2011.06.21
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2011
INDEX
1.0Approval of minutes Page 1
2.0Administrative Items:
2.1Site Plan 25-2011 Steven Dow/Glens Falls Ready Mix Page 1
2.2Site Plan 03-2011 Irene Marshall Page 3
3.0Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board
3.1Site Plan 36-2011 Michael & Gabrielle Shearer (240.5-1-6) Page 3
3.2Site Plan 37-2011 David Robertson (297.17-1-26) Page 6
3.3Site Plan 38-2011 Marybeth & Edward Kelly (289.10-1-10) Page 8
3.4Subdivision 3-2011 Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt (288.16-1-87.1 Page 9
3.5Site Plan 41-2011 Chris Granger (297.17-1-28) Page 15
4.0Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board / Tabled Items
4.1Site Plan 31-2011 Andrew West {239.19-1-9) Page 17
4.2Site Plan 32-2011 Andrew West (239.19-1-8, 9) Page 19
5.0Scheduled Items:
5.1Site Plan 03-2011 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings (296.12-1-27.2) Page 20
5.2Site Plan 35-2011 Tunick Company (303.20-1-2) Page 26
0
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER, VICE CHARIMAN
THOMAS FORD
DONALD SIPP
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
WILLIAM B. MAGOWAN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, June
21, 2011. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 19 & April 26, 2011. Would someone
like to move them?
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 19 & APRIL 26, 2011,
Introduced by Mr. Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Krebs:
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: We have two administrative items; the first one is Site Plan 25-2011 for Steve Dow/Glens Falls
Ready Mix. They have asked for a couple of month’s additional time.
thrd
Mr. Oborne: Your dates would be either the 16 or 23 of August.
Mr. Hunsinger: Is there a preference?
Mr. Oborne: Later.
rd.
Mr. Hunsinger: The 23 do you want to move that Mr. Schonewolf.
Mr. Schonewolf: Yes-see below.
RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 25-2011 STEVE DOW / GLENS FALLS READY MIX
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes
yard space to be used for the installation of four interconnected retention ponds. Ponds are to serve as a
closed loop system for the containment of concrete manufacturing washout water. Modification to an existing
use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2011 and tabled to 6/21/2011; and
The applicant submitted an e-mail request dated 5/16/2011 to request further tabling consideration; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 STEVE DOW/GLENS FALLS READY MIX, Introduced by Mr.
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Sipp:
This is tabled to the August 23, 2011 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials would be on
July 15, 2011.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp
NOES: None
1
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Hunsinger: We have a draft resolution for Site Plan 3-2011 for Irene Marshall to deny without prejudice but
we do have a letter from her dated the other day asking for some additional time.
Mr. Oborne: Yes, and I wanted to get that in front of you as a courtesy to her.
Mr. Hunsinger: Oh okay, so you made her aware that we were considering tabling it, denying it without
prejudice.
Mr. Oborne: Yes sir.
Mr. Hunsinger: Obviously that would be your preference since we’ve tabled it ten times.
Mr. Oborne: It’s been multiple times. Obviously she is having a dispute with her neighbor, not necessarily a
dispute but an issue with the boundary line and that doesn’t seem to be getting resolved in any fast pace to say
the least. So I leave it up to the board on this.
Mr. Schonewolf: Well she says they have a mutually agreeable proposal but knowing the other person and the
time it’s taken I question whether it’s ever going to get resolved.
Mr. Oborne: Well she seems to be penalized for that also to a certain extent.
Mr. Schonewolf: Right.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well even if they were to submit a new application the reality is it’s really not going to get before
us any quicker if we table it or deny it.
Mr. Oborne: It would, she would incur a fee.
Mr. Hunsinger: How much would the fee be?
Mr. Oborne: Well it depends, $50 for the area variance.
Mr. Hunsinger: What’s the will of the board?
Mr. Traver: In her letter doesn’t she talk about having reached an agreement with the neighbor, the neighbor
wanting to sell the property, is that not
Mr. Oborne: I don’t think they’ve reached a written agreement at this point, I think it’s more of a verbal
agreement and I don’t know the particulars, I’m not quite sure. Quite honestly I don’t have a lot of information
on this, there isn’t any.
Mr. Hunsinger: Did she ever get approval from the Zoning Board for what she did?
Mr. Oborne: She got approval for her deck, it was truncated, they did a little bit of bargaining to get it away from
the shoreline, but yes that’s been approved. It’s awaiting site plan review.
Mr. Hunsinger: And the issue was the septic system right?
Mr. Oborne: The issue was the septic system.
Mr. Traver: I know that it’s our plan was to deny without prejudice but after looking at her letter it really sounds
as though she wants to move forward, they’ve contacted attorney’s to presumably put this agreement in writing
she wants to move ahead with the safe stairs and the wastewater system and so on what would be the
disadvantage in granting her yet another.
Mr. Oborne: None whatsoever. It does become an administrative issue over time, that’s one of the issues to be
honest with you and I do track her down for these letters quite often. She has spoken to an engineer
concerning the wastewater system will most likely be a holding tank that she would have to go to the board of
health for; there is a lot of machination she has to do but none really.
Mr. Traver: Would the issues you anticipate for example with the septic system likely cause her to submit a
new application anyway?
Mr. Oborne: Well she would certainly have to revise her site plan application based on that. That certainly
would change the nature of her site plan certainly.
Mr. Traver: I mean I guess I would, I know we have very patient with Ms. Marshall but I would guess lean
toward granting her yet another tabling in that she has apparently made a sincere effort to make some progress
on this and it’s fairly specific in her letter in terms of correspondence with attorneys and so on.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: If you are leaning towards that approval I would put as a recommendation to the board something
that is a little more focused on what you’re looking for, basically give us an update on all aspects of your plan,
something along those lines.
Mr. Traver: I’m only speaking for myself.
Mr. Magowan: I’m with you on this one Steve, table it and then ask her to come up with a more firmer plan for
the next time she’s on the meeting.
Mr. Ford: As much as it’s going to require virtually a new application anyway I would at this juncture after so
many delays and so little progress I’m ready to deny without prejudice, let her start over bring us up to date
when she’s accomplished the task she set up many months ago to do.
Mr. Traver: Well I can certainly support that if there is any opposition to tabling this again that’s fine I just
thought it was something we should discuss.
Mr. Krebs: I personally would like to see us table it until the last meeting in September and then if it doesn’t
happen then then we definitely deny it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Give her one last chance.
Mr. Krebs: One last chance.
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you want to make that recommendation.
Mr. Krebs: Sure, what is the last meeting in September?
th
Mr. Hunsinger: September 27.
Mr. Krebs: I’ll make a motion to table-see below.
RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes
removal and replacement of stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to
shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and
expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and the application was scheduled and/or tabled on the following dates: 1/26,
3/23, 5/20, 6/15, 8/17, 10/19, 12/21/10, 3/15/11 tabled to 6/21/11 with submission for new materials on 5/16/11;
and
No new materials were received on 5/16/11; and
Therefore, let it be resolved,
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Mr. Krebs who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Mr. Traver;
To September 27, 2011. The applicant will demonstrate documentation of satisfaction of the property line
adjustment issue and a submission of revised engineering plans reflecting the proposed septic holding tank.
Information to be submitted by the August 15, 2011 deadline.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Ford
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay in our regular agenda we have several items for recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The first one is Michael & Gabrielle Shearer. Whenever you’re ready Keith.
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 36-2011 / Area Variance 33-2011
APPLICANT: Michael & Gabrielle Shearer
REQUESTED ACTION: 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
3
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
neighborhood and surrounding community
LOCATION: 52 Russell Harris Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 6/8/2011-No Action
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 33-2011 Pending
BP 2010-410 Boathouse Pending
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to replace existing 412 +/- sq. ft. dock with covered
boathouse with a 400 +/- sq. ft. dock and a 392 +/- sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning
Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from side setback requirements of the WR zone. Planning
Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel has approximately 50 feet of shoreline. Although there is a large tree
centered adjacent to the shoreline, vegetation along shoreline should be considered.
Nature of Area Variance:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.North side setback – Request for 3.3 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement for docks in the
WR zone.
2.South side setback – Request for 8.3 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement for docks in the
WR zone.
As per §179-5-060 the following applies to this project: Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum
setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line
runs on shore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, which ever results in the
greatest setback.
Additional Comments:
1.The boat house as proposed is to be 15’-0” above the mean high water mark and as such does not
exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement per §179-5-060(11).
2.The boathouse, as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities as
per §179-5-060(12).
3.The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to enhance shoreline plantings as per §179-8-040,
Landscaping and Buffering standards.
Application Protocol
6/21/2011 PB recommendation to ZBA
6/22/2011 ZBA review
6/28/2011 PB review
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening, if you could identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Shearer: Mike Shearer
Mr. Hunsinger: Did you have anything you wanted to add?
Mr. Shearer: Not really, unless you have questions.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay questions comments from members of the board?
Mr. Traver: I just had a question really regarding what is the effect on us if any of an absence of a ruling from
the County.
Mr. Oborne: None whatsoever, after 30 days it’s a defacto approval.
Mr. Traver: No impact?
Mr. Oborne: Yes, no impact. They won’t be meeting within that time frame
Mr. Traver: Right, got you, okay. My only concern really is addressing the buffering on the shoreline, that’s a
site plan issue obviously but
4
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Krebs: But as far as making a recommendation to the Zoning Board for the variances I don’t see any
problem, I was up there today and looked at it and it’s a simple replacement of a double crib dock with new
dock and a roof and in fact the property next door where the building is falling down is virtually on the property
line so this will be significantly greater than the next door neighbors.
Mr. Schonewolf: I would agree you need a new deck. I walked down on it but it was risky.
Mr. Ford: Good improvement, well planned
Mr. Sipp: Are you going to do anything with the seawall or is it just going to riprap
Mr. Shearer: It’s just a rip rap there I was going to leave that there.
Mr. Sipp: I’m concerned about the buffer being put in there between
Mr. Shearer: I saw the comment in there about you want like plants and stuff in there?
Mr. Sipp: 15 feet from the edge of the water.
Mr. Shearer: 15 feet back, okay I can go 15, I don’t know if I can go 15 feet because I have the stone wall but
that’s raised up by that beach
Mr. Sipp: Well you’ve only got 42 feet across the whole thing so …you’ve got two big trees, a big oak, and a big
birch.
Mr. Shearer: I can do something there, that’s not a problem.
Mr. Sipp: You should be able to get from a planning department a list that gives you a type of tree for the type
of situation you want to be in or in between.
Mr. Oborne: If I may you may want to do a little research for the site plan when you come back, you really
shouldn’t plant in the summer anyway, it should be in the fall at this point so
Mr. Shearer: I wouldn’t do any planting until I finished the dock.
Mr. Oborne: Yes, that makes sense.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments?
Mr. Krebs: Just the fact that the riprap in that area is probably more than enough because that’s a less than no
wake area on the lake, there is no speedboats going by very fast so that’s not a problem.
Mr. Hunsinger: So are there any concerns by any of the board members with respect to the requested
variance? Would anyone like to move a recommendation?
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a motion-see below.
RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA FOR SHEARER
The applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to replace existing 412 +/- sq. ft.
dock with covered boathouse with a 400 +/- sq. ft. dock and a 392 +/- sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from side setback requirements of
the WR zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2011/SITE PLAN 36-2011 FOR MICHAEL &
GABRIELLE SHEARER:
Introduced by Mr. Krebs who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ford; and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. The next item is Site Plan 37-2011 for David Robertson. Keith
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 37-2011 / Area Variance 32-2011 / Freshwater Wetlands 3-2011
APPLICANT: David Robertson
REQUESTED ACTION: 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: 27 Meadow Drive
EXISTING ZONING: MDR-Moderate Density Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 32-2011 Pending
BP 2011-125 Pending
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,560 +/- sq. ft. single family
dwelling with a 400 +/- sq. ft. deck. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in the MDR zone
requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100 feet of a
regulated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from the 75 foot
shoreline setback requirement of the MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to build on a 0.69 acre parcel within 75 feet of a wetland located
to the west; wetland size is approximately 0.12 acres. The proposal calls for a single family dwelling with deck
and compliant wastewater system. The applicant intends to clear the parcel to within twelve feet of the
delineated shoreline; total clearance approaches 0.42 acres or 18,300 square feet. The applicant is requesting
waivers for stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping.
Nature of Area Variance:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Shoreline – Request for 12.1 feet of shoreline setback relief for the 75 foot requirement for the MDR
zone.
Note: The Freshwater Wetland Permit deals with disturbance within the 100 foot adjacent area of a wetland
and will be reviewed in conjunction with the site plan review scheduled for June 28, 2011.
Additional Comments:
1.Due to the proximity of wetlands, the amount of clearing relative to lot size, and the presence of slopes
in excess of 15%, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to follow the New York State
Standards for Erosion Control by utilizing Appendix E Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Small
Home site Construction. In particular, silt fencing, vegetative stabilization, and construction entrances
should be considered as per referenced document.
2.Fence encroachment located to the north should be resolved prior to clearing.
3.As stated above the applicant is requesting waivers for stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping.
