11-15-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15',2022
INDEX
Discussion 2-2022 Cannabis Legislation 2.
TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 62-2022 JP Gross Properties S.
Petition for Zone Change 4-2022 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-3;309.17-1-17.2
TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No.76-2022 3 Sons and Holly LLC 11.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.12-2-57
Site Plan No.75-2022 Loreen Harvey/Kasselman Solar 14.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.266.3-1-76.1
Site Plan No.74-2022 Steve&Tracey Bureau 17.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.13-1-7
Site Plan No.72-2022 Mark Prendeville 19.
Tax Map No.2S9.13-1-5S
Subdivision No.13-2022 Rockhurst,LLC 2S.
MODIFICATION
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15TK 2022
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY
NATHAN ETU
WARREN LONGACKER
BRADY STARK
BRAD MAGOWAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board meeting for Tuesday, November 15. This is the first meeting of November. Please take note of the
illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency,those are the emergency exits. If you have
a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would
appreciate that so as not to interrupt our proceedings this evening. I would also ask that, aside from
public hearings,if you want to have a conversation amongst yourselves,if you could have that conversation
in the outer room. Again, we do record the meeting and it affects our minutes. It also can be a little
disruptive to our proceedings. So thank you for that. I think probably everyone is aware that we're having
some weather come in for us tonight, and just a reminder,please drive safely. The first snow is always a
learning lesson for everybody and as I always tell my wife, it's not you. It's all the other people that forgot
what it's like to drive in the snow. So just that thought. It does seem as though we may start getting
some snow during our meeting this evening. So it may be a little slick afterwards. I wanted to introduce
and welcome two new alternates to the Board we have with us this evening. We have Fritz Stefanzick
and Ellen McDevitt. Both have been appointed by the Queensbury Town Board as alternates for the
Planning Board. They've attended their full orientation and highly qualified for such a role and just so
that you know,in general an alternate will sit for a regular appointed member in the event that there's a
sickness or a conflict of interest and a Planning Board member is absent. So one or both of the alternates
can fill in for members of the Board to make sure we have a quorum. So they're here with us tonight,
although they will not be voting. They're here just to observe and as part of the training process. I
remember such things myself some years ago. I also want to welcome, in addition to Maria and Laura,
Staff support, we have Stu Baker with us this evening. He's our Senior Planner for the Town of
Queensbury. One of our agenda items is a referral from the Town Board regarding some cannabis
legislation that we're going to be looking at and Stu is here to assist with that,and there are also some fliers
on the table in the back of the room regarding the Town of Queensbury undergoing an update to the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning which is going to be happening over the next 1S to 24 months,and we're
very interested in public input in that process. There is a website, although,Stu,maybe if you could take
a minute or two to talk about the Comprehensive Plan and participation.
STUART BAKER
MR. BAKER-Yes, certainly. The Town Board has authorized and made appropriations for a two year
project to update both the Comprehensive Plan and then our land use. We're going to spend about a year
on the Comprehensive Plan and we're about three months into that project right now, and once that plan
is completed and adopted by the Town Board,we'll then be continuing on to amend our land use codes to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as is required by New York State law. There's going to be
multiple opportunities throughout this project for both phases for public involvement, and I'd encourage
you all to grab one of the fliers. If you'd like it in a PDF file format, I'd be happy to provide that. My e-
mail address is stu..�. th<a7queensk-_urv.n.et. Just drop me a note and I'll be happy to share that flier with you.
...
If you'd like to take fliers to post at your workplaces or your neighborhood stores or places of public
assembly that would be welcome and appreciated, and we do hope you'll be able to join us at this first
meeting. It's an on-line meeting on the evening of November 30`h,and again information on that,including
the meeting website,is on the flier on the back table there. So thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Stu. All right and with that we'll move to our regular agenda for the evening.
Our first item is approval of minutes from September. This is for September 20 and September 27.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
September 20`h,2022
September 27`h,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 20`h&z SEPTEMBER 27h,2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 15`h day of November,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We do have one Administrative Item this evening, and that is a discussion regarding the
Cannabis legislation. This is a recommendation from the Town Board.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM
DISC 2-2022 CANNABIS LEGISLATION REFERRAL FROM TOWN BOARD — PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-15-040,PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION
MR. TRAVER-The Town Board is responding to the State addressing the Cannabis legalization and
commercial g rowing and sales and so on and the Town Board has been working very hard on this for quite
a period of time, knowing that it was coming to the Town, and has drafted an amendment, a proposed
amendment,to Chapter 179,which is our Town Code, and they have referred a draft of this legislation to
us for our consideration and review and they're asking for review and provide a recommendation to the
Town Board on this. Stu,and I know you're hereto support us as we look at this. Do you have anything
you wanted to add?
MR. BAKER-I would just add that I was the primary author of this, working in close coordination with
both Town legal counsel and Craig Brown our Zoning Administrator,and you're correct. The Town Board
has been in discussions on this for quite sometime, at least since July. The draft has gone through about
five internal revision versions before it got to the form it's currently in which the Town Board is taking to
public hearing next Monday,November 21"at 7 p.m.A public hearing will be held here in this room. The
short summary of the code changes is this. New York State,through Chapter 131 of the State laws, New
York State Cannabis laws,has authorized towns to regulate through zoning only two of fourteen types of
cannabis business licenses that they will be issuing,and those two types are cannabis retail businesses and
cannabis on site consumption businesses. The State statute limits the Town authority for zoning
regulation of those down to time,place and manner regulations. We really don't have the authority beyond
that. Although given that the State statute is new and municipalities are just beginning to address zoning
regulations,there's perhaps one or two dozen at most that I'm aware of that have been adopted State wide
locally. There may be need to change the regulations in the future as perhaps the State statute changes or
as court case law may dictate,but we're confident at this point that the draft we've put together and the
draft that the Planning Board has for your review and recommendation is in fine form and consistent with
the current State enabling statute. My apologies to the audience for not having copies of this draft code
for you. They are available on line in both the Planning Board packets. I believe they should be on-line
with Town Board materials as well. If you're unable to find them,please send me an e-mail at stuartb, s-
t u-a tl-)60queen,sl-r_urv.net,or you can give me a call at (51S)761-5222 and I'd be happy to get you a copy,
and with that,I'm here to answer any questions that the Planning Board may have as part of your review.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Well I looked through the material. It seemed fairly straightforward tome. I know
one of the concerns and considerations was the distance from certain types of other facilities and
operations and so on,schools and that type of thing.
MR.BAKER-We're referring to those things as sensitive uses.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that seems to be covered. I did not see,myself, any issue with, you know, once
you accept the concept of cannabis being legal,that's sort of a separate issue for me,but the proposal seems
fine with me. I guess I'd open it up for members of the Board that have questions and comments. Stu,as
he mentioned,is certainly one of the main authors.
MR.DIXON-Stu,I do have a comment. So I did go through briefly New York State's write upon cannabis
and I didn't see anything specific to,how do I want to term this, so there's age restrictions,but as far as
people entering the premises, I didn't see where there's any sort of age restrictions, and I don't know if
that's something that the Town can impose. So prohibit anybody under the age of 21 from entering. I just
have visions of these.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.BAKER-That's going to be addressed by the State licensing and it's entirely in the State's jurisdiction.
The Town does not have authority to regulate the age of people that enter these businesses.
MR. DIXON-Okay. I guess that's unfortunate.
MR. MAGOWAN-Rest assured, I believe it is 21,just like it's going to be regulated for alcohol, tobacco
and cannabis.
MR. DIXON-Right,as far as usage,but,you know, again.
MR. MAGOWAN-To go into the establishment.
MR. DIXON-You have to be 21 to go into the establishment?
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm pretty sure.
MR. DIXON-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Although interestingly enough, I read today in guidance information that the Office of
Cannabis Management put out,that employees may be as young as 1S.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's the same thing as a bar. An 1S year old can serve,but they just can't consume.
MR.BAKER-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-My major concern in reading this was with the consumption and retail together, and I
have talked to the other people that have drafted this and put it together, and one of the main questions,
have any of you gone to any of these stores? I happen to have visited states that had them,and I had to go
in and just see what this is all about,because it was all new and Colorado was the first one that did it,and
for everybody out there, don't worry, I do not inhale. So I'm been familiarizing myself, not to start a
business, but I know of other people that have wanted to. Reading this, it's the on-site consumption
cannabis business and retail cannabis business. So my question is,is consumption cannabis business and
retail cannabis business, are they two separate businesses?
MR.BAKER-They are two separate businesses,and in fact New York State will not allow the combination
of the two. You will either have an on-site consumption site where you can purchase it on site to be
consumed on-site where you will have a retail business where you can arrive,purchase,leave and consume
it elsewhere.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I have a problem with that consumption part. Do we have any control, as a
Town, to say the retail, I look at it as the retail sale,you know, and all the stores that I'm comparing my
questions to is just retail. I haven't seen any consumption sites. I mean I know you have the hookah
shops and that in the City, but I think that's tobacco, and then you have your oxygen. This is what's
confusing me is those words together. Because the consumption would,the consumption restrictions to
where you put it need to be strict. All right,but as a retail business you don't do that to liquor stores. You
don't do that to bars.
MR. BAKER-That's correct. It was the Town Board's opinion that those two types of businesses should
both have the same separation distances from uses that they considered to be sensitive, and those uses as
you've seen are listed out in the draft code, and for the information of others present,those sensitive uses
that would require separation distances from include addiction treatment providers, amusement centers,
campgrounds, day-care centers, day-care homes, health-related facilities, parks, places of worship,
playgrounds, public or semi-public building, schools and pharmacies, and those terms are all listed, or
proposed to be listed,I'm sorry,proposed to be defined,in the code.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because my question gets down to just walking around, especially if you ride a
motorcycle. It's amazing the people that are consuming in the cars or sidewalks,the front porch. I don't
care what you do on your front porch, and I agree separate the businesses. A thousand feet between a
consumption and a retail,I don't feel,I'm a little concerned with the consumption and retail store together
where you can buy it and what do you go the next room over and?
MR.BAKER-I'm not sure how that will work.
MR. MAGOWAN-See that's what's confusing.
MR.BAKER-That's regulated by New York State,and actually they have not ruled out the administrative,
proposed administrative regs on consumption businesses yet.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-That makes me question being able to vote tonight to pass this on just reading it and
trying to, you know, I've read it multiple times and, you know, I've looked on the State, you know it's a
new program for New York State,but it has been in play in other states. So, you know, I compare it to
some of the things that I've seen in the other states.
MR.BAKER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I have to say all the places that I've been to get comparison to, I've never smelled
anybody smoking it. I've smelt it more walking down the street, or in cars passing. Because of the
legalization. It's legal to do,and I'm all right with that. You can do what you want,but I'm just trying to,
and then I tried to look on the last page there,with the red. I looked with a magnifying glass. I can't even
see the streets. I mean thank God I kind of know the City,but,you know,is the red zone proposed areas
you can have it?
MR.BAKER-Okay. You're referring to this map?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I tried to blow it up as big as, the one that was in my packet, I just couldn't see
the streets.
