, Mobil legends, a single
building sign, I believe it was, and we’re going to replace the two existing freestanding
signs. So we’re not asking for any new signage for the freestanding. We’re just
replacing what’s there, but the zoning by-law currently states that we can only have one.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you need a variance for it.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. CRUMB-Yes.
MR. FORD-So that Short Stop sign, no sign is being proposed there.
MR. CRUMB-There is one, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-On the front of the store.
MR. CRUMB-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-On the Route 9 side. I just want to check, those monument signs that
you’re putting in for the gas prices are not digital, correct?
MR. CRUMB-They are not, and they do meet the size requirement as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. CRUMB-I know that Mr. Sipp would be concerned about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Code caught up with our preference anyway.
MR. CRUMB-I will say the only difference in that sign will be the face. It’ll be brick to
match the building, instead of stone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All we’re doing this evening is making a recommendation to
the Zoning Board. Are people inclined to be in favor of the plan?
MR. FORD-It doesn’t seem like these minor changes will have a major impact on the
project.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s two feet longer and one foot wider.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why is the canopy taller than the existing canopy?
MR. CRUMB-You know, that’s a good question. It’s what the engineers came back with.
So I think it’s just the wider fascia.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions, comments from the
Board? Would anyone like to make a recommendation?
MR. TRAVER-There are some minor concerns, but they’re Site Plan issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So I don’t see anything for now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then if I don’t hear any issues, then I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2010 FOR JOLLEY
ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the
relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2010 FOR JOLLEY
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Option One. The Planning Board, based
on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. CRUMB-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. CRUMB-See you in a couple of weeks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN 8-2010 SEQR TYPE II STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER AGENT(S) DEAN
HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S) W. STEVEN SEABOYER ZONING WR LOCATION 83
ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO APPROVED
STORMWATER PLAN AND APPROVED SITE PLAN. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED
SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 6-10, BP 08-508, NOA 6-07, SP 33-06, BP 06-06, BP 06-781, AV 81-
05, BOH 1-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/10/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER APA
WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.20 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36
SECTION 179-9-010, 179-6-050, CHAPTER 147
DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. This application was tabled on March 15, 2010 with the
following conditions. The new landscaping plan submitted this evening, Staff to
determine if the plan is compliant with the ZBA resolution of February 17, 2010,
submitted for review. This has been forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. The second
condition is that the applicant will need to provide an engineering letter identifying the
stormwater plan meets the requirements of Chapter 147. Please see attached Nace
Engineering letter dated March 22, 2010. The third condition is that the applicant’s plans
must be sealed by a professional engineer. That was submitted for review, and that is
before you right now. Application is 8-2010, Steven and Debbie Seaboyer. This is Site
Plan Review for changes to an approved Site Plan. Location is 83 Rockhurst Road. It’s
a Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. I will just quickly go over what the
description of the project is. Applicant requires approval after the fact for changes to
previously approved stormwater plan. Further, applicant requires approval after the fact
for filling within 50 feet of shoreline and hard surfacing within 100 feet of a shoreline.
Staff Comments: The parcel in question is located in the Rockhurst area adjacent to
Lake George. This area is characterized by densely packed single family homes with
some seasonal camps on parcels ranging in size from 0.06 acres to 0.80 acres; average
lot size is approximately 0.25 acres. Any and all development, renovations and site
disturbance should be reviewed and professionally designed. I will jump down to
additional comments. Paragon Engineering comments are attached. AV 6-2010, which
dealt with infiltration devices within 100 feet of a shoreline and Floor Area Ratio relief
was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 17, 2010. As a condition of
approval, the ZBA’s requiring additional vegetation be installed on the property, and,
Three, the Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may wish to direct the applicant to
have the plans sealed by a professional engineer at Final, and with that I’d turn it over to
the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HOWLAND-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. HOWLAND-I’m Dean Howland, I’m the agent for the owners.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. HOWLAND-I don’t think so. You requested, last time, some white pines be installed
where they had birch trees, a clumps of birch trees down near the two retention ponds,
and that was submitted per your planting schedule.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the
Board.
MR. SIPP-Are you familiar with our shoreline buffering zones, I mean, the landscaping
that needs to be done to meet those qualifications?
MR. HOWLAND-On the original Site Plan, which hasn’t changed, they were installed, the
vegetation was installed. You’ve requested more but originally you had vegetation on
the shoreline that you approved prior, and those were all installed.
MR. SIPP-Now if you’re talking about large trees or small trees, a bush.
MR. HOWLAND-No. You had us take out all the creeping juniper, remove them all, and
install native plants, and they were installed according to the original approval. They’re
in. You’ve requested, the Zoning Board, I’m not sure which, whether it was you or the
Zoning Board, requested additional plantings which we submitted to you that was put in.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but that is not 15 feet wide.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s 20 feet wide.
MR. SIPP-Not all of it. You’ve got, you’re talking about what you call a rain garden.
MR. HOWLAND-Right. Yes, that’s 20 feet.
MR. SIPP-But there’s a break in between there.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, the break is where you walk down to the dock. I don’t know what
you, I mean, that was.
MR. SIPP-There’s more than that. Plus the fact that you have no large trees except the
two white pines on the northwest corner.
MR. HOWLAND-That’s right.
MR. SIPP-That does not meet the standards.
MR. HOWLAND-I don’t know. We just put in what you approved last time. So I’m not
sure what you’re talking about.
MR. SIPP-I don’t we approved anything last time.
MR. HOWLAND-Yes, you did. It was on the original Site Plan. All the plants that we
installed were on that Site Plan.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got one large tree, a Japanese Maple, which is not on the shoreline.
MR. HOWLAND-You mean that’s up behind the house?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-That wasn’t on the original. What you had on the original was on the
shoreline, and that’s, that was done without my approval. So I’m not really sure what
you’re asking me.
MR. SIPP-Well, I feel that you’ve got a long ways to go to protect that lake from water
running into it.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HOWLAND-Well, right now you could come up during the worst rainstorm, anything,
and no water goes into that lake. Absolutely no water goes in the lake. If we remove
that basin, you’re going to send hundreds of thousands of gallons of water in every big
rainstorm, and flood out the neighbor to the south, but if you go up there during the worst
possible rain, even if it rains 24 hours, you’ll see no water go into that lake, and you’ll see
very little water in the bottom of those retention ponds. Very little water.
MR. SIPP-All right. Let’s go to the plan here. You have, in the landscaping plan, a
section which has supposedly vica in it. Vica is a low growing ground cover, basically.
MR. HOWLAND-Are you talking the new plan, the new one that was submitted?
MR. SIPP-No, I’m talking this plan right here.
MR. HOWLAND-The one that’s color coded that I gave you? Yes.
MR. SIPP-Now, all right, along this edge, the south edge, you have listed vica, right?
This area right here.
MR. HOWLAND-On the new one? I don’t think it’s vica.
MR. SIPP-Well, this is the new one I got.
MR. HOWLAND-You’ve got winterberry along the edge.
MR. SIPP-But what is this right here? These boxes which say vica?
MR. HOWLAND-There’s nothing there at the moment right here. I’m not sure.
MR. SIPP-Is that what you’re going to put in there is vica?
MR. HOWLAND-I don’t know what (lost words). There’s stone there right now.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s what, now, these same boxes repeat themselves right here at the
bottom of the stairway. Is that more vica?
MR. HOWLAND-I’m sorry. Where are you?
MR. SIPP-At the bottom, right here.
MR. HOWLAND-Those are steps.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got two.
MR. HOWLAND-So the boxes are steps.
MR. FORD-They look the same as these over here. Are those also steps?
MR. HOWLAND-Those are steps. That’s how you get down. It drops off like nine feet
there.
MR. SIPP-Well, do you know the growing conditions of vica?
MR. HOWLAND-There is no vica there. We can cross that out. That was from the
original. There is no vica there.
MR. SIPP-Well, then.
MR. HOWLAND-There’s grass there.
MR. SIPP-Well, is this vica over here on this side?
MR. HOWLAND-No, there is no vica on here.
MR. SIPP-Well, is that what it’s supposed to be in there, according to this plan? It says
right underneath there’s vica.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HOWLAND-Again, where are you looking at? I see the vica minor over here. I see
that.
MR. SIPP-Right here.
MR. HOWLAND-There’s nothing there but grass.
MR. SIPP-Well, are you going to put vica in?
MR. HOWLAND-No.
MR. SIPP-Well, why is it on the plan?
MR. HOWLAND-This was the original plan that the landscape architect did, and this is
showing you what he put in down below. There’s nothing here. This is what he gave the
owner. He used this plan to come back to show the additional amounts that are going to
go in at the shoreline. The only things that are going to go in at the shoreline are the
ones that are color coded.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my question. The handwritten comments, the
white pine, the winterberries, the bunchberry.
MR. HOWLAND-That’s it. That’s all. It’s added to the original, what they were going to
do, but the shoreline plan was put in exactly as it was approved on the original, whatever
it took five years to get through.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but it doesn’t meet the standards of 179.
MR. HOWLAND-What?
MR. SIPP-Well, you have no small trees along that seawall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why they’re proposing the white pines, Don.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but that’s a large tree. It doesn’t meet the small tree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-It doesn’t meet the brush, and it doesn’t meet the ground cover specification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t really have any questions. I just, you know, following my line of
comment, I just am really sad that we’re at this spot where so much was done to the Site
Plan without approval, without having the Town involved in the process, and, you know,
the Paragon Engineering’s got a couple of comments in here. I’m not really sure, you
know, how we can ensure that if the stormwater management system that was installed
by Howland Construction fails, you know, our engineer is telling us that we should make
sure that this individual’s accountable, and so, you know, it’s just, how does that
happen? It’s really frustrating, as a Planning Board person, because we go through the
Site Plan Review, we approve a plan, and then we get something back that wants to be
approved after all these changes have been made, when the earth is over the
stormwater changes, and we have no idea what’s under the dirt. So I’m just really
frustrated, as a Planning Board member, sitting here, and I’m supposed to approve this
based on, you know, your word as an agent for the Seaboyers, and so I’m just frustrated
by that. I don’t think it’s right.
MR. FORD-I share that and I couldn’t have said it better. Thank you.
MR. HOWLAND-But we also, again, we have the same problem, is that you approve
variances across the street and to the north that sent a ton more, a lot more water to us
every time. It also, and that’s the only reason that we changed any of this, because we
couldn’t stop the water, and remember, the neighbor to the south, 55 years, if we weren’t
there during those cloud burst storms, we kept the water out of his garage. That’s the
only way he did not flood out. We didn’t send this water. I didn’t do anything, the owner
didn’t do anything, to send this additional water to this particular lot. This lot’s below the
road level. So we had to deal with it, and again, I went to the Town Highway
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
Department, saying that we could help you out here. They didn’t know what to do with it.
That’s how this part got into it. All the water that we collect, we collect behind the house.
We’re getting a 97% relief for. I’m not really sure what because that is the highway water
that comes from the other lots, not from the Seaboyers.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, if that happened, based on a Zoning Board
variance that was granted, that would have, in my mind, warranted a contact to the
Community Development Department who’s the one who handles all the Zoning Board
of Appeals issues, Planning Board issues, have Code Enforcement people on their staff,
to say, hey, you guys approved something, and all the water’s going in my client’s yard,
and then we could have come up with a remedy, but now, again, as I said before, we’re
in a situation where you had a problem, you fixed it. We just have to take your word for it
and believe you.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, it does work. Unfortunately you have to go up there and wait for a
big rainstorm and watch it, but everybody knows that it works, all the neighbors. It works.
I’ve been doing this for a lot of years. I just know how to do it. On that particular case we
had so much water. When we caught it, we caught it, stored it for a minute, and then
released it. We had to catch, we had to work on the releasing part of it, because it would
come so fast that (lost words), but I’m talking, again, ten inches of water, eight feet thick
on one side, and four inches of water, twelve feet wide on the other, every time it rained,
and we’d catch it all.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, if you’ve done this for a long period of time, you
should have known to get the Community Development Department, and I don’t want to
continue to argue, but it’s just.
MR. HOWLAND-Okay, but you know they’ve never inspected anything before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you said that before.
MR. OBORNE-That’s not true.
MR. HOWLAND-I don’t know anything that they’ve ever inspected on.
MR. OBORNE-You have to call in order to get an inspection. If you don’t call, you don’t
get your inspection.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, they’ve never done it, you’ve never done it in the past, and we had
a home builders meeting, and not one of the home builders has been inspected by the
Town of Queensbury. I’ve only been inspected by Bolton.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, we have. Then not one of the home builders has given the
Department a call to ask for an inspection, because we do inspect stormwater, under
Chapter 147.
MR. HOWLAND-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. I think there’s at least one or two people that
want to comment. I will open the public hearing. Who would like to address the Board
first? Yes, ma’am. If you could try to limit your comments to three minutes, I would
appreciate it.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony from the office of the Lake George Water
Keeper. I submitted a letter and I don’t think you have a copy at this point, but it will be in
the file. Basically we want to emphasize that we support the approval conditions by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and also the Planning Board that approved this Site Plan on
March 18, 2008, and in that, I’ve got a copy of the minutes stating that it includes a 20
foot deep buffer strip along the lakefront, planted with a mixture of native and woody and
herbaceous plants, and then also a notation, no chemical fertilizers to be applied to the
lawn. My concerns at that when you look at this, what’s gone on this shoreline, we’ve
got a small lot with a large building, and the intent of the shoreline buffer and
Queensbury Town Code 179-8-040 B, Buffer Requirements, a property should have a
viable buffer to the maximum extent practicable, and that’s what was approved by the
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
Planning Board last year, and that’s what should have been built. I did not look at the
original site map. There was a condition of that approval that a planting plan be
submitted and approved by C.T. Male, and I didn’t see that in the file when I reviewed the
file last week, but that is our concerned. We also are, by missing the intent of putting in a
shoreline buffer, a four tiered buffer with trees, woody shrubbery, ground cover,
herbaceous perennials, basically these gardens look to me to have perennial flowers,
and on the plan that was brought in at the last meeting that was tabled with conditions,
there was a clump of yellow birch, and usually you don’t see yellow birch in a clump.
Yellow birch is a large tree, and there was also a Serviceberry that was added to the plan
that’s now been taken out and replaced by a white pine. A Serviceberry is a very good
plant that would absorb a lot of the moisture and stormwater. The fact that, you know,
it’s been said that the stormwater stays saturated on the lawn for two to five days
indicates to me that you need a lot more vegetation on this property in order to be able to
take in the nutrients and take in the water, and as I stated at the last meeting, a mature
tree can hold up to 15,000 gallons of water, and we’re talking about a lot of water on this
clay like soil on Rockhurst, and I really feel that that, the conditions that are sitting, no,
we can’t go in and look at what the stormwater was. There was a signed, engineered
drawings that said it’s done and it’s going to be okay. We don’t know what it is, but we
do know what the shoreline looks like, and when I look these photographs, and I look at it
from the road, it looks like we’ve missed the entire intent of why we want a shoreline
buffer here, and the Zoning Board of Appeals tried to actually, you know, put in the large
trees, which aren’t there. I mean, Bunchberries are added. You know what
Bunchberries look like. These little tiny beautiful plants that are this big in the woods.
