07-17-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 2012
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mt. Hollow H.O.A. 1.
Tax Map No. 300.-1-19
Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch/French Mt. Bear Pond, LLC 2.
Tax Map No. 278.-1-77, 13
Subdivision No. 6-2012 Pierre Rawlins 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.12-1-8
Subdivision No. 4-2012 DKC Holdings 7.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.1
Site Plan No. 40-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 9.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7
Site Plan No. 41-2012 SBLB Properties II, LLC 13.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map 303.19-1-48, 49, 50, 51, 58
Subdivision No. 5-2011 Lisa Pushor, Scott Spellburg 16.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1
Site Plan No. 36-2012 James & Lillian Conway 18.
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-32
Site Plan No. 37-2012 ORVIS 24.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-57
PUD SP 20-2009 Michaels Group 27.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.20-1-8
DISCUSSION ITEM
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 2012
7:00 P.M.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER
BRAD MAGOWAN
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, July 17th. The first item of business is approval of minutes from May 15th and May 17,
2012. Would anyone like to move those?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 15, 2012
May 17, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM
MAY 15T" AND MAY 17T", 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a couple of administrative items. For members of the audience,
there are copies of the agenda on the back table. I apologize for not mentioning that before.
The first one is Subdivision 8-2005 Mt. Hollow Homeowners Association. It was tabled to this
evening.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW HOA-TABLED TO JULY 17, 2012
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any new information, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There is no new information whatsoever at this point in time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a suggestion?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think we should table that out to September at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Either the 18th or the 25th at the Board's discretion.
MR. TRAVER-Make it the 18 th?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we might as well make it the 18tH
MR. MAGOWAN-Why is this dragging on so long? What are we waiting for now?
MR. OBORNE-That's the million dollar question.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can we put any fire sticks under it to get an answer?
MR. HUNSINGER-Weren't they waiting for signoff from the City?
MR. OBORNE-They've got that. They're all set to go.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought.
MR. OBORNE-We're just waiting for the emergency action plan and update to the subdivision
and we have not received that at this point in time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-They are aware that we're looking for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB #8-2005 MT. HOLLOW H.O.A.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Stephen
Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Tabled to the September 18, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The next administrative item is Site Plan 77-2011 for Bear Pond
Ranch/French Mt. Bear Pond, LLC.
SITE PLAN 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND, LLC-TABLED
TO JULY 17, 2012
MR. HUNSINGER-It was tabled to this evening. Any update on that one?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don't have an update. We do have one of the project engineers here out
in the library area, but I can tell you that absolutely nothing has been submitted. I believe that
they're submitting an application to the Adirondack Park Agency as this is a Class A Regional
project and as such they have jurisdiction for the environmental assessment. When that is
taken care of, then they will be submitting their plans to us. I have not even caught a whiff of
anything to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we table it pending receipt of the APA review or should we table it to
a date?
MR. OBORNE-1 think that would be wise, and then follow proper protocols after that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So pending an updated application submittal, would that be appropriate?
MR. OBORNE-1 think that would work.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND, LLC
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR
POND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled until the Town Planning Department receives an updated application package.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-We have four items this evening for recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA:
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2012 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED
PIERRE RAWLINS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION WEST & EAST DRIVE
SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO
TWO LOTS OF 0.37 AND 0.34 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: LOT SIZE &
ROAD FRONTAGE RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV
31-12 LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-8 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, at this point we have a recommendation in front of the Board for Pierre
Rawlins, Subdivision 6-2012. The location is at, it doesn't say West and East Drive, but it is
West and East Drive as a matter of fact. I think the Board is aware that West Drive has not been
extended fully to meet the back portion of this proposed parcel. With that, I'll just go through
what the nature of the variances are. For Lot One proposed is lot size, request for 1.63 acres of
lot size relief from the two acre minimum, and road frontage, and this is a request for 51 feet of
road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement. Now this parcel doesn't exist yet, but it's
proposed to exist, and does have a single family dwelling on it, with access to it at this point.
The proposed Parcel Two, again, lot size request for 1.66 acres of lot size relief from the two
acre minimum, and road frontage. As West Avenue has not been extended and it's just a paper
road, it's on lands that the Town owns, the applicant's required to gather or gain 100% of road
frontage relief for this, or 100 feet. So we'll discuss that. At this point in time we're at a
recommendation only, until the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think we could move forward with
that. I think we should get some clarification tomorrow from the Highway Super on what issues
may be a result of the 100 foot variance, and I'm sure Mr. Steves will discuss that, and with that
I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Pierre Rawlins on this application.
Staff has stated this is property that is on the extreme north end of both East and West Drive
that currently extends from the westerly edge of East Drive to the easterly edge of West Drive.
Gets a little confusing there. East Drive is constructed all the way through to the entrance to his
property. West Drive, which is also a Town road, and if you look at the location plan that he had,
West Drive is only constructed (lost words) back to the last house that's on West Drive. I have,
and it's cleared most of the way back, and I've been in discussions with Staff and with Mike
Travis, and Mike said he understands, and since it is a Town owned road that's just unimproved,
he's willing to improve it back to Mr. Rawlins' property. The question that arises there is, and as
you can see why, it dead ends into the corner of the Homestead Trailer Park, and he has no
interest in paving it all the way to the end, which would be required to make this lot compliant
and not need a variance because the Code says that all lots must front on an approved Town
road, and in discussions with him, he was asking how far do I need to go, and I said I don't know
until I get a variance. So it's kind of like the cart before the horse, and he said, and his
suggestion would be like 15 to 20 feet. My client, Mr. Rawlins, that's where he's intending to
bring his driveway off, right about the first 12 feet of his, north of his south property line. So
that's all he really needs, and then that gives the Highway Department room to push snow at the
end and not block his driveway. So he said he's willing to go 15, 20 feet, whatever the Boards
would deem adequate, but he was not, you know, to the point where he said he would want to
pave all the way because it makes no sense, and so I just want to make sure that everybody
understands why. It's not a road that can connect to anywhere. So why pave the entire length
of a 100 foot lot just to service one house.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're saying 12 feet in from the property line?
MR. STEVES-Twelve feet north of the southerly property line. So in other words, extend West
Drive northerly until such time as you get past his southerly property line, a minimum of 12 feet,
and that's where he wants to bring his driveway in for his new house.
