04-18-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING
FIRSTREGULAR MEETING
APRIL I81r,2023
INDEX
Site Plan No. 33-2023 FW Webb 1.
Petition of Zone Change 3-2023 Tax Map No. 303.6-1-3
Freshwater Wetlands 6-2023
SEEK LEAD AGENCY
Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.227.17-1-25;227.17-1-24 (septic)
FURTHER TABLED
Site Plan No. 30-2023 Alisha&Michael Griffey 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.16-1-23
Site Plan No.23-2023 Joan&G. Thomas Moynihan,Jr. 17.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.12-2-27
Site Plan No.2S-2023 Artie's Camping and More 19.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2SS.12-1-22
Site Plan No.19-2023 John&MaryJo Sabia 22.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.17-1-26
Site Plan No. 31-2023 David Turner 25.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.290.5-1-26
Site Plan No.27-2023 The Body Barre Dance Studio 27.
Tax Map No.296.16-1-16.2
Site Plan No.29-2023 Castaway Marina,LLC 29.
Special Use Permit 3-2023 Tax Map No.240.5-1-26
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 04/1S/2023)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 18TK,2023
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY
WARREN LONGACKER
BRAD MAGOWAN
BRADY STARK
ELLEN MC DEVITT,ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
NATHAN ETU
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentleman. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday,April 1S`h, 2023. This is our first meeting for April and our eighth meeting thus far
for the year. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. If we have an emergency, we need to leave,
those are the emergency exits. If the lights go out, they will stay on. If you have a cell phone or other
electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interrupt our proceedings,
we'd appreciate that,and we also ask that,aside from the public hearing,if you wish to have a conversation
amongst yourselves in this room,if you would move to the outer room to have that discussion so it's not
recorded in our minutes, we'd appreciate that. One note that's a fairly recent change to our agenda, the
Eberlein application is going to be tabled. We're going to be discussing a tabling motion for that until the
May 16`h meeting. So if you're here to hear that application we will not be processing that this evening we
anticipate. With that the first item of business is the approval of minutes for our February 14 and February
21 meeting. Does anyone have any corrections or amendments to make to those minutes? Hearing none,
we have a motion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 14,2023
February 21,2023
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 14 &z FEBRUARY 21, 2023, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brady Stark:
Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April,2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and we have one Administrative Item. This is Site Plan 33-2023,
Petition of Zone Change 3-2023,Freshwater Wetlands permit 6-2023 for FW Webb,and we're requesting
to Seek Lead Agency on that.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 33-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 3-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-
2023 FW WEBB —SEEK LEAD AGENCY
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So at this point in time the project will include the construction of an additional building
of 76,200 square feet. The Board,they have to do a change of zone from CLI,or CI to CLI,to construct the
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
building, and at this point the Town Board is looking to the Planning Board to Seek Lead Agency Status
and this starts their time clock.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions,comments by members of the Board? Okay. We have
a motion to make that request.
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#33-2023 FW WEBB
WHEREAS,the applicant proposes: Applicant proposes a change of zone of a parcel from CI to CLI. The
project also includes the construction of a building with a 76,200 sq.ft.footprint.A portion of the building
is two story with a floor area of 95,620 sq. ft. The building and site are for the operation of a
warehouse/wholesale business and material storage yard. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179, 179-15-040,
Chapter 94,new construction in a CI zone and work within 100 ft.of a designated wetland shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval. This project is subject to a coordinated SEQR review with the
Town Board.
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).
WHEREAS,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action
for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.
WHEREAS,the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because
of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates
its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning
Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA
form will be sent to the appropriate agencies.
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 33-2023,
PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 3-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2023 FW WEBB,
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan.
As per the draft resolution prepared by staff.
Duly adopted this IS"day of April2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt.,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
first item,as mentioned,is Geraldine Eberlein.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO.5-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. GERALDINE EBERLEIN. AGENT(S): STUDIO
A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SEELYE ROAD
NORTH. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND GUEST
COTTAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,411 SQ. FT. , AN
OUTDOOR KITCHEN OF 234 SQ. FT. AND A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 3,343 SQ. FT. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR NEW PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE LANDSCAPING. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY
AND MOVED TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,
179-6-050,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. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND
PERMEABILITY. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70-2007,AV 4-2023. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRE.
TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-25,227-17-1-24 (SEPTIC). SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050.