Application Protocol
6/21/2011 PB recommendation to ZBA
6/22/2011 ZBA review
6/28/2011 PB review
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening, if you could identify yourself for the record, is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Robertson: No
Mr. Ford: And with you.
Mr. Robertson: My wife, Jessica Robertson.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Ford: Hi Jessica.
Mr. Hunsinger: I’ve got a question for staff. I remember a few years ago we approved a site plan for this site.
Mr. Oborne: Specifically for Dave Hatin
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, it was never built.
Mr. Robertson: There was a house just built a couple of years ago right next door to us.
Mr. Schonewolf: Basically yours is going to be about the same level as that
Mr. Robertson: Actually no ours is going to be nine feet higher which is actually road level. Theirs was
actually a lot lower then what we plan to do; ours is pretty much staying exactly how the grade of the actual
property exists right now. So we’re not really changing much of anything, we’re actually just adding a house to
the back side of the existing hill in the topography map.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any questions comments from the board? I’m a little surprised that DEC would come out and
map a wetland that’s a tenth of an acre in size, pretty small.
Mr. Oborne: Absolutely, Jed Hayden will come out on a phone call.
Mr. Robertson: I actually called him just before the winter came through so I caught him at the end of last
season. Got lucky, from what I hear.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any concerns that the board has identified with respect to the variance request?
Mr. Krebs: Well it’s similar to other construction in the area. There are quite a few houses that are set on a
level space and then dropped off behind the house, you know, so I don’t think it’s much different than many of
the others that have been approved in the past.
Mr. Robertson: And once again we’re not disturbing really any of the actual grades of the ground that’s
existing now anyways. Exactly the way it sits, like it’s a (not able to transcribe) putting the house on the back
side of the slope and so we’re not disturbing anything else besides cutting down a couple of trees.
Mr. Magowan: Are you going to be able to have a walkout basement? That’s utilizing on a ranch house that’s
the best way to go
Mr. Robertson: And that’s why we’re also putting in for the deck so we can have a deck built and not have to
worry about coming back later.
Mr. Magowan: Put that foundation a little bit higher so you get that little bit more head room so you can finish
off – you’ve got to plan – that’s always been my favorite I wanted to build as a few lots and nobody ever wanted
it because it was sloped and you could open it right up and build a ranch house and have two floors, great idea.
Mr. Robertson: Nine foot couldn’t ask for a better lot to actually do this.
Mr. Ford: Should we take it personally that you don’t choose to come back again?
Mr. Robertson: I’m here tomorrow.
Mr. Oborne: You’ll still be making a return trip back.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay would anyone like to make a recommendation?
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA FOR ROBERTSON
The applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,560 +/- sq. ft.
single family dwelling with a 400 +/- sq. ft. deck. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a MDR
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100 feet of a
regulated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from shoreline setback
requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
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.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2011/SITE PLAN 37-2011/FRESHWATER
WETLANDS 3-2011 FOR DAVID ROBERTSON:
Introduced by Mr. Krebs who moved its adoption, seconded
by Mr. Schonewolf; and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set. Good luck. Our next project is Site Plan 38-2011 for Marybeth & Edward Kelly.
Keith.
Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 38-2011 / Area Variance 35-2011
APPLICANT: Marybeth & Edward Kelly
REQUESTED ACTION: 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: 2 Jay Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 6/16/2011
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 35-2011: Pending
BP 2006-536: SFD 9/15/10
BP 90-494: Dock 9/5/91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,495 +/- sq. ft. residence
with a 270 +/- sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a new 2,800 +/- sq. ft. single family residence with a
462 +/- sq. ft. attached garage. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR zone requires
Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from minimum property side line setbacks.
Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
STAFF COMMENTS: The project proposes approximately 9,900 square feet of disturbance on a 15,530
square foot lot. Erosion and sediment control should be robust due to the lack of an existing shoreline buffer
and on-site slopes. Slopes exceed 15% within 50 feet of the proposed single family dwelling; however, these
slopes are isolated and not indicative of the overall topography of the parcel which could be categorized as less
than 10%. An increase in impermeability (23.5% overall) is proposed from existing conditions (17.5% overall)
but is within the 75% requirement. Asphalt drive proposed. The proposal has a stormwater management
report submitted with a detailed drainage and erosion and sediment control plan. Existing mature trees, six (6)
in all are proposed for removal in the vicinity of the leach field, driveway, and single family dwelling. The
applicant has not requested any waivers for this project.
Nature of Area Variance:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.North side setback – Request for 9.5 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum as per
§179-3-040.
2.South side setback – Request for 2.3 feet of south side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum as per
§179-3-040.
Site Plan Review:
Application:
1.No immediate issues
8
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Site Plan/Page 1:
1.No immediate issues
Site Plan/Page 2:
1.It appears the tree slated for removal to the northeast by the existing garage could be saved. Minimal
disturbance is proposed, with the exception of the detached garage removal, to necessitate removal.
2.Trees slated for removal should be replaced in kind with new plantings.
Site Plan/Page 3:
1.Rain Garden plant list includes juniper, a species that prefers dry soils. The list should be updated to
include species that can both survive moist and dry conditions. Note: Other proposed species prefer
wet conditions.
2.Double silt fence along shoreline should be considered.
3.Shoreline buffer minimal at best. Additional planting at the Planning Board’s direction should be
considered.
Application Protocol
6/21/2011 PB recommendation to ZBA
6/22/2011 ZBA review
6/28/2011 PB review
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening would you please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Dybas: Curt Dybas
Mr. Center: Tom Center, Nace Engineering
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have anything else you wanted to add?
Mr. Center: Just if you have any questions about the site plan in particular. We are improving the existing
septic system, it’s close to the house, it’s close to the well. The well is a point well in the crawl space of the
existing house. We are going to drill a new well, maintain 200 feet from all neighboring wells; the lot to the
south is supplied by lake water so we have no well issues to that lot. Stormwater management controls using
stone infiltration trench for the driveway hard surface and then a series of two rain gardens to make for the
house roof drainage. Using those rain gardens the shoreline rain garden we’ve added some buffer along the
outside planting similar to what we did with the Shine/Cleveland project in Rockhurst. Some plantings on the
outside of that trying to use that same sort of theme for the rain garden along the shoreline.
Mr. Ford: Distance from the new well to septic.
Mr. Center: Is greater than 200 feet.
Mr. Ford: Any septic.
Mr. Center: Correct.
Mr. Ford: Thank you.
Mr. Hunsinger: Are there any questions comments from the board?
Mr. Sipp: I had a map this afternoon about where these gardens would be and I don’t see that that’s enough
coverage across there. Second question is where is the roof stormwater going?
Mr. Center: It is being directed to the rain gardens. The garage roof and portions of the porch are going to the
most western rain garden and then the rest of the house is being maintained through a swale on the left side of
the house and directed to the lakeshore rain garden. And actually the size of all these maintains the 25 and 50
and I believe the 100 year storm also, there are sized to maintain all, we have well drained soils in here and so
there is not a lot of water getting to the pond. But we’ve sized them
Mr. Sipp: You’ve got some.
Mr. Center: Excuse me?
Mr. Sipp: I think you have some.
Mr. Center: There is some but we’ve sized them for the 10 and 25 year volume and the rate and I believe the
100 year is maintained, I’ll confirm that before we get to the site plan.
Mr. Sipp: I’m concerned about either side of these rain gardens and in the middle. And I think you could do
better with some shrubs in there and then some good groundcover and.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Center: We did similar to what we did to the Shine/Cleveland, especially on the lakeshore one. And then
the one to the top I have to leave an outlet to the east so that the wires when they go, if it does go through it
goes through there I can’t really have it going through shrubs in that planting and whatnot. It would be a grass
swale so that’s why we kept the plantings and things to the north and south of that rain garden. And now
Mr. Sipp: You’ve got on your plot removal of two trees, an oak, and an elm.
Mr. Center: Yeah, there is some grading that’s again; we’ve got grading issues there going on in there along
with the foundation we’re going to be into the root systems with some of those. Certainly when we get into it
you know I look at it like when we get into it if we can save those trees certainly we will try, but my perspective
looking at them it’s possible we’re going to damage those and can’t say that they’re going to stay.
Mr. Sipp: There will be no replacement?
Mr. Center: We can certainly discuss that at site plan, I’ll take that back to the client.
Mr. Magowan: Five trees, Tom do you not like trees?
Mr. Center: It’s a very tight site you know you don’t want to put trees have a lot of trees fall on houses. We
don’t have a lot of room left or right on the site. I tried to put our attention to the shoreline rain garden and
those plantings down there to try to build up a break, view break as you‘re looking up from the shore towards
the house. I looked at that as an improvement over losing a couple of trees there.
Mr. Magowan: That’s five large trees, they absorb a lot of water themselves; but you keep prefacing the
(unable to transcribe) you get a clear cut it over there
Mr. Center: There are a lot of trees that were in the buildable area for the setbacks to the house that was
another small lot.
Mr. Magowan: Is there any way you can design these and trying to keep a couple of trees?
Mr. Center: We can certainly look at them with a landscape architect and look at the uh where we’re going to
be building the foundation, the one top where the driveway entrance we have to relocate that driveway in order
to get the proper grade and stay within the easement, the one at the top of the hill is within the septic system I
certainly don’t want to have a tree near or close to the septic system. We already had, I just replaced a septic
system over on Ames Place where the roots had completely filled the four inch perforated pipe in less than 8
years. And I was amazed. I almost, I should have taken a picture of it but it did, within eight years the tree
roots had gone right in there and it’s fast sand so it’s looking for that water so we try to, for the septic systems
at least, it was looking at this with myself and Mr. Nace. They are on the sides of the house and the height and
what we’re going to be doing for construction and grading I have concerns about the root system. But certainly
we will take a look at those and get back before we’re on for the site plan, hopefully next week.
Mr. Traver: There are a number of engineering comments too you’ll be wanting to address, not this evening.
Mr. Center: I went through those, I don’t see anything that we can’t have addressed and work out with the
engineer. On three of them I’ve done a little research and some of them are note upgrades and some of them
need further clarifications on what we’re doing so I don’t see anything that’s a show stopper at this point.
Mr. Sipp: I’m concerned about 10 and 11 under his comments.
Mr. Center: The maintenance?
Mr. Sipp: Maintenance which he says is the stormwater management reports are conflicting.
Mr. Center: Well, what we’ve done there, this doesn’t require a general permit, but what we’ve done with the
SWPPP is we put language in there so that the contractor is aware that they have to maintain their stormwater.
We modeled it after the NOI, but it just gets further enforcement to the Codes if we have something on the
drawings that says these guys acknowledge that they’ve read what’s on here and they have to follow the
stormwater management. Unfortunately there is not an enforcement mechanism for us to go back like there is
on the general permit when you disturb more than an acre you have to do the stormwater inspections weekly
and all that. There’s not that mechanism for us to do that. What I tried to do is incorporate that into these site
plans so that the contractor is aware he’s got to do these things. It’s part of the approved drawings. It’s on
there, so they try to use those notes. That’s why they are similar but we don’t have that NOI that general permit
as an enforcement mechanism. We just have the Town of Queensbury Stormwater Code.
Mr. Sipp: Well I still feel that if you go through and put in a good buffer in there you can eliminate those rain
gardens and you would eliminate an inspection problem. Or maintenance problem.
Mr. Center: We’re trying to deal with the rain gardens; we’re trying to maintain stormwater close to where it’s
created. That’s why we have that rain garden to the west close that garage roof and the porch and then the
best place for us to pull out the main roof, main house roof in one point we’ve got it directed to the pond along
10
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
the front of that whole shoreline lakeside of the house. Again we use the numbers, the system we’ve used to
calculate the stormwater is used primarily for large sites. So we use a little common sense in with what we’re
doing, we have very well drained soils that we’re using and we’re designing that without the use of the
percolation rate or infiltration rate of the soil when we’re designing the volumes of these ponds. We are
designing without that factor. That factor of safety is built in, there will be grass, there will be infiltration, there
will occur naturally like it does now. Along those swales and in those ponds, but that’s not in the calculation it’s
strictly storage volumes. That’s what those pond are sized by so we have that added factor of safety in there a
Mr. Krebs: Tom if you were the state or the county or the town you wouldn’t even worry about it because you’d
just dump water in the lake. I was just up on Pilot Knob Road again today and at the beginning of Pilot Knob
Road there are six manholes that go directly onto Pilot Knob Road directly into the lake. Why the county
doesn’t do something about that I don’t know. But we require people in the Town of Queensbury to do
something but the state can dump it in Westbrook Assembly Point can dump all the water off, Assembly Point
Road into the lake but don’t you get in Glen Lake.
Mr. Center: When I started doing this we did grass swales their depressions were just grass and now we grew
into these plantings that have some uptake and there is a cost involved with all that. We have to have from an
engineering point of view we to have the property owners buy into these new- fangled designs.
Mr. Sipp: They don’t have to buy into it, its right there in the regulations.
Mr. Center: Well, there are different design types, is what I’m talking about and we’ve got to get them to buy
into what we’re trying to do.