MR. MAGOWAN-The proposed drive that you have on the plans there is straight in, and that's
32 feet over.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. STEVES-Well, again, when we develop a subdivision plan, we don't know what type of
house. He has now decided upon a raised ranch with a side load garage. So it's going to work
perfect for him.
MR. MAGOWAN-That would bring it over close to the property line.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Gotcha.
MR. FORD-Who has been doing the improvement on the extension of West?
MR. STEVES-1 know that there's another vacant lot to the south, I believe owned by somebody
by the name of Rowland, and I know that there was some work done in there, and Mike Travis
even mentioned that, that there was, some fill had been brought in and he had graded some
back there over the years and that the owner of that vacant lot may have been doing some. I
really don't know. It's not my client. He just wants to be able to access a new home in the back
from a lot he currently owns, but again, I talked to Mike Travis at length yesterday and today and
he said that he has no issue, but he would rather not pave the whole length of the frontage of
that lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's really no need to.
MR. STEVES-There's no need to.
MR. FORD-So where the soil had been brought in and the bulldozing has been done and the
trees pushed over, that is not property owned by your client?
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that all in the Town right of way?
MR. STEVES-Most of it is within the Town right of way, and if you look, it's also south, just north
of the white house there you can kind of see that oval area that Mr. Ford is talking about, and
that is not on our client's property, that's to the south.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and this is an older shot here, too. I can't say the road's been approved, but
I was there a couple of days ago. It's similar to what's going on there, but there's been
additional fill brought in, absolutely. My only concern with this is that I have nothing in writing
from the Highway Super, and we're hoping we get something tomorrow, because if not it's
probably not going to go very far.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-And like I said I talked to the Highway Superintendent, and I don't want to
continue on this for too long, and he was saying, look, he's willing to pave it, but he doesn't want
to put in writing how far he's going to pave it and then the Zoning Board say, well, that's not how
far we want it to go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-So we're just trying to get some kind of a feel from this Board and the Zoning
Board what they feel is the minimum requirement. We know 100 feet's the requirement, but
what would be the minimum amount of pavement so that I could call Mike back and he'll put it in
writing that's how much he's going to pave, and it's kind of a Catch-22 because he doesn't want
to dictate to this Board or to the Zoning Board how much road should be built in front of a lot to
accommodate a home.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, technically the road exists. It's a paper road. So the road actually exists.
So in my opinion it has the frontage. It's just not there.
MR. STEVES-Correct. That's why I stated at the beginning the Code says improved Town road.
This is already a dedicated municipal road all the way to the end. So there's nothing we can do.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mike should do similar to what he's done up on Assembly Point where
he's taken some of those dead end streets and every time somebody builds a house, he (lost
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
words) and usually the verbiage for that is to extend the road far enough to facilitate snow
removal and public safety. In other words, you've got to get the fire trucks past to where the
house is built and you've got to have room for the snow. That's all you need.
MR. STEVES-And that's what he was stating.
MR. OBORNE-He needs to state something. That's all I'm getting at.
MR. STEVES-I don't want to tell him what to do and I don't want to tell this Board what to do. So
we kind of left it that if we could find out what the Planning Board especially, not just the Zoning
Board, but the Planning Board thinks would be good planning to how far that road would have to
be extended, then Mike will put it in writing for us for tomorrow morning.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that's what we've done with him in the past.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board?
MR. FORD-I think verbiage is appropriate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what we've done before.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Paul, would halfway up the lot be sufficient for fire apparatus?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The fire apparatus only has to get as far as the end of the house, which is
his driveway, really, but then beyond his driveway has to be room to pile snow so that you don't
start piling them back and then you can't get to the end of his driveway.
MR. MAGOWAN-So if you bring the road up halfway through that lot.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I don't know. How far out does?
MR. STEVES-Well, with the grade in there, like I suggest, if we go 20 feet and he wants to put
his driveway 12 feet, you know, just a foot or two off the property line, that gives plenty of room
for the snow plow to go in and work, and then the Town already owns the right of way and then it
kind of drops off in there. He can pile snow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-As far as they want.
MR. STEVES-As far as they want.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But paving it 20 feet would easily do that.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-And quite frankly I don't think it's a huge issue. I really don't. I think the bigger
issue with this is the lot size for the proposed lot, as opposed to what the zoning is.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, to me this is one of those cases where you look at it on paper, and if
you don't know the neighborhood or if you don't go out and do a site visit, it kind of seems
excessive, and then you look at it, and, I mean, it makes sense.
MR. STEVES-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't have any issues with it. Does anyone else have any concerns or
problems?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I'd make a motion to give it a positive recommendation.
MR. STEVES-Yes, the owner, just to give you a little bit of a background, he lives in the house
that fronts on East.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-Pierre, and he has now, over the years, saved enough money, he's lived there a
long time, he rented from the original owner and then he bought it from the original owner, and
he and his wife now are at a point where they're thinking about, you know, five or six years,
starting to try to retire, build a more energy compliant home that they can retire in, in the
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
neighborhood he grew up in, live there, and then he can rent out the other house. Live there
while he's building the new one, and then have some income to offset it. That's the only way he
can afford to build the new house, and the lots would be quite consistent with the lots along
those two roads.
MR. FORD-Just one clarification. Did you say the clearing and the fill and so forth is on the
south side of the property that you're presenting?
MR. STEVES-It's south of the property.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it's south of it.
MR. FORD-South of it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you can see it up here, where it's highlighted. It's definitely south of it,
where my arrow is. I mean, I don't know what he's going to need for turn around. So, I mean,
he's got to design that, too.