MR.BAKER-Laura,if you can zoom out on that,I'm going to step around,sorry,so I can see it on the screen
and explain exactly what that map shows. I'm going to come all the way around. This is a map that was
put together by our GIS Administrator, also known as Map Guru George Hilton, and this map shows, in
red,the Commercial Intensive zoning district,and that's the only zone that the Town is, and the red zone
shown on the map,it's the Commercial Intensive zoning district. That is the only zoning district that the
Town Board is proposing to allow cannabis retail businesses and cannabis on-site consumption
businesses. The lots shown on the map outlined in blue, and I realize it's a little blurry here on the screen,
and I can also send this map to anybody that would care to receive a PDF of it. Those are the sensitive
uses as classified by their real property codes,and it shows the 1,000 foot buffer around each of those units.
Laura, can you move the map up, slide it up? There. Thank you. So essentially if you subtract those
buffer areas and those sensitive uses from the Commercial Industrial zone,the lots shown in the dark red
are the lots where cannabis retail and cannabis on-site consumption would be permitted. Elsewhere it
would not be allowed due to the proximity of those sensitive uses. We estimate,based on this mapping,t
that it would allow for five to seven locations in the Town of Queensbury in the Commercial Intensive
zoning district. Now keep in mind,in this first round of conditional use retail cannabis licenses that the
State of New York is issuing, they're only going to be issuing seven for the entire Capital District which
Warren County is a part of. So we may get one in this current round, one license issued. We may get
none, but licenses will continue to be issued in future years. The State's original goal was to issue 20
licenses, I'm sorry, well they wanted to issue the seven licenses for the Capital District by the end of this
current calendar year. They're currently behind on that schedule.
MR.TRAVER-So,Stu,just to clarify the role of the Planning Board this evening,we are not voting whether
or not we're in favor of this. We're given an opportunity to make recommendations and the Town Board
is going to be moving on this.
MR.BAKER-That's correct. The request from the Town Board was for a review and recommendation by
the Planning Board.
MR. TRAVER-So if we have concerns about, for example, we have a member that mentioned on-site
consumption. If we are concerned about that,we can make that as part of the referral and just say we'd
like some clarification or we have some concerns,but we're not voting yea or nay on proposal this evening.
MR.BAKER-That's correct. Again,you're making a recommendation to the Town Board. I guess I would
remind this Board, as I've been reminding the Town Board,that our intent is to try to get zoning in place
before the licenses are issued.
MR. TRAVER-Good idea.
MR.BAKER-Yes. So keep that in mind in your review and recommendation.
MR. DEEB-Stuart,I have a question. First of all,this is a work in progress and it's all new to all of us. So
there's going to be on-going changes. As it continues to grow,it's going to evolve and change. So,I mean
we can ask all the questions we want. We're going to have to see how it plays out and then adjust
accordingly after that, but the thing about consumption versus retail, are you going to allow, it doesn't
matter. I guess after you were saying we might get one or we might get none, this is probably a moot
question,but would they be allowed to be close to each other?
MR.BAKER-No. There's required separation distances between cannabis businesses.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. DEE&Well,the 1,000 feet is from certain critical areas,schools,etc.
MR. BAKER-Yes, there are distances from the separation uses,but there's also required distances,in the
draft code, between these two type of cannabis uses and recall we're talking about those two types are
retail and on-site consumption. Let me find a reference here. Yes, if you look on Page Three,proposed
Section EE, Sub 1, it states such businesses shall not be located within 1500 feet of any other on-site
consumption cannabis business or retail cannabis business. So that's a 1500 foot separation between
cannabis business regardless of the type and that's taken into account on that map when we estimate there
could be five to seven possible locations.
MR. DEEB-It doesn't sound like it,with only seven being allowed in the Capital District.
MR. BAKER-Well,that's in this initial round,initial round of licenses. The State intends to continue to
issue licenses. The current round of licenses are conditional licenses targeted to business people who have
been directly either themselves or family members,affected by prior cannabis related convictions.
MR. DEEB-That's pretty interesting.
MR.BAKER-It is interesting.
MR.MAGOWAN-I just look at a retail business is a retail business and that's a store,all right,and a store,
clothing, shoes, groceries, whatever. The consumption,the red zones. I can see restricting those,but a
retail, that really narrows down an opportunity for a retail store in an area that doesn't,because people
don't walk out of these stores, you know, with a doobie hanging out of their mouth, or cracking a bowl.
Do you know what I'm saying? I've just never seen it and it just doesn't happen. They're kind of
respectable joints that I've seen like establishments,and some have been right in the middle of,you know,
Manitou and Colorado. You go right up into the mountains there. It's right on the edge of the town where
you walk right into the village.
MR.BAKER-Right.
MR.MAG OWAN-So really my recommendation would probably for the Town would be more separating
the consumption cannabis areas to a certain zone, but the retail, to keep that open, put that,you know,
maybe in a pink zone,you know.
MR.BAKER-Understood.
MR. MAGOWAN-Still a 1,000 feet away from,you know.
MR.BAKER-The sensitive uses.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR.BAKER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-So consideration of consumption versus sales as separate for zoning purposes. Is that what
you're saying?
MR. DIXON-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, definitely that,but like I said,a retail store is a retail store. The other thing I was
reading about is greenhouses. None of these grow in the back room and bring it out. This is all brought
in.
MR.BAKER-That's correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's controlled, and so I was confused with the greenhouses.
MR.BAKER-What we've found is,well let me take a step back. As I stated earlier,New York State is only
allowing municipalities to directly regulate these two uses,retail and on-site consumption. We have to
treat all other cannabis related uses similar to related uses in our zoning code. So grow operations would
be agriculture. Processing would be agricultural service uses, etc. So some of the tweaks we've made
related to the agricultural zoning is because of that,because of that approach. So grow operations will be
treated as agriculture. If they're within buildings that's a commercial nursery under the proposed code
language.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-So we'll move this on to the Town Board. I mean I don't feel comfortable making a
recommendation right now until we can,you know what I'm saying?
MR. TRAVER-No,I'm not sure I do know what you're saying. If you have a recommendation,it sounded
like you did,which I believe we made note of,or I guess you could vote no.
MR.MAG OWAN-As long as you've got that in your resolution. Because I don't want to hold these people
up on this.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments,recommendations after review that we want to pass along to
the Town Board?
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I did have one more question. So in projects of this size, not so much the
retail or consumption,but when you talk nurseries,would we ever want a decommissioning plan? I just
have a vision of nurseries loaded with cannabis, and if something happens to that operation,it's going to
be secured,but worst case scenario,if somebody passes away. It's their business. We're in the middle of
summer,what's going to happen to all of that?
MR. BAKER-We currently, in the zoning code, only require decommissioning plans for solar parks.
There's no other use that requires that. Retail,any other type of commercial,industrial,we do not require
decommission plans. So again we're,in that respect,we'd be treating cannabis uses essentially equal to
most other uses in the zoning code,with the exception of solar parks.
MR. TRAVER-But to Mr. Dixon's point, it is somewhat unique in that if we do have a quantity of these
plants growing and suddenly the operator can no longer take responsibility for that, should there not be
some kind of plan for that,so that those?
MR.BAKER-I suspect,I don't know for certain,again,because there's been very few draft or full adopted
administrative regs provided by the Office of Cannabis Management, and Cannabis Control Board,but I
suspect that's going to fall under State jurisdiction.
MR. DEEB-Aren't there just so many agricultural growing spots that are allowed in the State now? If I'm
not mistaken. We've got one in Warrensburg.
MR.BAKER-Chestertown I believe.
MR. DEEB-Chestertown, and I don't know,there's one in Hudson Valley I think.
MR. MAGOWAN-Those are all indoor facilities.
MR.BAKER-There are also licensed outdoor growth facilities as well.
MR. DEE&We're talking about these retail uses growing their own,cultivating their own product?
MR.BAKER-I don't believe New York State is going to allow the retailers to grow their own. At least on
the site of the retail operation.
MR. DEEB-Growing operations are already regulated. I don't see where this ties in.
MR. BAKER-Well, again, we're trying to treat cannabis grow operations in an equal manner as all other
agricultural grow operations. So the regs you have before you this evening don't just apply to cannabis.
They apply to all agricultural grow operations. Because again we have to treat them equally because the
enabling statute from New York State, the cannabis law, only gives municipalities specific authority to
regulate retail and on-site consumption and again,only by time,place and manner. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for that clarification. Other comments, suggestions for information
referrals anybody wants to pass along to the Town Board as they continue to look at this? All right. So
we have a draft resolution.
MR. DIXON-Quick question, though, as far as consideration for a decommissioning, since it's only a
recommendation,what's the general consensus?
MR. TRAVER-I think it's fine to ask them to think about it, to consider a decommissioning of cannabis
growing facilities, in the event that there's a sudden lack of oversight on the part of the owner. As Stu
said, they may say,you know, well, we can't really treat this differently than other agricultural uses, and
there are uses, current growing operations,in place,but it's probably not a bad idea to point out that we
did discuss it.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. DIXON-Okay.
MR. BAKER-And I would just remind the Board and inform the audience that the Town Board realizes
these proposed codes are likely going to be subject to further change, as both New York State regulations
change, as our local experience dictates and as experiences for other municipalities statewide may also
dictate. So the Board is aware,ready and willing to make changes down the road as necessary.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you,Stu.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,thank you,Stu.
MR.BAKER-You're welcome.
MR. TRAVER-Are we ready? I think we have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: CANNABIS LEGISLATION
WHEREAS,The Town Board wishes to amend Chapter 179 of Queensbury Town Code to regulate specific
cannabis businesses and amend use requirements related to agriculture. The amendments are necessary
and desirable to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and environmental resources, provide a
consistent regulatory pathway for the cannabis industry consistent with state regulations,foster a healthy,
diverse and economically viable cannabis industry that contributes to the local economy, and ensure that
environmental, public health, safety and nuisance factors related to both the cannabis industry and
agriculture are adequately addressed.Local law needs to be reviewed pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) before adoption and enactment. Town Board will act as lead agency to
review proposal to amend Chapter 179 `Zoning' of Queensbury Town Code to regulate specific cannabis
businesses and amend use requirements related to agriculture;
WHEREAS, The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory
recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020,resolution number 359-2022 dated on10/22/2022;
MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO PROVIDE FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION FOR LEGISLATION APPROVAL; AS WELL AS CONSENTS TO THE
TOWN BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS MATTER
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot
be mitigated with this proposal,but have the following recommendations.
1. Consideration of a decommissioning plan for nurseries.
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
MR. DIXON-The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with this proposal,but have the following recommendations. 1. On-site
consumption and retail cannabis to be separated into two separate distinct zones. 2. Consideration of a
decommissioning plan for nurseries.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Question of clarification on two separate zones. Currently, if you look at how alcohol is
treated for example,it's very similar. You have on-site purchase which is liquor and wine stores,and then
you've got consumption sites which are bars, taverns,restaurants. Both are allowed in the Commercial
Intensive zoning district.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. BAKER-So I guess I would ask for more specifics. If you think t here's a specific different zoning
district aside from Commercial Intensive that one of these cannabis uses would be more appropriate for,
that would be helpful.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the consumption in the most restrictive areas of the Town.
MR. DEEB-I actually think you need to keep both of them in the Commercial Intensive. I don't think you
can separate zoning. I think if you don't specify,then we're going to have problems later on.
MR. MAGOWAN-Retail over consumption.