Mr. Sipp: We’re not going to break the bank here, 44 foot wide entrance, I agree with Mr. Krebs that some of
the people are less offenders than the property owners but at least it’s like landing moon-one small step and if
we can keep them moving with these steps maybe we can do something about these lakes. I understand that
they don’t doing any harvesting of milfoil.
Mr. Magowan: They’ve been doing that for five years and it’s so nice
Mr. Sipp: Well it comes down from people fertilizing lawns and flower beds and so forth. Fertilizer goes to the
lake, it just makes more milfoil.
Mr. Oborne: Did you see all the scat on the property.
Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to comment on the plantings. Any other questions comments from the board? Are
there any concerns that are specific to the variance request? Would someone like to make a
recommendation?
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA-KELLY
The applicant has submitted the following: Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes demolition of
existing 1,495 +/- sq. ft. residence with a 270 +/- sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a new 2,800 +/-
sq. ft. single family residence with a 462 +/- sq. ft. attached garage. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15%
or greater in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from minimum
property side line setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
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
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 TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2011/SITE PLAN 38-2011 FOR MARYBETH &
EDWARD KELLY,
Introduced by Mr. Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Krebs, and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
11
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: Good luck
Mr. Ford: Save the trees.
Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Subdivision 3-2011 for Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt.
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
APPLICATION: Subdivision 3-2011 (Preliminary Stage Review)
APPLICANT: Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt
REQUESTED ACTION: 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: Glen Lake Road, across from Ash Drive
EXISTING ZONING: RR 3A-Rural Residential Three Acres
SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 6/16/2011
PARCEL HISTORY: UV 1338 Gravel operation Denied 4/20/88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.67 +/- acre parcel into four lots ranging in
size from 2.16 +/- acres to 5.10 +/- acres.
Nature of Area Variance:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Lot 1
a)Lot width – Request for 110 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement.
b)Lot size – Request for 0.84 acres of relief from the 3 acre requirement.
2.Lot 2
a)Lot width – Request for 95 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement.
b)Road frontage – Request for 203.36 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement.
3.Lot 3
a)Lot width – Request for 130 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement.
b)Road frontage – Request for 228 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement.
4.Lot 4
a)Road frontage – Request for 400 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement.
5.Density
1.Request for 2.65 acres from the 12 acre usable or buildable acres required as per §183-26 for
total subdivision.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has increased the access road slope from 10% to 12%. As a result, cut
slopes associated with the proposed road have been markedly reduced from the sketch plan proposal. The
benefits and disadvantages of this action will need to be weighed by the Planning Board.
Per §179-19-010, a property may not be subdivided in such a way as to not have enough frontage for a
driveway unless provisions for a shared driveway, cross-access driveway, or interconnected parking have been
made and recorded as an easement that shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Operating and
maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded with the deed.
Application protocol for June 21, 2011 meeting is as follows:
?
Open public hearing; conduct SEQR review, recommendation to ZBA, table application to a July
meeting date pending ZBA decision.
Soils:
Oakville Loamy Fine Sand (OaB) 3 to 8 percent slopes – According to the Warren County Soil Survey, this soil
unit comprises approximately 30-35% of the site and is proposed to be utilized for the three home sites. These
soils are described as gently sloping, deep, well drained coarse textured soils. Permeability is rapid with a
seasonal high water table typically at depths of 6 feet or more. Due to poor filtering and lack of microbes in this
soil, leach fields can be a concern in regards to groundwater contamination thus necessitating modified soils as
part of any wastewater plan. Disturbed soils in general will need to be limed and have topsoil amendments as
part of any landscaping, lawn plan and vegetative erosion control practices.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Hinckley-Plainfield complex, steep (HpE) - According to the Warren County Soil Survey, this soil unit
comprises approximately 55-60% of the site and it is through this soil unit that the lower half of the access road
will be sited. These soils are described as deep, excessively drained soils in steep areas of terraces and
benches in upland valleys. As the term complex describes, many soils comprises this unit. Permeability is
rapid in the surface and subsoil layers and very rapid in the substratum. Runoff is medium to rapid as a result
of slope. The soils are extremely acidic and will need modifications and liming in order for vegetative erosion
controls to succeed. Erosion is a hazard on steep slopes and reduces the use of heavy equipment.
Hinckley cobble sandy loam (OaC) 8 to 15% slopes - According to the Warren County Soil Survey, this soil unit
comprises approximately 5-10% of the site, fronts the majority of Glen Lake Road and it is through this soil unit
that the ingress and egress of the access road will be sited. Soil characteristics are the same as the OaB unit
described above. As the base road for the access currently exists concerns are minimal.
Note: Where vegetative controls are planned, amendments to the soils will be necessary along with seed
mixture and rates. Acidic tolerant vegetation should be considered or a liming maintenance program should be
explored for all vegetative establishments.
Further soil surveys are general descriptions in nature and may not reflect actual on-site conditions.
Subdivision Review:
Page S-1 and S-1A
1.No immediate issues
Page S-2
1.Emergency Vehicle access appears inadequate. Please refer to Fire Marshal comments.
2.Lot 4 average lot width in need of recalculation and revision; the geometry of the lot does not appear to
accommodate a 1080 foot average lot width. Note: Discussion with project engineer indicates an
average lot width in the area of 670 feet not indicating a need for a variance.
Page S-3
1.Stormwater management area cited on both lots 3 and 4 on page S-2 not located on this page. Details
should be provided.
2.Gravel drive is strongly discouraged due to slope, soil type, and potential for erosion. Alternatives
should be explored.
3.Entrance to site should have the banks adjacent to Glen Lake Road cut back for increased visibility.
Page S-4
1.Concerning the stabilization of drive slopes, temporary biodegradable matting appears to be offered.
Permanent slope stabilization should include permanent reinforcement matting with higher shear
strength in conjunction with seeding. Matting should not be removed upon vegetation establishment as
referenced in Erosion Control Implementation Schedule.
2.Any soil stabilization/compaction to be performed by tracked equipment should be accomplished
perpendicular to slope to promote a terraced effect for vegetative stabilization.
Page S-5 and S-6
1.No immediate issues
Additional Comments:
1.Proposed Lot 1 has existing SFD on site.
2.Paving of drive should be considered as a condition of approval to mitigate erosion of road surface.
3.Site Plan review for those lots with 15% slopes within 50 feet of proposed single family dwelling.
4.Emergency access issues along proposed drive as per Fire Marshal see attached.
5.Queensbury Central Fire Chief should be consulted with any plan for subdivision of this parcel.
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening.
Mr. Hutchins: I’m Tom Hutchins with Hutchins Engineering and with me are the Starratt’s Dawn and Greg.
You’ve seen this project before we were here with a sketch in March, the concept has changed very little, we
have made a couple of adjustments in accordance with our discussions that night. They own a 14.6 acre
parcel, its proposed be, there is one residence on the parcel now, and it’s proposed to be divided into four lets.
Their intention is to be a family subdivision that’s retained by family ownership. The drive, we had discussed it
at some detail on the driveway and the (unable to transcribe) upgraded to 12%. I walked it and I feel that it
works best at that slope and I hope you’ve had the opportunity to walk it and we are here seeking your support
for our variance request that has to do with primarily density and lot width, and with that I’ll turn it over to the
board.
Mr. Oborne: If I could add one other thing. I did meet on site with the Fire Marshal from Queensbury Central
with the Fire chief from the Queensbury Central and Fire Marshal Mike Palmer and Gary Stillman on site. We
will hopefully and I’m sure we’ll have some type of documentation from the chief prior to preliminary review
which at this point is slated for July. I just wanted to add that addendum, we have walked the site, the chief has
been up there, no glaring concerns, but I have not seen anything in writing at the point.
Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the board? You do have a lot of engineering comments and I’m sure
you’ve seen.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Hutchins: Yes we have some engineering comments. I don’t see any related to the variance request,
most are stormwater and we can adjust them.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any concerns from the board with the variance requests? We do have a public hearing
scheduled on this one. Are we doing SEQR as well?
Mr. Oborne: You are doing SEQR and that is why the public hearing was noticed.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the board on the project? Since
we will see this for preliminary and final subdivision we will leave the public hearing open right?
Mr. Oborne: Correct.
Mr. Hunsinger: We have to SEQR in order to pass it on the Zoning Board.
Mr. Traver: The Long form.
Mr. Hunsinger: SEQR Negative Declaration-see below
RESOLUTION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION-SUBDIVISION 3-2011
RESOLUTION NO. 3-2011 Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agencies appear to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the
same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the
State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp
NOES: NONE
Mr. Hunsinger: I think we previously discussed the concerns related to the variance request, would anyone like
to put forward a recommendation.
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a recommendation-see below
RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA-HLAVATY-STARRATT
Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA:
The applicant has submitted the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.67 +/- acre
parcel into four lots ranging in size from 2.16 +/- acres to 5.10 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning
Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from density, lot size, lot width and road frontage
requirements of the RR zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
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
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 TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2011/SUBDIVISION 3-2011 FOR DAWN HLAVATY-
STARRATT,
Introduced by Mr. Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Krebs; and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal -
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 41-2011 and Freshwater
Wetlands 4-2011. Keith whenever you’re ready.
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 41-2011/Area Variance 37-2011/Freshwater Wetlands 4-2011
APPLICANT: Chris Granger
REQUESTED ACTION: 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: 39 Meadow Drive
EXISTING ZONING: MDR-Moderate Density Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 37-11: Pending
AV 51-98: Construction of attached garage. Relief from shoreline setbacks &
expansion of a non-conforming structure 8/26/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan/FWW: Applicant proposes construction of a 192 +/- sq. ft. deck addition
to rear of structure. Project located within 100 feet of a DEC delineated wetland; Disturbance within 100 feet of
a wetland and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Area
Variance: Relief requested from the 75 foot shoreline setback of the MDR zone as well as for the expansion of
a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
th
STAFF COMMENTS: Site visit on June 9 indicates that the shed to the west, adjacent to the wetland is not
compliant in regards to shoreline setbacks of the MDR zone. Further, shed located to the south will need to be
clarified in regards to ownership and location. Either way, both sheds are non-compliant in their existing
locations and will need to be relocated to compliant locations or application for variances will need to be
submitted.
Nature of Area Variance:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Shoreline Setback (Pond) – Request for 42.8 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback
requirement for the MDR zone.
2.Shoreline Setback (Wetlands) – Request for 10.9 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback
requirement for the MDR zone.
3.Expansion of a non-conforming structure – This request must be approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Oborne: There is an issue with a couple of existing sheds on the property at this point. My
recommendation to the Planning Board is to not really to focus on that at this point, it’s to focus on the deck.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Code Compliance is in discussion with the applicant concerning those issues and with that I’ll turn it over to the
board.
Mr. Krebs: One correction, its 29 Meadow Drive, not Lane
Mr. Granger: It’s actually 39 Meadow Drive
Mr. Krebs: Because when I went out there today and I went to 29 Meadow I mean 39 Meadow Drive, Lane,
they already had two decks. I couldn’t figure out why were they putting in a third deck?
Mr. Oborne: My apologies.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening.
Mr. Hunsinger: See that’s my older neighborhood so I never even bothered to worry about it. Do you have
anything else you wanted to add?
Mr. Granger: Just that it’s going to be a very minimal, actually a 0 impact. I’m going to have the posts that are
drilled in so that there is no soil disturbance at all and it’s going to be above, it’s going to be coming off the back
of the house, it will be 10 foot off of there and just a set of stairs going down.
Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the board? Are there any specific concerns with the variance
request? Did you dig the pond?
Mr. Granger: I built the pond.
Mr. Hunsinger: I thought so.
Mr. Granger: Yes, I did that back with my father 27 years ago.
Mr. Hunsinger: Are there any concerns with the request? Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the
Zoning Board?
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a recommendation-see below
RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA–Granger
The applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan/FWW: Applicant proposes construction of a 192 +/- sq. ft.
deck addition to rear of structure. Project located within 100 feet of a DEC delineated wetland; Disturbance
within 100 feet of a wetland and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review
and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from the 75 foot shoreline setback of the MDR zone. Planning
Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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
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 TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2011/SITE PLAN 41-2011 FOR CHRIS GRANGER,
Introduced by Mr. Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Krebs; and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal -
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck.
Mr. Granger: I’ve got to come back?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: Eventually yes I think we have you scheduled for July for the Planning Board. You still have to go
the Zoning Board to get your relief.
Mr. Hunsinger: We have two tabled items with the same applicant Andrew West, first is Site Plan 31-2011.
Keith whenever you’re ready.
APPLICATION: Site Plan 31-2011 / Area Variance 22-2011
APPLICANT: Andrew West
REQUESTED ACTION: 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: 12 Joshua’s Rock Road
EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/11-No County Impact
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 6/16/2011
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 23-2011 Pending
SP 32-2011 Pending
BOH 2011 Absorption field setback Approved 5/16/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes alteration/renovation and a 441 +/- sq. ft.
expansion of an existing single family residence including a replacement wastewater system for a four
bedroom house. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and
approval. Area Variance: Relief requested for setback, height, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in
a CEA. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
STAFF COMMENTS: The application was tabled at the May 17, 2011 Planning Board meeting pending
submittal of revisions concerning the National Historic Landmark designation. Attached are copies from the
New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as the applicant describing
the status of the historic designation.