MR. STEVES-Yes, Mike suggested 20 feet. Like I said, if that's suitable with this Board, I will
get it in writing so that we can move forward with the recommendation, and I'll have it for the
Zoning Board tomorrow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's fine with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems fine to me.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So at this point our only concern is getting written approval from the
Highway Department that they will pave the additional road that's needed.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems that way, yes. Do you want to make that a motion?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 31-12 PIERRE RAWLINS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 0.71 acre parcel into two lots of 0.37 and 0.34 acres respectively. Subdivision
of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Lot size & road frontage
relief. The Planning Board shall provide a 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;
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. 31-2012 AND SUBDIVISION
NO. 6-2012 PIERRE RAWLINS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, pending clarification of the amount of
additional roadway that will be paved by the Town.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE REVIEW SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DKC
HOLDINGS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LUZERNE
ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 15.21 ACRE PARCEL
INTO 3 LOTS OF 3.52, 3.95 & 7.74 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: ROAD
FRONTAGE RELIEF FOR PROPOSED LOT 3. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32-
12, SP 5-12, SB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 15.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.1
SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is associated with a three lot subdivision in the Commercial Light
Industrial zone with the highlighted lot. The lot lines have not been updated at this point in time
because everything is in the Sketch phase. This is the exact same issue that Rawlins has. It
doesn't have any road frontage, and, you know, actually if Rawlins is going to get 20 foot of road
frontage, it looks like they're going to get 100 foot. So I don't know exactly how we want to go
forward with this one. I think we should use this, obviously, as 100 foot of relief because they do
not have any relief whatsoever, and I believe that is the only issue with that. It is road frontage
relief and it's for 80 feet of relief from the 100 foot road frontage requirement, and, you know,
this will be back for subdivision approval at a later date, and there's really not a heck of a lot to
add to it. I would need, again, more information from Mike Travis on this. So, a similar
recommendation would be, I think, appropriate, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to cross the street, right?
MR. STEVES-You've got it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves representing DKC Holdings. Exact same scenario. My
discussions with Mike, again, is that he's going all the way up to Rawlins', which would be about
80 feet south of that jog in there. You would end up with 300 feet of road in front of this lot, and
he said that what his intentions are is once we got that clarified, then the last application, that he
is going to be paving in August and September, and that's when he wants to do it, before the
winter season. So that by the time we get into the Fall, he said that this road would be paved all
the way through there, and again I understand we'll need a variance to move forward with the
subdivision. So we'll get the variance, and we can even put the stipulation that no site plan
application can come in on that Lot Three. My client has no proposed use at this time. Even if
we put that stipulation on that no site plan, no construction activities can happen on Lot Three
until the road is extended, fine, still have the variance, and then when the road goes in, the
variance, even though we have it, is really moot, but at the same, we can move forward with the
subdivision application, but we have no issue putting that condition on the lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-You had indicated during Sketch Plan what the intention was for that, for the
back portion of the lot.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I can't recall what it was.
MR. STEVES-Basically extend the storage facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought.
MR. STEVES-To create a parking lot, fenced in gated parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you're not going to need the road frontage anyway.
MR. STEVES-That is correct.
MR. OBORNE-One never knows, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. OBORNE-It's going to be a separate lot and somebody might come out of the woodwork
after approval and say, hey, I'll buy that.
MR. STEVES-You definitely want to have that, no question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-But again, going back, it'll be paved by the time anybody comes forward to do
anything on that lot. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other concerns or anything else that should be put in the motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess sort of the background concern is if you do use West Drive to
access this site, then you're going to be going through a residential neighborhood and you could
have neighbors concerned.
MR. STEVES-Right. Any activity that would happen on that, again, the entrance would be right
at the very end of West Drive, not right at the southerly portion of this lot, right where the drive is
now. You can see on the overhead the road extends just north of the property line now, and it
would be accessed right from there, or we could access through one of the drive lanes in the
storage unit. Either way, it doesn't really make any difference. Planning purposes, if we did that
with the gate up front extending it that far back, we'd want to have at least an emergency exit on
West Drive, irregardless.
MR. OBORNE-1 would also like potentially to, you may want to, as a Board, there are a myriad
of waivers associated with the subdivision at this point in time, with the variance also, and you
may want to chime in on that, because you're going to see this relatively soon, back as a
subdivision, and landscaping, stormwater, grading, layout and lighting waivers have been asked
for, and I do ask that the Planning Board discuss these waivers at this point in time to clarify for
the applicant if these waivers are to be granted, or could be considered as part of a waiver
request.
MR. STEVES-Right, and again, it's a Commercial Light Industrial three lots, and the reason for
that in the subdivision is every lot will have to come back in front of you for full site plan, and
right now the subdivision, and don't get me wrong, we want to go through all the scenarios, the
full topography's done, but nothing's going to happen, just creating a lot line. Any lot that comes
in here has to come back through this Board for site plan review, and we believe at that time
when you know the exact use, and, you know, what kind of landscaping you want with that use
and that size structure and that size parking, and go through that exercise at that time.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my comment, that all of those waivers would have to be
addressed at site plan review.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Well, they are requirements of the subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other comments or input on the waiver requests?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other concerns or comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing that really concerns me is that we keep hearing that something,
you know, big's coming in in the future really soon. I mean, can we wait and make a decision
then once we see the whole picture or?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I'm not sure what the question is.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, you're dividing this up.
MR. TRAVER-On paper.
MR. MAGOWAN-On paper. And something's coming in big soon, Keith said, well, something
else is coming up that.
MR. STEVES-No, the subdivision's coming right back. That's all.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I'm sorry, I meant that from an application point of view, not from an actual
use going there.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Okay. So I'm confused. All right. Yes. So I'm all right on paper.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Are you ready for a motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, ready.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 32-2012 DKC HOLDINGS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 15.21 acre parcel into 3 lots of 3.52, 3.95, & 7.74 acres respectively.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Road frontage
relief for proposed lot 3. The Planning Board shall provide a 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;
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. 32-2012 AND
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
We will grant, at this stage, waivers for landscaping, stormwater, grading, layout, and lighting,
pending individual site plan reviews when these lots are developed. The Planning Board, based
on limited review, has identified the following area of concern: that no construction take place
until the road is installed.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2012 SEAR TYPE II GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; MICHAEL BIRD, ADIRONDACK DESIGN
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
31 KNOX ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING 1,076
SQ. FT. ONE BEDROOM BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF HIP ROOF AND
RECONFIGURATION OF LIVING SPACE RESULTING IN A +/- 786 SQ. FT. STUDIO WITH +/-
290 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONES REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCES: HEIGHT AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 33-12,AV 9-08, SP 14-07,
AV 59-96, SP 44-92 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER APA, LGPC, LG
CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-9
STEFANIE BITTER & MICHAEL BIRD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning
the relief requested. 31 Knox Road is the location. Existing zoning is WR, Waterfront
Residential. This is a Type 11 SEAR. Warren County Referral is really not necessary at this
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
point in time, as it is a recommendation. We have not received that. We do anticipate receiving
that tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-With the project description: applicant proposes renovation of an existing 1,076
square foot one bedroom boathouse to include installation of a hip roof and reconfiguration of
living space resulting in a 786 sq. ft. studio with 290 sq. ft. sundeck. What follows is site plan
review, Staff Comments, particular to the lot. Nature of the Area Variance is Parcel will require
Area Variances as follows: Height - Request for 7.65 feet of height relief from the 16 foot
maximum height allowed, and also, even though it's not on here, expansion of a nonconforming
structure is also required for relief, and only the Zoning Board of Appeals can grant that relief. I
believe the Board is familiar with the property, is familiar with the property probably as the result
of past site plans, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record. I'm here this evening with Greg
Brown as well as Michael Bird, the project architect. As Keith had identified, we're here this
evening seeking your recommendation for the Area Variances to modify the existing boathouse,
which, thank God for technology, we do have a picture of it up there. We also have a picture of
our proposed renovated structure as well so that you can compare while I discuss the changes
that we are seeking. The existing boathouse was constructed around 1930. It contains, right
now, a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, closet, fireplace/chimney, and great room. The intent of the
applicant is to modify the design and to have it have a similar architectural features to the house.