S
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.BAKER-And keep in mind we really only have two distinct commercial zoning districts,Commercial
Intensive and Commercial Moderate,which are in all instances adjacent to each other.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we certainly have had a fairly lengthy discussion this evening about that, and the
Town and you have participated in that as well. So certainly if they are wondering about our discussion
it's available to them if they want to try to understand where we were coming from with that discussion.
MR. DEEB-So are we going to eliminate the zoning?
MR. TRAVER-Yes,I think to your point,I think we should withdraw that specific recommendation.
MRS. MOORE-So the other comment that was made was in reference to retail,not limiting it any further,
but almost allowing it more retail opportunities than limiting it,and I don't know how that fits into your
wording,but that's what I heard. I'm not certain if that's.
MR.BAKER-The question was that retail should not be subject to the separation distances from sensitive
uses.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, let's call it the red zone and the pink zone up there. Now the pink zone is
Commercial Moderate. Is that what you're saying?
MR.BAKER-No. The pink zone is where cannabis uses,retail or on-site consumption,would be allowed.
Everything in dark red or the light red, that's all the Commercial Intensive zoning district. That's one
zoning district.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it could be anywhere along that.
MR.BAKER-Subject to the separation requirements from the sensitive uses.
MR. MAGOWAN-I thought the red was the only place it could be and the pink was the moderate.
MR.BAKER-No,that's all Commercial Intensive zoning.
MR. MAGOWAN-Fine. Sorry,everyone,for wasting everybody's time.
MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended motion.
MR. DIXON-Yes. I'll amend that motion to strike Item Number One. And only include Number Two,
which was consideration of a decommissioning plan for nurseries.
AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you.
MR.BAKER-Thank you all very much.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you,Stu,for coming in tonight. Next we move to the regular section of our agenda.
The first section being Old Business. This is another Town Board referral for another potential zoning
change. This is JP Gross Properties, Site Plan 62-2022 and Petition of Zoning Change 4-2022.
OLD BUSINESS—TOWN BOARD REFERRAL:
SITE PLAN NO. 62-2022 PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 4-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 1. JP
GROSS PROPERTIES. AGENT(S): EDP(NICK ZEGLEN). O WNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: WR,CLI. LOCATION: 84 EAGAN&z 27 SILVER CIRCLE. APPLICANT PROPOSES
A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF A 6.03 ACRE PARCEL WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE
PARCEL'S SIZE TO 2.00 ACRES IN THE WR ZONE. THE REMAINING 4.03 OF THE PARCEL
WOULD BE MERGED WITH THE ADJOINING CLI PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A
REQUEST TO REZONE THE 4.03 ACRE PARCEL FROM WR TO CLI. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE 4.03 ACRE PORTION
OF THE PROPERTY FOR OUTSIDE GRAVEL STORAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-9-040,REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD
IS TO COMPLETE SEQR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR NEW USE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL UPON COMPLETION
OF REZONING. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY,REVIEW SEQR,AND
PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 39-2002,SP 138-2016,SP 72-2021,
SP (M) 30-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2022. LOT SIZE: 6.03 ACRES,9.38
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-3,309.17-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-3-040.
JON ZAPPER&NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This project is in reference to a 6.03 acre parcel. A portion of 2.00 acres would
remain as WR zone with an existing house. The remaining 4.03 of the parcel would be merged with an
adjoining Commercial Light Industrial parcel. The project includes a request to re-zone the 4.03 acre
from WR to CLI. I've noted that at this point that the Planning Board should accept Lead Agency and
conduct SEQR and possibly make that recommendation to the Town Board. The applicant did provide
additional information in regards to one of the questions that LaBella had asked in regards to the
archeological study and that Phase I has been completed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.ZAPPER-Good evening,everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper,with Nick Zeglen from EDP. We have
been to the Town Board a couple of times to discuss this and now we're here for your recommendation and
SEQR. Joe Gross is a, Gross Electric is a major employer in that part of Town. They've run out of room.
They need to expand in the back. The six acre site includes a house that he owns and rents so that would
be separated and remain residential and this four acre site, as Nick will show you,and we're proposing for
the re-zoning,would be buffered with a fence, a berm to separate it,but just he needs additional land for
the business and you'll recall that he recently built a nice building for Brookfield Power nearby, their
operations. So this is right in the same area. So with that I'll ask Nick to walk you through the Site Plan.
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. So on those four acres we'd be proposing a gravel area for lay down for equipment
associated with Gross Electric, as well as stormwater for that new impervious and we'd also be proposing
a two foot berm with a six foot privacy fence that would separate the two zones,Waterfront Residential
and CLI. This would be very similar to the fence that we proposed on the parcel that it's being merged
with to separate those two new 16,000 square foot building. So very similar to when we were here a couple
of months ago for that fence.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing
on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on
this JP Gross property,Site Plan 62-2022 or Petition of Zoning Change 4-2022? I'm not seeing any takers
in the audience. Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are Board members comfortable with the application? Okay. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#62-2022 PZ 4-2022 JP GROSS
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of a 6.03 acre parcel which would reduce the
parcel's size to 2.00 acres in the WR zone. The remaining 4.03 of the parcel would be merged with the
adjoining CLI parcel. The project includes a request to rezone the 4.03 acre parcel from WR to CLI.
Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan review for development of the 4.03 acre portion of the property
for outside gravel storage and stormwater management shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval. Pursuant to chapter 179-9-040, referral from the Town Board where the Planning Board is to
complete the SEQR and provide a recommendation to the Town Board.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site
plan for new use in an industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval upon
completion of rezoning. The Planning Board will accept lead agency, review SEQR, and provide
recommendation.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental
review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA).
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution,
previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire
of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and
have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency;
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN
62-2022&z PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-20221P GROSS PROPERTIES,Introduced by Michael
Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker.
As per the draft resolution prepared by staff.
Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We have a SEQR resolution for this as well.
MR. DIXON-Before we do that one,I just had one quick question. So on the historic site,Laura,you said
that we had a response on that?
MRS. MOORE-The response has been received, and correct me if I'm wrong,there was not identified any
archeologically sensitive sites.
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. There's no findings, and they submitted a summary of their report to SHPO for us
saying that there's no archeological sites and the project could move forward.
MR. DIXON-Very good. Thank you.
MR. DEEB-On the SEQR form it's checked yes. So that's been changed.
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,that was filled out before we did the study.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Okay. So we've got a SEQR resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEG. SEQR DECLARATION SP#62-2022 PZ 4-2022 JP GROSS
The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of a 6.03 acre parcel which would reduce the parcel's size to
2.00 acres in the WR zone. The remaining 4.03 of the parcel would be merged with the adjoining CLI
parcel. The project includes a request to rezone the 4.03 acre parcel from WR to CLI.Pursuant to chapter
179-3-040, site plan review for development of the 4.03 acre portion of the property for outside gravel
storage and stormwater management shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Pursuant to
chapter 179-9-040,referral from the Town Board where the Planning Board is to complete the SEQR and
provide a recommendation to the Town Board. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new use in an
industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval upon completion of rezoning. The
Planning Board will accept lead agency,review SEQR, and provide recommendation.
The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this
negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO.62-2022&z PETITION
OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2022 iP GROSS PROPERTIES.Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its
adoption.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And we have a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: SP#62-2022 PZ 4-2022
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of a 6.03 acre parcel which would reduce the
parcel's size to 2.00 acres in the WR zone. The remaining 4.03 of the parcel would be merged with the
adjoining CLI parcel. The project includes a request to rezone the 4.03 acre parcel from WR to CLI.
Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan review for development of the 4.03 acre portion of the property
for outside gravel storage and stormwater management shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval. Pursuant to chapter 179-9-040, referral from the Town Board where the Planning Board is to
complete the SEQR and provide a recommendation to the Town Board.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site
plan for new use in an industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval upon
completion of rezoning. The Planning Board will accept lead agency, review SEQR, and provide
recommendation.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change to commercial light
industrial. The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory
recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020, resolution number 359, 2022 dated on September 26,
2022;
MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING
CHANGE FROM WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR
SITE PLAN NO.62-2022&z PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2022 iP GROSS PROPERTIES;
The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot
be mitigated with this proposal.
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. The next section of our agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals and the first item is 3 Sons and Holly,LLC. This is Site Plan 76-2022.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO.76-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 3 SONS AND HOLLY LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO
A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 28 HOLLY LANE.
APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES A 416 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH A 1,275 SQ. FT.
FOOTPRINT. THERE IS TO BE A NEW 72 SQ. FT. PORCH AND A NEW 200 SQ. FT. PORCH
WITH A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 3,225 SQ.FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF AN
ON-GRADE PAVER PATIO AREA WITH STONE SLAB PATCH AND ENLARGING THE FIRE PIT
AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS TO BE A RAINGARDEN AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS
ADDED TO THE SITE. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT
OF THE GARAGE AND LIVING SPACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 147
AND 179-4-080, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE,AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.. VARIANCE: RELIEF
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY, AND SETBACKS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-2022.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA LOT SIZE: .38
ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-57. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,179-4-080.
JON ZAPPER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This application is alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416
square foot addition to an existing home. Footprint is 1,275 square feet. There is to be a new 72 square
foot porch and a new 200 square foot porch with a new floor area of 3,225 square feet. Site work includes
installation of an on-grade paver patio area with stone slab patch and enlarging fire pit. In addition there
is to be a raingarden as well as shoreline plantings, and in regards to the relief being requested,relief is in
reference to permeability and setback request for both the deck as well as stormwater device.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. ZAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier, landscape architect, and Matt
Huntington,project engineer,both from Studio A. Here on Holly Lane we have a pretty small site, about
a third of an acre, 1950's home that's proposed to be updated and upgraded. The constraint here is the
location of the house in proximity to the lake, but in order to compensate for what we're asking for for
mostly some nicer outdoor use area,there's no stormwater devices presently. There's going to be a whole
bunch of stormwater management. There's also an existing stormwater problem on the road because this
is a low area where everything drains,and Kirsten has addressed that and treat the water and get it out of
the road to get it down where it should be, and we'll show you that. So we think that it's not a floor area
ratio. They're not building too much house. It's just trying to make the site work better and there's some
really nice landscaping and raingarden and other treatment that isn't there now, again to compensate for
what they're asking for. So,Kirsten,if you could tell everybody.
KIRSTEN CATELLIER
MS. CATELLIER-So just looking at your drawings you can see the existing conditions include asphalt
parking spaces right off of Holly Lane. As you approach the main residence there is a series of existing
paver walkways. Those are all to remain and there's also an existing detached garage which is to remain
as well. Once you get to the residence you'll see we're proposing just to the left of the residence, about a
415 square foot addition with a covered porch, and then that's pretty much all the improvements on the
street side. Going to the lakeside, existing conditions include a deck which we're proposing to re-
configure,actually reduce in size allowing for us to put an on-grade paver patio in,and then there's also an
existing fire pit which we're proposing just to enlarge by a hair, and then we're also proposing to
incorporate stormwater management to accommodate all the proposed hard surfaces on the site and then
additionally there are no, the property line on the lakeside down to the shoreline there is some existing
vegetation,but it's in rough condition. So as part of the Queensbury Code,but also as part of the project
we're proposing to heavily buffer and stabilize that slope, and additionally we're proposing an evergreen
vegetative buffer along the north property line,just to provide some separation from the adjacent neighbor.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A. The stormwater design here is pretty
straightforward. You see a raingarden to the south of the property that'll handle any of the impervious
areas that are being added in accordance with the minor project standards in the Town Code. To the
north of the site you'll see there's kind of a swale along the north property line. Currently there's some
runoff issues from Holly Lane that actually are kind of directed towards both the applicant's property and
the neighbor to the north's property. So in an effort to be a good neighbor here,we installed a swale that
goes to a planted detention area that eventually kind of holds the water and it'll slowly infiltrate or go over
and overflow weir towards the lakeside. The reason for that is just to kind of clean up the area and
hopefully address the problem as part of the project.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. The one thing that caught my eye a bit on this,regarding the variance,is the
amount of permeability variance that's being requested, and that's noting all the improvements you're
making,stormwater. You're starting at 71,which is already less than 750/o required, and now you're going
even more impermeable,from 71 to 68.