The proposal calls for the expansion of an existing 2,242 sq. ft. single family dwelling to 2,683 sq. ft. A
new general purpose area to be constructed on the lower level with an eastern access from the outside as
drawn, new kitchen and dining above the general purpose area, and new master bedroom with bath proposed
for the top floor. Additionally, new decking is proposed for the southern portion of the home as well as a new
front entrance to the west. The resulting boundary currently abuts the home on the northern portion of the
parcel and it is noted that the bay window of the adjoining dwelling to the north is within the northern boundary
of this parcel. Further, the existing boathouse straddles both the project property as well as the property to the
south. It is understood that the resulting setback issues are the result of the family trust associated with the
lands subdividing this property in the past. Please refer to Variance Request heading on Sheet V-1 for
additional clarification of ownership and history.
Nature of Area Variances:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Height – Request for 2.7 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height allowed in the WR zone.
2.North side setback – Request for 7 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum
requirement for the proposed front porch.
3.North side setback – Request for 9 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum
requirement for the proposed new kitchen/general purpose area.
4.South side setback relief – Request for 8 feet of south side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum
requirement for the proposed new access stairs associated with the deck.
5.West rear setback – Request for 1 foot of west rear setback relief from the 30 foot minimum
requirements of the WR zone.
Plan Review:
1.E&S control should be offered for the home expansion in addition to the wastewater proposal.
2.Shoreline planting should be considered as per §179-8-040B.
Additional Comments:
1.BOH resolution dated 5/16/2011 attached.
2.Water supplied from lake.
3.OPRHP encourages the applicant to keep the proposed ridge line at or below what currently exists.
Application Protocol:
17
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
6/21/11: Provide written recommendation to ZBA
6/22/11: Zoning Board of Appeals review
6/28/11: PB review TBD
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Oborne: I think you probably want to look at these in conjunction, they are separate applications obviously.
This project was tabled because of some concerns about the historic preservation aspect of it. It is staff’s
contention that that has been cleared up. This is Type II SEQR. I believe the I’s have been dotted and t’s
crossed. The application is well versed with the Planning Board or the Planning Board is well versed with the
application I should say and I don’t think there is really much need for me to go on unless you’d like me to read
anything into the record pertaining to historic preservation.
Mr. Hunsinger: I think we’re good.
Mr. Ford: It was good to get everything in a timely fashion so we could review it. Appreciate that.
Mr. Oborne: Yes and to reiterate I did have a conversation with Mr. Bonafide from Historic Preservation just to
reiterate and just to get an additional level of comfort on the historic registry aspect of it and anything that is
dictated by them that may effect this plan. There are no federal funds; there are no state funds so they are not
under no auspices whatsoever. So with that I do turn it over to the board.
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening.
Mr. MacElroy: I’m Dennis MacElroy with EDP representing the applicant for this project Andrew West. With
me is Tom West who actually is an owner of record of the property as well as the father of the applicant and his
attorney. So I’ll explain a little bit before I turn the mike over to the attorney and I don’t get it back. So this as
you recall is a variance request for some renovation to the existing structure and as well as with the second
project the existing dock. Those site plan issues that will be before you eventually also are related to an
improvement to a wastewater system for that. The improvement to the house involves an increase in floor
plans, floor area, but not an increase in footprint, in fact there is a decrease in footprint. There is an effort
made to address stormwater management on this plan although it is not required by regulation because there
is not an increase in impervious area but in the spirit of doing a better job there is some stormwater
management that is also included within the site plan development. To the dock issue that variance is related
to a side setback relief. Somewhat unusual in this case in that the dock as was constructed and this is we call
that these are preexisting structures; it pre-dated zoning for that matter, subdivision of the land. The dock is
bisected the southerly property line so actually the dock is situated on two different parcels. A co-applicant to
this is Joshua’s Rock Corporation; they are party to this and obviously fully in support of any renovation to that
dock. The dock is associated with the house, it is ownership, and responsibility of that owner of the
Mellowstone house so there is no issues there. It just so happens that the way the property was divided or it
fell into the area of the dock or the dock falls in the area of two different lots. So that’s, I may have skipped
over some finer points for those who weren’t here last month I’d certainly be glad to clarify further. The SEQR
issue has been resolved by the further documentation that was provided by letter from SHPO. I apologize that
we didn’t have that last week. I’ll take the hit for that, but we felt we were in good position as far as a Type II
but we didn’t have the proper documentation for this board so now we do and hope to move onward. So with
that any questions or whatever we’d be glad to address
Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t have any questions but I had a comment. Mr. Ford had commented on how nice it was
to get the timely response from SHPO, in fact, we got it as very shortly after you got it so it made our job very
easy.
Mr. MacElroy: That was Tom’s doing so he spoke and he got answers quickly.
Mr. Hunsinger: It’s awfully hard to get them to move that quickly.
Mr. West: I was amazed myself. I did start at high levels but they were very responsive and actually very
supportive of the project. That’s why they were responsive.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes it was a good letter.
Mr. Oborne: I mirror that talking to Mr. Bonafide today; he is very impressed with what they were presenting.
Mr. Hunsinger: I know those of us when we went out for site visits and we all thought it was a really cool piece
of property. That’s part of where we’re coming from. Questions comments from the Board? There are a
couple of engineering comments that we’ll have to deal with at site plan but in terms of the recommendation are
there any concerns? Actually Mr. West in your letter you argued it was a Type II, the Town’s attorney also said
it was a Type II as well as the Zoning Administrator so I don’t think there is any reason to discuss that further.
So if there are no concerns with the variance request I’ll entertain a motion for recommendation.
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a motion-see below
18
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA:
The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Alteration/renovation and a 441 +/- sq. ft. expansion of an existing single
family residence including a replacement wastewater system for a four bedroom house. Expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief
requested for setback, height, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2011 AND SITE PLAN 31-2011 FOR ANDREW
WEST:
Introduced by Mr. Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Krebs; and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal -
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay and the next item on the agenda is Site Plan 32-2011 also for Andrew West. I think at the
last meeting we all pretty much felt comfortable with the boathouse, I don’t if there are any further questions.
Yes we only didn’t move it on then because it made sense just to keep the two together. So unless there are
any concerns from the Board I’ll entertain a motion for recommendation.
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMEDATION TO ZBA-WEST
The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Reconstruction of an existing 484 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse to include
a 527 +/- sq. ft. new boathouse with a 53 +/- sq. ft. reduction of existing 537 +/- sq. ft. dock. Project located
along the shoreline of two separate parcels of land. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review
and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from side property line setback.
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
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2011 AND SITE PLAN 32-2011 FOR ANDREW
WEST:
Introduced by Mr. Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ford; and
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A:
a. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay you’re all set. Under scheduled items the first one is Site Plan 9-2011 for Schermerhorn
Commercial Holdings. Keith
19
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
nd
APPLICATION: Site Plan 9-2011 / Area Variance 31-2011 [2 variance request]
APPLICANT: Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings
REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan Review
LOCATION: South side of Willowbrook Road
EXISTING ZONING: Office
SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted - Negative Declaration approved on 5/17/2011
WARREN CO. PB: 2/9/11-No County Impact
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 2/18/2011; 6/15/2011
PARCEL HISTORY: A.V. 31-2011 Building height relief Approved 5/25/2011
AV 10-11 Parking relief Approved 2/23/11
Sub 9-2000 16 Lot subdivision Approved 12/20/02
Multiple applications since 2002 (Baybrook Office Park)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 49,590 +/- sq. ft. 35 unit 45 foot tall three story
senior apartment building. Apartment Complex proposed in an O [Office] zone requires Planning Board review
and approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant had proposed a reduction of 24 parking spaces from the 79 spaces
required per the code and was granted this relief on February 23, 2011. The plan now calls for 42 spaces
instead of the 55 spaces granted with the area variance previously; this change should be discussed at site
plan review at this time.
The applicant has received relief from the 40 foot maximum height requirement for the Office zone as a
result in grade due to in part the proposal to install permeable pavement on site.
Plan Review:
Application:
1.Page 2/Setback Requirements – Shoreline requirements not denoted. Please revise when appropriate.
2.Short EAF- States 37 units, plan calls for 35. Please clarify.
Stormwater Management Report and SWPPP:
1.See Vision Engineering Comments.
Page SP-1
1.The Planning Board must waive the 10 foot buffer requirement between the parking lot and front
property line as per §179-8-050B (1) or require the buffer be installed.
2.The Planning Board must waive the requirement that all parking in the Office Zone shall be at the rear
of the building as per §179-7-060A (2) or require parking be designed for the rear of the project.
3.Sidewalks should be considered by the Planning Board. Note: The initial Park Subdivision did not
require sidewalks; however, intensive residential proposals as opposed to the intended office uses have
been approved and are currently proposed without any pedestrian provisions.
Page SP-2
1.Walking Trails, outside recreation, communal gardens, and covered gathering areas might be
considered for quality of life purposes.
2.Snow storage locations must be considered as per §179-9-100
3.Bike racks required as per §179-4-090N.
4.Dumpster enclosure details to include materials to be used clarified.
Page SP-3
1.See Vision Engineering Comments if applicable.
Page SP-4
1.See Vision Engineering Comments if applicable.
Page SP-5
1.Parking lot landscaping minimal. Please refer to §179-8-050 for additional guidance if required.
Page SP-6
1.IL luminance calculations for the SL-2 designated lighting fixtures located adjacent to the structure not
on plan. Please revise.
2.Build entrances appear excessive when reviewed against the code. Code states a maximum
illuminance of 5.0 foot-candles for entrances, plan calls for up to 18.4 foot-candles. Please refer to
§179-6-020 for overall guidance.
3.Parking lot lighting appears minimally excessive when reviewed against the code. Code states a
maximum 2.5 foot-candles for multifamily parking, plan calls for up to 5.8 foot-candles. Please refer to
§179-6-020 for overall guidance.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
4.Statistics schedule denotes a front canopy illuminance that is not located on lighting plan; specifically,
the average and maximum readings. Please clarify.
Page SP-7
1.Monument sign height not denoted. Please place overall height under letter H.
Page SP-8
1.See Vision Engineering comments.
Additional Comments:
1.The applicant is proposing to not encroach into or disturb any land within the 100 foot wetland setback.
As the building footprint is within 4 feet of the setback, eave trench and eastern parking area abuts the
setback line, disturbance appears highly likely. What assurance can be given that disturbance does not
take place in order to avoid a Freshwater Wetlands Permit?
2.The applicant has taken great pains to avoid the 100 foot wetland buffer at the cost of a plan that is
short on practicality. Stormwater basins are located adjacent to a public road, fire access issues are
prevalent, pedestrian access is extremely limited, landscaping is devoid in the rear, parking lot
landscaping minimal at best, and quality of life issues not incorporated. This plan could be markedly
improved with a minimum of disturbance to the 100 foot wetland setback.
3.Pedestrian connectivity to the Willows Senior Residence to the east should be explored to alleviate a
portion of the pedestrian traffic on Willowbrook Drive.
4.Light pollution is of a concern in this area as there is a residential neighborhood abutting the office park
to the north. Consideration for timers and/or a reduction of overall illuminance should be considered.
5.With the build-out of Baybrook Office Park nearing completion and development commencing for
Fairfield Office Park located on the west side of Bay Road traffic mitigation at the intersection with Bay
Road may need to be explored.
6.Fire Marshal comments attached.
7.Water and Sewer Department comments previously attached.
Second Variance Request Protocol:
5/17/11 Provide written recommendation to ZBA Complete
5/18/11 Zoning Board of Appeals review Complete
6/21/11 PB review
Mr. Oborne: My only staff comment that I had or a couple that I do have is the parking has been truncated or
reduced a little bit more. You may want to discuss that. What follows obviously is my site plan review. The
one thing that the applicant has done is work with the Fire Marshal to alleviate any of their concerns, that has
been taken care of a few months ago actually, but what I’m specifically looking for and I discussed this with the
applicant’s counsel today is the potential for some kind of interconnect with the properties to the east with the
existing senior housing there and that would certainly keep any of the seniors off the cul-de-sac which really
seems to be an issue to be honest with you. And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Good evening.
Mr. Schermerhorn: Rich Schermerhorn for the record; Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. The two concerns you have
the interconnection where the cul-de-sac is I own the adjacent property right next it. The only think and I’m not
saying it’s right or wrong is whenever one enters and exits into the Willows they never go around the cul-de-
sac, they always go straight into it. So there is very limited traffic that goes around the cul-de-sac where the
new project would exit out, but I’m happy to add a
Mr. Oborne: I meant a pedestrian interconnect, not a vehicular interconnect. I apologize for that.
Mr. Schermerhorn: Whatever you like I’ll add it.
Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the Board?
Mr. Ford: I’d like to inquire about the parking spaces.