I don't know if any of you were able to get to the site this week, but it is very similar to the
architectural design of the house. Very attractive. Obviously very unique as well. The proposal
is to remove the existing bedroom closet and decrease the size of the great room as Keith had
described. We are replacing interior space, or the box as it exists today, with open exterior
decking, all of which will be within the existing footprint of the structure. There'll be no
modifications to the cribbing or the dock, other than two steel caissons that will be placed in
there to maintain the stability of the structure. The Area Variance is a height variance. As it
exists today, it's about 22.6 and a half feet in size. We're requesting a one foot increase due to
the change in the roofline. As you can see from the pictures, we're going from a flat roof to a
peaked roof. Our argument is that the overall, and this is not a technical term at all, surface area
is obviously decreasing due to the visibility of the structure being modified. You can obviously
see through a lot of the portion of the structure as compared to what you can see through it
today. Clearly we feel when you look at this from an Area Variance perspective, taking the
overall structure and the modifications that are proposed, there's only a positive impact that can
be achieved to the neighborhood as well as the surrounding areas, not to mention the fact of
how this will work together with the improvements that have been made to the property thus far.
I'm going to turn it over to Michael to add to anything that I may have missed.
MR. BIRD-Hi. My name's Michael Bird. I'm the architect. I first met Gregg in about 1994 when
he asked me to design his house. There was an existing house on the property. We tore it
down and we built the house that you see in these photos. Recently, about a year ago, he came
to me and said it was time to do something with the boathouse and that the boathouse was a
pretty large, obtrusive structure on the water and he wanted to do something to make it much
more appealing to everybody, both on land and also on the water. So we came up with this idea
of taking about 13 foot 6 inches of the front of the second floor of the boathouse and making it a
large deck area, and that would dramatically decrease the overall volume impact on the water.
So we came up with the design that looks more like the house, and dramatically decreases the
living space by 27%. So we feel that it's kind of a win/win situation for everybody around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'd like to compliment you on your really beautiful design. I was quite
shocked when I was going through the paperwork and looked at the pictures and what you want
to do. You're absolutely right. It does open up and you can see right up the lake. So I have to
say you did really a nice job placing that.
GREGG BROWN
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the first building like that up in that area. I think it's, there's no
doubt that didn't fit, but, you know, your property and the property just south of it are two of the
nicest properties up there. No offense, Dennis. Two of the nicest properties up there, but I think
to be able to do something with that building and make it fit with what you've got behind it as a
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
home, is, that's pretty sensational. I was really surprised when I walked back there and saw it,
and then saw the drawings.
MR. HUNSINGER-How far down do you tear down the existing boathouse?
MR. BIRD-We're going to replace piece by piece. We're not actually going to take it down totally
and re-build it. We drive the four caissons in and use that as a super structure and then start
replacing the walls and using that steel as reinforcement.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you are actually replacing the walls and floors and everything?
MR. BIRD-Not the crib work in the first floor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BIRD-But eventually, and the walls and the floors.
MR. SIPP-Do you plan for toilet facilities in this new?
MR. BIRD-There will just be a kitchen and a bathroom, and a great room.
MR. SIPP-Just quickly give me an idea of what type of septic system this will be.
MS. BITTER-I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
MR. SIPP-What type of septic system would this be, not to get too complicated. Are you going
to use a holding tank?
MR. BIRD-We'll have a pump station that'll go up into the existing septic field.
MR. SIPP-Into the existing field.
MR. BIRD-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a bathroom in there now.
MR. BIRD-There's a bathroom in there now and a bedroom.
MR. FORD-At present that septic system would accommodate a five bedroom home, correct?
MS. BITTER-The certification was, I believe, in the staff notes from Dennis Dickenson.
MR. FORD-Correct, but it's rated for five, but it actually would accommodate the four that is
being recommended with this application.
MS. BITTER-Right. Exactly.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We've had discussions with Dave Hatin, Craig and I have. There really is
no requirement to actually have a certification. I mean, but there's kind of a gray area but there
really isn't in this case because you're removing the bedroom, and as you know, septics are
rated on bedrooms and not on bathrooms.
MR. FORD-Number of bedrooms.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So they're removing a bedroom but it's really a studio, but, you know,
nevertheless, you know, they are technically removing a bedroom. Could I ask one question of
the applicant, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-Now you stated that you're going to remove the walls piece by piece. What
about the decking on dock?
MR. BIRD-That will remain.
MR. OBORNE-That remains?
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. BIRD-Obviously we're going to have to take some of it out in order to drive the caissons in.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. BIRD-Generally the cribbing and the dock, decking will all stay.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. FORD-I'd also applaud the design or re-design. I would like to have you address, however,
Stefanie, at one point you indicated that it was going to be a one foot differential. In the
application or in the Staff Notes here indicate that there's a request for 7.65 feet of height relief
from the 16 foot maximum. So that's nearly 50%.
MS. BITTER-I'm saying existing to proposed. As it exists today it's 22.6 and a half feet. What
we're proposing is 23.6, and that's only with regards to the six foot section of the peak. So that's
what I'm talking about when I speak of the one foot differential, understanding that the
requirement is 16.