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MRS. MOORE-So this project is to be tabled. We're looking at a May meeting for starting the Planning
Board recommendation. They'd have to go to the Town Board for,it's my understanding,a septic variance
and if the timetables work,then they will be able to work back into the Planning Board schedule,but if we
don't hear any information about when they're able to get on the Town Board agenda,this may be pushed
off further until June.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for this evening's purposes we're going to table to the May 16`h Planning Board
meeting in anticipation of some progress?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-We have a draft resolution to that effect.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN
(Revised)Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home
with a footprint of 2,411 sq. ft., an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq. ft. and a new floor area of 3,343 sq. ft.. The
project includes associated site work for newpermeable driveway,stormwater management,and shoreline
landscaping. The project includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property and moved
to the East property line.Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,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. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area and permeability. The Planning Board shall
provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN. Introduced by Michael Dixon who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark.
Tabled until the May 16,2023 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April 2023 by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, would it be appropriate at this time to open the public hearing and leave it
open pending that return?
MRS. MOORE-So it's still open. People can still submit public comment and the public hearing will
typically occur at the second meeting of the Planning Board agenda,not typically the first. It's just that it
happened to be advertised. So you still have to keep it moving forward.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Any questions, comments on
the motion? Maria,can you call the vote for us,please.
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-The next item,also under recommendations,is Alisha&Michael Griffey. This is Site Plan
30-2023.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY. AGENT(S):
EDP. OWNER(S): MSG REVOCABLE TRUST, AMG REVOCABLE TRUST. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 26 TALL TIMBERS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION
TO THE MAIN HOME AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO A BUNK ROOM WITH
A LOFT. THE EXISTING MAIN HOME FOOTPRINT IS 1,540 SQ.FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF
3,560 SQ. FT. THE CONVERTED GARAGE WILL HAVE AN 890 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND A
FLOOR AREA OF 1,034 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 485 SQ. FT. GUEST COTTAGE
THAT WILL REMAIN. TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 7,910 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES AN EXTENSION OF THE DRIVEWAY AREA WITH CLEARING, PERMEABLE
PAVERS ON THE SHORELINE SIDE OF THE NEW ADDITION, AN UPGRADED SEPTIC
SYSTEM, PLANTING PLAN, AND RETAINING WALL IN THE AREAS OF THE ADDITIONS.
TOTAL DISTURBANCE IS 22,000 SQ.FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR
NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, CONVERSION OF SEASONAL TO YEAR ROUND AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS,
BUILDING HEIGHT, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE AND HEIGHT, AND EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
2022,AV 15-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: APRIL 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,
LGPC. LOT SIZE: 2.79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-23. SECTION: 179-3-040.
STEPHANIE BITTER,BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a two story addition to the main house and to convert
an existing garage to a bunk room with aloft and an addition. The existing home is 1,540 square feet with
a floor area of 3,560. The converted garage would have an S90 sq.ft.footprint and a floor area of 1,034 sq.
ft. The site has an existing 4S5 sq. ft. guest cottage that will remain. Variances that they are looking for
is in regards to the main house addition is to be greater than 1/3ra of the existing home. Relief is requested
from that. Site of the house, 31.52 feet is proposed and the bunk house is to be IS.79 feet in height where
16 feet is the maximum height of an accessory structure. The bunk house is to be S75 sq.ft.which exceeds
the maximum allowed accessory structure of 500 sq.ft.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Our team has returned to you to talk about the next phase of the Griffeys
vision. Stephanie Bitter from Bartlett,Pontiff,Brandon Ferguson from EDP,Dennis and Brad from Balzer
and Tuck, and most important Alisha Griffey is here with us this evening, and I'm just going to start by
letting her introduce herself.
ALISHA GRIFFEY
MRS. GRIFFEY-Hi. I'm Alisha Griffey. I'm the homeowner. I live full time in Maryland but have been
coming up to Lake George with our family for 30 years. We were thrilled, a couple of years ago, to find
this property on the lake. It's beautiful and it has a 100 year old house on it that is a true time capsule. It
was built in 1929 and we are only the third owners. We've had two owners across 95 years and when we
walked in it was literally a time capsule. You had a Victrola and snow shoes from 1930's on the walls. It
was amazing and we fell in love and we want to renovate it to bring it up to kind of modern standards and
to make it big enough to host our family reunions that we have every summer. The challenge is that
renovating an old house means we need a lot of variances. It will be a lot easier for us to bulldoze it and I
think that's what all the realtors expected us to do who was,you know, the people who were looking at
the house were planning to do. So we value the history and we value the lot and we want to protect the
lake and the land and we're trying to be respectful of all of those things. It does require a number of
variances in order to do so. So we're hoping that you will be agreeable to that.