Now, I’m not sure why they would be in the sunshine in a perennial garden. I mean,
there’s 16 of them there. It sounds like a tremendous load of plants that we’re putting in
there, but Bunchberries are little tiny, tiny plants, and I really think the Board needs to
look at the full intent of why we need shoreline buffering, and condition it with this
approval. Japanese Maples in the front yard. Again, they may be very pretty. They’re
not native vegetation. It’s not that invasive, so I’m not really going to say anything, but I
think we need to look at this property and the other ones on Rockhurst and really get
some vegetation in here so that we can protect our water quality. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Salvador? And before
you sit down, I just would like to add that we did receive, at least I did, two letters from
Mr. Salvador on this project.
MR. OBORNE-They’re in the file.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re in the file.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I’m ready to submit them tonight, also.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-One was from him and one was from the Lake George Park
Commission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but there was an earlier letter, too. The floor is yours.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I have a great deal of
interest in this project and that it is done properly because not only am I a resident of this
Town and subject to this Town Code, all of the Codes, not only Town Codes, but State
codes, I do maintain a business on Lake George, and that business relies on lake water
for commercial drinking water source. The quality of that water is very important to the
success of our business. We rely on the lake water for recreation, boating, swimming,
fishing, scuba diving, waterskiing, etc. We share, with the Seaboyers, the same public
drinking water supply, and I think that’s being overlooked in all of this. We have a
drinking water source that we’re trying to protect from contamination, from stormwater.
The Lake George Park Commission has issued it’s Spring e-newsletter. It is worrisome
to realize that Lake George and many of its tributary streams are listed as having
impaired use, pursuant to the U.S. Clean Water Act. The factors listed as causing the
impairment for the use as a water supply are sedimentation, urban runoff, and stream
bank erosion. A publication that I subscribe to, issued by the National Environmental
Services Center, reads, According to most recent water quality inventory, runoff from
urbanized areas is the leading source of degradation of all water. There can be no
question that the ZBA erred in granting very, very substantial variances, 95% and 97%,
from the New York State Department of Health Public Health Code that a minimum of
100 feet be maintained between the source of a public water supply and stormwater
infiltration devices. This requirement was reiterated in the Lake George Park
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
Commission’s Regulations 6NYCRR Part 646-4, Section 646-4.12B(3)(v). Infiltration
systems for major projects shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from down gradient
drinking water supplies, including any lake, river, stream, well, pond, wetland, etc. A
separation of more than 100 feet may be required in cases where contamination of the
water supply is possible due to highly permeable soils, shallow groundwater, or similar
situations. I might add that these regulations withstood the test of rigorous SEQRA
review, and court challenge. The Town basically adopted these regulations in the form
of Chapter 147. Section 147-9-B(2(d) we find the same requirement, 100 foot separation
distance, Lake George and any down gradient drinking water supply, as if Lake George
is not a drinking water supply. I repeat the 100 foot is a design standard established by
the New York State Department of Health in order to protect public health, by the
Commission, an agency of the DEC charged with protection of the State’s water, and
accepted by the Town of Queensbury. The ZBA lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that is
over a design standard, within its powers to grant an Area Variance, to grant any
variance from a State established parameter, regardless of the Planning Board’s
recommendation. The State has preempted this Town in establishing that 100 foot
separation distance, and you cannot vary from it. You don’t have the authority. I’d like to
read, again, from Environmental Conservation Law 17-1709. This was, in the good old
days, referred to as the Lake George law. No person or corporation shall cause or
permit a fall, flow or discharge into Lake George or any of its tributaries of any sewage
matter or other foul, noxious or deleterious solid or liquid matter, or effluent, or any
matter that may be declared such by a Board of Health of any municipality adjacent to
such lake, where such fall, flow or discharge. The Board of Health of any such
municipality shall examine into any alleged offense against this Section within its
jurisdiction and cause the same to be abated by injunction or otherwise, if found to exist.
Most towns in the Lake George basin don’t pay any attention to that law. Now the
Village of Lake George was fined $10,000 for that spill at Shepherd Park. This is the law
under which they were fined. They caused deleterious material to flow into the lake. In
this regard, I have filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the Zoning Administrator’s
determination that it was not necessary to put the Commission on notice that a variance
from 6NYCRR Part 646-4 was being considered by the Queensbury ZBA. I filed that
Notice of Appeal today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-I got an indication from Craig Brown that it probably wouldn’t be, under
normal circumstances, on any agenda for maybe May or June. I would hope that we
could get an expedited appeal, and I would hope that this Board would join me in asking
the Town to expedite that appeal, because I think Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator,
erred seriously in not putting the Park Commission on notice that we were going to issue
a variance to the regulations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for your time.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? As I mentioned before, we did have written comments.
The one letter was pretty lengthy. So I don’t think we need to read that into the record,
since we all got copies. Since there are no other commentors, I will end the public
hearing for this evening.
MR. HOWLAND-Can I answer John here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, okay, this lot, on the northern side, I think it’s 97 feet deep,
property line. The southern boundary is 79 feet, and again, what we’re talking about is
somebody else’s water, highway water, that we caught. The only other option is,
according to, John said that’s true, is it’s just going to go directly dumped into the lake if
we don’t catch it prior to that. To me, that’s a crime to do that. (Lost words) as far as the
rain gutters, Park Commission, they can be down right on the shoreline. It doesn’t matter
where they go, to catch any of the roof water through the rain gutters, according to their
regulations. I had a meeting with them on that. I don’t know if yours are the same or are
different. You can do that, but again, what do you do with all this tremendous amount of
water. We catch all the sand and salt. We put the basin in the driveway. That’s where
we catch the sand and the salt. It’s easy. They’re going to see it. They’re going to walk
to it. They’re going to, you’re going to notice if it’s got anything in that. It’s only four feet
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
deep in that catch basin, but we catch all the water, store it quickly and release it. I don’t
think we have any retention basins because it’s crushed stone. There’s no basins
anywhere. It keeps itself clean. It filters itself, so I know that we don’t meet that part of
the law. I understand that, but to not do this, it just makes, every time it rained it was just
sand and salt going directly into the lake on both the north side and the south side. It’s
done it for years. The Highway Department has tried to correct it. Just came up with a
solution and it works, and the only other option for not agreeing with it is to fill this
manhole in with concrete, move some retention ponds that only catch 500 feet of roof
where we catch it all, and where’s the water going to go? It’s going to flood the neighbor
out to the south, one or two times a year, maybe three or four times a year, and 90% of
the water is going directly into the lake, because you can’t stop it. It’s just a tremendous
amount of water. That’s my only comment. You’re caught between a catch 22 because
90% of your homes on the lake only have 100 feet depth or a little bit more. So you’re
talking the Highway, we just went to a stormwater class last week, and again, they
proved that 99% of the pollution is from road runoff. I don’t know what else to do with it,
other than that.
MR. KREBS-And, Dean, we have a State that does absolutely nothing about the water.
MR. HOWLAND-I agree with you.
MR. KREBS-That runs off of Route 9 and goes directly into Westbrook, that goes directly
into the lake. In the whole area that you’re talking about, all those roads, if you go down
Warner Bay, that road, both on the south end and on the east side, are within feet of it.
The water washes right off of those roads, directly into the lake. The same thing is true
in Harris Bay. The same thing is true in Dunham’s Bay. Not where John’s docks are,
there’s very little land between the highway and the water, and the Town has to,
someday, assume the responsibility, and the State has to assume the responsibility for
stormwater control.
MR. HOWLAND-I agree, because until you do it, it’s just going to keep on degrading the
lake.
MR. KREBS-Yes, absolutely.
MR. HOWLAND-We just thought we did something.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What you’re doing is about 100% better.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s 1000% better.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Than anything up there, because you can go to all those roads that
he’s talking about over on Assembly Point, over where you are, Rockhurst and
everything else, the Town puts in catch basins, goes in the catch basin, in, into a pipe,
under the road, into the lake.
MR. HOWLAND-Into the lake.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It never passes go, you know, that’s the way it is, it’s designed, and
to put in what you’re doing, we can argue all the nits about it all night, but the fact of the
matter is, it’s a lot better than 90% of what’s up there.
MR. HOWLAND-It works. Yes. I agree, well, we thought we were doing something
good.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board?
MR. SIPP-How long will it work?
MR. HOWLAND-Well, I’ve been doing it since 1985, this particular thing, and we’ve
never had one fail, and we make it pretty maintenance free, dummy free. We’re really
good at it, and I service pretty much, well, we service people from the 70’s, and we take
care of their properties, and very little do we ever have to do anything with stormwater for
fixing anything. It’s just, we don’t put, we have a system that we don’t let pine needles
and leaves get into it, and it has it’s own clean out for this particular basin. I don’t know
how it can fail, to be quite honest with you. Nothing’s failed since we’ve started, and
again, we’re the ones that sit out there and watch it. We maintain it. I’m quite sure I’d
hear about it from my customers. We’re always the one that would have to fix something
if it fails. It’s a good system.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. SIPP-Well, I still think you need a buffer area in there.
MR. HOWLAND-Sir, I don’t know what to tell you. All we did was put in what was
approved originally, and we had a, there was a plan.
MR. SIPP-I mean, what Kathy said is you’ve got a lot of nice trees, but you don’t have
much that soaks up a lot of water.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, the last time they recommended that we put in spreading Yews
and we took out, they were a bunch of low spreading ground cover Yews, and the Zoning
Board of Appeals want us to put them back in. I showed them the picture. I said, you
had us take them out. We had to remove them. It was, we were required to remove
them.
MR. SIPP-Well, I would think, have somebody who is going to make this plan read that
Section of the zoning law and follow what the directions are in there for a proper buffer
zone between. You’ve got a steep slope there, going down to the water.
MR. HOWLAND-Sir, I can’t tell you what happened previous.
MR. SIPP-And grass is not going to do it. It’s not going to hold that water. I definitely
think you’ve got to get a new buffer in there, not a rain garden either.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel about the planting schedule?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many times has this been before this Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know how many times it was years ago, but this is.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The third time?
MR. HUNSINGER-The second time. It was here in February.
MR. HOWLAND-For me?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It’s for a recommendation.
MR. HOWLAND-I’ve been three times.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, plus the recommendation. So two Site Plan Reviews plus the
recommendation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, part of the resolution was that the landscaping plan would go to
you and you would review it. Is it adequate or is it not adequate?
MR. OBORNE-For what the Zoning Board requested, it’s fine. As far as what they
brought in, it could use a little bit more, let’s see, what’s the word I’m looking for, power
behind it I should say. It could be a little more vigorous. Have they met the minimum?
I’d say, yes, with the addition of the Zoning Board’s large trees going in there, and what
they have on here, they’re off our list. So, I mean, by the letter of the Zoning Code, it
does do the job, but it has to, the bottom line is, the Planning Board has to be satisfied
with it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it’s a situation where if it were new construction, you know, it
would be a different ballgame, but the fact that this is an existing project with a problem,
you know, with the various distances involved, it appears, from the engineering, that it is
an improvement in the stormwater management. Ironically, the letter from Paragon, the
last paragraph, you know, basically saying if you do this again, you’re going to have to
tear it out and have it inspected, actually made the problem worse in my mind, because
I’m thinking, well, if they’re saying that, why don’t we tear this out. I mean, it’s just, it’s a
very unfortunate situation. My concern has always been about the process, and as
much as Gretchen said, the fact that these changes were made without an opportunity
to, you know, have the engineering analyzed and the process followed, but here we are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would anyone like to, is the Board comfortable moving forward?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I think they need to fortify the landscaping plan. I’m not a landscaping
expert, and certainly we’ve gotten some feedback tonight that the additions are not going
to meet the intent of water protection along the lake. Our Land Use Planner said that it
could be more vigorous, and I certainly think that we should listen to those folks about
fortifying this landscaping element as a buffer between the house property and the water.
Exactly what we want in there? Who’s the right person to say that? Who’s the right
person to make those recommendations?
MR. HOWLAND-Is the concern about to catch the water from going over the seawall? It
can’t go through the seawall. The water can’t go through the seawall.
MR. TRAVER-I think it has to do with the nature of the vegetation and how various types
of vegetation process the water.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand that, sir. Yes, I understand that. All we put in was what
was approved from the original Site Plan Review that took five years, and after the
second meeting, I wasn’t involved in that anymore. We had a planting plan. That’s what
was installed originally. That was approved by this Board. What was there was
approved by this Board, because it was the stipulation.
MR. TRAVER-I think the suggestion is just that the, perhaps the evaluation of the
vegetation that’s chosen for this plan could be reconsidered and that there are some
alternative species that could be more effective in acting as that buffer, not that
necessarily the buffer itself, at 20 feet, is not compliant, but perhaps that some of the
plantings might be changed. At least that’s what I’m hearing from some of the
recommendations.
MR. HOWLAND-Yes, but buffering from water going over the seawall?
MR. OBORNE-It’s for nutrient uptake, it’s for water uptake and storage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s for, because the water’s got to, it goes in the ground and it certainly
has to go below the bottom of the lake there to get out, because that’s how far down that
seawall is. So I’m not sure, other than it does dry up.
MR. TRAVER-And I’m not claiming to be a landscaping expert either, but there’s plenty
of information and literature that shows different plant species are more and less
effective in various situations with regard to uptake of stormwater runoff and that type of
thing, and the suggestion that’s been made that we’re talking about is that there’s been
some comments from multiple speakers this evening that perhaps by reevaluating the
species that are proposed for this that the efficiency of the buffer could be improved.
That’s basically what I’m saying. I’m not sure how we codify that or we do that, but it
would be a.
MR. SIPP-I think, Steve, what you’re balancing here is looks versus utilitarianism. Is it
going to work as a screen to prevent unknown contaminants getting into the lake, or is it
there to look at for beauty? What you’ve got now is a bunch of flowers that are not good
screening devices, and I think he needs to go back to the original list and select from
that, and plant it as such, as it is in 179.
MR. HOWLAND-Okay. I’m going to say this again. The plantings that are in there are
what you approved on this variance. I was not involved in that, on the Site Plan before.
That’s what was installed. That’s what was approved here before. So I’m a little, I don’t
know what to say about that. All I can say is that’s what was installed.
MR. TRAVER-I think we understand that.
MR. HOWLAND-But you want something additional to be done.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m not sure where we’re going with it, but certainly that’s been one
suggestion that’s been made, and although you point out that the plantings that you’re
proposing in your drawings here are what is proposed, the reason that we’ve been
having these conversations is because not all of the changes in this site have been what
was originally proposed. So, in a way, in trying to move this forward and manage, if you
will, the stormwater issue as best as we can, I would hope that you would be open to
discussion about possibly reevaluating the specific species that are in this area, not that
the area itself would have to be redesigned or changed, but rather than possibly some
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
species could be reevaluated to better act as that buffering, particularly with the
distances and the issues that you’ve identified that relate to this site. That might take
this, what we’ve all acknowledged as a difficult situation, as far as stormwater
management, and maybe make it a little bit better, even if it’s only a few percentage or,
you know, they’re different species, and again, this is not my area of expertise, but there
is plenty of information that’s in the literature there, and I expect that there would be, that
we could access counsel to get the information about some better recommendations,
and I’m wondering if you, representing the applicant, are open to that.