MR. BROWN-The majority of the roofline drops below the existing roofline. It's because of the
way the peak's cut and the way that it comes up, and the way Michael wants to do it, the very
center section of the very top peak is that one foot difference. Everything else, and you can look
at it by looking at the difference between the chimney. The chimney doesn't change. So the
chimney, you can see the exposed chimney gets much greater in the rendering because that's
what happens to the roofline. It drops.
MR. BIRD-And the reality is by cutting the front, or the lakeside section back the 13 foot 6, you
won't even notice that increase in height because that ridge is set back so far that it's so
foreshortened that it really would look almost as if it were at the same height that it currently sits.
MR. FORD-I'm just looking at it as a Planning Board member where we're granting nearly 50%
relief for the project, and it's very, it's not inconceivable that in the future that other applicants
would come in and cite this as a bit of a precedent setting event.
MS. BITTER-And I guess we're looking at it in the sense of obviously it's existing as a
nonconforming structure.
MR. FORD-Yes, it is.
MS. BITTER-Which we're only improving.
MR. FORD-And that is grandfathered.
MS. BITTER-Right, it's grandfathered, and obviously you're taking that into consideration with
the recommendation.
MR. FORD-And we'll take that into consideration in the future as well.
MS. BITTER-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-That is the applicant's heaviest issue here is the fact that they're taking it down
and then they're actually increasing the nonconformity on it. I mean, one of the feasible
methods by which you can avoid this variance is design a boathouse that is compliant or not as
over the nonconformity as it is right now, or proposed. So, I mean that's an argument for the
Zoning Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that water in Queensbury or is it in Bolton?
MR. OBORNE-1 believe you'd ask John that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions or concerns from members of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-So am I hearing any concerns that we need to mention to zoning? Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#33-2012 BROWN & BITNER
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
renovation to existing 1,076 sq. ft. one bedroom boathouse to include installation of hip roof and
reconfiguration of living space resulting in a +/- 786 sq. ft. studio with +/- 290 sq. ft. sundeck.
Boathouse in the WR zone requires PB review and approval. Variances: Height and expansion
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
of a nonconforming structure relief. The Planning Board shall provide a 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;
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. 33-2012 AND SITE PLAN
NO. 40-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SBLB PROPERTIES II, LLC AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT & JERRY
BROWN ZONING HI-HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LOWER WARREN STREET SITE
PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 FT. X 200 FT. (24,000) STEEL
FRAMED BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF AUTO PARTS. FURTHER, PROPOSAL CALLS FOR
A 20 X 50 FT. COVERED RAMP CONNECTING THE ABOVE PROPOSED BUILDING WITH
EXISTING +/- 15,700 SQ. FT. DISMANTLING WAREHOUSE; STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
AND E & S CONTROLS PROPOSED. EXPANSION OF A JUNKYARD USE IN A HI ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: SIDE SETBACK
AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE RELIEF. THE PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 34-12, AV 50-11, SP 12-12, ETC. WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES
LOT SIZE 7.54, 0.21, 0.21, 13.78 & 1.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-48, 49, 50, 51, 58
SECTION 179-9
STEFANIE BITTER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 41-2012, Area Variance 34-2012, SBLB Properties. This is a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The location is Lower Warren Street. The
existing zoning is Heavy Industrial at this point in time. The SEAR Status, when this gets before
you for Site Plan Review, is an Unlisted. Warren County Referral, we have not received
anything at this point in time. Again, this is a recommendation. It's not necessarily required.
You'll see that at a later date. Site description: applicant proposes construction of a 120 foot by
200 foot steel frame building for storage of auto parts. Further, proposal calls for a 20 foot by 50
foot covered ramp connecting the above proposed building with existing 15,700 square foot
dismantling warehouse. Stormwater management and E & S controls are proposed. The nature
of the variance, and this has to do with the covered walkway, or not really walkway but covered
ramp, is side setback request for 50 feet of side setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for
the proposed covered concrete ramp, and that's from the existing use or garage. Side setback,
again, request for 50 feet of side setback relief from the 50 foot requirement, and that's for the
proposed steel frame building, and expansion of a nonconforming structure, and that has to do
with the existing building at this point in time. What follows is Site Plan Review, and we'll get
into that at a later date, obviously. I do want to mention for the record, under Additional
Comments, applicant is required to apply for a certificate of approval from the Town Board prior
to operation of a junkyard, and Larry's aware of that I'm sure, and you can ignore Number Two
on there. After discussion with the engineer this morning, the actual ramp is going to be located
over hard surfacing, existing hard surfacing. They're not taking out any permeable surfacing.
So I misspoke in my notes on that.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-So which note is that, Keith? I'm sorry.
MR. OBORNE-That's Number Two under Additional Comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Under Additional Comments. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you can mark that out. It's just covering permeability, non-permeable. With
that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with Larry Brown and Tom Hutchins. Just
to give you a brief overview, there's two things that are causing us to be before you for this Area
Variance this evening. One is the unique configurations of the parcels. The parcels as they
exist today are five individual lots which we intend to do some merging and result in three actual
lots. The reason that they're in the way that they are is that obviously this business has been
around for some time. Jerry Brown being the original owner, and Jerry Brown still owns the
central center piece. Throughout the years, additional parcels have been acquired from the
adjacent neighborhoods that have been taken by a new entity that was formed by his sons. So
that center piece is going to remain as a Jerry Brown piece for the purposes of estate planning.
So that creates this issue with regards to us straddling setbacks for this ramp. Obviously as
everyone is familiar with this facility operates as one. When you're standing on Warren Street,
you don't see five individual lots. You see one facility. So really this is simply a paper variance
for lack of a better word that really will not, overall, have any impact on any of the adjacent
neighbors. It will obviously only be internal to the auto parts facility, and there's been a
tremendous amount of work done and this recycling facility is state of the art and obviously has
undergone a number of improvements. This sealed building will just be another added
improvement to the structure, or, I'm sorry, to the facility, so that it is more efficient and can be
better run. Tom, did you want to answer any additional?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't really have anything to add. We can turn it over for questions, or if Larry
does.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I'll open it up for questions and comments from the Board. Don't
everyone jump in at once. The one comment questions I did have is the required buffer, and,
you know, the no cut recommendation that Staff had.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that's referring to this parcel that is, what's the name of that street, on
Highland, LaCasio the owner, and we're not doing anything within that 50 foot area. So if that
buffer is indeed a requirement, we're not proposing anything there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-I'm talking right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's that east side, yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-This parcel. That is a residential.