MR. ZAPPER-Steve, the response to that is because we're working with only a .34 acre site that
percentages seem like a lot,but the square footage really isn't. It's that fire pit area and a little bit of outdoor
paver. It's just that when you've got such a small site,it doesn't take a lot of square feet to be one percent.
So we think that,again,that's compensated by all the stormwater devices.
MR. TRAVER-And on the setback it's sort of a pre-existing,non-conforming structure.
MR. ZAPPER-Right.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-Your definition. You said you're increasing the fire pit by a hair. What is a hair.
MS. CATELLIER-I knew that question would come up,and I don't have an exact.
MR. DEEB-It's a minimal amount.
MS. CATELLIER-Yes. So existing is 7S square feet,but it is over 100,so just over that. I don't have exact
square footage, but we are, one thing we are doing is we're proposing on-grade blue stone slabs in the
surface with pea gravel in between them. So it's not continuous hard surface to sort of break it up.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. This is a referral to the ZBA,again,so there is no public hearing at this point. Other
questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-I do want to thank you. I know the water problems over there. So I reach out to the
applicant, too, and thank him for trying to help address that whole situation over there. The whole
Assembly Point area.
MR. ZAPPER-It should make the neighbors happy.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. With that we have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#63-2022 3 SONS&HOLLY LLC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes alterations to an existing
home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to an existing home with a 1,275 sq.ft.footprint.
There is to be a new 72 sq. ft.porch and a new 200 sq. ft.porch with a new floor area of 3,225 sq. ft.. Site
work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area with stone slab patch and enlarging the fire pit
area.Additionally,there is to be a raingarden and shoreline plantings added to the site. There is no change
to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. footprint of the garage and living space. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-
065, 147, and 179-4-OSO, site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure,
and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief is sought for permeability, and setbacks.
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 63-2022 3 SONS AND HOLLY, LLC,
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. ZAPPER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda under Recommendations is Loreen Harvey and Kasselman
Solar. This is Site Plan 75-2022.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
SITE PLAN NO. 75-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LOREEN HARVEY/KASSELMAN SOLAR.
AGENT(S): LOREEN HARVEY OWNER(S): RORY RUSSELL TRUST. ZONING: MDR.
LOCATION: 1516 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SOUTH FACING GROUND
MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT FOR 2592 kW (54 PANELS), APPROXIMATELY 1,348 SQ. FT.
THE EXISTING 5,035 SQ. FT. HOME IS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT WILL BE
LOCATED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE NO VEGETATION WILL BE REMOVED.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-140, SITE PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL GROUND MOUNTED
SOLAR PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-
2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC. LOT
SIZE: 6.1 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.266.3-1-76.1. SECTION: 179-5-140.
LOREEN HARVEY,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a south facing ground mounted solar project. This is
approximately 54 panels, approximately 1,34E square feet. The existing home is to remain unchanged.
The project is located on the north property line where no vegetation is proposed to be removed. The
relief is for setbacks where 75 feet is required and 0 feet is proposed at this time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. HARVEY-Good evening. There's not much more to elaborate on from there. Just a 6 by 9
configuration. We understand the setback is not in that,is going to be a conversation. Other than that,
she pretty much said it all. It's kind of toward the front of the house. It's kind of close to the road to a
point. There is a little bit of existing screening,but knowing that there's probably going to be a negotiation
I didn't figure it was kind of purposeful to have a screening plan yet.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,did you state your name for the record?
MS. HARVEY-Loreen Harvey.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Sothis is your project,and as currently proposed it is right on the property line,and
you're saying that you're willing to move it further back?
MS. HARVEY-I am not saying that. The homeowner will be with us at the meeting and he will have to
have that conversation.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I was struck,too,by the size of the array. It does seem rather large.
MS.HARVEY-Yes,it's always based on usage. Like we are offsetting what their utility usage is. So if that
meets their needs that's kind of where we're at,you know,so I'm sure it's met.
MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR.DEEB-I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen more of this. We haven't seen too much of this. I thought
we'd be seeing more of this.
MS. HARVEY-Yes. We take them as they come.
MR. LONGACKER-I took a look at the site and I drove by. I see those pine trees there on the north side.
They're kind of white pines. They're kind of short,kind of sparse. So I have concerns myself with it being
just that close to the property line. I'd like to see it pulled back towards the house a little bit. There's a
small berm there as well.
MR. TRAVER-It's the visibility. Right?
MS. HARVEY-There is a bit of visibility because the trees that are there are not well shielding,but again,
like I said, I don't know where we're going to end up with this because I don't necessarily expect it to be
accepted at zero. So we're shifting it around. I figure that's a smarter time to propose screening because
then we'd actually know what we're screening from.
MR. DEEB-I would lean toward better screening.
MS. HARVEY-Yes, absolutely. That's my opinion as well.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. DEEB-I encourage solar panels.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,I am concerned with the zero setback. I think that some additional setback
should be accommodated and additional screening provided,again,because of the array, and I think it's in
the interest of the solar industry that these things do not become an eyesore,when it isn't necessary. If it
is moved away from the property line and screened very well,it should function very well and people will
hardly even notice it's there.
MS. HARVEY-Yes,those recommendations have been suggested.
MR. DEEB-Are these panels glare resistant?
MS. HARVEY-Yes. If you see the spec sheet of the panels, I highlighted it. It would be the second sheet
so the backside says anti-reflection technology.
MR. MAGOWAN-So the square feet of the residence is 3657 square feet. So the proposed of the solar
array is how many square feet?
MS. HARVEY-Twelve hundred.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a third the size of the house.
MS. HARVEY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now I'm looking at this sheet. Is that all your property behind you?
MS. HARVEY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It is?
MS. HARVEY-There is also a survey.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm seeing that,but then I looked at some dotted lines. So I'm just wondering why it
couldn't be moved back in?
MS. HARVEY-It's not my preference.
MR. MAGOWAN-I understand that.
MS. HARVEY-We made suggestions. The homeowner is very insistent.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because I just look at these ones that I drive around and see right from the road and
there's nothing attractive about them,but I understand the benefits of them. I understand that,and then
going out and seeing the farmlands,you know,outside of Whitehall and then going to Vermont and these
fields that they just turned into and how they,like I said I understand the benefits,but that,I mean you're
talking a third the size of the house with all that property back there. Why can't we hide it a little? I
know it looks pristine back there,you know,but you put it right up against the neighbor, and it's not fair
to the neighbor.
MS. HARVEY-All of these comments have already been made to the homeowner and this is still what is
requested. We had the same feedback.
MR. DEEB-We can make a recommendation back to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. HARVEY-That's why I'm requesting that the homeowner be present to make his request. Without
disclosing too much information, but my understanding is there's an issue with wanting to drive heavy
equipment around the property and have it not be obstructive to that access, but that's the only
understanding I have,other than we've made those same comments and this is what is desired.
MR. DEEB-You're aware.
MS. HARVEY-I am very aware of this project.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#60-2022 LOREEN HARVEY/KASSELMAN
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a South facing ground
mounted solar project for 25.92 kW(54 panels),approximately 1,34E sq.ft. The existing 5,035 sq.ft.home
is to remain unchanged. The project will be located on the North property line where no vegetation will
be removed. Pursuant to chapter 179-5-140, site plan for a residential ground mounted solar project shall
be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. The Planning
Board shall make 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 60-2022 LOREEN
HARVEY/KASSELMAN SOLAR,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and
b) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has identified the following areas of concern:
1) Applicant's request for a 0 foot setback is inadequate and 75 foot setback should be adhered
to.
Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
MR. DIXON-The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has identified the following areas of concern.
Additional setbacks for the solar array should be reviewed versus the proposed zero foot setback.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's it.
MRS.MOORE-I'm going to interject a little bit. I think you should point out that your,you think that it's
maybe too extensive,the request. That's what I sort of hear but is your request to,you know,this applicant
is requesting something that is too extensive and maybe this Board sees it that 75 feet should be adhered
to or something else.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,good point.
MR.ETU-I agree with that. I would recommend that the setback is adhered to. There's more than enough
space to adhere to a 75 foot setback.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We're working on an amended motion.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,especially with all that property back there.
MS. HARVEY-It would be helpful to have not our feedback on this.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. DIXON-Amend that. Please strike the last item number one. Number One will be replaced with
Applicant's request for a 0 foot setback is inadequate and 75 foot setback should be adhered to.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean is there any way that we could get it further back, I mean since they have the
property?
MR. TRAVER-Well the requirement's 75.
MR. DEEB-That's what the setback is. That's what they have to adhere to.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Okay.
MR. ETU-I will say I was a customer of Kasselman and they did an excellent,professional job.
MS. HARVEY-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MS. HARVEY-Thank you very much for your understanding.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda, also under referral to the ZBA,is also an application that is
unapproved,unapproved development. This is Steve &Tracey Bureau,Site Plan 74-2022.
SITE PLAN NO. 74-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVE &z TRACEY BUREAU. AGENT(S):
RUCINSKI-HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 5 CHESTNUT ROAD. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 45 SQ. FT.
MUDROOM AND A 22.1 SQ. FT. ADDITION/CLOSET TO AN EXISTING HOME THAT HAS A
FOOTPRINT OF 1,110 SQ. FT. AND DECK/PORCH OF 463 SQ. FT. IN ADDITION,APPLICANT
REPLACED A GARAGE WITH A 228 SQ. FT. SHED. THE HOME HAS AS A FLOOR AREA OF
1,338 SQ.FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-5-020&z 179-13-010 SITE PLAN
FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, SHED INSTALLATION AND EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 59-2022.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .16
ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-5-020,179-13-010
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has constructed a mud room, approximately 45 square feet, whereas the
roadside of the home as well as, I believe when they purchased I think the addition or closet of about 22
square feet was already constructed,to an existing home. The footprint is approximately 1,110 square feet.
There's an existing porch of 463 square feet. The applicant also has had a garage on that site and has since
replaced that with approximately a 228 square foot shed. The home has a floor area of 1,338 square feet
and that's the existing conditions as of today. The relief that's being requested is in reference to the shed.
The shed is 17 feet from the front setback where a 30 foot setback is required and 5 feet 9 inches from the
north side setback where 15 feet is required. The closet addition is approximately 8 feet 7 inches from the
south side where a 15 foot setback is required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski-Hall
Architecture here tonight with Steve and Tracey Bureau,the owners of the property. The project's being
reviewed based on a complaint that was filed by the neighbor. The existing building had an entry porch
on it when the Bureaus bought it. It was in fairly serious disrepair. They did re-build it. Converted the
front porch mud room. That's how this whole thing started. We had been to the Building Department.