MR. HOWLAND-I have no problem with that. The plan that was, we were asked by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, is that the correct terminology, to put certain items in, which
we did to meet their criteria, and they were taken off of the approved list. That’s why
they came up with that, something that would soak up water. So we did that, what, three
months ago I think it was, two months ago.
MR. OBORNE-Three months ago, yes.
MR. HOWLAND-And then we changed something, the yellow birch clumps, because,
again, we can’t get a large tree down there. You’ve got to be able to pick it up and walk
down there. So, they came up with that idea, but if you have a recommendation of, but
I’ve got to know what it is, because I’m not one for, I’m trying to learn plants, but I’m not
real good at it. I just can’t remember the names.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just looking at the Code now, you know, again, and following
up on Don’s earlier comment, you know, that what’s missing are the smaller tree or large
shrub, you and, you know, the Code does spell out, and I’ll just read it quickly. It talks
about a minimum width of 15 feet perpendicular to the shoreline, and it says for every 50
linear feet of shoreline buffer, you should have one large tree, minimum three inch
diameter, and a smaller tree or large shrub. So you’re putting in the white pines to act as
the larger tree, but what’s missing is the smaller tree or large shrub. So, you know,
maybe we can just condition it from that.
MR. HOWLAND-What counts as a small shrub, I mean, you tell me?
MR. HUNSINGER-It then has a whole list.
MR. HOWLAND-So anything off that list.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maple leaf, mountain maple, pagoda dogwood, striped maple, red
baneberry, you know, there’s a whole list right in the Code.
MR. HOWLAND-Of the small shrubs, you’re talking about?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, of the small trees and large shrubs. The idea is to have an
upper canopy and then a lower canopy, and then, you know, ground cover.
MR. HOWLAND-But we’re talking the large shrubs now, because we’ve taken care of the
large trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s small tree and large shrub is what seems to be missing.
MR. SIPP-You need ground cover, also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t that the bunchberry, isn’t that classified as ground cover?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, for every 100 square feet, you have to have 10 plants.
MR. SIPP-You don’t want the whole thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, but they have all that other stuff there, too.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s 179-8.
MR. HOWLAND-Yes, but the bunchberry was requested to have it put right on the
shoreline. That was a request of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They wanted something
right along that stone retaining wall. That’s what the bunchberries are doing, but you
want some more.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. SIPP-This is where your vica should be moved into. Vica does not like sunlight.
They like shade. It grows very well in the shade. You get too much sunlight, it kills it,
dries it right out. So therefore it’s good underneath, as the understory.
MR. HOWLAND-Isn’t vica the low growing ground cover?
MR. SIPP-Yes, it’s called myrtle wood.
MR. HOWLAND-Yes, but you don’t want that anymore.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-No, Kathy, right? You don’t want myrtle on the shoreline. We’ve been
asked to take it out in other places, because it’s an invasive plant. I’m getting a little
confused. I thought that was a non-native plant that we aren’t supposed to put in
anymore.
MR. SIPP-Your growing conditions are what I’m concerned with. When you put vica on
this landscaping plan, you had it out in the open, where the sunlight hits it, and it does
not grow well in sunlight. It likes shade.
MR. OBORNE-Can I make a suggestion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Keith, please.
MR. OBORNE-Could the Planning Board be specific and direct the applicant to plant
specific species, maybe with the help of the Water Keeper, and move on from there?
That’s just a suggestion.
MR. HOWLAND-Just tell me how many more to put in and what.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I was reading the Code. That’s where I was going, too.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I did vet what was there and what was previously planted, and it
seemed to work for me. Again, it’s not as vivacious or, what is the word again, as strong
as we’d like it to be.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Aggressive.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you, but I would suggest that you would direct the applicant,
maybe with the help of the Water Keeper, to maybe put in three or four lower small trees,
large shrubs, and it seems like they have the ground cover taken care of pretty well. If
the Board would be so kind as to be okay with the ground cover and the large trees, it
seems to me that it would be three or four small trees and bushes.
MR. FORD-I like the sound of that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-I like that, too.
MR. FORD-This is a bit minimalist, the way it is right now, and we can enhance it, and
there’s the avenue for enhancement.
MR. HOWLAND-I have no problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, and here’s where my ignorance comes out, kind of following
up on Don’s comments, I mean, the Code specifies the species that should be used.
MR. OBORNE-They recommend.
MR. HOWLAND-Right, they recommend, and we have no problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, from my point of view, I don’t really have a preference if
you pick, you know, red pine over black cherry, you know what I’m saying, as long as it’s
four large shrubs or small trees from the list.
MR. HOWLAND-As long as it’s off the large shrub list.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-I have an expert in the audience.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it should be the Staff.
MR. OBORNE-Please, no.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’ve got an expert in that office some place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think so, too, because we have to keep it within the Town’s
authority.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have to keep it within the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Within the Town’s authority.
MR. OBORNE-I understand that, but you’re talking about, as far as the Water Keeper
goes, she is an expert at this and would be able to pick from that list.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes.
MR. HOWLAND-Just tell me how many, on each side, you’re talking either side of that
stone wall, or the stairwell?
MR. OBORNE-We’re looking for guidance.
MR. HOWLAND-You want four more on each side or six more, you know, just let me
know.
MR. HUNSINGER-The plan is to scale.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, no, you have the list there.
MR. HUNSINGER-The list’s right in the Code.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, just look in the Code, 179-8.
MR. HOWLAND-No, I understand. I’m asking you how many do you want?
MR. KREBS-Well, they already have one, an existing lilac. That’s a small shrub. It could
actually be a big tree, too, depending on the size. So they put two pines in, within the
spec, because it says two large trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to make a comment? I’ll need to get you on the mic,
though, please.
MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony. I understand your concern, having me involved and the
Staff would be the better choice, but we’re splitting hairs here. I mean, the Code does
have the specifics, and that is if we don’t really know what to do. In this case, we really
do know what to do. The land, in my opinion, needs substantial vegetation, and I think
Mr. Traver, you know, said it just perfectly. It’s, we’re splitting hairs saying one tree here,
one bush here. I mean, we need to look at this lot and see what we can do to turn it back
into looking like a native shoreline if we can, and I understand the residents wanting to
have a view of the lake. They do have a boathouse, I believe, with a dock out, a flat
dock. We need to get the shoreline buffered, and to have the applicant add one more
tree is really not what the intent of what the Code should be saying to us, and the issue is
water quality, and we need to protect the shoreline. This is all clay soils here.
Everything does not infiltrate that soil. It runs off, and I know there’s seawalls there, but
originally the seawalls weren’t part of this original Site Plan approval, I don’t believe. It
was a shoreline buffer going down with substantial shoreline. Bunchberries are not what
the Zoning Board of Appeals said to put on that shoreline. We need substantial
shoreline buffering. So I would definitely be willing to help, because I know what these
bushes look like. I know which ones are very nice, not just by the words that they are,
but what would work well on this property, and I really hope that the Board would support
the fact that we need substantial vegetation on Rockhurst and these other peninsulas in
the Town of Queensbury.
MR. KREBS-And, Kathy, I would agree with you, but, go fight the big battles first.
MS. BOZONY-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. KREBS-I just told you all the problems and those problems have existed for 25
years, to the degradation of Lake George. The lack of stormwater control has done more
to degrade the lake than any septic systems or an individual property.
MS. BOZONY-I agree with you, and what we’re looking at is every impact makes a
difference. It’s cumulative, and so those issues are really big, and they’re hard to battle,
and the septic system issues are hard to battle. I just, just speaking, I did a presentation
last night on the algae blooms in Lake George to the Town of Lake George, and it’s
amazing what we are seeing under the water, and our goal needs to be to work with the
governments and force them to do that. Stormwater’s a big issue. Septic system’s a big
issue, fertilizers and pesticide use around the lake is a big issue, and I just, I hate to see
you all spending your time just picking out plants when in fact we need to look at this
buffer and really make it a good, effective buffer, and if we can do that, we’ve succeeded,
even though this project has changed many times, and it’s been, you know, in the
process, we will have succeeded if we can get a buffer that’s more substantial and more
robust and juicy.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the word, robust.
MS. BOZONY-Robust, yes, and I call it enhanced and it’s substantial. It needs to
happen on this property, and I just hope that that’s what’s conditioned here, and it’s
enforced that it actually happens, and I think the homeowners will be very happy with it
as well. So thank you for letting me speak again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, now, since I’ve, Mr. Salvador? Yes, go ahead.
MR. SALVADOR-The purpose of stormwater management is to cleanse the stormwater,
is to cleanse it, and that’s why we need the 100 feet. The filtration of the stormwater
through the soil is the cleansing process.
MR. KREBS-You’re missing what I was saying, John. What I was saying is, there’s
water coming all the way down Rockhurst, which is a Town road. There is no stormwater
control for that Town road. There’s no stormwater control for Quaker Road. There’s no
stormwater control in the Town of Queensbury. We need it.
MR. SALVADOR-I have the same situation on Route 9L. You talk about the Town of
Queensbury. How would you like to go up against the DOT? Let me tell you what I had
to do, okay. I have put in, at my own expense, stormwater infiltration, okay, taking the
road runoff. It all comes, you see the bank of the road. Well, I’m sorry, that’s what we
have to do. Now protecting the environment costs money. This buffer you talk about is
not going to do the job of cleansing stormwater, okay. I don’t think you should be
confused. If you want to have a buffer and the Code calls for that, fine, but the issue
here is cleansing stormwater, and we need 100 feet. That’s what every, all the experts
have said, the Health Department, the DEC, they have all said 100 feet. That’s all we
need. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-My point was only that what caused the change in the Site Plan from its
approval was the water coming down the road, and if the Town had taken care of that
water, he would never have had to change the Site Plan.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just like they did at Takundewide last year.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Their problems had been there for 10 years.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we are looking at this particular Site Plan, and we’re also taking the
agent’s word for it that all the stormwater was going off there. So we could talk about
this for a long time, but this is a Site Plan that we have to make a decision on. I’ve got a
motion, but, you know, I’m not comfortable that, you know, this is the only thing that, the
landscaping plan we’re doing. I have some of the language, but.
MR. FORD-How many shrubs and how many large trees do you have in your
recommendation?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t. I have the big words, direct the applicant to fortify or modify the
landscaping plan to work with Staff to include small trees and large shrubs that are
defined in the Town Code. The assistance of the Lake George Water Keeper is
recommended to help create a more robust plan. The applicant will provide a revised
landscaping plan to scale. Our goal is for the shoreline to look like a native shoreline
buffer. That was the, that’s what I got from the conversation I was hearing.
MR. FORD-I think you got the gist of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that specific enough?
MR. KREBS-I don’t think so. I think the terms are what we talked about, but I don’t know
that Keith or the Building Department can enforce that.
MR. OBORNE-As far as the language that Gretchen was?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now are we tabling it so that it can come back and we can review it, or
are we approving it with this condition? Because those are two different things.
MR. SIPP-I think we ought to have the condition before they approve anything.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Is there a way that, I mean, it’s, I mean, we get engineering signoff.
I don’t know if you can get a vegetative signoff.
MR. OBORNE-And just for the record, I am not comfortable, because if it was soils and
stormwater, that would be a different story.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Landscaping, that’s not my bailiwick. So to rely on me would probably
not be, I wouldn’t say unwise, but not overly wise.
MR. FORD-What we want is an enhanced buffer, and you have resources available to
you. I think you should come back with a plan that would be reflective of the enhanced.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the preference to conditionally approve this, or table it and have
them come back, because I think that makes a big difference.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, if we can come up with a way to conditionally approve it, I think
that would be a better way to go. If we can come up with a means of conditionally
approving it, that would be my preference, and let me ask Keith. You mentioned, toward
the beginning of our discussion, that your evaluation of the buffer as presented this
evening is at least minimally according to Code, right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So rather than ask you to make a judgment about a modification as far as
Code, could we ask you to evaluate a plan, a revised plan submitted by the applicant,
that was more robust than this?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You certainly can do that. I do not want to be anywhere near the
design phase of that robust buffer.
MR. TRAVER-But you know what’s there, and if they come back with something that you
can empirically judge to be more robust.
MR. OBORNE-I can make an educated guess, yes.
MR. TRAVER-I would think.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think I could, but what we’re looking for are the larger shrubs and
small trees. That’s what we’re looking for.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, it sounds as though we have the high and the low, and we’re
looking for some addition for some sort of mid range sort of thing.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. TRAVER-And which is not currently in this plan. So if you, without making aesthetic
evaluation, but you can look at a revised plan and say, yes, there, in fact, is a proposal
now for more than what is here and in fact it’s in that mid range.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I do have resources available to me. I do have the Water Keeper.
I do have Soil and Water that can vet that, if the Planning Board would be so kind as to
put that in the resolution, that would allow me to use those as part of my decision making
process. Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is that the concern, really, with the Board is the small trees or
large shrubs at this point? Small trees or large shrubs is what’s missing.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, small trees and large shrubs. Large trees you’ve satisfied. You
satisfied that by the Zoning Board’s directions. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we know they need to be within 15 feet of the shoreline, because
that’s what the Code calls for.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how many do we think would be enough? The Code calls for a
minimum of one every 50 linear feet of shoreline.
MR. TRAVER-How about four?
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, is that really all we’re talking about is four shrubs? That
seems pretty minimal.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let’s not get to specific or we’ll be here until the morning.
MR. SIPP-As dictated by the Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I’m saying, but I think what we’re saying is we need
more than that.
MR. OBORNE-If you say four or eight, whatever it is, as a condition of approval, that’s
what I’m running with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-I thought we already meet the Code.
MR. FORD-We want it enhanced.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We want a little more than that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we want more than that. Okay. Why don’t we take a five minute
recess to draft a resolution. Who would like to volunteer?
MR. TRAVER-I mean, I guess I could.
MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, Don.
MR. SIPP-I’ll go with somebody who can write.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Volunteers? Gretchen by default, sorry.
MR. TRAVER-And I don’t want to mention Keith’s name, but he might.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to help us?
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll take a five minute recess. Are we ready?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call the meeting back to order.
MR. OBORNE-Chris, you didn’t close the public hearing. Just as a reminder.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I’ll call the meeting back to order. I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion. Mr. Traver, are you ready?
MR. TRAVER-No, but I’ll try.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2010 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes changes to approved stormwater plan and
approved site plan. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning Board
review and approval.
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 2/16/2010
as required; and
3)The ZBA approved the variance request on 2/17/2010; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/23/2010, the application was
subsequently tabled to 4/20/2010; and
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2010 STEVE & DEBBIE
SEABOYER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Six A complies. Six B, it’s a Type
II.