MR. OBORNE-Not that one building. The building that is to the front. You're fine as far as the
buffering standards go. There is a residential use on the second floor.
MR. HUTCHINS-Of this piece.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MS. BITTER-LaCasio.
MR. HUTCHINS-So we do need a buffer?
MR. OBORNE-You do need a buffer, and as drawn, you meet that buffer.
MR. HUTCHINS-But we're fine with what we're showing.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And quite frankly I don't know what the purpose of a buffer would do there
anyway, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. DEEB-I'd like to say one thing. I went down yesterday to take a look at it, and Larry took
me through everything, and I've got to say, the operation is just a pristine operation the way he
does everything down there.
MR. TRAVER-It's quite a change.
MR. DEEB-So, I mean, I commend him on that. I really do. I've seen a lot of them. I'm sure
Keith has seen a lot of them, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's not like it was 20 years ago.
MR. DEEB-And I remember his dad. I used to do business with his dad years ago.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'll make a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR A V# 34-2012 SBLB PROPERTIES, LLC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
construction of a 120 ft. x 200 ft. (24,000) steel framed building for storage of auto parts.
Further, proposal calls for a 20 ft. x 50 ft. covered ramp connecting the above proposed building
with existing +/- 15,700 sq. ft. dismantling warehouse; stormwater management and E & S
controls proposed. Expansion of Junkyard use in a HI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval. Variances: Side setback and expansion of a non-conforming structure relief. The
Planning Board shall provide a 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;
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. 34-2012 AND SUBDIVISION
NO. 41-2012 SBLB PROPERTIES, LLC, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-1 just would add, you're not going to get very far on Site Plan Review with the
engineering comments that we got, that need to be addressed, but that's not for the Zoning
Board's, that's Site Plan.
MS. BITTER-Acknowledged.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just want to make sure you got a copy of them.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Just got them today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Good luck.
LARRY BROWN
MR. BROWN-Thanks very much.
TABLED ITEM:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FINAL STAGE LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT
SPELLBURG AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STONE POINTE,
LLC/SCOTT SPELLBURG ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LC-10A-LAND
CONSERVATION LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF THREE (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO EIGHT (8)
RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 ACRES TO 44.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF
LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
AV 62-11, SUB 5-06 APA , CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 38.52, 1.36, 52.24 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 265.-l-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 SECTION CHAPTER §A-183
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-1 am pleased to announce that the long national nightmare that is Pushor
Spellburg is now over. We did receive final signoff from the engineer on the Preliminary
subdivision and we can now move forward with the Final subdivision. What we do have is, on
the top of my notes, is a big glaring note that says that we have not received engineering signoff.
Well, we have, and that is before you in a handout I gave to you today. What we have before us
is Final Stage subdivision for Lisa Pushor and Scott Spellburg. Obviously the requested action
is subdivision of land. 45 Ellsworth Lane is the location. The zoning is bifurcated between RR-
3A and LC-10A. It's a Type Unlisted. You have already accomplished your SEAR review on
this. You had issued a SEAR Negative Declaration. I don't have really a whole heck of a lot to
add to this, to be honest with you. I think that the Board is aware of this application. It's been
before you on numerous occasions. There hasn't been really any changes. One was it went
from nine down to eight, but you had already approved it at Preliminary with the condition that
you have engineering signoff. We have that. I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I don't know if we really need a summary because I think
we got (lost words).
MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don't believe so. If you have any questions, we would like to move
forward with Final subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think we had any public comment at any of the other meetings. Did
we?
MR. OBORNE-Well, we had one from an adjoining property owner early on, I believe, and we
don't have any, haven't had any since.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action, which is a Long Form. So unless there are questions
or comments from the Board, we'll move.
MR. TRAVER-I thought we already did that?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You already did it. SEAR has been accomplished.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. We Neg Dec'd it. So we're just ready for Preliminary
approval.
MR. TRAVER-Final.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Final approval. Preliminary approval was approved last month.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought, but the agenda says Preliminary and Final. I thought
we, didn't we put off the Preliminary as well?
MR. OBORNE-It should not say Preliminary. It's Final.
MR. HUTCHINS-We did Preliminary. It was conditioned.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought. I'm sorry. It was conditioned on engineering
comments, which you now have. Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. OBORNE-1 apologize for the agenda looking the way it looks.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's all right. If I had read my own comments from the last meeting, I
would have known where we were. Unless there's any questions or concerns, I'll entertain a
motion for Final approval.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 5-2011 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of three (3) parcels totaling 92.12 +/- acres into eight (8)
residential lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning
Board review and approval;
•SEAR Negative Declaration & Preliminary Stage approval was done on 6/19/12;
• public hearing was scheduled and held on 10/18/11, 2/21/12, 4/17/12, and 6/19/12 and tabled
to 7/17/12;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT
SPELLBURG, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
We previously dealt with SEAR in a Negative Declaration. This is approved according to the
draft resolution prepared by Staff.
a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
b) 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;
c) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman;
d) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
1. 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.
2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
e) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
1. The approved final 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;
2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building and Codes personnel.
g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
i) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-1 think you should amend that to state as previously approved subdivisions by
resolutions prepared by Staff. Something along those lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did have one from the June 19th meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did have a Staff.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR LOCATION
32 NACY ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT HAS PLACED FILL WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE
SHORELINE. PLACEMENT OF FILL WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE IN A WR ZONE
REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 18-12, BP 11-457, SP
8-11, AV 9-11, BOH 33-10 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-32 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-050D
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 36-2012, James and Lillian Conway. This is Site Plan Review
for placement of fill within 50 feet of a shoreline. Location is 32 Nacy Road, Glen Lake.
Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEAR. Short Form should be
attached to your application. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant has placed
fill within 50 feet of the shoreline and is seeking approval after the fact for such action.
Placement of fill within 50 feet of the shoreline in a WR zone requires PB review and approval.
Staff Comments: Although the property appears to be somewhat stable as evidenced during a
site visit on July 3, 2012, additional slope stabilization is warranted due to the severity of the
slopes on-site. The applicant should use the New York Standards and Specification for Erosion
and Sediment Control, specifically Section 513, Permanent Structural Measures on all slopes in
excess of 2 to 1. If the Planning Board requires additional slope stabilization, the applicant may
be required to develop a long term stabilization plan designed by a licensed or certified
professional. Engineering comments attached, which kind of mirror my comments to a certain
extent. The short history of this is that the applicant's agent did not follow the approved plan
prior and the applicant now requires relief after the fact for fill within 50 feet of the shoreline.