Mr. Lapper: The town changed the parking standards and now for a senior apartment complex you only need
½. That’s less; previously it was 2.25 which was ridiculous so we asked for a variance. We’re hoping to get
the project approved before the zoning change but because of the stormwater engineering it took a little while
longer, the town changed the code so we could have come in at 18 spaces which we have for 35 units and
that’s too little so we’re less than what we originally proposed but still a bunch more than what the code
requires. So we think it’s still pretty modest.
Mr. Hunsinger: We talked a little bit last time about lighting plan and some of the comments that particularly the
entrances were a little excessive.
Mr. Nace: The parking lot we feel is adequately lighted the way it is. There are a few hot spots to get up a little
over five, but in general we’re looking at the average and I think your code, the way your code reads five is not
a maximum, it’s just a number that’s thrown out there, it doesn’t really tell you whether it’s a minimum,
maximum or average. Generally the average I think is just under two in the parking lot . Keith’s
right, the front entrance is a little bit hot, Jim had six canopy lights under canopy lights in there and I think we
21
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
can cut that down to four. We’d still like to keep up in the 10 plus range for the entrances, a little bit more light
is better, and it’s a confined area so we’ll back away from Bay Road or any other objectionable receptors. So
we will take two lights out of that front canopy.
Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have a sense for how much that would reduce the foot candles too?
Mr. Nace: I think it will probably reduce it somewhat, right now in that front canopy it’s at 16 to 18 we’ll
probably reduce it down to 14-15.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other concerns comments from the board?
Mr. Nace: We originally had the dumpster up here at the entrance and the board expressed at the last meeting
expressed concern about that. We relocated that to very back of star truck turnaround which is a convenient
place for it, it’s gets it out of the way.
Mr. Hunsinger: Did you do anything with walking trails or outdoor recreational areas?
Mr. Nace: We’re proposing that Rich we have this large wetland buffer, it continues back onto Rich’s other lots.
We’re proposing just to mow, we can’t build trails in that wetland, we’ve got to go where we can mow. So he’s
proposing to mow some trails in there for people to walk on, it’s somewhat like what the Eddy Group does right
down the road here.
Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to say that seemed to have worked very well there.
Mr. Magowan: They’ve got a couple of sitting benches and stuff like that so they can catch their breath.
Mr. Schermerhorn: I allow pets, people love to have their pets so actually it works well because they take their
pets and they let them do their business out in the back woods out of the way. And we’ve been mowing it.
Mr. Lapper: That way Rich doesn’t have to clean up the mulch beds around the parking lot.
Mr. Hunsinger: You kind of said you’d do what we wanted but I guess we were kind of looking for you to
Mr. Lapper: We could show pedestrian interconnect between the two properties as a condition.
Mr. Hunsinger: What would that be built of?
Mr. Nace: A regular sidewalk? Concrete or asphalt?
Mr. Schermerhorn: Asphalt might hold up better, because we sand and salt everything.
Mr. Hunsinger: Could you give us an idea of approximate location?
Mr. Nace: Basically I think we would go along the outside, of course, the dumpster is not there but along the
outside of the entrance to the cul-de-sac and along the side of the cul-de-sac over to the parking lot on the
adjacent, they are not shown on here, but there are two up here, east of our project.
Mr. Lapper: Tom, they have to be outside of the Town right-of-way.
Mr. Nace: Yes, out of the Town right-of way. Alongside the (unable to transcribe). We can show that on the
final plans.
Mr. Hunsinger: The southeast side of the cul-de-sac?
Mr. Nace: That would be correct. Alongside the south side of the entrance drive into the other project.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the Board?
Mr. Ford: It’s non-specific to this site but I have a question for Rich. As one of the premier developers in this
area and with the ever increasing number of senior citizens and that a great expansion of senior citizen
housing facilities and you’re certainly part of that I’m interested in if you have any concerns relative to the
infrastructure and the responses that may be needed for this increased number of seniors. What’s your
reaction to that sort of thing Rich? Everything from fire to transportation to
Mr. Schermerhorn: My reaction is well generally my particular projects they are not assisted living, they are not
HUD financing they are market rent driven apartments 55 and older and when I say the majority I’d say 90% of
the people that are in my complexes are very healthy people. I have some that are anywhere from, very few
55, honestly most of them seem to be in their 60’s, but majority seem to be 70 ish, 80 ish and I have some that
are 90. But these are people that are very independent; they are very healthy very sharp, so as far as
response services as far as ambulatory and fire I really don’t we really don’t get many responses. The first
year I built the Willows the biggest response we had was because of the way the code read how we had to wire
22
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
a fire alarm, everyone would burn toast and it would send the fire department over there every other day. But
honestly these are healthy, because it’s independent living, it’s not assisted, these are people who choose to
live on their own with people of their own age. Their aging together, doesn’t mean that there are any ailments
that they have, they are healthy elderly people. And they’ll do everything they can honestly they’ll fight tooth
and nail before they have to be, they don’t want to move out of my places because they don’t want to go into to
something that’s labeled nursing home, assisted living that sort of thing. I just really don’t have issues with
them.
Mr. Ford: You do see the potential for that becoming a problematic for this area don’t you think?
Mr. Schermerhorn: I’d see it, maybe in the near future but right now we’re so under built to help seniors and
not just Queensbury. I think there are so many communities that are hoping for what I’ve started to do in this
area, because I get asked Warrensburg I just got a call, South Glens Falls I’m doing some now but I think it
would be a long long time before we’re going to burden any type of services because there are so many
healthy, well this is the problem with our system today, people are living longer because people are taking
better care of themselves and quite frankly they are just living longer and these are people that are just, I hate
that word, elderly, there are elderly that just choose to live with people of their same age but they are really not
Mr. Krebs: Plus you’ve added some facilities to your units where they have common rooms where they can do
and have their sewing group or they can play cards or
Mr. Schermerhorn: The one thing I can say about I was as a matter of fact I had to meet my electrician today to
show him the Willows because I just gave the job to Exit 20 to a local electrician and we walked in and he says
now do you have someone here full time because we have a little office as you go in and I said only when we
first opened up for the first year until we rented it up. But I said this is a different generation. He said this place
looks brand new, well I said this is five years old now and they are the most respectful people you’ll ever, this
generation that I rent to is unbelievable. Lights off in the community room when they are not using them,
everything is picked up, you’ll never see a Stewarts coffee cup sitting on a table, you even see a ring on one of
the conference or one of the sitting room tables. It’s just a great group of people and they are just not enough
places for these people. Not to answer your question could there be a burden? With the type of folks I’m
getting I don’t think so but I mean will ambulances go there occasionally, yes but I think that would be in any
neighborhood whether they are elderly or younger.
Mr. Ford: Please be sensitive to that and responsive to it and help us as we plan for these eventualities as a
community.
Mr. Schermerhorn: Well I’d like to share with you I just got a letter from some people I don’t know who they are
as a matter of fact I had a very hard time I was looking at the return address and I couldn’t read their writing. It
was a husband wife and they expressed that they were elderly seniors and they loved what I was doing in the
community, they wanted to tell me to keep it up and we really love what you’re doing, they were referring to a
couple of complexes. They had one suggestion, they said to me they said one suggestion that would be
helpful for you in the future is if you could widen the parking spots a standard parking spot as we all know is 9
foot but they said if they could go an extra foot and he put in the letter it’s not that we’re disabled we’re just
slowing down and we need extra time to get out and we need a little bit of that maneuverability so I thought that
was a great situation.
Mr. Schonewolf: They may need to get the walker in there too.
Mr. Schermerhorn: Some may need that but, and I thought that was not a bad idea I mean 9 foot is tight
especially if you have a pick-up truck or an SUV
Mr. Ford: Door swing and them being conscious of not wanting to do damage to another’s car and so forth.
Mr. Schermerhorn: I appreciate your concerns and to be honest that’s the reason I’m starting to do a lot of
these senior projects. I have one in Hudson Falls that’s under construction; you know the one at Exit 20,
hopefully this one. And that I have another one in South Glens Falls a large one I’m doing because the need is
there and people they do like them and every one I do I do learn a little something different that we should add
to them.
Mr. Ford: As I said you’ll have your ear to the ground so to speak and be aware of those and we need to be
planning along those lines and you could be helpful to us as we do that.
Mr. Hunsinger: You mentioned turning off lights and that was also one of the staff comments about the exterior
lights, the parking lot lights.
Mr. Schermerhorn: Right, here is the challenge with the lighting, I can’t ever make everyone happy because
some people it doesn’t matter how great a job we do with the lighting there will be some people that say is
there any way you can turn those lights off at 10:00? And then there is the other person that says well I don’t
I’d appreciate it if you could have them stay on all night. It’s kind of a toss-up and I’ve never had complaints to
the Town but there’s a lot of times in different complexes we’ll put them on timers at different times for people.
We try to turn them off at certain hours because some people will complain that they’re too bright at night and
23
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
that’s based on going with the lights that are code but usually it’s a judgment thing, not to get myself in trouble
with the town but sometimes I do try and be sensitive if people say hey is there any way you can turn them off
at 11:00, the majority of us are here and just leave a few of them on and we do that too, but I’ll do whatever you
want.
Mr. Schonewolf: That’s just the difference between the star gazers and the party goers. Party goers want
them on when they come home so they can find their place.
Mr. Hunsinger: I think one of the advantages of this specific location is you really don’t see it from any main
street you know it’s set back far enough. I don’t you’ll really notice it from Bay Road; I don’t think you’ll notice it
from Meadowbrook Road. Only the people that are within there
Mr. Schermerhorn: The only lights I could see that maybe my own people the people that live in the cottages
which would be just immediately to the east where some of the lights are positioned I may have to take a look
at those to see if it’s going to disturb them coming in the back of their buildings based on the way it’s laid out it
shouldn’t but we take all requests and we look at what we can do and do what we can without getting in trouble.
Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else from the board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, is there
anyone that want to address the board on this project? Two head shaking no. Any written comments Keith?
Mr. Oborne: No written comments.
Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll open the public hearing. And since there are no comments I will close the public hearing.
We do have a few conditions.
Mr. Traver: I have so far reduce canopy light from 6 to 4; pedestrian connection to the Willows senior
residence to the east shall be added to the final plans, town engineer sign-off and we have a couple of we need
to waive a couple of things too-the 10 foot buffer in the parking at the rear of the building
Mr. Lapper: That doesn’t actually apply because that was on the former plan that just didn’t come out of the
staff notes that’s gone.
Mr. Hunsinger: The applicant also agreed to provide a mode walking trail in the wetland buffer area.
Mr. Traver: Okay
Mr. Lapper: But we do need that waiver for the parking in the rear
Mr. Hunsinger: Is that something we should specify Keith?
Mr. Oborne: What the waiver?
Mr. Hunsinger: The mowed walking trail.
Mr. Oborne: I think so.
Mr. Hunsinger: If we leave it that vague is that cause more trouble than?
Mr. Oborne: Well they did describe where you were going to put it for the record. And I’ll make sure that when
the final plans come in that they’re on the final plans as presented.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay.
Mr. Traver: So we don’t need to waive the 10 foot buffer requirement but we need to waive the parking at the
rear requirement?
Mr. Oborne: Well you need to approve that request so yes you have that ability.
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a motion
Mr. Hunsinger: We have to do SEQR first.
Mr. Oborne: SEQR was accomplished on 5/17/11. If you feel there has been enough change to the plan as
opposed to when you initially did SEQR it may be prudent to reaffirm but if you feel that there are no
environmental impacts as a result of those plans then I would not be concerned.
Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t think there is anything that has changed enough to
Mr. Traver: I’ll make a resolution-see below
24
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 9-2011 SCHERMERHORN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes a 49,590 +/- sq. ft. 35 unit 45 foot tall three story senior apartment building. Apartment Complex
proposed in an O [Office] zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 5/17/2011;
A SEQR Negative Declaration was done on 5/17/2011;
The ZBA approved the variance request on 5/25/2011;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/21/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of
record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2011 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced
by Mr. Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ford:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning
Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
3) 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
4) 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
5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,
approval, permitting and inspection; and
6) 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; and
7) 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; and
8) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or
for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
9) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans
must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was
prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an
individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
10) Approved with the following conditions:
a) The entrance canopy lights will be reduced from 6 to 4;
b) A pedestrian connection to the Willows Senior Residence to the east shall be added to the final plan;
c) A mowed walking trail in the wetland buffer will be added to the final plan.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp
25
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good luck. Our next item on the agenda is Site Plan 35-2011 for Tunick Company,
LLC, Joseph T. Tunick
Mr. Oborne: This gentleman is not Joseph T. Tunick this is the owner Mr. Strauss
Mr. Strauss: Actually I’m Joseph Tunick Strauss, there is no Joseph T. Turnick
Mr. Oborne: I apologize. Let me do these notes real quick.