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 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 permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
g)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
h)With the following condition: That the applicant, in consultation with Staff,
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
provide a revised landscaping plan to scale, depicting four small trees and
four large shrubs evenly distributed within the 15 foot buffer zone, and
ground cover throughout the buffer zone.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. HOWLAND-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
PUD SP 44-2000 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED-REAFFIRM MICHAELS
GROUP AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S)
MICHAELS GROUP ZONING PUD LOCATION MEADOWBROOK ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TRANSFER 12.38 ACRES FROM EXISTING PARCEL
ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
TO ADIRONDACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE AS THE TOWN HAS RELEASED ITS
PARK & RECREATION RIGHTS ON THIS PARCEL. MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED PUD REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
JONATHAN LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. As stated previously, PUD Site Plan 44-2000 for The Michaels
Group. This is a modification to an approved PUD requiring Planning Board review and
approval. The location is Meadowbrook Road. This is a PUD as listed before. This is
an Unlisted SEQR. You’ll need to reaffirm previous SEQR findings. Project Description:
Applicant proposes to transfer 12.38 acres from existing parcel originally planned to be
transferred to the Town of Queensbury to Adirondack Community College as the Town
has released its Park & Recreation rights on this parcel. Please see Town Board
attached resolution 140-2010, and the long and short of it is the Town Board has passed
a resolution giving up their recreational rights, and they want to, now the Michaels Group
wants to bequeath this land to ACC, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record Jon Lapper with Bill Long, Vice President of
the College, which is now SUNY Adirondack, for the record, instead of ACC. Very
simply, when we were here originally for approvals for Waverly Place, this 12 and a half
acre approximate parcel was proposed at that time to be dedicated to the Town Park and
Rec Committee if that was acceptable to the Town Board, and ultimately the Park and
Rec Committee decided to do their project in the Halfway Brook area that was dedicated
to the Town, eighty acres at the time that Hiland Park was first approved. So they’re
working on a trail project, and that’s where they’re putting their resources. So they didn’t
want to own and control this parcel, and the Michaels Group still owned it, and went to
the College to see if they were interested in owning it and they were. So because it was
on your Site Plan map and it didn’t say to be set aside or to be dedicated, it said to be
conveyed to Park and Rec, it seemed the correct thing was to come in and ask you to
change that. So before getting here, as the Staff Notes indicated, the Park and Rec
Committee said that they weren’t interested. The Town Board said that they weren’t
interested, and the College said they were interested, and so simply it’s just, instead of
dedicating it to one entity, it’s being dedicated to another. I know that some of the
neighbors are here from Waverly, and the College has absolutely no plans at this point to
do anything. If they’re going to do a project anywhere, it has to go through a committee
to determine what they might do, but it just, it seems like there aren’t a lot of uses for this,
because of remote location, because of wetlands, and the most likely use would be
athletic fields, but there’s no plans even for that at this point. They’re just willing to
accept dedication. It’s contiguous to their property, and at some point in the future they
may or may not do anything with it, but there’s certainly nothing that’s planned.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. LAPPER-No, but Bill’s here if you want to ask any questions on behalf of the
College.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I have one question, Jon. Can you give us an approximation of, between
DEC and Army Corps of Engineers, what percentage of that acreage is actual wetland?
MR. LAPPER-I’m looking at the map, Tom, and it’s not so much that the wetlands are
such a large piece of it. It’s more the wetland buffer. There’s Army Corps Wetlands
along the north end, and there’s the stream corridor, and there’s wetlands along the
stream corridor, and then when you count 100 feet out from the wetlands, it takes up
about half of the parcel, and that’s not all wetlands, but that’s with the buffer area. That’s
about half the parcel.
MR. FORD-That’s what we have to consider.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-But wetland buffer areas could still work for athletic fields.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So, it’s a gift? There’s no money involved?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s no tax difference.
MR. LAPPER-It’s just a dedication, donation.
MR. SIPP-This is a little off the topic, but is that fitness trail still in use across the street
from this property?
BILL LONG
MR. LONG-On our property now, yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LONG-We have an Adventure Sports program that uses those trails.
MR. SIPP-It’s still in use?
MR. LONG-Still in use.
MR. SIPP-I had something to do with putting that in there.
MR. LONG-You did?
MR. SIPP-BOCES students. It is wet in there in the Spring, though.
MR. LONG-It’s a great program.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I had a, I don’t know if it’s a question or a comment of
Staff. Keith, the Town Board was the Lead Agent for SEQRA on the PUD. So, in our
resolution, it talks about considering SEQRA. That would be something, that would be
an action that the Town Board would have to take. I don’t believe that they, well, if the
resolution states, let me look at that real quick. I have it right here, I do believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because you had also made a comment during your comments that
we would have to consider SEQRA as well, and I just want to make sure that the record
is clear.
MR. OBORNE-Give me one moment, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you recall, Jon?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t see anything.
MR. LAPPER-What I would say, this was an Environmental Impact Statement, and the
Town was Lead Agency. So I don’t think that SEQRA has to be because SEQRA was
addressed for the whole PUD.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Unless somebody felt that this was such a significant change that it
needed to go back to the Town Board.
MR. OBORNE-Well, let me ask you. Would it be an issue if they reaffirmed?
MR. LAPPER-For this Board to?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I think that you certainly can make a statement in the resolution that you
don’t see that there’s a significant change for SEQRA purposes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think that would be the wise way to go.
MR. LAPPER-It certainly can’t hurt.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, because we can’t reaffirm.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because we’re not the Lead Agent.
MR. TRAVER-But we can report that we are not seeing anything that.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the comment was, if you were to develop you’d have to do
SEQRA anyway. I mean, one of the difficulties for us is ACC is not required to come to
us for Site Plan Review, and I’m not saying that in a derogatory way, but as a
government entity, as a government agency, you know, it’s the same thing with the
school. We don’t review site plans for the school. So, you know, if ACC were to develop
this piece of property, it wouldn’t necessarily come back to the Planning Board for review
and approval. So that would be, you know, but of course if the Town were to use it for
recreation uses, it wouldn’t come to us either, but it seems to me at some point it may
become an issue for SEQRA, if the use is different than what was originally
contemplated, without there being future Site Plan Review.
MR. OBORNE-My staff has pretty much, Pam has put this together properly with the
motion, the resolution under B. The language is spot on, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening on this item. Is there anyone that wanted to comment?
Yes, sir. If you could identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL PRICE
MR. PRICE-My name is Paul Price, and I live at 59 Waverly Place, and I come here
tonight as secretary of the Waverly Place Homeowners Association, representing the
Board of Directors. The Homeowners Association owns the land adjacent to the
property under discussion to the north and to the east, and when I inquired about the
zoning of this piece of property at the Planning Office I was told it was zoned PUD, and I
was going to ask for clarification, you know, exactly what does that mean. I know it’s
zoned exactly as Waverly Place was zoned, as a PUD, but now I just picked up that, with
the transfer to the College, basically what it’s zoned is superfluous because the College
will not have to come back to the Planning Board. They can do pretty much what they
want with the property without your involvement henceforth. Is that correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-That’s our understanding. I’m not sure exactly what the protocols are for
the College. I would think that, Jon, you’d be able to answer that a little bit better than I.
It’s a State agency. So I imagine that there would be some sort of environmental review
that would have to entail.
MR. PRICE-But, you know, their plans may change. I heard that they might use it for
athletic fields or something else, but basically whatever they want to do with that property
they can do.
MR. OBORNE-I think that there are probably certain limitations I would imagine based
on the environmental issues.
MR. PRICE-I mean, wetland and that they can’t violate.
MR. OBORNE-The buffers, correct.
MR. PRICE-But as far as Town zoning is concerned, what they want to do would be
supreme.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they’re not subject to Site Plan Review.
MR. PRICE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they would not come before this Board. That’s all I was saying.
MR. PRICE-Right. Okay, but as far as Town zoning is concerned, that would be no
concern to the College?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t believe so.
MR. OBORNE-I believe that’s a correct statement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-What changes on this Planned Unit Development is, I guess, the size of it
at this point, and that’s about it, that I see. You’re still part of the PUD, obviously. This
was part of the PUD as recreational land that the Town no longer wants.
MR. PRICE-So basically this change would remove that property from the PUD, for all
intents and purposes?
MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding.
MR. PRICE-Okay. I just wanted to, you know, get that clear.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I think, Mr. Price, one of the points that Mr. Lapper made was that,
you know, SUNY Adirondack is governed by a Board of Directors, and so any decisions
that would be made would be made at the Board level. It’s a community body, and
certainly, as a Homeowners Association, you would have the opportunity, you know, to
lobby the Board certainly. I think, in recent memory, the fire school that was intended for
that property at ACC, certainly our Town Board fielded a lot of the commentary on that,
but there was a public mechanism for folks to express their opinions. The same applies
for SUNY Adirondack. It has a public board. Folks are easily accessible, and so you
could make your feelings known to them.
MR. HUNSINGER-It just wouldn’t come before us.
MR. PRICE-All right. Now there’s a 60 foot old roadway that goes from that field to
Meadowbrook. What would be the mechanism for the opening of that access to the
College from the east?
MR. OBORNE-Well, being that Meadowbrook is a Town road, it certainly would have to
go through the Town Highway Department in order to do that. The road would have to be
brought up to specifications. I’m not sure that they’re, I don’t see the logic in that
because they have to cross through a wetland. It seems that the infrastructure would be
pretty difficult, not impossible, obviously, but again.
MR. PRICE-Yes. It’s probably an old farm road to get back to the fields. It does go
through a brook, at least one brook, maybe two.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-And I think it’s at the base of a hill. So from a sight distance point of
view, it wouldn’t be a logical location.
MR. PRICE-No, it’s a straight shot.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is straight?
MR. PRICE-Yes, contour wise, it’s pretty much of a level shot. It’s just that the brook
runs through it. You could probably deal with the brook through a culvert, but I was just
wondering about, you know, an east entrance to the College property might be attractive,
that’s all. I was just wondering about the procedure for that would be?
MR. OBORNE-That would certainly involve my office, it would not involve my office.
MR. PRICE-The Highway Department, but not you folks.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. PRICE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
DOUG COON
MR. COON-Hi. I’m Doug Coon. I live immediately south on the 16 acres, and I really
don’t have a major concern. I guess with some of the thought of, and print in the
newspaper of dorms that were being discussed that our neighborhood on Bayberry Drive
probably would have some concern if this would be a possible use, but it sounds, from
what Mr. Lapper said, that this land really probably isn’t applicable to that use, so I think
that would be our neighborhood stance on that, and that’s about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. COON-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any final questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000
MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1)A PUD site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following: Applicant proposes to transfer 12.38 acres from existing parcel
originally planned to be transferred to the Town of Queensbury to Adirondack
Community College as the Town has released its Park & Recreation rights on this
parcel. Modification to an approved PUD requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/20/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000
MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. It is
approved with no conditions.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)The application is a modification, the requirements of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the
proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
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)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2010 SEQR TYPE II CHRIS GABRIELS AGENT(S) SEE
APPLICANT OWNER(S) STEVE & CARYN LA FLECHE ZONING WR LOCATION
12 WATERS EDGE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK w/96
SQ. FT. DOCK ADDITION. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK IN A WR ZONE REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 09-135, 08-
567, AV 15-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA,
APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.19 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-29 SECTION
179-5-060
CHRIS GABRIELS & STEVE LA FLECHE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is Site Plan 18-2010, Chris Gabriels for Steven & Caryn
LaFleche. Site Plan Review is the requested action. The location is 12 Waters Edge
Drive. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No environmental review needed. Project Description:
Applicant proposes to modify an existing boat house to include enlarging by 48 square
feet each dock extension, replacing existing peaked roof with an 700 square foot
sundeck with stairs and removal of a 48 square foot ancillary dock extension located on
east side of dock. I believe that dock extension is long gone. The ice took care of that.
That’s my understanding. I do want to bring to the attention of the Board that the
boathouse, as proposed, is 14 foot 10 inches above the mean high water mark and does
not exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement. Also, the boathouse as designed
appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities. The Planning
Board also may wish to direct the applicant to install shoreline planting as per 179-8-040.
I will say that this proposal has been modified from the first time you saw it. At the
request of the applicant, it was given approval by the ZBA for six feet of east side
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
setback relief also. The applicant has reduced the size of the sundeck from 800 square
feet to 700 square feet, thus negating the need for additional relief. Revised plans are
attached, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LA FLECHE-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. LA FLECHE-Sure. I’m Steve LaFleche, the property owner.
MR. GABRIELS-And Chris Gabriels.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. GABRIELS-No, you’ve seen this before. The modifications that we talked about
have been made. The variance has been approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the issue came up in the Staff Notes about shoreline planting. Do
you have any plans for shoreline planting?
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes, we do. I think it relevant to tell you what I’ve done on the property
so far, because I think it’s important. I bought this from Phil Moynihan, I don’t know if any
of you know him, in August of 2008. I immediately hired Tom Jarrett, and Tom was my
engineer. We immediately met with Dave Hatin, and told him what I wanted to do to the
house. I replaced, you know, all the electrical, the plumbing, the framing, brought it all
up to Code, the insulation, had it all inspected and got a CO last May. As part of that
process, I also had a stormwater management system designed by Tom, approved with
the Lake George Water Keeper, Chris Navitsky, and because I have, there was water
problems, and that’s what caused the house, you know, to be structurally unsound, and
so when I did that system I invested over $25,000 putting a trench around the entire
house that was full of loam, special clays, filtering sands and other things that, you know,
Tom wanted me to have to meet the guidelines, and when we did that, we went down the
side of the house, but we also went in front of the entire house and put a swale in with
extension of the system to catch anything that came off the house, and so my gutters
that I installed all go into that system, and so we’ve done a lot to improve the stormwater
management of the site as part of that, and I also planted 40 arborvitaes along the side,
and a lot of trees and landscaping around the house that weren’t there before. So we’ve
done quite a bit to the property, and now this is the, hopefully the final thing that we’re
going to do, and we’ve, you know, Chris, you can talk. He’s met with the guys at the
Town and want us to plant some trees and do some other things.
MR. GABRIELS-I did meet with Staff. The recommendations were fairly vague, and I
wasn’t comfortable that I could design a plan with their recommendations that would
meet your approval. So I did want to, if possible, to have a quick opportunity to go back
and forth with your input to, and formulate something fairly quick that would meet your
approval. We do have plans. I have drawn up what is existing, the vegetation that is
existing there, and I’m not sure whether the 15 foot requirement might be unwieldy, given
that the separation of the house from the lake is probably about 18 feet on the one
corner and maybe 30 feet on the other corner. It is a flat lot. There has been extensive
work done to control the water flow, you know, that would create issues for the lake, and
I don’t know if you want to see the plans and we could fairly quickly come up with a
solution for it.
MR. SIPP-There is walkway from the house to the shoreline.
MR. GABRIELS-Yes.