We provided them with the plans of what was built as it was constructed. They issued the building
permit. That's when it started getting reviewed by Planning Staff and that's when all this started. The
garage that was torn down did have a garage door in it. There was no way to get a car to it. It was used
just for boat storage,kayaks,things like that. It was ready to fall down. So it was taken down and replaced
with the shed. The shed does sit on a skid. It's not permanently attached to anything. The amount of
landscaping and work that the Bureaus have done on the property,it's a very small lot, 8,400 square foot
lot,.19 acre lot. This summer they took it upon themselves to put in anew sewage disposal system. We
had to go to the Town Board to get the variances for that. I think there were 13 variances that were
approved by the Town Board to put this in. It is a Fuji Clean system. It's an on-site waste treatment
facility. They had to tear up all of their driveway to get the absorption field in. It's about a$50,000 item
that was put in to take care of that. The rest of it has just been purely maintenance. It was a seasonal
camp that's been converted into a year round residence. It's where they live year round now. So we are
here just trying to clean up a couple of the items. The actual porch itself that was enclosed and created
into a mud room doesn't require any variances. The variances are being sought for two things that were
done separate from that. So the bump out of the closet in the master bedroom was done before they bought
the house. That's just getting cleaned up by this.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Who did the contract work or the construction?
MR.HALL-They did it themselves.
MR. TRAVER-They did it themselves? Okay.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.HALL-Basically all the work,with the exception of the landscape and the new sewage system,or the
new on-site wastewater treatment system,was done by the Bureaus themselves.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments?
MR. MAGOWAN-Did you do the stone wall in that,too?
MR.HALL-No,Ruben Ellsworth.
MR. MAGOWAN-It came out nice.
MR.DIXON-I have a couple of questions. So,right off the bat,you never pursued a permit with the Town
for any of the construction? Okay.
MR. HALL-They didn't realize one was necessary. Like I said,it was a covered porch that was there and
all they did was enclose it. It was literally falling off the building.
MR. DIXON-The garage that was removed, how big was that? It was replaced with a 22S square foot
shed. The garage was the same size?
MR.HALL-Twelve by twenty.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments?
MR. MAGOWAN-Did you put a foundation under that,or is it just on piers?
MR.HALL-The house itself?
MR. MAGOWAN-No,no,the mud room.
MR.HALL-The mud room. It's just on piers.
MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you just kind of.
MR.HALL-Enclosed it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Enclosed it. Really it's a pretty home.
MR.HALL-It's pretty now,but if you'd seen it five years ago,seven years ago,no.
MR. DEEB-This doesn't seem to egregious to me. They did what was necessary. It's not a lot. It's a 22
square foot addition,closet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Upgrading the wastewater system. That is an expensive system and really it's
appreciated. That does not get you a get out of jail free card. And from now on. You enhanced the
property. It really looks nice. Ruben does nice work.
MR. TRAVER-You have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#59-2022 STEVE&TRACEY BUREAU
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant has constructed a 45 sq. ft.
mudroom and a 22.1 sq. ft. addition/closet to an existing home that has a footprint of 1,110 sq. ft. and
deck/porch of 463 sq. ft. In addition, applicant replaced a garage with a 22S sq. ft. shed. The home has a
floor area of 1,33E sq.ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-5-020&179-13-010 site plan for new
floor area in a CEA, shed installation and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and expansion of a non-
conforming structure. The Planning Board shall make 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:
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 59-2022 STEVE&z TRACEY BUREAU
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR.HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Mark Prendeville.
This is Site Plan 72-2022.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO.72-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. MARK PRENDEVILLE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ASH
DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOME AN CONSTRUCT A
NEW 1,144 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT WITH A DECK OF 396 SQ.FT.AND A 32 SQ.FT.PORCH. THE
NEW HOME IS TO BE 2,440 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE WORK INCLUDES UPDATING THE
DRIVEWAY AREA,GRADING FOR THE HOUSE SITE,NEW SEPTIC,SHORELINE PLANTINGS,
AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179-6-065,SITE
PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE
SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 48-2020,AV 37-2020,AV 17-2021. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: N/A. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .59 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58.
SECTION: 179-4-030,179-6-065.
NATHAN HALL&TOM HUTCHINS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is to demolish the existing home and to construct a new home with an
approximate footprint of 1,144 square feet and a deck of 396 square feet and a porch area of 32 square feet.
The new home has a floor area of 2,440 square feet. Site work includes updating the driveway area,grading
for the house site,new septic,shoreline plantings and stormwater management.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.HALL-Good evening. Just for the record,Nathan Hall from Stafford,Carr&McNally. I'm here with
Tom Hutchins, as well as the Prendevilles, who are the site owners and applicants. We're here tonight
seeking Site Plan approval for the proposal that you have in front of you which is a teardown and new
construction. As the Board members may be aware, this application in a prior iteration was before the
Board previously. At that time we were seeking to potentially convert an existing residence. The
structure there,previously it was an expansion,conversion of an existing structure. Again you may recall
that that application was ultimately tabled,denied,withdrawn. I don't know the procedural mechanism,
but it was not approved, in part because of a codified provision that limits the expansion in such a
conversion. Now what we have today, I think it's easy for me to say because it's not me spending the
money,but I think in some ways the process has played out well and the Code and all of this has functioned
as intended because we believe that what you have before you is a better iteration of the project than what
was previously submitted. You may recall the prior plan had the need for several variances. By tearing
down and re-building we're able to move the footprint a little bit. There's no longer any variances being
sought. It's completely compliant from an area,dimensional standpoint. The height's been reduced from
what is there currently. So the height variance is not required. You have a waterfront setback that's no
longer necessary,a side line setback that's no longer necessary,improvement new septic,improvements to
stormwater,which Tom will talk more about,but we're here tonight and we feel good about this project
and the changes that have been made and we trust that the Board will feel the same way.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR.HUTCHINS-Again,just to briefly review,what we're showing is complete removal and construction
of the new residence. We've given you, or shown you the plans and elevations of that, of the proposed
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
residence. We worked it in such that this residence truly was designed to the site. We've worked it in
such that it's compliant with all side setbacks, shoreline and although the parcel's fairly good sized,it's a
little bit unique in that it converges in the middle and they specifically designed this house to work and
maintain all of the current zoning setback and provisions. We're way under FAR. By FAR this lot they'd
be allowed almost a 6,000 square foot house. They're proposing a 2500 square foot house. We've updated
stormwater controls. This is a single sloped roof. All the roof runoff will be captured and put into the
ground throughout the Glen Lake permeable soils and we've incorporated stormwater controls for the new
drives. We've incorporated shoreline buffering. We've maintained a vast number of large trees. There
are some large trees that will be removed. A couple are conflicting with the project and there area couple
that are dead or nearly dead and need to come down. We've shown replacement plantings and buffering
along the shoreline and maintaining the actual rock shoreline that's there presently keeping that
maintained. We think we're compliant. New septic system. It's completely compliant there. So with
that I think I'd turn it over to the Board for questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on
this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding the
Prendeville application, Site Plan 72-2022?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JEFF MEYER
MR. MEYER-I do have written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Did you provide one of these to Laura for the file?
MR. MEYER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-You did. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So would you like to give us a cursory overview of
these comments?
MR. MEYER-Absolutely. For the record my name is Jeff Meyer, an attorney in Lake George. I'm here on
behalf of Linda Clark Whitty and Anna Clark who are the adjoining property owners to the north of the
proposed site. Mr.Hall's correct. This is a revised application. It's substantially different from what the
Planning and Zoning Boards had seen previously. The biggest issue that remains is they failed to address
the issues of the right of way, and I apologize now. It seems like every time I'm before you guys we're
arguing over right of ways,but they don't seem to go away. There is an existing right of way where the
proposed absorption field is located. It has been written and has been in title since IS93. It has been
passed long. It's in my client's deed. It's in everybody's chain of title. There is a deed which the applicant
provided where it was omitted,but that commission doesn't make the easement disappear. If that were
the case, they could convey it to me, without it tomorrow I could convey it back to them and you could
remove easements from title. That's not how the law works. It is not permissible and essentially the
current application, unless and until they re-locate the septic absorption field, unfortunately does not
work. In addition to it being in everyone's chain of title,my client has used and lived on the property since
1970. It has been the primary point of access during the course of her ownership. It was kind of reduced
to a secondary point of access in the 2000's. Mr. Prendeville physically blocked it,which you can see on
the survey, with concrete blocks and he has sued my client over her use of her own right of way in an
attempt to extinguish that right. The lawsuit itself is evidence that it does exist. We're obviously going
to contest it to its fullest extent permissible and we think we will prevail and the easement will remain
and encumber the property. It is also curious that the last time we were before the Zoning Board the
Prendevilles were arguing over how this is the second oldest house and it's a very historic structure and
must be preserved at all costs,and now when it's seemingly an obstacle it's quick to be demolished. There
is no demolition plan, and they're asking for a waiver from that. We ask that the Board not grant that
waiver. There is tree and other debris that's on the site. Those are kind of secondary issues. That doesn't
get passed the main issue which is the absorption field is located in the middle of a right way. With regard
to stormwater, I think the plan looks like it has merit. Question whether the shoreline plantings
adequately address all the pavers and the patio that's in the front of the building. It looks like everything
to the north and the south of the house also drains towards the lake. I just question that they are
adequately, that the plantings are going to adequately capture that stormwater. The stormwater plan
didn't address it. It just shows everything sheet flowing toward the lake. Similarly snow removal. They
ask for an exemption from the snow removal. The way the house is situated and the way the driveway is
narrow and situated,a plow and common snow removal techniques will actually put the snow on the other
side of the infiltration trenches which will then get it straight to the lake. We ask that those are examined
by the Board to make sure that Glen Lake is adequately protected. I'm happy to address any questions
you guys have about the easement.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I have a question about the easement. You understand that our purview does not
involve civil matters between landowners. However some of the comments you made sounded to me like
there's litigation in process. Is that true?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.MEYER-Yes,and I guess I understand that you don't,and wearing a municipal hat I counsel my boards
not to get involved in civil litigations. So I certainly respect that. Where boards inevitably get drawn in
are questions of ownership. Who owns the property? Do they have the right to build on the property?
And how do those rights intervene? We have two driveways in somebody's front lawn which is the point
of the contention. It was done that way because of easement and ownership issues that were created.
This isn't that dissimilar in that there's an easement that exists. My client has the right to drive across it.
Unless the absorption field can withstand traffic,we have a problem in the site design.
MR.TRAVER-Well,my question really has to do with,again,the history of,it's not unusual for us to have
applicants with neighbors or various other parties that have problems and are perhaps threatening
litigation,but in your case you're talking about a proceeding that's in process.
MR. MEYER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And in my mind, I'm not sure what counsel would say about that,but in my mind that's
different than someone saying,well,if they do it this way I'm going to sue or something. There's already a
process in place. So I'm not sure how that might affect our position,but I appreciate your explanation.
You mentioned the demolition plan. We can certainly take a look at that. The stormwater and protection
of the lake and so on,much of that is an engineering issue and we would be requiring an engineering signoff,
approval of all of those aspects of their plan. So we'll cover that. Anything else?