Mr. Hunsinger: I’m sorry on the agenda it does say Joseph T. Strauss
Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below
APPLICATION: Site Plan 35-2011
APPLICANT: Tunick Company, LLC / Joseph T. Strauss
REQUESTED ACTION: Change of Use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review / approval
LOCATION: 820 Quaker Road
EXISTING ZONING: CLI-Commercial Light Industrial
SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required
WARREN CO. PB: 6/8/2011- No Action
PARCEL HISTORY: SP 22-02 Research and Development 5/16/2002
SV 69-91 Additional Sign Approved 9/18/91
UV 92-90 Approved 11/28/90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a retail woodworking and furniture manufacturing shop
located in an existing 2,900+/- sq. ft. building on the corner of Quaker and Highland Avenue. Change of Use in
a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
Staff Comments: Current uses on the property include Metallurgy R&D (rental A) as well as warehouse
storage (rental C). The parcel fronts on Highland, Boulevard, and Quaker roads and a National Grid easement
bisects the parcel. Snow storage is proposed as designated on the site plan. The applicant is seeking waivers
from storm-water, grading, landscaping, and lighting requirements.
Review:
Application:
1.No immediate issues.
Site Plan:
1.Site is devoid of landscaping. Landscaping requirements for commercial properties as per §179-8-050
should be followed if required by the Planning Board. If required, this must be updated on final site
plan.
2.All dumpsters required to be placed in such a manner that said receptacle is not visible from public
rights-of-way. Both on-site receptacles required to be screened as per §179-5-150. This should be
updated on final site plan.
3.Rental Building B has loading ramp not indicated on site plan. This should be updated on final site
plan.
4.Autos stored on south-western portion of parcel may need to be clarified. Are they part of the site or are
they associated with the auto use on adjacent property? Upon clarification, this should be updated on
final site plan.
Additional comments:
1.The site plan as presented will need to be updated for final approval. Existing conditions do not
correspond to site plan submission.
2.Fire Marshal comments attached.
Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board
Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening.
Mr. Strauss: As I stated I’m Joe Strauss, you just made a comment Keith about Fire Marshal comments
attached. I inquired about that today I was told there were none.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: The following comments are based on review of submitted plans. The Fire Marshall has no site
issues at this time.
Mr. Traver: The absence of comments still needs to be documented. That’s what it boils down to.
Mr. Strauss: Some of this is anti-logic to me but that’s okay I’ll hang on.
Mr. Traver: Our retirement plan has investments in Finch Pruyn so we have lots and lots of paper.
Mr. Strauss: I was going to comment.
Mr. Hunsinger: Is there anything else you wanted to add?
Mr. Strauss: No I just want to know what I’m going to be required to do so I can go do it.
Mr. Hunsinger: I will open up for questions comments from the board.
Mr. Traver: Are you planning on doing any landscaping to improve the appearance of the property?
Mr. Strauss: I had not planned on it no. I had read the, what was it here, 179-81 or 50 about the trees and
essentially if you look at the property it’s a big lawn, the property line between our property and FW Webb is
tree lined, we’ve got lots of trees there. I think it would be a non sequitur to put trees along the other roadways
the one on Highland is mostly parking area and then there is a power line so I don’t think trees are a good idea
there.
Mr. Magowan: You can’t put them there; it’s in the right of way.
Mr. Strauss: Correct. There is a significant right of way on actually the two other stretches of land there is kind
of a weedy area that’s part of New York, it’s not my property anyhow, maybe county maybe new york and I just
didn’t see a place for the trees. We keep it mowed to the best of our ability. I do like trees though I know you
have a thing about trees.
Mr. Magowan: Don’t cut any big ones down.
Mr. Strauss: There are no big trees on the property.
Mr. Sipp: Is building B going to be the retail end of this?
Mr. Strauss: As much as a custom kitchen guy working on his own can have retail sales. I mean, yes you can
walk into his building and ask about kitchens, and he’ll probably have a small showroom up front but it’s not
likely to draw more than you know people by appointment.
Mr. Sipp: Now what how do you dispose of your sawdust and waste material?
Mr. Strauss: Well that was a surprise to me, the dumpster showed up on the property which is a point of
contention here, no it just said we have hide our dumpsters and I thought I only had one and I have two now.
He puts it in the dumpster.
Mr. Sipp: But the oil collection devices.
Mr. Strauss: In the building there is cyclones and bagging facilities for that.
Mr. Sipp: Is this all hardwood or a mixture of hard wood and soft wood?
Mr. Strauss: Whatever kitchens are made of. I’ve been in there, he has some very nice stuff from hardwood,
to wood composite woods you know ply woods and particle boards.
Mr. Magowan: No, I’m just happy to see someone back using the building again. There was furniture years
ago with Seelye’s.
Mr. Strauss: Now that you mention that I have a question for all of you. It is not clear to me why I am here. I
could not get a decent answer from the department underneath you. To me a change of use would mean if I’d
wanted a dance studio or a restaurant in there. The property is commercial light industrial and this has been
deemed a commercial light industrial tenant. And it is of great concern to me that if I have to go through this
every time I change tenants; that is interfering in my ability to use this building in the way I see fit.
Mr. Magowan: How long did it sit idle?
Mr. Strauss: It did not sit idle at any time, the building
27
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Magowan: What was it before the furniture company came in there? I mean I know Seelye was in there
years ago.
Mr. Strauss: The thing is, the property is always a rental property it is perpetually rented by HJE Company
which occupies the large building on the corner so technically the building has always been occupied. An HJE
in the last year or two has used it for storage and what we call staging. We have a piece of equipment we have
to put together to see how it works out it goes in there. So they have free use of the property as a matter of fact
the new company is Steinberger Woodworks rents from HJE not from Tunick so the building in perpetually
rented. Now I was told that there are new rules in town and I have to abide by them I have no problem with that
whatsoever but I was told that there are site plans reviewed every so often and every seven years, well it looks
like if you look at the date of my site plan review before it’s 2002 is when we applied for it but it wasn’t approved
until 2004 in July so I’m within the seven years so I really don’t see why this was necessary this time, next time
yes and we need to update my edification of the new codes and rules but this time I think it kind of slipped
through the cracks not in my favor.
Mr. Magowan: Well you stated that it went from a storage facility to furniture store; it was furniture refinishing
then it went to HJE.
Mr. Strauss: Well also, there was a manufacturer there for electronic devices at one time.
Mr. Magowan: But basically it’s just a change of use.
Mr. Strauss: It’s always CLI, see I disagree and I need to be corrected on this because to me a change of use
is going outside what it is zoned for. For instance when I was trying to rent this building out we had people who
wanted car detailing, salons, etc. and I said no I don’t want to go through a site plan review. It’s too much
trouble; I just want someone with a machine shop or a wood shop, something shop that falls into CLI and it’s a
shoe-in. And I go get one and I’m said get out of there you can’t be operating this you have to go through site
plan review I’m saying why and no one has been able to give me an unambiguous definitive reason why I’m
here and I’d appreciate if someone could.
Mr. Oborne: The answer is that for number one it’s a change of use.
Mr. Strauss: No it is not. Why is it a change in use? What change in use?
Mr. Traver: Did you appeal the ruling of the Zoning Administrator or something?
Mr. Strauss: I did.
Mr. Oborne: Do you want me to answer the question or not?
Mr. Strauss: I do, but if it’s the same one you gave me before I’m not going to be happy.
Mr. Oborne: Okay it is a change in use, hold on, because it is on it is an allowable use within the CLI zone.
There are different allowable uses in the CLI zone, if it’s not the same use that was there previous for seven
years it’s a change in use and that requires site plan review.
Mr. Strauss: Okay but it was one of the uses there in the last seven years.
Mr. Oborne: That I don’t know about.
Mr. Strauss: No, no no clearly if you look on the map that was signed 2004 it says woodshop.
Mr. Oborne: That is between you and the Zoning Administrator. I don’t make those determinations.
Mr. Strauss: Exactly and when I asked the Zoning Administrator he threw numbers at me of codes that I had to
abide by and I interpreted them differently and when I asked him about that he said well there is another rule I
don’t have the number in front of me, you’ll have to go to site plan review.
Mr. Oborne: And I wasn’t part of that.
Mr. Strauss: I think, no you were not aware of that you’re correct and this gentleman has been very helpful
through this entire thing.
Mr. Magowan: He’s a good man, we like him.
Mr. Strauss: I do too and I’m sorry I’m giving him a hard time but this has been a lot of time and a lot of paper
for something I don’t, first of all you guys have a lot to do it’s a late night, you’d like to go home, so would I
Mr. Hunsinger: It’s actually early for us.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Strauss: But the basic thing is to empower guys at his level to say CLI goes with CLI done deal you’re
through it. Now that’s fine if and again you know I didn’t try to bring in something from left field here so to me
it’s continuous use of the same zoning and so when I’m thinking okay I have a tenant that can zip right in there
it should go through and I really think something missed here and now then there was bit about every seven
years you go through site plan review, is that true? In seven years I have to do this again regardless?
Mr. Oborne: That is correct. If you have not had a previous site plan review on the parcel.
Mr. Strauss: Okay, but so I still think due to the fact that the approval for the last site review which included a
woodshop was this time 2004 which was within seven years and is actually earlier because I originally this has
been going on since February because I did not come here willingly, it just seems that I think you guys could
save a lot of work and these guys could I don’t want to say rubber stamp it but make a judgment call that’s
consistent with what you people are trying to do here.
Mr. Schonewolf: Yeah but look where you are you can finish this up and we won’t see you until 18.
Mr. Strauss: Yes but now it is not clear to me at this time that if my tenant leaves in two years and a machine
shop wants to come in I don’t have to do this all again.
Mr. Oborne: If it’s a change in use you will.
Mr. Strauss: It’s not; see to me now you’ve got to reconfigure my brain.
Mr. Schonewolf: There is only one person you can argue that out with and it’s not with this group sitting here.
Mr. Strauss: Exactly but if you people are in agreement with me to even the slightest extent then it gives me a
little more ammunition to go back and say hey guys do the judgment call it’s a machine shop, a wood shop and
they are all in there and he’s agreed that these are things that fall in CLI so I shouldn’t be here. I don’t think so.
Mr. Traver: Obviously there are various steps in the process and once you are on the agenda and you are
coming before us then the issue of the need for site plan review is basically done. What you could have done I
believe is appeal the ruling of the Zoning Administrator. And have the town make a determination on that and
then if your opinion that the Zoning Administrator is incorrect is supported then you would not see us, we would
not see you.
Mr. Magowan: Well you had a meeting with the town didn’t you?
Mr. Strauss: Oh I had many meetings, e-mails, and unhappy phone calls.
Mr. Magowan: We have a mutual friend, Nick Daigle.
Mr. Strauss: I don’t know him, no I know Nick well.
Mr. Traver: Once the appeal the Zoning Administrator has to interpret the code.
Mr. Strauss: I do have an issue with the interpretation because when I countered it he picked another rock.
Mr. Traver: And you’re entitled to question that appeal that.
Mr. Strauss: No mechanism was given to me that said here’s how to appeal it. Go here.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well you go to the Zoning Board. You go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to appeal it.
Mr. Strauss: And I would have done that except actually I believe it would probably have taken the same
amount of time as this did. And then that gets a little redundant.
Mr. Schonewolf: Same result.
Mr. Traver: The only possible gain might be establishing a precedent for the use of your particular property.
Mr. Krebs: I happen to agree with your philosophy in the fact that this is a commercial I mean you know light
manufacturing operation and that’s what the zone is for you should be able to do it no matter what it is.
Mr. Strauss: And long as it falls in the list of CLI.
Mr. Krebs: That would be like my owning a retail store and retail building and because the shoe store that’s
their moves out and clothing store moves in they’ve got to come for site plan review, that ridiculous.
Mr. Oborne: I understand what you’re saying there are quite a few notations on the use charts that say AU
allowable uses that wouldn’t require site plan review. The one that you are dealing with requires Site Plan
Review, SPR is on the use table. That’s the way he interprets it.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Strauss: I wasn’t, Craig Brown pointed out he said that his building in CLI.
Mr. Oborne: It is CLI you’re definitely in the CLI zone, it’s not the
Mr. Strauss: And he says it fits right in
Mr. Oborne: But on the use table it says site plan review for that use. That’s
Mr. Strauss: Because of the 7 year rule which I fell within. Okay I don’t want to waste any more time. I’ll put
fences around my dumpsters, I’m not planning on putting any trees there, there is a loading ramp on the back
of the property.
Mr. Oborne: Yes it wasn’t on the original site plan.
Mr. Strauss: That we found by archeological dig, when we purchased the building there was a rickety building,
you know the door that’s back there, it’s a new garage door well there was an old garage door that we replaced
with a new garage door and we were digging down there and found out that there was a paved section, a
driveway, no that’s the other side of the building.
Mr. Oborne: That’s the loading ramp I’m talking about.
Mr. Strauss: No, that’s on the site plan.
Mr. Oborne: No, it’s not on the original site plan.
Mr. Strauss: I’ll show you the one that’s not there.
Mr. Oborne: If I have a picture of it. That one. ?
Mr. Strauss: That’s the one. Okay so the door was an older door and if you, it actually didn’t come up right up
to the door, it missed it by about 6 or 8 inches and the last tenant needed to go right in so we sort of rebuilt that
dock the same size it was before the old dock is under there but it was under such grass and debris that it
didn’t show up on the original map and now it’s there. So what do I need to do? Just re-do this map and
submit it?
Mr. Oborne: Yes I think so.
Mr. Strauss: Okay, no problem.
Mr. Oborne: And other direction they are going to give you.