MS. BITTER-Thank you, Alisha. I wanted to stress that she's a lifelong lover of the lake, but when
assessing this project,I want you to recognize how unique this is. This lot is 2.79 acres and not like others
that you usually see. We're not requesting a floor area ratio or a permeability request, and the client, as
she mentioned, she's seeking to preserve this time capsule, this 1929 home, which therein requires us to
ask for this number of variances. Modernizing and maintaining the original character of this lot for
whatever reason then subjects us,unintentionally provided by the Code,to then request all these variances
or to look at the alternative of tearing it down which would not be beneficial to the character of this lot.
The purpose of this project is to preserve the architectural landscape that is not only enjoyed by the
applicant, but also from the lake view. We're not demolishing anything close by the lake. We're
continuing to enjoy the character of the property. Four of the variances that are being sought are relative
or associated with the residence, the 1929 structure. The first is the setback.. The setback relief that's
being sought is because the existing 1929 structure maintains that setback. Therein requiring us to require
an expansion of a pre-existing,non-conforming structure. Then to require us to seek an expansion of 1/3ra
of an existing home. Those three are all associated with the intent of the Griffeys trying to maintain the
character with this 1929 home being part of their plan. The fourth is the height. The height is associated
with the residence but because the architects are trying to keep the same architectural character of the
1929 home with the addition, we need a very minute height variance with that addition and we'll
demonstrate that with the slideshow as to how minor that is. All four of these variances relate to this
residence. No floor area ratio is being sought, no permeability, no expansion of the setback to the
shoreline. The remaining requests are all associated with the accessory structure. The accessory structure
is upland. It's actually,the purpose of that structure is not to expand the addition along the lakeside. It's
to allow there to be a breakup of the floor plan. This lessens the development along the lake and the
structure will actually be replacing a current structure that already had a concrete pad. So there's no
impervious surfaces that are being created with this accessory structure. The relief needed, again,is not
floor area ratio. It's the structure size and the height. The size of this structure will allow the Griffeys
and their family to age in place. This allows for first floor living both in this structure and there is some
first floor living in the existing 1929 structure,but this provides additional first floor living. The height of
the proposed allows it to mirror with the architecture of the 1929 home and the addition. This being a
two acre lot,this height and the size of the structure is not going to negatively impact anybody's views or
have an impact at all in the vicinity of this property. In fact it's going to provide very respectful aesthetic
view from the lake of this development project. That being said,our recommendation being sought tonight
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
is for these variances,but we believe when you look at these variances the balancing test balances in favor
of the applicant seeking these, and there's not necessarily any detriment that can be deemed to exist,
because again focusing on the uniqueness of this request. Two acre lot,not pursuing the floor area ratio
and not pursuing any permeability relief. We don't believe there's any undesirable change that can be
deemed to exist with these requests. The project is to modernize this property while preserving the
existing home. Other feasible alternatives might be deemed to exist,but we do not believe that a teardown
should be deemed acceptable for this project and should not be deemed a feasible alternative by any means.
Is the request substantial? You might believe it might be because of the number of requests,but it should
not be looked at when considering the entire project and the relief that's actually being sought. No adverse
effects. We're enhancing the septic. We're actually including additional stormwater management
practices with this development, and the property and house is similar in location to the adjacent
neighbors and it should not be deemed self-created since we're maintaining the character and working
with the existing site conditions. And I'd turn it over to Brandon.
MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. I'll try to not keep you
here too long with this. So,Laura,can you go right to the first slide? So this is the existing site. So I know
this Board has seen this site before. This is how it essentially exists right now, and originally it was
actually two lots. It was a one acre lot to the north and then a 1.79 acre to the south. When we went for
the driveway we actually merged the lots. So theoretically before we did that we could have, somebody
could have come in and bought this lot and probably would have needed some variances but constructed
a structure on that one acre parcel. Next slide, Laura. And this is kind of a close up of the existing
development near the lake. So this is that 1929 house right here. It's got a porch on the lakeside. You
have a couple of existing stone patios, stone steps, and another stone patio down near the lake. This is
where Tall Timbers comes in right now. This is the garage we'll be speaking of,the concrete pad next to
it, and right now access to the house is via these kind of old stone steps that kind of come down from the
paved parking area. This is just kind of quickly to go over what we previously got approved here was this
driveway from Old Assembly Point Road to Tall Timbers that was,you know, approved in order to allow
for better emergency access and access to the site overall, but really that's all on the other side of Tall
Timbers. What we're talking about today is going to be all on the lakeside. So this is the proposed site
plan. So here's the existing 1929 house. What they're looking to do is make some upgrades to the house
but just cosmetically and some interior stuff,but the main addition is going to be on the north side of that.