MR. MEYER-That was everything. In terms of the lawsuit,we're currently in discovery. They've filed a
lawsuit. We answered and now we're waiting.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. Okay.
MR. DIXON-Can I ask a quick question., So the easement that you're talking about,how far over does it
extend? Does the easement include the rest of the driveway? Is it a small section? I'm having a tough
time figuring out exactly where. I mean I can see where part of the easement is,but I don't know to what
extent.
MR. MEYER-Sure. The easement is essentially across their crushed stone drive, and if you're looking at
their actual site plan, where the driveway starts to veer north and the absorption field is located, that's
where the easement extends, and where the concrete blocks are,the barrier that's on the site plan,that's
where it used to pass when my client used to access her property and it was observed in large part for
emergency vehicles. If an ambulance needs to get into my client's home, she is I believe in her 90's now,
that's the safest and easiest way to get there because of the turns that are required to go over and around
Ben Most Bur Lane.
MR. DIXON-So the easement is that small stretch from the driveway to your,well,to the other adjoining
house there to the north.
MR. MEYER-Correct.
MR. DIXON-The easement is not the rest of the driveway?
MR. MEYER-No.
MR. DIXON Just that one small section.
MR. MEYER-It's literally right where the absorption field is located.
MR. DEEB-How does your client get into there with the stone blocks there? How does she get into her
property now?
MR.MEYER-She uses Ben Most Bur Lane which is a private road that serves,it's my client and my client's
mother. So it's a family situation so they can access the property in that manner.
MR. DEEB-So they have access even though they're not using the easement.
MR. MEYER-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-When's the last time they used that access road?
MR. MEYER-Prior, whenever the blocks were dropped, which is, I believe, three years ago, maybe five.
Three to five years ago.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. LONGACKER-I just have a question. The right of way to Birch Road, is that something entirely
different too?
MR. MEYER-No. That's all part of it.
MR. LONGACKER-That's part of it as well.
MR. ETU-Is the easement exclusive or non-exclusive?
MR. MAGOWAN-But yet there's no easement right on the surveys.
MR. MEYER-They're not shown,no.
MR. MAGOWAN-Why aren't they shown?
MR. MEYER-It's not my survey. I don't know.
MRS. MOORE-Again, there's been guidance from your Town Counsel that we don't, the Board in
easements and rights of way is not the purview of the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well,the only question I have, and again,question for Staff,in this case we have litigation
in process.
MRS. MOORE-It still stands. It's a civil matter. You have an application in front of you that has
information that you can make a decision on.
MR.MAGOWAN-Well as I stated in the last meeting,last time,I will be abstaining from this vote because
I will not vote on anything with a litigation. Unfortunately it backfires on the Town of Queensbury, and
I'm sorry to have to do it. It's a shame because I know the house. I've been up and down Glen Lake. It's a
beautiful old camp, and your client made them do this and then you come up and whip them again with
this. That is just a crying shame. So thank you.
MR. MEYER-We didn't make them do anything. We're trying to preserve our easements.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. MEYER-Nothing further.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much.
MR. MEYER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment on this site plan,
Prendeville,Site Plan 72-2022? Yes,ma'am.
MARY HILLIARD
MRS.HILLIARD-Hi there.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MRS. HILLIARD-My name is Mary Hilliard. I live at 79 Ash Drive, right down the road from the
Prendevilles. I just want to make a couple of comments. First about the project. I think this is a very
good project. I thought the other project was good. I think there were some complaints by I think the
same people about the legalities of things and a number of other complaints that are not worth going
through,but I do want to say that this project not only adds to the neighborhood by providing septic and
shoreline plantings and stormwater management that didn't exist. It also is good for the neighborhood,
for the beauty of the neighborhood and then adds to the value of all our homes. I think it also,Prendevilles
are carrying two homes right now and I think had the last one gone through,they would have been able to
consolidate their homes, but now that had to be, they were kind of forced into this because the other
project didn't go through, and so it was tabled. I don't want to use forced, but this project is
overwhelmingly supported by all the neighbors,all the neighbors,900/o of the neighbors. I think the issues,
the civil matters that were brought up today that should not have any impression here. These are alleged
things and the legal system will take care of that. This project is a good one. I hope you look at it on its
merit,not on some claims that people are making that hopefully the Prendeville's attorneys will make some
comment about that. Okay. Thank you.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment? Yes,
sir.
MIKE MASHUTA
MR. MASHUTA-My name is Mike Mashuta. I live at 41 Birch Road. I've lived there since 1965. Very
much in favor of this improvement in the property. I strongly and firmly believe that it's the Planning
Board's duty to vote based on the merit of this project not the conjecture of any outside influence that may
have been relayed. All the issues have been taken care of. The stormwater,septic,the height restriction,
the variances on the side. It certainly is an improvement to the property and I believe it's the Zoning and
Planning Board's duty to vote on the project and its merit,not based on any other view or non-conforming
issues that have been presented tonight. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment to the Planning Board on this
application,Site Plan 72-2022? Yes,ma'am.
LINDA CLARK
MS. CLARK-This single piece is going to be read aloud. This is my brother's letter. I just wanted to give
you a copy.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Make sure you have one for Staff for the file.
MS. CLARK-This is a folder with my letter, which I'm not going to read out loud, and there's additional
information in that folder that I'll be referencing when I do speak. So that single piece of paper will be
read to you later. My name is Linda Clark. Since I am attempting to discuss two properties which are
impacted by this project,I'm asking for a little leeway,only about a minute. I live at 3 Ben Most Bur Lane
and I'm named owner in the Clark estate for 10 Ben Most Bur. The proposed location of the absorption
bed is located on a drivable right of way. The Prendevilles should move the absorption bed off the right of
way or resolve the litigation before moving forward with the building. In addition to along deeded history,
the right of way is also confirmed in the Bartlett to Mahoney (Prendeville) Deed, which is in your folder.
The Clarks are willing to allow considering a waiver to setback requirements, but this would require
neighborly negotiations. Second,language has been recently added to the survey indicating a boundary
line agreement between Prendevilles and Hilliards. This agreement impacts the right of way in 2,3 and 10
Ben Most Bur which travels along the Prendeville property line from Ash Drive to Benmost Bur. See
enclosed deed with the highlighted language. That's my deed. Currently there is a stone pile that is
blocking partial usage of this right of way,and the Town should insist this be moved off of the right of way
as an improvement to the property development.The right of way currently does not appear on the survey
map,a requirement in the building application. So there are two missing right of ways on that survey map.
Third, it is clear in a building application that all surrounding properties should be considered and the
impact of said project should not harm the surrounding properties. Over two years ago,without a permit,
Prendevilles moved a shed to a location across from my home. There are pictures in your folder. This shed
was permitted to be in its original location by the Town in an approved 19SS building permit. That is in
your packet. Although I understand the Prendeville's need to move the shed, doing this without going
through process and without considering neighbors and the impact these changes might have is the
problem. They not only moved the shed,but they cut out a wooded lot,turned it into additional parking
area for cars and trailers,and threw leaves and brush along the property line making for unsightly changes.
There are pictures in your folder. If the Town allows for a parking area located in the proposed location,
this should be established as the only additional parking area. Long-term parking of vehicles,boats and
trailers should be prohibited in other areas of the property that are not established as parking lots,
especially in the area adjacent to my home. Furthermore,the plan indicates a proposal to install a propane
tank in the area across from my home. Again,this will create an added component to an already unkempt
and unsightly area. There are no trees or fences planned to block or mitigate the many changes. In fact this
tank will be seen by at least 4 other property owners. The tank should be buried according to the code
expectations which are allowed by the Town as overseen by the Queensbury Fire Marshal. Additionally,
any pipeline that will travel under the right of way should be designed to withhold an emergency vehicle
because this area is necessary to bring in this type of equipment into 10 Benmost Bur. Finally,in reviewing
the plan for the Paver Patio and Dry Stack,I ask the Town expect that the patio be made with a permeable
surface so with a drainage system so that runoff water will not run down the hill and dump into the lake.
Additionally,it is unclear on the plan what the dry stack is made of but it too should have some permeable
ability so that all water is not rushing into the lake or onto neighboring properties. We are very sorry to
see the Prendevilles were not willing to find a plan to save the historic structure on Glen Lake. This will
be a huge loss to the history of the lake and Warren County. Very sad. Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board
on this application? Yes,sir.
RUSSELL HILLIARD
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.HILLIARD-I'm Russell Hilliard,79 Ash Drive. I share a property line with Mark Prendeville and I've
been here since 1990 and I've never seen or been aware of any use by the Clarks of the Prendeville property.
So nobody's,I have never seen Clarks cross Prendeville's for 30 years. That's it. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes,ma'am.
LISA DOSTER
MRS. DOSTER-Good evening. Lisa Doster, 94 Ash Drive. Thank you for the opportunity for comment
this evening. If there is a waiver request for Town requirement A and N it should be denied. The
applicant's survey map does not identify the subdivision or the street or road that crosses over the
applicant's property and should. See Code 179-4-050 and 179-4-070. Will this road affect where the front
or rear of the property is, and will the property meet the necessary setbacks? Looking to the experts files
in this application, Survey Note 2 states parcel is subject to any easements of record. We must also look
to past experts'documents of record as the maps dates could exist. In my public right I enter public expert
filed fact of law documents and Town documents into Town record for this application. The facts of
record need to be recognized and noted in the application in order for this application approval. The
applicants in current expert referenced property deed 1159 and a new survey as part of this application.
The applicant's deed describes property as Lot 9 of the Titus Subdivision. The deed clearly states a road
went directly to Lot 9 of the Titus Subdivision and the owners of Lot 9, the applicants,used the road in
common with others. Town documents and adjacent property deeds stemming from the title from Titus
like Russo, Tuba,Doster,my own deed,and a couple of others all state in and to use of the road laid out by
Titus. The Doster deed grants me the right to use the road or the right of way. I'm providing these
documents that acknowledge this but the current map does not. Later in time another parcel of property
westerly of Lot 9 was added to the applicant's property. The addition of another parcel does not
extinguish rights in common with others for use of a road that crosses over this added property to the
original Lot 9. Since the Town recognizes this in documents on file at the Town. the Planning Board,
Town and current expert must ethically recognize this and the additional expert's filed subdivision of
record within the Town that is part of this applicant's property. Future changes in and to this property
will affect other real property taxpayer rights based upon the additional filed subdivision within our Town.