MR. SIPP-And it’s solid, it’s slate set in concrete, and the slight slope that you do have
allows water to run almost directly into the lake. The lawn itself is up to the top of the
seawall, and I think you’re getting water, in a heavy rain or snow melt, going into the lake
because there’s nothing there to stop it. So I think you do need some kind of a buffer.
Now 15 feet is going to be almost up on your porch.
MR. GABRIELS-Correct.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. LA FLECHE-Fifteen feet, I’m a very blunt and upfront person, and I can’t do this
project, I can’t give up my entire front lawn.
MR. SIPP-I agree with you, but I think we need to modify that walkway.
MR. LA FLECHE-That walkway, yes. I think that, well, that’s been there for 30 years, a
long time, and that’s going to be where we’re going to go down to the new boathouse.
So, you know, you’re talking about doing landscaping around the front, where the new
boathouse would be, which would come into that, where you’re talking about.
MR. SIPP-I think a few shrubs and some good ground cover in there, if possible, it would
be a little tough to lower that front lawn, but it would be the ideal solution to keep water
from running almost directly into the lake with a buffer and having the lawn a little lower.
MR. LA FLECHE-The other thing I did, the whole left side of the house was concrete
when I moved in. I replaced that entire pad with crushed stone and removed it, so that
helped a lot. I agree with you. I want to protect the lake. That’s why I put all that money
into that system.
MR. FORD-Could that walkway be made more porous?
MR. LA FLECHE-I have no idea how deep that concrete goes. I think maybe at the end
of it, you know, maybe at the end of that, because that’s where the stairs are going to
come down. At the end of that, where that blue stone, before that blue stone, we could
probably take out and put, put pavers in there or something. Not the whole thing,
though, just on the ends, where you come down from the.
MR. SIPP-I think you’re going to have to go at least half way because the slope comes,
and then it drops off maybe six inches or so towards the wall, and I think you’ve got to
come back a couple of feet. See your slope is right to the lake, and just taking a couple
of feet off isn’t going to slow the water down that much, if you leave the concrete
walkway as such.
MR. LA FLECHE-We’re only talking about the water that gets down there. Because the
other water goes into my, you can’t see from here because of that big swale in my, all,
the side of the house, the gutters go into that swale which has the system, filtering
system in it.
MR. SIPP-Well, anything that would cut out the runoff.
MR. LA FLECHE-Down that walkway?
MR. SIPP-Down that walkway.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes. Okay.
MR. SIPP-Pavers would be good.
MR. LA FLECHE-Pavers would be better?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LA FLECHE-Okay.
MR. SIPP-You leave a space between them.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes, I know what you’re talking about.
MR. OBORNE-Some porous pavers is what you’re looking at?
MR. LA FLECHE-Not the whole thing though.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I don’t know why we, I mean, it’s a concrete walk that’s been there
forever. Why do we want you to move that?
MR. SIPP-Because of the water running down it.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but I’m just, if it’s.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. LA FLECHE-And by the way, I’m not going to be, my wife’s not here, I’d have to
defer to her on what we’d do.
MR. SIPP-I think you just need a break in there somewhere.
MR. LA FLECHE-So can we have an alternate like plants on it or pavers or something?
MR. GABRIELS-We can figure out a break between that.
MR. LA FLECHE-We’ll do something at the end of there. I see what you’re saying. We’ll
get the water to stop running down that path.
MR. SIPP-He needs some shrubs along the grass end, to the west.
MR. LA FLECHE-To the west.
MR. SIPP-To the west of the walkway. Right there where the sod joins the.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes. Okay. That’s where the stairs are going to come down.
MR. SIPP-Maybe some shrubs or ground cover in there.
MR. LA FLECHE-Okay. We can do that. We’ll work with these guys. I know Craig and
Bruce Frank.
MR. OBORNE-I do want the, yes, Bruce obviously, but you need to be specific in what
you’re asking them, though, please.
MR. SIPP-We’ve got, somebody’s got to, forget about the 15 foot buffer. This wouldn’t
work.
MR. LA FLECHE-We’ve got that swale.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’ve got to run the water to the swale.
MR. GABRIELS-That was confusion for myself as well, as how the 15 foot buffer actually
applied to this site here, being the restrictions between the house and the property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. GABRIELS-And it’s not the typical, well, none of them are typical, but it seems a
little more atypical than what you hope to achieve in that distance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, the Code spells out sort of minimum standards,
you know, and you have 90 feet of shoreline, you know, so the only thing you’d really be
required to, well, it talks about 15 feet, a 15 foot buffer, and within that buffer there’s a
number of different requirements.
MR. GABRIELS-And I know there’s a three inch tree every 50 feet. There’s a large bush
every 50 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So a couple of trees, a couple of shrubs.
MR. GABRIELS-There’s two very major 20, 24 inch maples. They’re not within the 15
foot buffer, but canopy and the root structure certainly is within that 15 foot buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can see them in the picture.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think we should make them take that walkway out. I just don’t.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes. I’d rather do shrubs around it. That would be easier.
MR. SIPP-There’s an approved list.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes, let’s do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone okay with that? Good. Okay. We do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on the
project?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll open the public hearing. Is there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No? Okay. Let the record show there were no public comments. I
will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will, how many shrubs?
MR. OBORNE-Chris, do you have a plan you want to show them or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have a, does your plan show shrubs?
MR. GABRIELS-I have only a plan of what’s existing. To give those who haven’t taken it.
I’m understanding, you know how close those trees are to that buffer zone and how large
they are, but no plan as to what we might do to improve that condition, because I was
confused, again, as to how the 15 foot buffer would apply and how stringent the Board
was going to be in the application of their rules and regulations with this lot here, and I
think the homeowner, as much as he said no to a lot of things, I think he’s fairly
amenable to creating whatever plan that you believe would be an improvement and
would be acceptable to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we say something like, you know, a minimum of four
shrubs within 15 feet of the shoreline from the approved list.
MR. GABRIELS-I think we can manage to get that in there somewhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that too vague, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-It’s pretty vague.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, we don’t have a plan to look at.
MR. OBORNE-And I agree. You definitely don’t want to table them now, in lieu of the
plan. So I guess this is where I come in.
MR. SIPP-If you put a small tree on either end, you’d come pretty close to, and then
between that the shrubs and the ground cover. If you take some of that sod out of there
to lower the, so you don’t have that continuous slope right to the lake.
MR. OBORNE-I understand what you’re talking about. It sheet flows right over the wall.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Would you be amenable to two trees and then four shrubs in between
them with some ground cover and a seven foot buffer? That’s the type of detail I’m
looking for.
MR. SIPP-I think that would work.
MR. LA FLECHE-A seven foot buffer back to a lake, around the whole, no, I wouldn’t.
No, I wouldn’t do the project if I had to do a seven foot buffer around.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the requirement is 15 feet.
MR. LA FLECHE-I understand that. Well, I just found this out recently when I was going
through the process. Yes, yes, I’d prefer to plant some shrubs. I don’t want to do a
whole, so I guess I, if we had to do four, six shrubs, I can do that. If we have to create an
entire buffer, I’m way too close to the lake, (lost words) existing stormwater.
MR. OBORNE-You definitely have mitigating factors, I mean, there’s no ifs ands or buts.
The Planning Board certainly can be amenable to whatever you’re going to offer. They
could also reduce the size of the buffer, and I’d throw it back on the Planning Board. I
guess you’ve heard the applicant stating that seven foot’s not going to work. You guys
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
need to come up with a middle ground, I guess. Four shrubs is really not going to be
doing a heck of a lot of shoreline buffering. That’s just my take on it.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about 90 feet?
MR. LA FLECHE-I’ve already invested a ton of money to dramatically improve that water
quality around the house. I mean, when I bought this place, there were three or four
heaters that were rotted and rusted that all the water was running through those heaters,
out into, I mean, it was a junkyard under the house, and everything was just running
through all that rot, directly into the lake, and then I literally, you know, it’s bone dry now,
and I put in a system that was quite expensive, and I questioned the engineers during
the whole process. Why does it have to be so expensive, and they said it has to meet all
these regulations. I said, okay, that’s fine, and I’ve also planted a lot around there. So
I’m willing to plant more, but not create a, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tell us, then, what you had in mind.
MR. LA FLECHE-I had in mind four, six shrubs.
MR. HUNSINGER-But where on your site, where would they be located?
MR. LA FLECHE-Around the new boathouse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I kind of think we’re saying the same thing. Because I
think the point that we’re the most concerned about is the walkway, and the walkway
goes right to the boathouse. So, you know, if you’re planting those shrubs around there.
Now, let me just try to understand your concern about the seven foot versus 15 foot.
MR. LA FLECHE-I’m concerned about when you start saying planting, because I’ve seen
these extreme situations where, you know, you’re saying you can see my piece of
property there. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right.
MR. LA FLECHE-My house is literally right on the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re 18 feet from the corner.
MR. LA FLECHE-And I don’t have a lot of lawn. I mean, I have very little lawn. I’ve only
got 18 feet of lawn, and if you’re saying I’ve got to take seven feet of that and replace it
with some sort of ground cover of some sort, it would just be so detrimental to my
property and to my usage. My kids, as an example, that’s where they play badminton
out there. I mean, they’ve got one on the side and they have tournaments, and they set
one up in the front. I’m going to say to them I’m going to have to say I’m going to take
seven feet of your badminton court away? I just can’t do that do that to them. I wouldn’t.
I mean, my boathouse is, I want to replace it, and it isn’t in great shape and the cribbing’s
all rotted out, but, you know, I’m not going to say to those guys, you can’t have a, I would
just remix my priorities.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think what we were saying, the seven foot, is the.
MR. LA FLECHE-It has to be back seven feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, within seven feet.
MR. LA FLECHE-Within seven feet. Okay. See, I was confused. I thought you had to
take seven feet. I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay.
MR. LA FLECHE-Seven feet and completely fill in with stuff all the way around. That’s
why I’m confused.
MR. OBORNE-To be blunt, yes, absolutely, that’s what the Code calls for, along the
shorelines.
MR. LA FLECHE-Right, I understand that, and I’m, Chris, more in line of thinking of the
way you’re approaching it, and I’m saying, absolutely, we’re perfectly willing to do, you
know, four or six shrubs around that area and limit that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable with that?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, when you say, around the area, what’s around the area?
MR. OBORNE-Both sides of the entrance.
MR. LA FLECHE-Around the walkway and where the boathouse is going to be.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. SIPP-Now, are we talking from the seawall back?
MR. LA FLECHE-From the seawall back.
MR. SIPP-Seven feet.
MR. LA FLECHE-No, no. I’ll do it closer to the seawall.
MR. GABRIELS-Well, you’re actually going to be about five feet back if it’s behind the
stairs.
MR. LA FLECHE-I see what you’re saying.
MR. SIPP-If this is your shoreline, you would come in seven feet all the way across your
property.
MR. KREBS-No, that’s not what he’s saying.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s not what he’s saying.
MR. SIPP-I know it’s not.
MR. KREBS-But, Don, this piece of property is such that it just doesn’t meet the
requirements. I mean, there’s not room to do that.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’re going to give him a free ride on the whole thing?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m not giving him a free ride, but he’s got no yard.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s not my problem. You do it for one, you’ve got to do it for
everybody.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not necessarily.
MR. LA FLECHE-So, just so we’re clear, when I say I can’t do that is plant a whole row of
things all the way along here and along here. They have one badminton court right here,
and then they do the other one over there, and it just would, it would ruin that. Now what
I am willing to do is when this new boathouse is built, plant shrubs here and here along
the, you know, that’s what I was talking about, in that area, that “L” and that “L” over
there. I thought that’s what I was, thought Chris was talking about, and again, I
understand the new regulation in the zoning, but I also feel I’ve done a tremendous
amount to that small piece of property to improve the water quality.
MR. SIPP-You have, and we want to keep it that way.
MR. LA FLECHE-I understand that. I understand that. I’m trying to use commonsense.
MR. GABRIELS-Are there any mitigating things we can do for the seawall? Are there
any mitigating strategies we can do along the seawall area that don’t include seven feet?
You guys haven’t done this enough to be able to answer that one.
MR. OBORNE-That seven foot was an arbitrary number I threw out. I mean, so,
because it’s less than 15. In fact, it’s more than half than less than the 15.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the halfway point between 15 which is required.
MR. HUNSINGER-My only other thought on this is boathouses used to be expedited
review. We wouldn’t even look anything past the boathouse itself. I mean, I know we’ve
changed the Code, but.
MR. TRAVER-I think one of the concerns, and again, I think I stated earlier this evening
that I’m not a landscaping person, but I think, and this picture shows it very well. If you
look at the lawn and the seawall, you can see that as the property has evolved and the
grass has grown and so on, that if you have water flow, I understand and appreciate
what you’ve done with stormwater management. That’s great, but in a heavy rainstorm
or some situation, particularly with fertilizer and so on, on the lawn, because the grass is
essentially at the same level or perhaps higher than the seawall, you have an
uninterrupted path for the water to travel, and there are a number of reasons for that
regulation of the 15 foot buffer. One of them is to interrupt that flow and have plantings
in there that uptake the phosphorus and other nutrients that ordinarily would go into the
lake and then you have an algae bloom in the lake. So, as Keith pointed out, the
regulation’s 15, we talked about 7, but even if you were to do two feet, unroll a strip of
sod along there so that you have a little bit of a depression immediately behind that
seawall and put, and again, I’m not a landscape person, but if you think of it as, if you
look at that picture and you imagine water traveling from left to right, even if you put a
very narrow landscape strip immediately behind that seawall, you’re going to break that,
you’re going to interrupt that, and, yes, it’s not regulation. Fifteen feet is regulation, but
you’re really going to be enhancing all the work and money that you’ve put into the
property already by doing anything that’s going to break up that flow from left to right
across that seawall. Even if it’s only a couple of feet wide, I mean, if you put blueberries
in there, you put, you know, almost anything.
MR. LA FLECHE-And I appreciate that. It is an extremely flat area, and there really is
not a lot of, we’re almost at lake level. I mean, it’s really flat there.
MR. TRAVER-Even a very narrow strip. If you remove the sod basically right away
you’re going to have a depression there because there’s now, the sod is gone, and then
if you, something decorative that you can put, and there are a number of resources
through Keith’s office that could help you with that, but, you know, almost anything, other
than what’s there right now, is going to cause a, it’s going to have a buffering effect.
Even if it’s not all the way up to Code and 15 feet. It’s still going to be different than what
you have there in that it’s going to interrupt that left to right flow.
MR. LA FLECHE-I’m completely confused. I mean I appreciate that, and I guess if we
have to do something like that, we’ll do it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, what happens, what he’s telling you is that if that’s the
seawall, and you depress it, the water’s going to come down and hit it and sink into the
sod. You can also put a guard on the seawall, too.
MR. KREBS-Why not raise the seawall by, you know, you could put natural decorative
rocks across there and concrete them together so you’d have a good looking wall.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the problem there, in modifying the seawall, he’s going to run into,
doesn’t that require DEC permits and all that kind of stuff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s a mess.