With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering with Jim and Lillian
Conway, owners of the property. The Conways are, we were here, what, a year and a half ago
with the beginning of a long process to replace their aged house. They have completed the
construction. They've done a wonderful job. Through the course of construction they made a
few changes to the site, and the reason we are here is they created an area of about two feet of
fill to create a rather flat grassed area immediately adjacent to the lake but behind the buffer
plantings that we put in, which allows them a space to have a sitting area and a flat area near
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
the lake. That flat area was not depicted on the original grading plan that my office prepared.
We had shown a somewhat uniform slope down to the lake, and they broke it up with a terraced
area and a relatively flat area, and I think that photo is not particularly recent and it didn't look
like hat today when I was there. It's a little more established. I did look at the site shortly after
this event came about and I am, I was comfortable with the mulch slope that you see that it's
going to stabilize. I was comfortable with the area that the fill, the fill area adjacent to the lake by
the plantings is going to remain stable. It's not steep at all, and it was a change that was made
during construction. It was not exactly in accordance with the approved plan, and here we are.
Do you folks want to add anything?
JAMES CONWAY
MR. CONWAY-Yes, I would just say that, I don't know if you have pictures of the pre-existing
camp, but the pre-existing camp did have two plateaus, and we encouraged our agent to, you
know, give us some flat land so we could sit and look at the lake, and also to help us get down to
the lake as we move up in our maturity.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it looks pretty good myself.
MR. CONWAY-It looks beautiful, and I think the neighbors all love it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can take that lawn area and fertilize it and keep the grass up high,
and that'll give you a lot more stormwater control than I've seen in some areas that we've got
where they just, you know, they put in scrub stuff within 15 feet of the lake. It dies, and I can
show you now where water rolls right into the lake. This is much better.
MR. OBORNE-We do want to limit the use of fertilizers along the shoreline.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to make the same comment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fertilizers without potassium.
MR. OBORN E-Phosphorus.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Phosphorus I mean. Yes.
LILLIAN CONWAY
MRS. CONWAY-1 think keeping the grass higher is a good idea.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the key to it. If you fertilize and keep it high, you've got good grass
and you've got good control and you've got no phosphorus and it's not going into the lake. What
some of these people do, they don't do that and then especially what you had, and just roll right
in.
MR. OBORNE-They want a putting green is what they want.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, putting greens next to the lake are not good.
MR. SIPP-But you do have some good plants listed here, but they are from one foot up to five
feet in height, and it's not the same.
MR. CONWAY-Right. You can't really see them there, but they're off to both sides of that
picture. You can see the plantings.
MR. SIPP-Which is good, but you might want a few shorter plants to be underneath that. I don't
know how many. You've got 20 total.
MR. CONWAY-We have 20 of them. The Zoning Board had us plant the two four inch trees the
last time we went to the Zoning Board.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, the two planting beds that showed on my plan are there, and as
mentioned during the process they wanted to take a stair that the original plan had shown on the
south side of the deck and put it on the north side of the deck which modified the setback
variance. So they went to the Zoning Board during construction and at that time they added a
couple more, the two four inch red maples, which are in place and are there.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The house came out well.
MR. MAGOWAN-It really did. What an improvement.
MR. FORD-It's great.
MRS. CONWAY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the slope that has the mulch on it, those plantings, I'm not a landscape
guy. I'm the first one to say it. How long do you think it will take for those shrubs to take over
that hillside, to fill in?
MR. HUTCH INS-I don't know the answer to that? Did they give you any guidance on?
MRS. CONWAY-Well, the junipers will grow six to eight feet in width. So I don't know the annual
growth. That's a horticultural question I don't know the answer to that. The junipers, they're the
long ones. I think they grow six to eight feet up, but I don't know what the rate is.
MR. MAGOWAN-They take a little while. Mine seem to be awfully slow.
MR. SIPP-Canadian hemlock will give you a fast grow and a good size tree quickly.
MR. CONWAY-Canadian Hemlock?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. CONWAY-That's a similar creeping plant is it?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Is that a cover or is that a tree?
MR. SIPP-That's a tree. Well, it's a big bush, let's put it that way. It'll go to three or four inches
in diameter, three or four inches in diameter in about six, seven years.
MR. MAGOWAN-What do you have underneath the mulch? Did you put down a barrier, weed
barrier or anything, or is it just over dirt or your topsoil?
MR. HUTCHINS-It's mulch over soil.
MR. SIPP-Yes, I think on the steps going down, on the left hand side, you've got quite a bit of
area that's got black mulch on it right now.
MR. CONWAY-And that has a barrier underneath it, I'm certain.
MR. SIPP-So what would down through there if we ever got rain in this area again.
MRS. CONWAY-Well, I'll tell you, there's ample drainage, there's also, what do you call them,
there's little pools there.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you're deficient by six inches or so.
MRS. CONWAY-We've had heavy, heavy rain since we've been in, since May.
MR. SIPP-1 think you've got the idea here. You can hold it if you don't get a real hurricane type
that we had a year ago, you can probably hold that until the plants take over.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled
this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so, but give me one second. I have no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show that there were
no comments received and we will close the public hearing.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted action. So do we need to go through Short Form?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Or you could re-affirm, but I'm not sure if we had a SEAR on that
previously. So I would just go through the Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure we would have had to, but better to be safe than sorry.
MR. TRAVER-Short Form. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.47'
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.67"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in
use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced
by the proposed action?"
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?"
MR. FORD-No.
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused
the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Then I'll make a motion that we find a Negative SEAR Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved: NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 17th day of, July, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #36-2012 JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant has placed fill within 50 feet of the shoreline. Placement of fill within 50 feet of the
shoreline in a WR zone requires PB review and approval;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/17/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2012 JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY, Introduced by
Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. We have reviewed SEAR and found a
Negative Declaration.
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;
2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and
the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
4) Engineering signoff is not required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans;
5) 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;
6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
8) 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.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-Number Four needs to be paid attention to because there have been engineering
comments associated with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And if you're going to give them approval, he's not going to be able to approve,
he's not going to be able to sign off on this.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. I'll amend my motion to also include engineering signoff required prior to
signature of the Zoning Administrator of the approved plans.