Mr. Sipp: Just my own curiosity you have a building that says auction gallery and in the front of that building
you have a loading dock which has gas canisters, nitrogen and hydrogen. What is nitrogen and hydrogen
doing there?
Mr. Strauss: Well yes first of all it’s no longer an auction house and if you were, have you ever been inside to
see the auction house?
Mr. Sipp: No
Mr. Strauss: Well, there was a slanted floor with 350 theater seating’s. Well that’s gone and my company
processes materials, we do manufacturing of powdered metals and we use a lot of nitrogen, as a matter of fact
we’re the second largest gas user in the area next to the hospital. They use oxygen we use nitrogen and
hydrogen. Hydrogen is necessary when you’re doing controlled furnace environments so your material doesn’t
rust or burst into flames at high temperatures. It’s a protective environment.
Mr. Sipp: Is this inspected regularly? I mean hydrogen is a very explosive gas.
Mr. Strauss: Hydrogen is, we take our precautions; and we are according to the codes very within the code
amounts. We went through that in great detail when we first set up the building about how many bottles we
were allowed within certain distance of each other and how to store it. I’ve been doing this for about 30 years
and I haven’t killed myself yet.
Mr. Sipp: Good.
Mr. Strauss: And I’m not planning on it either.
Mr. Sipp: What is this building going to be used for? It’s a rental building what use could it be?
Mr. Strauss: Well the large one on the corner?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Sipp: It says the auction gallery building.
Mr. Strauss: Well that’s no longer an auction gallery building.
Mr. Oborne: This is an old site plan, what he has done is put in rental building A and described what that is and
rental building b.
Mr. Strauss: Rental building B, that building has been doing metal powders and work with manufacturing for
since we got in there in 2004 without incident yet or hydrogen explosion.
Mr. Sipp: Hmm.
Mr. Schonewolf: Well you follow the state code on hydrogen storage, I’m sure.
Mr. Strauss: Excuse me?
Mr. Schonewolf: Well you follow the state fire code you would adhere to it so that’s all you have to do.
Mr. Strauss: Actually it’s probably safer than the state fire code.
Mr. Schonewolf: You probably are more conservative than most people are.
Mr. Strauss: Yes, it’s my equipment I don’t want to blow it up.
Mr. Krebs: It doesn’t make sense, but the table definitely does indicate that light manufacturing requires site
plan review. But it doesn’t make any sense because you can put an asphalt plant there and it doesn’t site plan
review.
Mr. Traver: I think an asphalt plant would probably require site plan review.
Mr. Krebs: No it doesn’t, not
Mr. Oborne: It would.
Mr. Krebs: It doesn’t say in this table.
Mr. Traver: But that is such a change.
Mr. Krebs: If you’re referencing the table the table does not say site plan review in CLI. Look at it.
Mr. Oborne: Is it blank?
Mr. Krebs: It’s just blank.
Mr. Oborne: That means that it’s not an allowable use. That’s not an allowable use in that zone.
Mr. Oborne: Yes, it’s a fun code.
Mr. Strauss: Are you talking about table 4?
Mr. Krebs: Yes, on table yeah.
Mr. Traver: Well there is very little that says permitted use under CLI. In this list I don’t see specifically which
Mr. Krebs: Oh I see that would come under light manufacturing.
Mr. Strauss: Actually come to think of it Keith it says light manufacturing is a special use so it beats the heck
out of me.
Mr. Krebs: It’s site plan review, I didn’t realize that.
Mr. Strauss: Yes I think it would be a good idea.
Mr. Hunsinger: I wanted to comment earlier I found this discussion very interesting because when was the new
code adopted? It’s been a couple three years.
Mr. Oborne: 2009.
Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t know, this is really the first time that this issue has really come up. I guess what it’s kind
of telling me when I chaired the it was called the Planning Ordinance Review Committee that adopted that
31
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
came up with drafted the code. And I remember the discussions very well but part of the implementation is
kind of testing stuff you know and if the language in looking at it now this evening to me it seems very vague
but I remember the conversation pretty well and there were parts of the code we wanted to leave vague on
purpose because we wanted to give the Planning Board a lot of discretion and flexibility with interpretation but I
think in this particular case that vagueness is not helpful.
Mr. Strauss: To me as a building owner or someone who purchases a piece of property knowing it was going
to be a commercial light industrial you say okay then we fit these things in there and so that would reduce the
work up here because it is rubber stamped at that level.
Mr. Hunsinger: Right and that was the discussion and I specifically remember saying if we have a building
owner you don’t want to see a site plan review every time there is a change in tenant when nothing else is
changing. And I think to a person we all said no as long as the use is similar.
Mr. Traver: At some point it will probably be reviewed by the Zoning Board and there may be some precedent
for.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well the intent of the new code was that the sort of constantly revisited as issues arise that they
be dealt with ultimately it would go to the Town Board to consider an amendment or a change so
Mr. Strauss: Are these things that are constantly churning and changing? I mean you guys have a great
website, it is like you want to see something it’s there in a heartbeat it’s not like its’ not accessible to people like
me. So
Mr. Traver: Yes it’s not constantly changing but it is constantly subject to revision when there has been
identified need and this might be a case where that could happen.
Mr. Oborne: No code is perfect.
Mr. Hunsinger: And I think that’s what we all kind of said when we were going through the whole process. In
our efforts to resolve some of the old problems we’re going to create new ones. This might be one of those
areas.
Mr. Traver: And over time there is new engineering and new businesses and concerns that impact the town
that didn’t ten years before so it has to be looked at from time to time.
Mr. Hunsinger: Any other comments questions from the board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this
project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the board? Marilyn did you want to address the
board? Any written comments, Keith?
Mr. Oborne: I don’t believe so but give me a second please.
Mr. Hunsinger: We will open the public hearing.
Mr. Oborne: I don’t see any.
Mr. Hunsinger: Let the record show there were no comments received. We will close the public hearing. We
do have a couple of conditions.
Mr. Traver: Yes and there are waivers requested for stormwater, grading, landscaping, and lighting. In
addition we have the dumpster issue, the ramp needs to be amended, and then there is a comment about auto
stored on the southwestern portion of the parcel.
Mr. Strauss: The in that corner there is a garage it was Streeter’s garage and it’s sort of their spill over and I let
them out of courtesy if and I read codes and I said actually I’m out of compliance here so if it takes moving
them back to their property that’s what it takes. Now there is also some construction equipment but it generally
moves, it Catalfamo’s equipment, again it’s a courtesy thing I’m not collecting rent from this, it’s just one of
those things.
Mr. Traver: So it’s not really an official use it’s just your neighbor will ask you from time to time do you mind if I
park there for
Mr. Strauss Well I’ll be frank with you I mean Catalfamo’s trucks are moving on a weekly basis in the wintertime
it’s pretty much parked there, although this winter he did manage to plow a couple of them out and take them
out. The cars from the garage in general they are wrecks that have been towed in and they are registered but
the cars that I think where the comment or of concern are the unregistered cars. Now two of them are mine
they are hobby cars and they are kind of going to get pushed into the barn but I think the ones of concern were
the ones that seem to sit there for a while so I’m actually look for your guidance on this you know what direction
should I go, I’m out of compliance I need to straighten this up?
Mr. Traver: Okay well are you asking for clarification if they’re going to remain.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: If they’re going to remain you’re going to have submit a site plan review application for a junkyard.
I don’t think you want to do that. That’s a change in use so.
Mr. Strauss: What do you think the chances of me getting through that is?
Mr. Schonewolf: Not too good.
Mr. Strauss: All right.
Mr. Traver: And that’s because they are unregistered inactive?
Mr. Oborne: Correct, exactly. They are considered junk; you can’t have more than two.
Mr. Traver: So basically they have to be removed.
Mr. Oborne: You are considered a junkyard if you have two or more.
Mr. Traver: So we can give you two.
Mr. Ford: No you can have one.
Mr. Strauss: Really, just one?
Mr. Oborne: Joe I would worry about Streeter’s cars, not yours.
Mr. Strauss: I will correct that, that’s not a problem. I’m more concerned about my cars, it’s a hobby that’s run
away, and we’ll have to
Mr. Traver: All right, so then really all we have of concern are the dumpsters and the loading ramp to be
added to the plan right?
Mr. Oborne: You may want to direct him to take care of the autos also.
Mr. Traver: Okay. I’ll make a motion-see below
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 6-2011 TUNICK COMPANY, LLC / JOSEPH STRAUSS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes
a retail woodworking and furniture manufacturing shop located in an existing 2,900+/- sq. ft. building on the
corner of Quaker and Highland Avenue. Change of Use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/28/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of
record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2011 TUNICK COMPANY, LLC JOSEPH T. STRAUSS,
Introduced by Mr. Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Krebs:
9)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
10)Type II SEQRA- no further action necessary;
11)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;
12)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;
13)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,
approval, permitting and inspection;
14)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
33
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
15)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;
16)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;
17)Approved with the following conditions:
a)Dumpsters are required to be placed in such a manner that said receptacle is not visible right of way;
both on site receptacles are required to be screened and this shall be updated on the final plan.
b)Rental building B has a loading ramp which is not indicated on the site plan; this will be updated on the
final site plan;
c)Vehicles stored on the southwestern portion of the property that are unregistered need to be removed.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of June 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf
NOES: None
Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, thank you. Did you want to address the board?
Ms. Vandyke: I’m just observing.
Mr. Hunsinger: Oh okay. Nothing wrong with that. Is there any other business to be brought before the board
this evening? We did have a discussion at the last meeting and some e-mails about a special meeting in July.
Keith has indicated that if we are to consider a special meeting that we should try to have it on a Tuesday
evening.
Mr. Oborne: Yes there is a particular board member that has a conflict on Thursday’s and that’s not an issue
with me I just to consider that when doing this resolution.
Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t recall from the e-mails is the room available on the, well I don’t know if we want to meet
ththnd
on the 5 of July, is it available on the 12 of July or the 2 of August.
stthnd,th
Mr. Oborne: Yes what were the four, the four that we did were July 21 and 28, August 2 and 4? If that
nd
works for the board for VMJR, I’m not sure. The 2 of August, let me go to July, they were both Thursdays
which doesn’t work very well.
Mr. Hunsinger: We can talk about again next Tuesday if we want.
th
Mr. Traver: Just to clarify for July we’re talking about a third meeting on the 12?
Mr. Oborne: Hopefully not
ndth
Mr. Traver: Hopefully not, so only two meetings in July but in August we’re talking about either the 2 or 4 for
VMJR?
nd
Mr. Oborne: Yes and I would push for the 2 as it’s a Tuesday.
Mr. Traver: We received some correspondence tonight that indicated that there were some issues, some
outstanding issue, are they likely to be resolved in time for this to be an appropriate date?
Mr. Oborne: I have grave concerns about their approach to this project and I’ll state that for the record. We had
a telephone conversation with them and then the letter was represented the following day or the next couple of
days represented that conversation in a different light and as a result Craig issued a rebuttal letter stating that,
there are issues here. If the Planning Board wants to grant them waivers for certain things; that’s up to them to
ask the Planning Board, we can’t do that as staff. My position is that the application is incomplete.
Mr. Traver: That’s why I’m wondering if it’s worth scheduling a special meeting, I mean they are ones that
want the special meeting and so I’m wondering if we might want to consider not scheduling a special meeting
until those issues until the application is complete.
Mr. Oborne: The process that they’re at, the level or where they are at in the application I believe they are
eligible to get to the board but they seem to want to not do all that is required and they want to explain that to
the board.
Mr. Traver: In my review before the meeting tonight of the correspondence it looked as though not all of the
conditions had been met from our tabling resolution if I interpreted it correctly.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree with you on that. Craig, we’ve had this discussion, Craig and I have had this
discussion and Vic also knows of the way we are approaching this and he wants to roll the dice.
Mr. Traver: I have some concerns about agreeing to hear them when they haven’t addressed they haven’t
resolved the issues that we presented them at the end of last meeting.
Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree with you. So what I will do, I agree we probably should not set a meeting date at
this point
Mr. Traver: Well I’m just speaking for myself; I mean there may be others that disagree with that position.
Mr. Schonewolf: When they’re ready and they have completed the work then we’ll have the meeting.
Mr. Sipp: Yes.
Mr. Traver: That’s my feeling.
Mr. Schonewolf: Because they’re just jerking us around I think.
Mr. Traver: Well I mean there are many things that could be happening but in any case there is a process, it
works very, very well, staff is happy to work with them. There are some incomplete items we routinely will not
review applications that are incomplete and I think we are being unfair to other applicants if we make a special
case for this particular applicant. Particularly in the event of scheduling a special meeting that we’re already
offering to do in order to expedite, in effect, their application. So I think they’re the ones that want that, let them
respond by completing the requirements that we presented them with at the last meeting.
Mr. Oborne: Okay I’m certainly looking to you as a board for guidance on this. Again we are not going to set a
special meeting at this point I don’t think, but
Mr. Hunsinger: It doesn’t sound like it yes.
Mr. Ford: I’ll buy into what Steve just said.