MR. TRAVER-It would be a huge expense, and you would still have the nutrient uptake.
I think it would be a lot cheaper and, you know, a lot simpler to just take a.
MR. SIPP-If this (lost word) is put in, whether it be three feet or seven feet, but you
stagger the material, in other words you have one here and one here and then one here
and one there, it doesn’t have to be solid, as long as the root system can get close
enough together to suck up the water. You don’t have to be tree pushed against another
tree or bush, but you also need ground cover in there besides grass, because grass
does not have that deeper roots.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He wants to use as less width as possible because he wants to use
it as a play area.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’ll go along with that, but.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. LA FLECHE-My preference would be to do, you know, six shrubs around that
walkway and that “L” area.
MR. SIPP-That’s not what, it’s not going to do the job.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, if you envision doing that, okay, take that, and then looking at this
picture, would you be prepared to consider removing a very, very narrow strip,
immediately behind that seawall of two feet, twenty-four inches or something, and
instead of having the grass there, putting some kind of low, I mean I gave the example
of.
MR. LA FLECHE-I would not, I’m sorry, you know. I’m a person of character, and I’ve
worked my ass off my entire life, no, I would not do that. It would just take away from
the, I mean, you’re talking, I’ve got 18 feet of lawn. You want to take away two feet of it,
and I wouldn’t do it. I would not do the project.
MR. FORD-Steve, you’ve been sitting here all evening as we have. You’ve seen what
we’ve been up against already, and this happens night after night after night after night.
Try to come up with a solution, sitting here tonight, so that we don’t set, as a goal for
ourselves, that badminton is going to trump buffer.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes, I understand that. Trust me, I understand, and I appreciate what
you’re doing.
MR. FORD-Because we set the stage for each next applicant with what we do tonight.
MR. LA FLECHE-Right. I understand that. In fact, I’ve put a $25,000 system in on that
small piece of property that does all this filtering, I think is pretty good precedent to say
I’m serious about this stuff.
MR. FORD-Offer a suggestion.
MR. LA FLECHE-I thought we were almost there with Chris at one point in time, and then
we got sidetracked. I mean, my suggestion would be to do, you know, six, eight shrubs
around the, you know, six shrubs around the walkway and the new boathouse area, and
then I could do, you know, a couple of others, small trees or whatever we talked about, in
other parts of, some other part of the lawn.
MR. FORD-Nothing in front of that seawall?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s where the shrubs would be.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s where he’s going to put the shrubs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-But how much of that area is going to be covered by the shrubs? Not that
much.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it depends how close he puts the shrubs.
MR. FORD-So specify, how much area there are you going to cover?
MR. LA FLECHE-If I put in eight shrubs that are each two feet, what’s a shrub, two feet
wide? Sixteen feet, I guess.
MR. FORD-Sixteen feet of shrub on either side of the walkway? Parallel to the seawall?
MR. LA FLECHE-I was thinking total, eight shrubs.
MR. FORD-I was just trying to get you to come up with something we can agree with.
MR. LA FLECHE-I know. I appreciate that. I appreciate, Tom, what you’re doing.
MR. GABRIELS-There is quite a bit of planting. I think he would be okay with trying to
blend this corner a little bit with a few more shrubs. I think he wants to leave this open
here. There’s not enough room between this building and the shoreline to really have a
lot of water. A planting in this area here would still maintain the lawn. He doesn’t, he’s
got a set of steps in here. He could plant behind that without affecting anything he
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
wanted to do, as long as it’s low planting in here (lost words) and if we could take
advantage of the tree aspect of these pre-existing trees and just plant the shrubs, I think
hopefully it will accomplish what you want. That’s a pre-existing clump of trees. He’s
planted all this edge here.
MR. FORD-Chris, can you show us on that photograph.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, kind of, yes, it doesn’t really show all of it, though.
MR. FORD-No, but a good portion of it. That portion closest to the lake you can identify
there, can you not?
MR. GABRIELS-This area here is already going to be impacted with stairs and a landing
area here. So I believe he’s already suggested, and you approved, a planting area
behind that wouldn’t affect what he wants to do, and it would create what you would most
approve. This area, again, is at the far corner of his building, far corner of his lot, excuse
me. He can angle that off in here, and again, it wouldn’t affect him but it would create the
solution that you want to create in front of this walkway here.
MR. LA FLECHE-That’s not a walkway.
MR. GABRIELS-I’m sorry.
MR. LA FLECHE-It’s a seawall.
MR. GABRIELS-A seawall. We already have, although you can’t see it here, a very
large, two very large trees in this area, whose canopy comes out to here, at any rate,
whose root system comes out to here, because the root system goes beyond the
canopy. So I think they’ve effectively taken care of this area here. There’s a jut out in
this area here which I believe he can, again, do some fairly decorative planting which will
take care of that edge without impacting his area here, and I think he can take the far
corner and kind of curl that a little bit as well and bring some planting further into his lot
without affecting that too much. There will be a bit of a seawall here in that little coving
seawall area here which probably won’t get too much planting because it’s a fairly
narrow distance between the house, nor does it need a lot of planting area, because
again, it’s a very. You’re very close to the house. There’s not a lot of water that will
impact that area and there’s not a lot of water that will impact the area that’s not already
being taken care of by the pre-existing swale and the drywell. That would be a
suggestion.
MR. SIPP-What’s the total distance across the lot?
MR. GABRIELS-Ninety-seven feet.
MR. SIPP-Ninety-seven feet.
MR. GABRIELS-Right.
MR. SIPP-If you planted a small maple tree, hard maple, on either end, it might cost
about $10 a piece, and then had some small trees such as white birch or something in
between, he would qualify for the large and small tree part of it, and all you’ve got to do is
fill in with some brush between the trees to a depth of four or five feet, and as I say, you
could stagger them. You don’t just line them up one behind the other, you stagger them,
because the root systems will tend to grow together and I don’t think that it’s that
expensive.
MR. LA FLECHE-I’m not worried about the expense.
MR. GABRIELS-I don’t think expense is the issue. The confusion on this lot is the 15
feet and the 18 feet of available space, and how do you make a reasonable compromise
between the lack of room to put a buffer in here and the desire to put a buffer there?
MR. SIPP-Well, you’re not putting in a 15 foot buffer. You’re putting in something less
than that, which we would have to come to agreement on, but I think it can be done with
five foot.
MR. GABRIELS-And I would suggest the reason for the 15 foot buffer is that you’re trying
to accomplish stormwater control for a greater area. Here the stormwater controls that
you’re trying to create a very small area, only 18 foot of lawn. The rest of the stormwater
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
is already being accomplished by the swales and the drywells and all the
accomplishments that he’s done on the other side of the house.
MR. SIPP-Is there stormwater on the front of the house?
MR. GABRIELS-Yes, there’s stormwater.
MR. SIPP-What falls from the house to the lake?
MR. LA FLECHE-There’s a huge swale, right here. This area, all the lawn in front of the
house, there’s a swale that’s three feet wide and a foot deep that Tom Jarrett had me put
in. I apologize for getting mad, but I’m like, he had me put in all this stuff there to protect
the lake and now we’re taking, I was mad at him for having me do that, to be honest with
you, because it took away like three feet of my front lawn. Right here there’s a big swale
right there.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but this lawn between the three feet and the seawall is still.
MR. LA FLECHE-That’s like right here, yes, it’s like 12 feet or something.
MR. SIPP-Well, where does that water go, where is that water going to go when it rains?
MR. LA FLECHE-It goes into the lake, sir.
MR. SIPP-Into the lake. Now that’s what we’re trying to prevent.
MR. GABRIELS-Right, but it is only 12 feet, and it is only that water that is falling within
that 12 feet zone. It is not the entire lot. Most of the rest of the water, stormwater on the
lot, is already being addressed.
MR. SIPP-Take a look at the slope, percent slope you’ve got there.
MR. KREBS-Right, plus you said that the two large trees, the root structure is covering
half of that front lawn anyway.
MR. GABRIELS-It’s well within that 15 foot buffer. The canopy’s well within the 15 foot
and the root structure has to be beyond the canopy.
MR. FORD-I think we’ve got an acceptable plan that’s been presented, if we can just put
it in the form of a motion so that we know what we’re approving.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I’m comfortable with what you just presented. I don’t
know how we put that into a motion, though.
MR. LA FLECHE-So would that qualify as a plan?
MR. OBORNE-Not yet.
MR. GABRIELS-Right. That’s a conceptual plan for the purposes of.
MR. OBORNE-Getting approval.
MR. GABRIELS-Yes, and then we’ll have to identify the species and quantify.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, the species are in the Code. So, you know, as
long as it’s within what’s specified in the Code, you know, I think you’re okay. So, just to
kind of try to articulate this a little better. The areas where you said you would be willing
to put plantings, what did you have in mind, other than?
MR. LA FLECHE-In front of the house they would be low plantings. Towards the sides of
the house, towards the northwest of the house we can get those plants to grow a little bit
larger and they wouldn’t impact their view or their enjoyment of the lake, and towards the
northwest side, behind the stairway and the landing area, those can be fairly large
shrubs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, those can be shrubs, yes.
MR. LA FLECHE-As that would be impacted by the stairs at any rate anyhow, and then
towards the northwest corner again a low shrub as well.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. GABRIELS-And interspersing with that we can throw ground cover, you know, to
kind of widen that base a little bit. The width of everything would vary, depending on the
location. There wouldn’t be a uniform, the plan doesn’t suggest, as a uniform width.
MR. FORD-Why don’t you deal with minimums and maximums.
MR. GABRIELS-The minimum would be zero in some areas. There would be no
plantings in front of that little concrete cove. I don’t know how else you want to describe
that, nor do I think it’s absolutely necessary to have that much there, as the lawn
distance is only less than 10 feet. So there’s really not a lot of water that you have to
concern yourself with. The other areas would have anywhere from six to eight feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how many bushes in front of the, shrubs, I should say? I mean,
it’s only as wide as the dock is. So is it six or eight, maybe?
MR. GABRIELS-To the full width of the dock?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, shrubs to the full width of the dock.
MR. LA FLECHE-The dock’s 28 feet wide.
MR. KREBS-I think what he was saying is the full width of the staircase, you know. If
you do the staircase, because otherwise you’re going to struck walking (lost words) the
dock.
MR. LA FLECHE-I’m sorry. That’s obvious.
MR. GABRIELS-Yes, so the full length of the staircase.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is the staircase.
MR. FORD-That road is appropriately named, isn’t it?
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes. Waters Edge Drive. If you listen to George Russo, he can give
you the whole history.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when you said something fairly large, like a large shrub? Small
tree?
MR. GABRIELS-I’m hoping, again, we could take advantage of the pre-existing twenty
and twenty-four inch diameter trees to fill that requirement. Although, again, that’s a
huge canopy that does encroach upon that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So a shrub with some ground cover you said.
MR. GABRIELS-Yes. Large shrub to the northwest and smaller shrub to the northeast
corners.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the one kind of in the middle at that point.
MR. GABRIELS-I guess that would be a smaller shrub.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be a smaller shrub. We’re marking up your plan,
because we couldn’t verbalize this. One small shrub, two small shrubs. This is the one
in the middle, the point.
MR. GABRIELS-I have no idea. A small shrub in the middle. We’re just going to do
some accent planting. That’s all.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So Don has identified four areas, and each area would have some
shrubs, and then three of the four areas would have ground cover. The shrubs in front of
the dock, would there be anything, like would there be anything underneath the shrub, or
just the shrubs?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. GABRIELS-Realistically, probably just the shrubs, only because I don’t think you’ll
get much to happen in between those two areas.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because you’re thinking those would be more filled in.
MR. GABRIELS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You said six to eight feet of ground cover around each area?
MR. GABRIELS-Yes, I’m sorry.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the garden itself will be six to eight feet.
MR. GABRIELS-Yes, thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is just a row of shrubs, the length of the stairs. Do you want to take a
look at how we’ve marked this up?
MRS. STEFFAN-What we’ve tried to do is denote it in color, and then when we do this
approval, the motion, we can refer to the picture. The picture goes right to the Land Use
Planner so that it is on file. I’ll describe it verbally, but without a visual.
MR. LA FLECHE-No, I’m just trying to think of how far six feet’s going to come in on that
corner. That’s where we put all our kayaks and stuff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the six to eight feet, well, it’s kind of vague, but like at that one
point it’s really the length along the waterfront. It would come into your yard maybe three
feet. The total is six to eight feet.
MR. LA FLECHE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Code Enforcement people are going to have a hard time with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but it’s also depicted there to give you an idea. Well, that whole
length there is six to eight feet, you know, across. Do you see what I’m saying?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but from a landscaping point of view, you probably wouldn’t want
an “L”. It would be too funky.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, it’s kind of a horseshoe shape, you know, that whole.
MR. LA FLECHE-Right. We can plant stuff and do ground cover in an area
approximately six to eight feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, from, you know, this point to that point is six to eight feet.
MR. LA FLECHE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-This might only be three or four, you know, from that point to that
point.
MR. LA FLECHE-Okay. I’ve got you.
MR. HUNSINGER-This we didn’t specify. This is a row of shrubs.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then this actually looked bigger here. Well, maybe not, it’s about
the same.
MR. LA FLECHE-Yes, that’s what we drew.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to run with that?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve never done a motion like this before. Okay. So did you close the
public hearing?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2010 CHRIS GABRIELS, 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 boathouse / sundeck w/96 sq. ft. dock addition.
Boathouse / Sundeck in a WR zone require Planning Board review and approval.
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 3/23/2010
as required; and
3)The ZBA approved the variance request on 3/24/2010; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/20/2010; and
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2010 CHRIS GABRIELS,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Six A complies. This is
a Type II action. This is approved with the following conditions:
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)Type II-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 permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)The Planning Board’s actually created a map that we’re about to turn over
to the Land Use Planner, based on our discussion here tonight. The
applicant will be creating some shoreline plantings in four gardens: 1) On
the northwest corner, in Garden One it will be approximately six to eight
feet, with large shrubs; 2) Garden Two is actually along the seawall, and
it is also six to eight feet, and it will have small shrubs with perennial
ground cover; 3) Garden Three will be another garden at the corner of the
property. It will be six to eight feet with a large shrub with some perennial
ground cover; 4) Garden Four will have a row of shrubs. It lies in front of
the proposed deck stairs, and it will be a row of shrubs, and so we will be
submitting this plan to Keith Oborne, the Community Development
person, denoting the plans as discussed, approved and accepted
between the applicant and the Planning Board.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-When you said six feet, you mean linear feet along the?
MR. TRAVER-Well, as depicted on the map.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-As depicted on the map. There are design elements here.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s basically the maximum length from a point to a point.
MR. SIPP-Now what’s the width of that?
MR. HUNSINGER-It varies.
MRS. STEFFAN-It varies.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Sipp
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. I hope you remembered what you, good.
MR. LA FLECHE-I’ve got it right here.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 SEQR TYPE II M & W FOODS AGENT(S) B P S R;
HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES, INC. ZONING CI
LOCATION 797 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
KFC / A & W RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,276 SQ. FT.