MR. OBORNE-Let me expand on that. What you're saying right now is you're approving this as
it is proposed to you. What the engineer is saying is that he will not sign off on it as proposed.
So you would have to say in your resolution that engineering signoff is not required.
MR. MAGOWAN-That doesn't happen too often.
MR. OBORNE-No, I guess not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Once in a while, but not very often.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'll amend my motion once again to clarify the conditions. Engineering
signoff is not required prior to signature of the Zoning Administrator of the approved plans.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. CONWAY-1 want to thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. Thank you.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2012 SEAR TYPE II ORVIS AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
OWNER(S) JOHN WILSON ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1457
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE (3) SEPARATE TENT SALE EVENTS.
TENT SALES IN EXCESS OF MORE THAN THE 2 THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED
ADMINISTRATIVELY PER CALENDAR YEAR REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 23-87 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE
2.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-57 SECTION 179-9
MAC NOONAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Orvis Incorporated, Site Plan 37-2012 This is Site Plan Review for tent
sales in excess of the two that have been issued administratively for this calendar year.
Location 1457 State Route 9. Commercial Intensive is the existing zoning. It's a Type II SEAR,
and Parcel History is a Site Plan back in '87. Project Description: Applicant proposes three (3)
separate tent sale events; please see applicant's narrative for dates. Sale to be located at the
southwest corner of the parcel and includes a 30 by 40 ft. tent in the existing parking lot.
Applicant has requested waivers from lighting, landscaping, grading, and stormwater
requirements of Site Plan Review. My only issue, and it's really not an issue, but I want to bring
it to the forefront, is pedestrian safety, obviously, with tent sales, is really the focus of the review
to a certain extent. You do have signoff from the Fire Marshall, and what follows are also the
dates here and the Planning Board may wish to consider a two year approval with this, and
that's similar to the ones we did earlier this year, if you care to do that, and if the applicant
wishes for that to be done. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. NOONAN-Good evening. My name is Mac Noonan. I'm here representing Orvis company.
We're looking to get approval for three more tent sales. We've already had our two initial tent
sales with administrative paperwork.
MR. FORD-Three more, or an additional one?
MR. NOONAN-The additional three. We've alreaV had two already. So it would be just these
extra three. Two on, let me see, August 9th, the 12t , August 30th to September 2nd, and October
4th to October 4th. So it basically encompasses Columbus Day weekend, Labor Day, and then
just one weekend in August.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that would be a total of five sales?
MR. NOONAN-We've already had two already. They used the administrative paperwork, and
then, yes, so five total, correct. I'm just looking for three.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you've had that, is that where you've placed the tent before?
MR. NOONAN-Yes, it is.
MR. MAGOWAN-You haven't set it back closer to the property line. I just look at that one
entrance there coming in off of Route 9.
MR. NOONAN-It's actually as far to the left, as far to the south as we can go with it before we go
on to the grass, and it's up against the plantings, against the building also. We run orange
cones from the corner of the planter on a kind of diagonal to take up at least a spot and a half,
so no one parks next to it, so we don't back into it.
MR. MAGOWAN-So actually in your drawing, I mean, it looks like it's right on the entrance, so
you have it all the way over to the edge of the line?
MR. NOONAN-Yes, correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, which would open up really like another space and a half, which
I'd feel a little bit more comfortable with.
MR. NOONAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-When you had the tent sales before, did you have electricity out in the tent?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. NOONAN-We do, yes. There are outlets on the building and they just run the cables right
over.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that just for the cash registers, or is there lighting?
MR. NOONAN-We actually have a cash register inside. So everyone has to go inside. We have
a nice walkway there, go inside and check out.
MR. FORD-How many total days, those already approved and those you're applying for now?
MR. NOONAN-These three here would make it 13 days for these three here and then the other
two we've had this year already would be nine days. So it was already nine days. We had four
the first, Memorial Day, and then five for July 4 th
MR. MAGOWAN-So obviously this is a success for you to, wanting to come back and go
through this all again.
MR. NOONAN-Yes, very much, yes.
MR. TRAVER-If this is approved, would you anticipate that you would like to do the same cycle
of sales next year as well?
MR. NOONAN-It works very well. Memorial Day, July 4th, and one weekend in August, and then
Labor Day and Columbus Day, yes, those five dates.
MR. MAGOWAN-So basically one a month then, except for the month of June.
MR. NOONAN-Roughly, yes, exactly. I get a little break in between.
MR. FORD-For a total of 22 days?
MR. NOONAN-Correct.
MR. DEEB-There's not going to be any parking in front of the tents?
MR. NOONAN-No, no. We have orange cones we run up. Yes, because if you give someone a
little bit of room, they'll park right next to it.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-There's really plenty of parking there.
MR. NOONAN-Yes. Along the front. In fact, I think it says we have 47 spots available, and then
around the back of the building it's a wide open grassy area. A lot of folks, because traffic's
usually backed up pretty good, just walk back and forth. So we moved over here back in April of
2011 from the Log Jam Outlets and it's been fantastic. So, you know, a little bit closer to
everybody. It works out nicely.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does the Fire Marshall come out and inspect it before he opens?
MR. NOONAN-Yes, sir.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think that's one of the requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments? There is a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. I will open and close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEAR so I would entertain a motion. This is isn't this a Special
Use Permit, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, it's under Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan? Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #37-2012 ORVIS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes three (3) separate tent sale events. Tent sales in excess of more than the 2
that have been issued administratively per calendar year require Planning Board review and
approval;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/17/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2012 ORVIS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
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;
2) Type 11;
3) Waiver requests granted: lighting, landscaping, grading & stormwater;
4) This application is approved for a two year period with the following conditions:
a. The Fire Marshal's office to be contacted two weeks prior to the start of the sale.
b. The dates of future sales to be consistent with previously approved sale.
5) 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;
6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Should we stipulate a total of 22 days?
MR. TRAVER-Well, if we have the dates consistent. They've got to have some elbow room,
because Columbus Day and the Fourth of July is going to vary a little bit. The total number of
days are consistent. We did put that in there.
MR. FORD-That's what I want. Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. If you could hold off one second, because you peaked my interest with your
question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-With the Special Use Permit. Give me one second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. OBORNE-We'll get through this.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why we were doing it for temporary, permanent or a number of years.
26