These expert records are to be noted, shown and depicted on the new survey map so any changes or
construction approvals by the Town will not create ambiguity,block or impede upon other real property
taxpayer rights. Another note on the applicant's survey map shows a lot line agreement with Hilliard. In
order for an agreement to not be rendered null and void all parties within the legal rights in record are
required to be part in agreement. I entire into public record the Hilliard deed, 963255. This deed clearly
states there are legal rights of others in and to the Hilliards real property rendering it servient. Since other
dominant property owners rights control use of this property contiguous to the applicant's property they,
too,would need to be part in agreement. On the side of Ledford,as the deed shows,I have dominant right
to the servient Hilliard property and its use adjacent to the applicant's property. I'm willing to resolve
this matter with the applicants,or try to,promptly,so the application can move forward,but this project
cannot ethically move forward until these matters are resolved and recorded correctly. The Whitty Clark
real property deed also has legal rights. Their dominant easement rights are to the western property line
of the applicant where the lot line agreement with Hilliard occurs and they must be part in agreement as
well. Again,it is our responsibility to make sure to include the applicant's property's subdivision of record
in the rights granted to others in the subdivision that affect the property. If we are all ethically considering
this application we have a responsibility to follow all expert documents including deed descriptions in the
Titus subdivision of record that affect the applicant's property before creating ambiguity in real property
ownership and impeding upon other taxpayer rights. Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board
on this application? Are there additional comments,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is addressed to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board members. "My name
is William Clark and I am a named owner in the Clark Estate which is the property address 10 Benmost
Bur Lane, Lake George. This property borders the Prendeville property. I am submitting this letter to be
part of the official record for the Prendeville building application, and since I am unable to attend the
Planning Board meeting, I ask that the letter be read aloud at the November 15, 2022 meeting. There are
six issues that the Prendevilles need to address before the building project should proceed: 1. Prendevilles
need to recognize Anne Clark's right of way by: a. Removing Jersey barriers blocking right-of-way by
Prendevilles (two years ongoing). b. Dropping lawsuit initiated by Prendevilles against Clark family. c.
Changing the location of the proposed septic system under right-of-way which may prevent vehicles from
entering Anne Clark's property,including necessary emergency vehicles.The Clark property is land locked
by three sides and Glen Lake on fourth side. Note: The Clark family has over 120 years of documented
proof of said right-of-way and has never relinquished their right or been asked to relinquish their right-of-
way until being forced by Prendevilles in 2020 when they blocked the right-of-way with concrete barriers.
The Clark family is willing to defend their rights as citizens of Queensbury, NY for the past 5S years. If
and when Prendevilles choose to recognize the right-of-way, the Clark family would like to work with
Prendevilles on finding a reasonable solution so emergency vehicles can reach both houses without
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
obstruction. This past year, our mother,Anne Clark(owner of the property)required an ambulance, and
the ambulance was unable to reach her (at her legal address) due to the blockage of said right-of- way.
The EMTs had to locate another entrance to reach her and spent valuable time locating another entrance.
The legal address is Ash Drive and not Birch Road. We are willing to work with Prendevilles after they
recognize the right-of-way. 2. Addressing shed placement issues. Prendevilles have two sheds but
received only one permit for a shed, which is not in the permitted location. Town authorities need to
address shed issues to alleviate neighbors' concerns. 3. Addressing proposed propane tank. This tank
must be buried to lessen the visual affect it has on neighbors and underground propane lines crossing right
of way should be constructed to withstand emergency vehicles. 4. Confirming patio and dry stack
permeable building materials to establish absorption of such a large patio and walls along lake front;
lessening the permeability of water running from the lines of declaration into the patio and ultimately
directly into the lake is unacceptable. Experts need to address and confirm acceptable construction. 5.
Following all Town requirements and permits and having Town inspectors on site when required for all
phases of construction project. Thank you for this opportunity to address my concern. Sincerely,William
Clark" And I have a form letter addressed to,"To Whom It May Concern: We have reviewed the proposed
design for Mark Prendeville's re-build located at 102 Ash Dr. The new septic system upgrade will provide
great benefits protecting Glen Lake. We also agree with all the construction plans and endorse this plan
as a welcomed addition to the neighborhood. Please approve this plan as submitted." These are all signed.
So this is, I'll say Christine Herland. This is an individual out of North Creek. They must have property
in the area. The next one is Kathy Cerny, David Hodgson at 46 Ash Drive, Michael Mashuta at 41 Birch
Drive and Mr. Hilliard at 79 Ash Drive, Margaret Hodgson at S6 Ash Drive, R.A. Russo, Mary Hilliard at
79 Ash Drive.
MR. TRAVER-And does that conclude?
MRS. MOORE-That concludes what I have on public record. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-So you've heard a lot of public comment. Primarily,there area few engineering issues that
will be addressed as part of our review of SEQR anyway,and you heard Staff remind me that it is not part
of our purview to be involved in civil matters,even Planning Board discussing it has already gotten us into
trouble a couple of times this year, and so we need to stay away from that. However, I would say, and I
suspect that you're aware of this, with litigation pending, it could conceivably have quite an impact on
your plans and financially impact what it is that you're doing,but again that's outside of our purview. We
do need to look at what we have before us. So I did not have any specific questions that were not going to
be addressed by engineering regarding the application but I'll open it up to members of the Board,Planning
Board for questions,comments.
MR. DEEB-I just want to state that this is several times that people have tried to involve the Planning
Board with their personal disputes with a project that comes before us, and just for clarification,we have
to vote on what is presented to us and before us. So that everybody understands that,and that's how we
predicate our votes. It looks like t here's quite a war going on out there right now and we can't interject
ourselves in that war and that William Clark letter stated he'd be willing to do this and this if this and this
were done, and that's something that we can't get in the middle of. So I just think it's important,if we go
ahead with this, no matter how it comes out, either way, the litigation is going to continue. We're not
going to stop it. at all. So I would just hope that the two parties involved in litigation could get together
and work this out to a resolution that would be amenable to both parties. That's all I've got to say.
MR.HALL-Board member Deeb,I appreciate your comments as well as yours,Chairman. We appreciate
that obviously a lot was thrown at the Board tonight,especially with regard to the easement issue,which
is ongoing, and our position, I've spoken with Staff, I'm speaking with you now. I've spoken with Mark
Schachner,the Planning Board attorney, and,you know,it's a lot,but you know that when you sign up to
be Board members you're not certifying that you're real property law experts or easement experts or
anything like that. There certainly is a forum, and no one is taking any property rights away from other
people that they cannot address in the appropriate forum. It's certainly,presumably a cheaper and easier
alternative to get the Board to try to weigh in and force property rights,but that's not your job,and we feel
that we have a very compliant, good project here. My clients have made a lot of, I think, compromises
towards trying to find harmony in the neighborhood, you know, addressing concerns that were raised
previously and,you know, we'll continue to take feedback and do whatever we can,but at the end of the
day, if the goalposts are going to continue to be moved, my clients do, not by the Board but in speaking
with the neighbors, you know, they are entitled to present a project, and I think the Board understands
that.
MR. TRAVER-I would add, too, that it's not a matter of our Board member's expertise in real property
law,but it's a limitation that's imposed upon the Planning Board in terms of our jurisdiction.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.HALL-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-We cannot be involved in civil matters, and whenever we have it has gotten the Town in
trouble. So my one error,and I've been at this for a while now, and I thought perhaps it might be different
since there's actually current litigation in place,but it makes no difference. Staff was quick to point that
out, and Mr. Deeb's comment is exactly on point that,you know, we do have to look, not at what might
be,but at what we have in front of us.
MR. HALL-And my clients understand that. There are other forums where this is being pursued. So if
the Board grants that approval,and that's not to say that,you know.
MR. TRAVER-And as I started saying, you'll understand that, you know, if you begin pursuing this as
litigation is developing and, you know, things happen that could severely impact your project, and
financially,theoretically.
MR.HALL-Theoretically. Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-One more thing also. The project before us is completely Code compliant.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, as far as the application,yes.
MR. DEEB-As far as the application goes, and that predicates our actions.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HALL-And I do want to say that I think there was reference to there being no demolition plan,but
we have submitted that I believe. So I just wanted to clarify that.
MR.HUTCHINS-The second sheet back.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,we saw that. Okay. Any other questions,comments?
MR. DIXON-I have a project question. I know we spent a lot of time on the easement. The proposed
patio that's facing the lake,those are all permeable pavers?
MR.HUTCHINS-They're standard pavers with buffer strip and landscaping around,and they're a flat area.
They're essentially flat. They're standard block pavers.
MR.DIXON-Could we swap them out for anything more permeable as well as a maintenance plan for that?
MR.HUTCHINS-I think I would prefer,I could put a perimeter stone.
MR. TRAVER-Infiltration trench or something?
MR.HUTCHINS-Yes. A small catch trench around the perimeter.
MR. TRAVER-That would be easier than permeable pavers?
MR.HUTCHINS-Well,they would be preferred in this case. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Any other questions,comments? You're working on a resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#72-2022 MARK PRENDEVILLE
The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to demolish the
existing home and construct a new 1,144 sq. ft. footprint with a deck of 396 sq. ft. and a 32 sq. ft. porch.
The new home is to be 2,440 sq. ft.floor area. Site work includes updating the driveway area, grading for
the house site, new septic, shoreline plantings and stormwater management. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-
040 &179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/15/2022 and continued the
public hearing to 11/15/2022,when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/15/2022;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 72-2022 MARK PRENDEVILLE;Introduced by Michael Dixon
who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/
construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as it is reasonable to
request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired;
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) 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,
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection;
c) 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;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements;-
f) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
i. 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;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required.
g) 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;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) 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.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans.
1) A perimeter catch trench to be installed around the paver patio and this will be added to the
final site plans to be submitted to the Town.
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR.HUTCHINS-Thankyou,Board.
MR.HALL-Laura,could you send me a copy of the resolution?
2S
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MRS. MOORE-That's part of what I do.
MR.HALL-Thanks,folks.
SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 13-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ROCKHURST, LLC.
AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 10 POLK
DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION (SUBDIVISION 5-1993)
TO A 50 FOOT SETBACK VERSUS THE 75 FT. SETBACK AS NOTED ON THE PLAT. THE
APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THE TOWN CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
FROM A 75 FT. SETBACK TO A 50 FT. SETBACK. THE LOT 1 SITE HAS CONSTRUCTION OF
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE LOT 2 PARCEL WOULD BE
PROPOSED TO BE REDEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK FOR SEPTIC STORMWATER CONTROLS,SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 183, SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 12-1992,SUB 5-1993,AV 22-2020,AV 49-
2020,AV 20-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC,CEA,APA.
LOT SIZE: 1.13 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-35.1. SECTION: 183.
DENNIS MACE ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-So I'm going to read some information into the record. So in regards to this application,
this is a modification to a two lot subdivision. The subdivision was 5-1993 to a 50 foot setback versus a 75
foot setback that was noted on the plat. The applicant has indicated the Town Code has been revised
from a 75 foot setback to a 50 foot setback. Lot One site has construction of a previously approved single
family home which received a variance for that setback. Lot Two, which is proposed under re-
development, with the single family home and associated site work. This is why they're requesting the
modification of the subdivision change from 75 feet setback to 50 feet setback.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing
Rockhurst LLC in this application. In the audience is Chris Abele who is the principal member of the
LLC. It's a family ownership of the property with his son Jay also. As Laura described this property,and
you've seen this property before in a previous application for the 3 Polk Drive. That's what we refer to as
the cottage lot because there were cottages on that lot previously. If you've driven by the property recently,
you'll see there's a new house on the property,nicely designed and constructed. Just about complete.
MR. MAGOWAN-Beautiful. I almost ran off the road looking at it.