BUILDING. RESTAURANT IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING
4/14/2010 LOT SIZE 2.73 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-43 SECTION 179-9-010
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 20-2010, M & W Foods. The action is a restaurant in the CI
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. This is 797 State Route 9. This is
where the current Kentucky Fried Chicken and A & W root beer stand is, or store.
Project Description: Applicant proposes the demolition of existing KFC/A&W Restaurant
and construction of a new 3,276 sq. ft. building to house KFC only. Staff Comments:
The existing 3,730 square foot combined KFC/A&W restaurant will be replaced with a
3,276 square foot stand alone KFC. The applicant proposes to rebuild in a more
compliant location approximately 67 feet from Old Aviation Road. The proposal includes
a reduction in impermeable area of 665 square feet, new vehicle parking and circulation
scheme, new landscaping and a change in signage. The Zoning Board of Appeals has
approved front setback relief from Old Aviation Road on March 24, 2010. What follows is
Site Plan Review. I do want to go down to additional comments, real quick. Plans for
disposal of construction and demolition waste, either on-site or at an approved disposal
facility should be clarified as per page 7 of application checklist, and again, what follows,
or what was previous to that, was Site Plan Review, and with that, I’d turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Ray Aley is here on behalf of M & W Foods
and Tom Hutchins, project engineer. With your help, we went to the Zoning Board, with
your suggestion, your recommendation last time, and they were very positive about
moving the building farther from where it is and making it smaller. So we have the Area
Variance and we’re back to now talk about Site Plan. Obviously, we’ve got a kind of tired
old site that was developed a long time before the modern Queensbury regulations, and
recognizing this, Ray saw this as the only real way to re-develop this was to make a
smaller building and allow us to have better circulation, better parking, better, some
landscaping and better green. So we’re trying to improve what we have there and part of
it is to make the franchise happier, too, just in terms of making a site that fits their
standards as well as the Town’s. So, you know, we’re only dealing with the part of the
site that we’re allowed to deal with because the rest of it is tenanted and the landlord
controls that, but in terms of what we’re doing here, we’re taking more of the site than
what they had to begin with and we think improving it and especially the circulation
issues and lighting and landscaping. So we have all the Staff comments and the
engineer comments, and we have no issues with that. There’s one that we want to talk
about. Tom and Ray had a meeting with DOT, and now, based on what DOT wants,
we’re going to propose a dedicated left turn lane out on the northern entrance. So
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
there’d be a right and a left. Right now, if you go through KFC and you want to make a
right to go south on Route 9, and somebody’s trying to make a left going north, you have
to wait. So now this will work better. DOT wanted it. That’s on the northern entrance.
DOT didn’t like the suggestion of the pork chop on the southern exit. So, besides that,
everything else that’s proposed we have no problems with, and Tom can go through the
comments one by one, however you’d like to handle it, but we see all these as pretty
straightforward and mostly technical.
TOM HUTCHINS
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins. As Jon said, I have been through both
the original Staff comments and the engineer’s comments, and I have actually modified
the plans in accordance with them. We haven’t come across a submission cycle, and
obviously they’re not in your hands. They are in my hands, and all of the comments, the
comments from engineering are essentially, I’ve made adjustments to the plans in
accordance with them. I think the big issue here is traffic flow, and we did meet with
DOT, Warrensburg DOT, and the package is being submitted to Albany for their review,
but we’re showing a true left out, right out, and ingress lane that’s different than what’s
on your plans, and it’s shown here, and I think it’s better, and it seems to work. Other
than that, we really haven’t, there haven’t been significant changes to what you’ve seen.
We did remove a couple of parking spaces that were against the adjacent Electrolux
building, and that was one of the suggestions. I’ve clarified some elevations on some of
the drainage infrastructure. I’ve adjusted the grading plan slightly in accordance to one
of the engineer’s comments, and the footprint was modified a minimal amount in order to
allow us to, what we did, in order to make this third lane work, is we’re showing opening
up a little bit of curbing that is presently right in this area. It’s about an eight foot, to open
that area up on the inside to allow one, two, three lanes in that space. That changes the
footprint by a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-So those lanes are just depicted with markings, right? There’s no
curb or any kind of barrier?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. There’d be curbing on either side. Curbing here, curbing in here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-There were two spaces down here, shown on your plans. That was a
suggestion that they come out. Allows a little better access into here. This is a little bit of
a tight corner, but we are balancing the constraints on an old, rather constrained site.
We think that traffic flow works pretty good. It works good for the applicant and the
franchisee’s happy with it. There haven’t been significant changes to traffic flow, and
with that I’ll turn it over for questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-The approvals you’re waiting for from DOT are for your left and right exit?
MR. LAPPER-It’s not so much the approvals. They had a meeting and we were told this
was what DOT wanted to see, and we did it.
MR. TRAVER-But you’re waiting for some.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s a work permit that we get, but they’re satisfied.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right. DOT will ultimately have to issue a highway work permit. They
won’t issue that until we have approvals from you folks, but we have had the
correspondence with them to say that, hey, we think this makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Is there any documentation of that, what DOT has suggested or is happy
with?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. Getting it on paper is in the works.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve met with them face to face.
MR. TRAVER-That’s kind of what I was looking for, too.
MR. FORD-I’m always interested in the creative thinking that goes into a project like this,
and I know access and egress is an issue. Was any consideration given to the utilization
of Old Aviation Road?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re now making that two way.
MR. FORD-I know that, but in terms of helping to either access or egress onto Route 9.
MR. LAPPER-It’s funny, because I look at that from a land development standpoint. It’s
sort of wasted. That cul de sac is there so that the snow plows can turn around. It could
be pretty valuable land for somebody, and there ought to be something done with it, but
that was when, you know, before the Mall, and that’s where Aviation Road was and the
Town owns it. So DOT unlikely, because they wouldn’t let another intersection be
created so close to the main intersection, it’s unlikely that they would allow that to
connect, would be my answer, to Route 9, but we’re trying to use it to get people out of
there if they want to, not to connect to Route 9, but just to let people go up to the traffic
light at Aviation Road.
MR. FORD-I was just wondering if it had been considered along with those in only and
then the right left onto Route 9 north and south.
MR. HUTCHINS-In other words, doing something up in here and entering.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-I guess to answer your question not in detail, no it wasn’t considered in
detail. We don’t control DOT, the Town, and no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you concerned about creating more thorough traffic using Old
Aviation Road?
MR. LAPPER-I think people use it now, from what I’ve seen over all these years, and this
just makes it safer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I think plenty of people use it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Going this way through, I’m a little concerned with it, but it’s not an easy
I mean, it’s an easier shortcut now than it will be with our curbing and our parking defined
in one way out.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a good point.
MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, right now you just kind of, there’s almost a straight shot there,
and it wouldn’t be as convenient as a shortcut. It’ll be convenient for people exiting the
facility.
MR. FORD-Your one way in, one way out. You’ve got two way in there.
MR. HUTCHINS-There’s two way on Old Aviation Road.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. FORD-I thought that’s what we were referring to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-We are, but it’s only one way. We have one way across this. So where
right now it’s a shortcut. Well, I don’t have the old building on this one. Right now it’s an
easy shortcut to shoot right over here to Old Aviation Road. There is only one lane
there, but with this, we’ve brought the curbing out. We’ve put this island here, and we’ve
got a very defined parking area for the KFC, and, yes, they’d still be able to come in and
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
go all the way through the parking lot and out, but I think it’ll be more difficult than it
presently is.
MR. LAPPER-And safer because there’s two lanes, if people are doing it.
RAY ALEY
MR. ALEY-And if I could add, right now there’s no parking there. So people come off of
Route 9 and they buzz right through there and there’s just the one way to get through.
So for somebody coming in, there’s the potential.
MR. FORD-The new configuration adds to the pedestrian hazard, for those parking
there.
MR. ALEY-However, people are going to be less likely to want to cut through a parking
lot, whereas right now if you look at it it’s more like a one way road, a drive aisle, and
now they’ll be coming in to a parking area. So, obviously in the way he’s got it curbed,
it’ll slow him down substantially.
MR. FORD-I see the theory.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can you talk about pedestrian access? That was one of the
Staff comments. I think it’s well taken.
MR. HUTCHINS-From off site onto site, or from our, I mean, we feel we’ve vastly
improved the parking, the pedestrian access for a customer coming in who’s going to
park in an area that’s isolated for this restaurant, and will have access immediate to the
restaurant, versus the present situation where there’s, what, four or five spaces in front of
the building, and then everybody’s out in the center of the open parking area walking
through the traffic flow. Yes. There will be people that will walk across a lane of traffic,
but we do that everywhere, where you’ve got two sided parking, so I think it’s vastly
improved, the pedestrian access from vehicle into the facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about from off site?
MR. HUTCHINS-From off site, we’ve shown, there’s sidewalks on either side on Route 9,
and we’ve shown cross walks at Route 9. We haven’t shown, I guess we haven’t shown
a directed pedestrian route from offsite onto this.
MR. LAPPER-But you’re walking out of your car anyway in the parking lot.
MR. HUTCHINS-I guess something could be done.
MR. FORD-But pedestrian other than for those who come by car, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-No, but I’m saying you’d be walking across the parking lot if you came
from the sidewalk to get to Radio Shack, for example, or to get to KFC, but that’s what
you’re doing if you park your car, you’re walking through the parking lot anyway, if you
come by car. You’re just basically coming off the sidewalk which is on the right of way.
I’m not sure it’s a problem. Is there something you’d like to see?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just thinking if you’re walking from Route 9, how would you
come from Route 9, the Route 9 sidewalk to the store.
MR. HUTCHINS-You’d walk across one of these islands and walk across here, or across
here and come here.
MR. ALEY-I walk up to the hardware store all the time by going right through the cul de
sac. You can see the straight line between my building and McDonalds and Ace
Hardware. You don’t literally walk along the road. You go straight through and there’s
actually stairs at McDonalds. So you know the path that people take. So pedestrians
are not literally walking along the side of the road.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a good point.
MR. ALEY-Yes, we frequent ACE Hardware.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind that pedestrians also include bicyclists.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. ALEY-I’m an avid one.
MR. OBORNE-So that needs to be taken into consideration. It’s accessed by both
pedestrians and cyclists.
MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t bicycle up and down the stairs.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Some kids might.
MR. ALEY-They do now days.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address
the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments? I will open the public hearing, and
let the record show there were no commentors. What’s the will of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly there were a lot of Staff items that were open, but Mr.
Hutchins said that he’s created new plans to satisfy those. So we could condition
approval based on satisfying those, although the list would be long, or submit the plans
and come back in. It would be June because we’ve already missed the deadline for
May. So it would be June to come back. By then they certainly would have the DOT
documentation.
MR. LAPPER-But we have to have that permit anyway before we can start the work. So
we could submit that to the Town if it was a condition of approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I don’t want to have undue influence. I would appreciate it if you
would table this pending revised plans to come in, because there’s a lot of stuff.
MR. ALEY-If I could interject, the construction season here is very, very short, and
tabling me until June could potentially be very detrimental for one my variance approval
is only good for a short time, it’s my understanding.
MR. OBORNE-It’s good for a year.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a year.
MR. ALEY-Yes, but the ability to get a contractor lined up. I’m really trying to get this
project done no later than October, and the lead time and franchisor approval and
everything, and hoping that we could do a conditional approval based on the site plan
that Tom has submitted tonight.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are our agendas full going forward, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I think June is reasonable at this point. There is room, but somebody
would have to get moved down, but obviously applicants that are in the queue have
precedent. If you want, you could also table them to May, but obviously the deadline
date has passed. I don’t know how quickly Tom can turn it around, but a conditional
approval, not to step on what you’re saying, I totally appreciate what you’re saying, is
with the amount of issues that are outstanding, I don’t feel comfortable with that, for what
it’s worth.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many issues are outstanding?
MR. OBORNE-Well, in my Staff Notes, I have not seen any revisions to any plan.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. TRAVER-Well, you have the revised plans in hand.
MR. HUTCHINS-I have revised the plan in accordance with the, I’ve got a couple of them
that I still have to revise, but, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So how soon to do you think you could get them to Staff?
MR. HUTCHINS-I could get them in very soon.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s just a lot of items, you know, and they include things like
landscaping plans.
MR. HUTCHINS-Landscaping plans have been completely updated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting plans, you know. It’s not like it’s just technical engineering
things.
MR. HUTCHINS-I know, and some of them say consideration should be given. I
understand what you’re saying.
MR. LAPPER-If there’s any way we could get it in in May, and I know you’ve got a lot
going on, Ray would really appreciate it, so he could get this building knocked down, and
Tom could certainly get it in in a week.
MR. OBORNE-Quick question, though. You wouldn’t knock down the building during the
high season, though, I wouldn’t imagine. You’re looking at October, right?
MR. LAPPER-October.
MR. ALEY-(Lost words) so that’s why I really want to get this moving. I think we’re all in
agreement.
MR. OBORNE-And we do, I mean, there’s just too many outstanding issues at this point.
MR. ALEY-If I could get it in in May, I think I’ll be able to get going on this. I’ve got
contractors in the queues. I’m going to lose them if I have to tell them all I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’re certainly not hearing any major concerns from the Board,
either. I mean, I think at this point it’s a question of dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s
and making sure everything’s.
MR. LAPPER-If you could just do four meetings in May, I think everything would be okay.
MR. FORD-I’ll bet you’d be in all of them, Jon.
MRS. STEFFAN-Should we add them as an extra item so somebody else doesn’t get
bumped?
MR. HUNSINGER-And May’s the weird month where we have meetings on Tuesday and
Thursday the same week.
MR. FORD-Yes, because of Grievance Day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because of Grievance Day.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are the meetings in May?
thththth
MR. HUNSINGER-The 18 and the 20. The 18 is a normal meeting. The 20 is a
th
special meeting, instead of the 25. Do you have, I mean, if they submit plans within a
week, does that give you enough time to turn it around?
MR. OBORNE-I’m comfortable with that, just knowing the project engineer. He’s pretty
thorough.
MR. LAPPER-Also, if the public hearing is closed, maybe this could go on as an extra
item, because it would be quick-ish.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t close it yet.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why I said if. Yes, we thought the last one would be quicker.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are people comfortable with that? All right. Would someone like to
th
make a motion to table this to May 20?
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Now, is it realistic that you can get everything done by the 27, or do
th
you want until Friday the 30?
th
MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll take Friday if I could get it, but I can get it, if you give me the 27, I’ll
get it done.
th
MR. OBORNE-The 27 is Friday?
th
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s Tuesday. April 30 is a Friday. So that would give them like 10
th
days to turn it around, but then that would be, if I put them on the 20, the second
meeting.
th
MR. FORD-How about the 28?
th
MR. OBORNE-The 28 of April, obviously.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s Wednesday.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, whatever the will of the Board is, and if Tom gets them in, I’ll review
them. Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Please make sure that you address all the issues, because if
you get back here and they’re not.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and you realize that whenever we resubmit and address these
issues, that something’s going to come back, but I’m comfortable that these are relatively
small issues such that what comes back.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the big items are obviously the landscaping and the lighting
plans.