Mr. Hunsinger: It seems like this project would be a good project for our new approved process where they go
get the engineering satisfied. I mean we’ve certainly given them enough feedback and input on the planning
issues that you know, I’d almost, I mean if they don’t want to go that route we can’t force them obviously. To
have them come back for the board just so we can just review a litany of engineering comments it doesn’t
seem like it’s a good use of anyone’s time.
Mr. Oborne: Well they made a submittal, they made a submittal on time which ostensibly discusses the
engineering comments, that submittal has been referred to the engineer we’ll obviously have comments from
the engineer at whenever that meeting is scheduled.
Mr. Hunsinger: Sure
Mr. Traver: Right.
Mr. Hunsinger: So at this point they’re scheduled to come back to us in August?
th
Mr. Oborne: The 26 is the date I believe.
th
Mr. Hunsinger: I’m sorry July the 26 of July.
Mr. Schonewolf: They have got some big issues out there, we made it clear we wanted the road issue settled
and I don’t think he is anywhere near that.
Mr. Traver: Right so we’re not going to hear them in July, not if the application is incomplete.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well we’re going to end up tabling it again is what’s going to happen.
Mr. Oborne: We can keep them on the July agenda and
Mr. Traver: It seems to me the ball is in their court.
Mr. Hunsinger: I would agree.
Mr. Traver: You know for us to go issue by issue by issue and having a special meeting for every issue giving
them direction as how to proceed if they choose not to respond at some point we have to acknowledge that
that’s their choice and not our schedule. That’s my feeling.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Hunsinger: But part of the discussion we had was we tabled them to a regular meeting date and then the
discussion was if we need to have a special meeting for our backlog we would consider that so that discussion
is still open.
Mr. Oborne: That’s the next discussion.
Mr. Traver: I think we also tabled them with conditions.
Mr. Hunsinger: Oh absolutely
Mr. Traver: If they have an incomplete response to the tabling motion then I don’t think we can hear them in
July.
Mr. Oborne: That’s my position.
Mr. Traver: I think it’s the only position, if we treat them unfairly with regards to other applicants I think we
have a problem. I mean I don’t think we can treat them in a discriminatory way I think we have to treat them the
same as any applicant otherwise we’re being manifestly unfair to other applicants to other applicants in the
town.
Mr. Hunsinger: So the submission has come and gone, they gave a partial submission, and you’ve asked for
some follow-up?
Mr. Oborne: No we had a conversation with them we had concerns that they were going to submit an
incomplete application and we basically discussed many issues with them on the phone and we thought we
explained it in a crystal clear manner but then they issued that letter that you have and then we have the
rebuttal you might not have the letter that they have.
Mr. Traver: We did.
Mr. Oborne: You did, okay. That’s what we’re dealing with
Mr. Traver: I think one way to proceed would be rather than have them on the regular agenda to wait until we
have a complete application and then we can offer to schedule a special meeting.
Mr. Sipp: Yes
Mr. Traver: That way, the time pressure, of trying to work some arrangement out for July goes away
Mr. Oborne: You’re not going to accept the application as it, that’s wise.
Mr. Traver: We can still offer to cooperate with them once they follow the application process.
th
Mr. Hunsinger: In terms of the public record they are tabled until July 26 so you know it will be an agenda item
like we had this evening, two items to table that had been tabled to that evening.
Mr. Traver: Well we can let them know that they will tabled that night to a special meeting to be determined
based on a reception of a completed application by the planning department. Again that’s my opinion
Mr. Ford: That’s the crux of the matter right there, the completed application
Mr. Schonewolf: Do they understand the ball is in their court?
Mr. Oborne: I would hope so.
Mr. Hunsinger: Well we don’t have to make a decision this evening but I’m seeing.
Mr. Oborne: If I could digest this a bit obviously you’ve not done the site plan review on this, the revised site
plan review and let me digest that and we’ll come back on Tuesday, next Tuesday and I’ll have something for
you.
Mr. Hunsinger: We’ll discuss it a little further.
Mr. Schonewolf: You can sleep on it, you’ll have a nightmare.
Mr. Hunsinger: But like I said Keith I’m seeing every head nod in response to Steve’s recommendation so
Mr. Oborne: Okay. A completed application that’s when you get consideration for a special meeting.
Mr. Krebs: Chris I’ve got a question. Does the Planning staff work for the planning board or does the planning
board work for the planning staff?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Traver: I thought we worked for the planning staff
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes
Mr. Krebs: I’m asking the question
Mr. Oborne: I think we both work for betterment and the goodness of the Town of Queensbury citizens
Mr. Ford: We work for the community.
Mr. Krebs: 17 Heron Hollow Road, they took down a 1,600 sq. ft. cottage and have replaced it with a 5,200 sq.
ft.
Mr. Schonewolf: 6,200
Mr. Krebs: Well a 5,200 or 6.200, it doesn’t make any difference what looks to be a year round home.
Mr. Schonewolf: It is.
Mr. Krebs: Now in the ordinance it says conversion of a seasonal residence to a permanent residence
requires site plan review, this did not come, in addition to that I visited the site on Saturday last week and there
is significantly more than 200 sq. ft. of disturbance within 50 feet of the shoreline which also requires site plan
review. Why was this not brought before this board? Not only that but if you look at the lot it comes to an edge
and then it drops about 16 feet to the water and it’s got to be an almost a 40 degree angle and they have put,
they have disturbed that area too, and they have put a few plants in there now, the only they did to protect it is
that they put black silt fence up which is not if we have a heavy rain storm that front lawn is going to be in Lake
George.
Mr. Schonewolf: They just put that silt fence up; it wasn’t up there when I went up there three weeks ago.
That’s because somebody knew we were looking at it.
Mr. Krebs: But the point is it’s been reported but nothing ever gets done about it. We need to have an
ordinance
Mr. Traver: So we discussed this before if there is no formal complaint there is no enforcement action taken
even if they know, even if it’s been reported maybe they offered the neighbor money to not make a formal
complaint.
Mr. Krebs: No no wait a minute this was approved by the Zoning Administrator
Mr. Traver: Oh, I don’t know anything about that.
Mr. Krebs: He gave them a building permit.
Mr. Hunsinger: Who would have approved the building permit?
Mr. Oborne: They do it conjunction with.
Mr. Krebs: We’re sitting here giving this guy a hard time about planting something, you’re asking this man to
put something in front of this cottage, on his 45 feet front and this person up there tears down a building puts up
a new building gets an approval from the Zoning Administrator for it, clear cuts the lot completely disturbs the
front area by the water, within 50 feet.
Mr. Traver: Is that the house
Mr. Krebs: I’ll tell you right now we either are going to come to a resolution here because if I cannot continue
to sit on this board if we have two sets of rules. One for whatever Craig Brown wants to do, I mean this is the
second time I have fought this, 44 Russell Harris Road. They had the backhoe right down next to the water. I
brought pictures of that, no site plan was ever required of that person.
Mr. Traver: Is that the one we saw when we did site visits? When we drove around?
Mr. Krebs: Yes
Mr. Oborne: To answer your initial question Don I do work for you obviously. Craig is not a planner, I’m your
planner, and we have a senior planner with Pam and George.
Mr. Krebs: I know that
Mr. Oborne: I know you that, for your edification. All I can is present what is presentable.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Krebs: I’m not blaming you, I’m just saying if we have a zoning ordinance we’re either going to have we
have to have consistent use of that ordinance.
Mr. Traver: Well it sounds like there’s violations
Mr. Krebs: People are going to say to hell with you sue me
Mr. Hunsinger: Well I think that’s what’s happening
Mr. Schonewolf: Well you’ve got the whole town talking about it, I can’t tell you, I’ll bet I’ve been asked about
that a dozen times, why, what’s going on there? I said I don’t know it never came before the planning board, it
just went in and got a demolition, three weeks later got a building permit, we’re not include.
Mr. Oborne: Yes it didn’t come across my desk.
Mr. Schonewolf: And it’s a good builder, I mean the builder is a credible builder
Mr. Krebs: Well he went the builder or owner went to the Zoning Administrator and got a building permit, you
can look it up
Mr. Oborne: He submits a building permit obviously and the Zoning Administrator looks at it in the form of the
zoning code and then he signs off on it and then it goes to Dave.
Mr. Krebs: Right
Mr. Oborne: So that’s pretty much the process.
Mr. Traver: Yes he makes a determination it doesn’t requires site plan review then it
Mr. Oborne: Exactly and he can only go with what’s presented in front of him too.
Mr. Krebs: But what if it does?
Mr. Schonewolf: Can he possibly do that?
Mr. Oborne: I don’t know the plan.
Mr. Schonewolf: I went to Florida and came back and there the house was
Mr. Oborne: I’m not familiar with the project to be honest with you I wish I could answer that question
Mr. Schonewolf: Do yourself a favor, drive over there because you probably don’t believe what we’re telling
you.
Mr. Oborne: No I believe you.
Mr. Traver: It sounds like zoning code violations occurring as well.
Mr. Schonewolf: Oh yeah.
Mr. Traver: That’s an enforcement thing and we’ve already talked about
Mr. Krebs: Site Plan review if you disturb over 200 square feet which this definitely did within 50 feet of the
lake
Mr. Traver: The only remediation
Mr. Hunsinger: I had another items to bring to the board. I received a notice from the Association of Town’s for
the 2011 they call it summer school, planning and Zoning summer school and the nearest location is at Albany
nd
Law School on Friday July 22. It’s a I don’t see the time listed
Mr. Schonewolf: It starts at 9 in the morning and gets out about 4
Mr. Hunsinger: It’s a daylong session
Mr. Schonewolf: It’s a good one, it’s really a good one because you get the benefit of all the other guys that
are in our shoes and some of the crazy things they do.
Mr. Hunsinger: The town still has money to send us to training right?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: Send your request into this young lady here and she’ll process that.
Mr. Schonewolf: What was the date on that?
nd
Mr. Hunsinger: July 22, it’s a Friday if anyone is interested.
Mr. Oborne: Planning Federation the conference is in Albany also at the Crowne Plaza that’s coming up in
October I believe.
Mr. Hunsinger: Yes you sent us a save the day
Mr. Oborne: Also in front of you or in your packets I did send the appendix E of the blue book for erosion and
sediment control. And a lot of these single family houses that are coming here for building permits we don’t
require them as a town to do any erosion control on these sites. Now you have the 15% slopes you have the
wetlands that captures the site plan review aspect which is before you and I’m asking the board to become
familiar with these practices, they are very basic practices silt fence vegetative controls
Mr. Schonewolf: That’s just for small homes though. What about big homes, they can do what’ve they want or
what.
Mr. Hunsinger: If they’re on the lake
Mr. Oborne: That is a perfect example of why that appendix E should be attached to the building permits but
that’s a proactive stance and that’s not something that government does. With that if you can become familiar
with that that would be fabulous. Also we need to discuss our overflow meeting, if we’re not going to do an
extra meeting for VMJR at this point and we don’t have to make a decision right now because I’ll get all the
facts to you by Tuesday we have 9 bumped. I’m also loading your meetings up just a little at 6 ½ just to move
some things forward.
Mr. Hunsinger: This evening’s meeting was not overloaded.
Mr. Oborne: You had seven recommendations and we flew right through them.
Mr. Traver: Yes, they went quickly, they don’t always.
Mr. Oborne: Next week will be a little more in depth I imagine but again you’re seeing a lot of these plans that
you’ve already seen tonight so I think the system works pretty well to be honest with you. With that we do have
an overload of nine.
Mr. Hunsinger: That’s a lot.
Mr. Schonewolf: Is it all residential?
Mr. Oborne: No
Mr. Traver: I suppose we could schedule that date in early August for a special meeting and fill it up with
things other than VMJR and they would be bumped to another special meeting at some later date. If that’s
warranted because that load is before us and they are not.
Mr. Hunsinger: Right
Mr. Ford: Are these complete applications?
Mr. Oborne: These are applications that are complete, they’ve been vetted.
Mr. Ford: Let’s go with completed applications shall we?
Mr. Traver: If we start going with incomplete ones we’re going to be getting more of them I can assure you.
Mr. Oborne: I don’t want to preclude from potentially deciding on a date tonight, that’s fine for these overload
applications, you’re only go get six of the overloads, it will still be a three bump but it will at least move some of
them.
Mr. Hunsinger: But three isn’t too bad.
Mr. Oborne: No it’s manageable.
Mr. Traver: I think if you read that sediment and erosion control in light of that subdivision off of Glen Lake
Road you’ll have some open eyes there are some steep slopes in there especially where the roads and the
houses are going to be and that spells out some protection for everybody.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board-June 21, 2011)
Mr. Oborne: And it’s certainly reasonable conditions you can impose.
Mr. Hunsinger: Okay
Mr. Oborne: In my staff notes I’ll present what I feel based on my experience that would be potential best
management practices for erosion and sediment control. As far as the additional meeting do you want to
schedule one now based on the times you know are available or wait until next Tuesday.
Mr. Ford: Let’s do it Tuesday.
Mr. Oborne: We’ll get everything flushed out to you and present it to you.
Mr. Ford: I move to adjourn-see below.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 31, 2011, Introduced
by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
Duly adopted this 31st day of May, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you everybody.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
40