MR.MAC ELROY-So that has been obviously approved and built,ready for occupancy. That lot was also
subject to the 75 foot setback that was in place in 1993 when the property was,two lots were created. In
roughly 1997, the shoreline setbacks, or the setbacks for waterfront residential properties, were updated
to be 50 feet. So what we're simply asking here is that we take the original subdivision and modify the
shoreline setback from the 50,or from the 75 that it's currently subject to,to a 50 foot setback, and here's
an example. That's Assembly Point,and the upper red lot I guess as it appears is this property,the subject
property, and all of the rest of the lot's in yellow, all the remaining,basically all the remaining shoreline is
subject to 50 foot setbacks. So this one kind of stands out. It's, I'll say two of a kind, because there's
another lot that was subject to a pre-1997 subdivision,but it's really an effort here just to change it to what
everybody else is living by the 50 foot setback, and it could be done two ways. The cottage lot was built
through variance, but through the planning process Queensbury requires a whole design when you're
seeking a variance. So all that design of the house has to be completed for that application to be heard.
There's some uncertainty as to whether,so that that's something the owner has to put up front is the design
of the whole house. In this method now if this Board so chooses to issue an approval for a 50 foot setback,
then he can start the design process knowing that that house,place,it can be designed so that it's placed
at the 50 foot setback. The current house that's there would be removed, and that house has a 14 foot
setback to the shoreline. So anything that's done from the 50 foot setback would be a vast improvement
over what's there now. So that's the story.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-Is that for us? The Town Board doesn't have to do that?
MRS. MOORE-This is our jurisdiction because it was a subdivision.
MR. MAGOWAN-Laura, give me the short version of that, because I got lost. What are we talking?
There's already an existing house there. Right?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MRS. MOORE-So,no,so there's two lots there,not just an existing house.
MR. MAGOWAN-But there's two lots. So are we talking about the main resident lot?
MR. MAC ELROY-Ten Polk Drive is the lot that's out on the peninsula. Correct. The one that's been
constructed is 3 Polk Drive.
MR.MAGOWAN-Yes. That one where the two cottages were that came down,and it's a beautiful home.
Like I said,I almost drove off the road looking at it.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's not the subject of this request.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's not. So it's over here.
MR. MAC ELROY-Sorry,I should have described it a little better.
MR. MAGOWAN-So are you tearing down this whole house and want to build a new house?
MR. MAC ELROY-Eventually,yes, but the first step,in this case, is to see if we can modify the original
subdivision approval,which in 1993 when it was subdivided,required a setback, a shoreline setback of 75
feet. In 1997 Queensbury regulations updated so that Waterfront Residential lots required a 50 foot
setback,but we're still living with 75 because that's,there's also provision in the Ordinance, Chapter 179-
13, that says.
MR. MAGOWAN-Did you do this before,Dennis? Didn't you have another one up here doing this?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. There was a subdivision application.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. This is why I'm confused. Okay. So I'm on board on that.
MR. DIXON-You're asking to be Code compliant.
MR. MAC ELROY-With all the other lots,yes. Right.
MR. TRAVER-That's the real short way of putting it. This is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So there's
no original SEQR. This pre-dates SEQR,I guess.
MRS. MOORE-There was a SEQR done. You're just re-affirming it. There was a SEQR completed, and it
was Unlisted.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.MAG OWAN-I've got another question. With all this legal stuff tonight,but I'm looking at this older
map here.
MR. MAC ELROY-The original subdivision from 1993.
MR.MAGOWAN-Right,and when I got out my magnifying glass and was really looking at it closely,I see
an easement there,in front of the two,you know,the road that goes back.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's the access to.
MR.MAGOWAN-Okay. Now,my question is,have you updated that easement to the new driveway that
is put in place with the new home?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Has it been updated and filed?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because if something hits the fan, that means that they're going to be able to put a
driveway right through your house.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure we'd approve that.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR.MAGOWAN-I'm just telling you. All right. As long as we have an updated filed easement,I feel very
comfortable.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. I will open that and ask if there's
anybody in the audience that wanted to comment. Sir,are you wanting to comment? Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BRIAN HOGAN
MR.HOGAN-My name's Brian Hogan. I am the property immediately to the south of this,and first of all
I want to thank the Board for your conditional approval last month on my thing. The engineer came back
and told me that we were okay. So I got my approval. In terms of this,this is a plan that Chris had shared
with me at one point, a potential house that he was building, and what I did was overlay the 50 foot
setback. By the way, I'm in favor of this. I just have a question. In order to fit any kind of house on this
he really needs 50 feet. If you look at it,to be able to fit anything on there,just because of the design of the
lot and the way it's on a peninsula. It's pretty hard to do. My one question for the Board this evening,and
I've discussed this with Chris and he said he's going to work it out as best he can,but I'd just like to make
sure that we codify something so in case there's a subsequent owner, it helps me out a little bit. The
previous owners of the property had given me a variance that allowed me to build my house 10 feet closer
to the property line. They also told me that this would be forever wild, and it would be in the family
forever,but obviously things change over time and now Chris is building a house. So if you looked on the
southern portion of it right there, my house is actually 10 feet from the property line, and also our like
outdoor shower is almost right next to the property line. As far as the 50 feet to the lake and all that kind
of stuff,I'm fine with that. The one thing that I would like to request is originally there's a question about
what the setback would be to my property. Originally it was shown as a front yard setback,but there's
some question about that because the driveway comes in on the left. What I would like to request to the
Board is it's showing 33 feet between the closest approach of his driveway. If there's some way that we
could include a condition that says,you know,nobody's going to put a driveway or any building any closer
than like 33 feet to my property line.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry but what we're speaking about this evening is a subdivision modification. The
issues that you talk about would be addressed at site plan.
MR. DEEB-But there's no site plan in front of us.
MR. TRAVER-So there's no site plan before us. So setbacks and the various items you mentioned.
MR. HOGAN-Well the setbacks, you're adjusting the setbacks all the way across the property. So it
doesn't affect the side line setbacks at all?
MR. DEEB-No,we're just talking about 50 feet from the shoreline.
MR. TRAVER-It's just a subdivision modification. It's not related to construction or driveways or
anything like that,at this point. It sounds like there will be down the road.
MR. DEEB-I mean if he comes back with a site plan,then that's when you come up.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR.HOGAN-Great.
MR. TRAVER-We will also have a public hearing at that point.
MR. DEEB-I wanted to ask you. You got a variance from your neighbor or an easement?
MR.HOGAN-I'm sorry. What now?
MR. DEEB-You said you got a variance from the previous owner?
MR.HOGAN-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Or an easement?
MR.HOGAN-A variance.
MR. TRAVER-It would have to be an easement.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MR. DEEB-It would have to be an easement. He can't grant a variance.
MR. TRAVER-The Zoning Board.
MR.HOGAN-The Zoning Board granted a variance, and my neighbor.
MR. DEEB-And that's recorded?
MR.HOGAN-Yes. So that's all I'm asking for is a little buffer between me and his drive.
MR. TRAVER-We can discuss that at site plan.
MR.HOGAN-Okay. Cool.
MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Hogan, when we moved here,the lot next to the house I grew up in was going to
be forever wild, and then they built this big,huge,English Tudor.
MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this
application,modification 13-2022?
MRS. MOORE-I have one written comment. "Good morning,I'm a neighbor to this property at 2S Holly
Lane—Lake George,NY and this subdivision amendment and single family home has my support. Thank
you,Michael Carey,Jr." He's at 2S Holly Lane.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board on this
application,subdivision modification?
MR. ETU-Laura, can you opine why the Staff Notes say the applicant has indicated the Town Code
requirement has been revised? Why it just doesn't say the Town Code requirement has been revised?
MRS. MOORE-I don't know what you're asking me.
MR. DEEB-The side setback. Are you talking about the side setback?
MR.ETU-In the Staff Notes it says the applicant has indicated that the Town Code requirement has been
revised, and I'm wondering why the applicant has indicated that and it just doesn't say the Town Code
requirement has been revised?
MRS. MOORE-Because it was in their materials that way.
MR. ETU-Okay. So the Town Code has been revised.
MRS. MOORE-Well there's been revisions,yes.
MR. ETU-The Town agrees with that. Just the way that it's worded.
MR. TRAVER-So I will also close the public hearing on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And I believe we had a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB MOD#13-2022 ROCKHURST,LLC
The applicant proposes to modify a 2 lot subdivision(Subdivision 5-1993)to a 50 ft. setback versus the 75
ft. setback as noted on the plat. The applicant has indicated that the Town code requirement has been
revised from a 75 ft. setback to a 50 ft. setback. The Lot 1 site has construction of a previously approved
single family home. The Lot 2 parcel would be proposed to be redeveloped with a single family home and
associated site work for septic, stormwater controls, shoreline plantings. Pursuant to chapter IS3,
subdivision modification shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Whereas,the Planning Board approved a resolution on February 23,1993 adopting SEQRA determination
of non-significance (SEQR REVIEW 4-1993),and
Upon review of the information provided,it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,
and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative
declaration is issued.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
MODIFICATION 13-2022 ROCKHURST, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan.
Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB MOD#13-2022 ROCKHURST LLC
A subdivision application has been submitted. Applicant proposes to modify a 2 lot subdivision
(Subdivision 5-1993) to a 50 ft. setback versus the 75 ft. setback as noted on the plat. The applicant has
indicated that the Town code requirement has been revised from a 75 ft. setback to a 50 ft. setback. The
Lot 1 site has construction of a previously approved single family home.The Lot 2 parcel would be proposed
to be redeveloped with a single family home and associated site work for septic, stormwater controls,
shoreline plantings. Pursuant to chapter IS3, subdivision modification shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-1S3,the Planning Board
has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning
Board has reaffirmed a SEQRA Negative Declaration
A public hearing was scheduled and held on November 15,2022.
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file
of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 13-2022 ROCKHURST,LLC.Introduced
by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark.
This is approved per submission.
Duly adopted this 15`h day of November 2022 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-I would just amend that because if you're saying the applicant is approved as submitted,
as presented,there's no following.
MR. DIXON-Per original?
MRS. MOORE-Per submission. Approved per submission is sufficient.
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR.MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you. Just for clarification,Laura. We would now submit the mylar for
the Chairman's signature and then it can be filed.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So that concludes our regular agenda. Before we leave,just a couple of very quick notes.
In the packet this month there is a proposed 2023 meeting date outline. If you want to take a look at those.
We'll actually vote on those next meeting, the last meeting of the month. There may be a small
modification to some of the third Planning Board meetings, due to some discussions we had. The other
thing is there is upcoming training for the Planning Board. What as the date of that again Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So I believe we're going to handle that on 12/15, which is our second Planning Board
meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2022)
MRS. MOORE-Mark Schachner's going to provide some information in reference to conflict of interest
and civil matters and maybe some other topics.
MR. TRAVER-Right. This is very important training. I believe it's to be confirmed, but it is currently
planned to start at 5 p.m.,and I would ask that every member please plan to attend because this is critical
information. As you know this is one of a number of ongoing issues.
MR. MAGOWAN-What was that date again?
MR.TRAVER-December 15`h. It's the date of our second December meeting,but that's proposed. It's not
official yet. We will get notified when that is confirmed. We're hoping that it's going to be confirmed.
MR. MAGOWAN-Starting at 5 you said?
MR. TRAVER-Starting at 5 p.m. Yes. So hopefully that will be confirmed because we have had some
legal jeopardy regarding some of those issues and we want to get that clarified. Are there any other issues
before the Board this evening? All right then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. DEEB-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER
15TI,2022,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon:
Duly adopted this 15`h day of November,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. Drive carefully. We'll see you in two weeks
this time.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
34