MR. HUTCHINS-Landscaping I have done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
th
MR. FORD-Is the 28 okay?
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 M & W FOODS, 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 demolition of existing KFC / A & W restaurant and
construction of a new 3,276 sq. ft. building. Restaurant in a CI zone requires
Planning Board review and approval.
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 3/23/2010
as required; and
3)The ZBA approved the variance request on 3/24/2010; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/20/2010; and
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 M & W FOODS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
This is tabled to the May 20 Planning Board meeting, to be added as an
additional item, and the applicant will have a submission deadline of Wednesday,
th
April 28 for new materials to the Community Development Department, and this
is tabled so that the applicant can address the numerous Staff Notes outstanding
and also so that the applicant can provide DOT documentation on the
ingress/egress changes. That the applicant; in addition to the Staff Notes will
also address engineering comments.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
MRS. STEFFAN-And tabled also so that the applicant can provide DOT
documentation on the ingress/egress changes.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if they’re going to have.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know if I’ll have that.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll have that by the meeting, but you won’t have that.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know if I’ll have it for submission, but the DOT’s
documentation is going to be.
MR. LAPPER-A letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a letter.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, even if you have the, if you don’t meet the
th
submission deadline for the DOT letter by the 28, if you have it before our Staff
Notes come out, and you can get them to Keith so they could be in our packages
on the week before, okay.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I could attach them on the Friday and send it out. If you
could add engineering comments also to the motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry. There is an additional condition, that the applicant, in
addition to the Staff Notes, will also address engineering comments.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a month.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
MR. ALEY-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION,
INC. AGENT(S) SEE APPLICANT OWNER(S) RUSSELL & JAMES O’CONNOR
ZONING MAIN STREET LOCATION 15 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
GRADING & FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAIN STREET PROJECT ON A 17.7
ACRE PARCEL. FURTHER, APPLICANT TO GAIN APPROVAL FOR PAST FILLING
ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF TOWN CODE. GRADING
OF LAND EXCEEDING 0.25 +/- ACRES REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 50-96, SB 5-96, UV 49-96 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 4/14/2010 LOT SIZE 17.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-89.1
SECTION 179-6-010 C
PAT WELLINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 25-2010, Rifenburg Construction. Requested action, Site
Plan Review for the grading of land exceeding a quarter of an acre. Location is 15 Big
Boom Road. Main Street is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project
Description: Applicant proposes grading & filling associated with the Main Street project
on a 17.7 acre parcel. Further, applicant to gain approval for past filling activities which
are currently in violation of Town Code. Staff comments: The property is currently under
a stop work order issued by Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank for past fill activities
performed without a permit. The current proposal calls for review of both past and
proposed fill activities associated with the recently commenced Main Street Project. It
goes on, we talk about site disturbance. We talk about some bore holes that the
applicant has taken. For Site Plan Review, this is pretty much all on Clark’s shoulders
from Paragon, because it’s all E & S and stormwater at this point. My additional
comments are: Town Engineer signoff is required and it is my estimation from field
observations and from scaling on GIS and scaling on the applicant’s survey, that the
unnamed stream/runoff appears to be 100 feet in distance from any proposed fill
activities. If it’s within that 100 feet, it would require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. At
this point I feel that it is not. Now the engineer has stated differently, but I’ll turn it over to
the Board with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the
record.
MR. WELLINGTON-Pat Wellington with Rifenburg Construction. Basically I’m the
project manager for the ongoing project out there. To address the 100 foot distance,
actual distance, horizontal if you scaled it you would think that it is not the 100 foot, but
when you are physically out there measuring, it’s actually a slope that goes down to it.
The actual measured distance is 110 foot. It is verified by Sterling Environmental and it’s
talked about in the SWPPP’s plan, in her write up that addresses that. I feel pretty
confident that, along with his back up and field measuring, that it’s an accurate
statement. He’s incorrect statement on his, Paragon’s part. As an overall, I think we’re,
it’s kind of helping a case that was a Stop Work Order was issued. We’re trying to clean
that up for that and get that off the record, as well as we’re trying to make a betterment
on the existing conditions that are there. Other than that, I mean, I don’t, you know, I will
answer any questions you have. I don’t want to elaborate too much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Questions comments from members of the Board?
MR. SIPP-If you are going to remove the unwanted fill, do you have a place to take it to?
MR. WELLINGTON-The unwanted fill. I guess if you could just be more specific.
MR. SIPP-Well, in other words, there’s bricks.
MR. OBORNE-That’s clean fill. That’s considered clean fill.
MR. WELLINGTON-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I had them go ahead, or had them, I asked them to do bore holes to see
what the nature of the fill is from the past filling activity on the O’Connor property, which
is what this property is, and I wanted to make sure that it was clean fill, and it turns out it
was. How deep was one of your test pits?
MR. WELLINGTON-Exceeds eight feet.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. WELLINGTON-The new material that we’re putting in is going to be all generated
from the reconstruction of County Route 28, or Main Street in Downtown. So, I mean,
that’s a given. If there’s any contaminated soils or anything like that that may be
encountered within our contract obviously it would not be going there. It would have to
go offsite to a regulated facility to accept that and documented by all engineers and
everybody, inspectors involved on that part. So there’s really no foreseen unacceptable
materials that would be placed.
MR. HUNSINGER-How would you know?
MR. WELLINGTON-How would you know?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you know, you’re digging up the road and soil. How
would you know if it were, if it was contaminated or not, though. Is it tested first?
MR. WELLINGTON-There’s test parameters that we have to meet. If there’s a
questionable site, like let’s take the old gas station, for instance. There’s parameters
already in our contract that are for testing abilities of that area. If that is encountered, I
mean, it’s normal to have that question there, and there’s means in place to handle that
situation and everything would be taken offsite and quantified and documented
accordingly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Are you familiar with the reasons that the old fill activities were done
without a permit?
MR. WELLINGTON-I don’t know all of it. I have been enlightened by Keith on
circumstances at hand that have arisen. We’ve gone back and forth, in house here, to,
you know, I’m encompassing a larger area than I need to, to settle that part with the
Town and the Stop Work Order to close that issue out, and I’m kind of taking that on,
done the test holes and verified that everything is legitimate and acceptable. The ins
and outs and the specifics of why they did what they did or who got caught and why, no,
and for better term it’s not really my business. I’m just trying to move forward. That
helps the benefit of this project.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is kind of an off the wall question. In Staff Notes, they say that
the proposed fill is approximately 45,300 cubic yards. How many truckloads is that?
MR. WELLINGTON-Divide them by 20.
MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty? Okay.
MR. WELLINGTON-So, kind of as a benefit from our aspect and part of the process
asking is this also keeps that truck traffic out of town, off the highways.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How much, is all of that from the Main Street project? Is that
the estimate from just Main Street?
MR. WELLINGTON-Yes. It’s probably a few thousand yards extra, just to allow myself, if
we get into a situation where there’s an undercut or something, that, I’m asking for that.
now I don’t have to come back and ask again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. So if you don’t dump it here, where would it then have
to go?
MR. WELLINGTON-I have to find another place and come back to you guys with another
plan.
MR. OBORNE-I think West Mountain was one of them, wasn’t it?
MR. WELLINGTON-It was, and, you know, obviously this is the better place for
everybody, public and ourselves included. So we chose it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I asked the question. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any
other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-There are no commentors. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Definitely not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no comments. What’s the will
of the Board? We do have engineering comments and Staff comments.
MR. WELLINGTON-If I could just interject.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. WELLINGTON-Based on the engineers, some of their comments, they’re referring
to a lot of items that are not on the drawing, but yet are detailed in the SWPPP’s plan.
My point of view is it’s covered. I kind of look at it as a contractor. I look at it say, well,
he’s basically telling me write the spec book on the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. WELLINGTON-Not that that can’t be done or accomplished to satisfy the Board. It
appears that there’s no issues with the comments. It’s just a matter of where is it
located. Whether that helps or not, but just to voice that as how I feel about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you.
MR. SIPP-My only comment is the engineer’s comments at the bottom, erosion and
sediment control plan, several things need to be addressed there.
MR. OBORNE-Number Nine?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. WELLINGTON-I guess, if I may, to elaborate on that, Sterling Environmental was
our engineer that developed the entire SWPPP’s. The plan that is incorporated in there
is done by our staff, our surveyors. They worked hand in hand. It doesn’t say there’s
revisions, but there’s been numerous revisions back and forth. She, being Sterling, is
that person that has shown us, you know, make sure the silt fence is there, designed for
the sediment basin, the ditches and all that, and we incorporated the plan. What I can
say or offer to ease the Board’s mind, I guess, is if I need to take my drawing and have
her put her stamp on it or her, Sterling’s marks on it or their title block I guess is what I’m
trying to say, that can be transferred to their title blocks if that clears that issue up.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it certainly needs to be on the SWPPP itself. It needs to be, the
only person that can generate a SWPPP is a CPESC or an engineer.
MR. WELLINGTON-Which Sterling has generated the Notice of Intent, the SWPPP’s.
That part is all completely hers, theirs.
MR. OBORNE-Okay, and that’s on the SWPPP it says that the person is a PE?
MR. WELLINGTON-Yes. I mean, this, some of those pages, because I didn’t have the
whole book, but this is what’s actually going to be, you have the copies of all this, not the
cover page. Sterling actually will do the Notice of Intent. They sign off on it. I sign off on
it. All our subcontractors, everyone on the job signs off on it. There’s a SWPPP’s form.
He makes a reference, I say he, but the engineer makes reference to management
report, which is in here. It’s not signed. I’m looking for approvals first before I go to the
next step to get the Notice of Intent, obviously.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WELLINGTON-But my all means, they are the leading force. They are the engineer
in charge. Our personnel, to monitor everything, like for instance, this is my card. We’ve
all had DEC classes on erosion control sediment. We have certificates saying that we’re
trained in it. So we do classify it as a monitor of our own erosion protection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think when looking at the engineering comments, one of the reasons
why the engineer is recommending that these plan details be on the plans is for our main
file purposes, so that all this is documented on the plan, but also for our Code
Enforcement people who go out in the field. It would be unfair to them to have to dig
through the stormwater report, the stormwater protection report, in order to get this
information when it really should be on the plan. He takes the plans out into the field,
and if the documentation’s there, then he can do his job more readily. So that’s one of
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
the reasons why Mr. Wilkinson is asking for those things, and as a Planning Board
member, I would reinforce that, a plan’s a plan.
MR. WELLINGTON-Okay. Understood.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so we have some standards that need to be complied with.
MR. WELLINGTON-Understood.
MR. OBORNE-If you do this approval, if you can be specific on what you want approval
from him from, because you’ve got the one to fifty scale. The Planning Board can waive
that if they wish to. I guess what I’m doing is for ease of his review and to close out the
project.
MRS. STEFFAN-How do you feel about that? I mean, that’s a requirement. That’s one
of the reasons why Clark looks for it.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t have a problem with it whatsoever. If the Board wishes to have
those on the plan, that’s certainly going to help Bruce out. That’s for sure, but he knows
how to read the SWPPP also.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we only have one Code Enforcement guy.
MR. OBORNE-Well, we have two.
MRS. STEFFAN-One’s out in the field.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the only items are really one and eight.
MR. OBORNE-That you’re comfortable with?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, that are kind of left up for debate and discussion. The rest
are just label this, provide that. Those are the only two that are open for the Planning
Board’s determination.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. WELLINGTON-Here’s what I will offer, just to make everybody’s life a little easier
here. I will change those two things, or I will make it a 50 scale, and I will modify the
grading plan for the area that he’s in question of it being 100 feet close to it. I’m willing
just to re-draw those contour lines, if that’s what he needs. I’ll just suck it in a little bit so
it’s undisputable. Is that easier for everyone, to make this smooth, or am I making things
more complicated than I need to?
MRS. STEFFAN-If that’s an accurate representation of where it is, then that should be.
MR. OBORNE-I have no issue with it, as drawn, to be honest with you, and I’ve visited
the site, although I didn’t have a tape measure with me. I did pace it. It’s not exactly
accurate but it is scaled. It is over 100 feet, and it’s an unnamed stream. It’s not a
perennial stream. So that’s another issue. It’s a runoff, more than anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I was certainly willing to go on your, the two of your
comments that it’s over 100 feet.
MR. FORD-I was, too.
MR. WELLINGTON-Okay. Me, too. I’ll take the deal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the one to fifty scale, you said.
MR. OBORNE-If you don’t feel it’s necessary, that’s fine. I mean, are you happy with
what’s before you?
MR. WELLINGTON-The reason we did make it the sixty scale is to show the other profile
on the same drawing, instead of making more papers.
MR. HUNSINGER-How does the Board feel about that?
MR. KREBS-I don’t mind one in sixty.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Maybe I haven’t found it, but what is your end result here? Are you going to
seed this?
MR. WELLINGTON-Based on the SWPPP’s, everything will be seeded, sloped. I can’t
walk away from it until it’s stabilized and signed off by DEC, which is the governing
SWPPP’s control.
MR. SIPP-So you plan on erosion control by?
MR. WELLINGTON-Erosion control on our end it’s going to be a matter of on those
ditches it’s going to be check dams between silt fence and check dams, stone check
dams if needed. Whatever, as this develops, whatever steps we need to increase to
maintain erosion is what we’re going to be doing. The sediment basin is at the end, is at
the bottom, catches everything to maintain it on site. Obviously normal maintenance
issues of those will be addressed, and then as things stabilize, you know, that’s
eventually going to be remediated as well.
MR. OBORNE-Did you guys visit the site at all? Did you see what it’s looking like now?
I should actually show you pictures of it. Sorry about that. I don’t mean to prolong this
arduous task we have. I don’t know what’s wrong with me, but I don’t have it. So never
mind. That’s what it’s looking like. Right down in here, the main stream is down in this
area behind this little hump here.
MR. WELLINGTON-It’s down over that bank.
MR. OBORNE-Way over that bank, yes. That’s what it’s looking like, for what it’s worth.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is everyone comfortable moving forward?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2010 RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION,
INC., 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 grading & filling associated with the Main Street
project on a 17.7 acre parcel. Further, applicant to gain approval for past filling
activities which are currently in violation of Town Code. Grading of land
exceeding 0.25 +/- acres requires Planning Board review and approval; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/20/2010; 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. 25-2010 RIFENBURG
CONSTRUCTION, INC., 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 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies / does not comply with the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code; and
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/20/2010)
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
/ Positive 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; and
d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)Waiver requests granted / denied: landscaping & lighting plans
g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
i)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
j)That the applicant will satisfy engineering comments from the 4/15/2010
letter, specifically Items Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Nine,
and that the stormwater management report will have the appropriate
signatures.
k)They need to obtain a Paragon Engineering signoff.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. WELLINGTON-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? I will
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL
20, 2010, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
56