They'd be looking to expand living space. They're actually getting rid of one of the patios on the lakeside.
They're taking this patio area here and they're making it permeable, permeable pavers on that side.
Replace what's now a kind of mortared stone patio. Here's where the existing garage is. So they're looking
to expand that structure into that area and the existing concrete pad and turn that into an accessory
structure instead of the garage. So they're not proposing any garage on this site. In order to improve access
down to the house, because right now the only access is these stairs, as you saw in the previous image
there. It kind of gets tough,especially during certain times of the year, and the Griffeys have parents that
spend a lot of time with them and they have difficulty getting up and down stairs. So in order to improve
access they're putting a driveway down closer to the house that will allow walk in access with only one
step into the house I believe, and then once you get into the house it's all going to be a level first floor. So
that allows access to the house for them. So kind of what's driving a couple of these variances, as Stefanie
talked about,is the existing structure and where it is on the site. So right now you can kind of see this red
line here. That's the 50 foot setback. So just these two small corners of that porch on this existing house
are just over the line. So they're at 4S feet, and what that does is that pushes us into an existing non-
conforming structure,which requires that variance. So we're not,as you see here our new proposed house
is beyond that setback at 54 feet. So we're not expanding anything towards the lakeside. So I mean really
we're not technically looking for relief from setbacks,just because that's,with the existing structure,we're
not pulling anything closer and we're not adding onto that existing structure on that side. We are looking
for an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure. Expansion of existing floor area by greater than
1/3rd. This was kind of a new one on this. We'll kind of go through in a minute. Building height for the
main structure which we'll show you is roughly minor. Accessory structure area and accessory structure
building height. So with the expansion of the existing structure, so existing 1929 camp. Total floor area
is about 3,560. So that allows for one,per the Code you're allowed to expand is by 1/3rd,which would be
a little over 1,000 square feet. What we're proposing,because it's two story addition,is a little over 2700
square feet. So it's over that limit that's in the Code. However, when you really look at the numbers on
the lot,I mean,it's a large lot. It's 2.79 acres. It could handle quite a substantial amount of building and
be Code compliant as far as floor area ratio goes. Really you'd be allowed almost 27,000 square feet of floor
area on this site and we're nowhere near that. Our total at full build out would be 7,910, including the
accessory structure to the main house. So really when you're allowed a.22 floor area ratio, we're at.065.
The other thing that's kind of odd about this variance is if they tore down that existing house,they could
build what they're proposing here and then place and remove that variance. They're not going over the
floor area. It's just the expansion of the existing structure however the total floor area is well under what's
allowed per Code in this action, in this lot. So it's kind of keeping that existing structure that's kind of
driving this. If they were tearing it down,they could put up the same 7,910 and we wouldn't even have to
ask for a variance for it. So I'm going to let Dennis here speak a little bit,just to kind of give you a layout
of the floor area.
DENNIS MC GOWAN
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. MC GOWAN-Thank you. Dennis McGowan Balzar&Tuck Architecture. Quickly the main floor
plan,just to expand on this site plan, shows that on the right side here this is that existing residence at
roughly 36 feet by 32 feet with the screen porch on the lakeside and our goal was to maintain the first floor
level for accessibility and ease of maneuverability and so as we develop it to the north,we were able to step
the house back slightly from the existing exterior wall and maintain the connection to the main residence
while developing the needed program for the first floor. You'll see entry here and to the north this is where
that parking area is that Brandon showed and access would come from the north into the main house and
then into the main living space and so part of the height request, we have a couple of diagrams that
illustrate where the variance is required and that's in red. So this is the existing chimney on the main
house which isn't part of the requested variance,but it's this triangular shape here that you can see here
and if you go to the next slide that is illustrated in the roof plan and what it breaks down to is this area
here is three percent of the overall roof area where the remaining existing and addition is beneath that 2S
foot height restriction and the next elevation shows what that line is. So this is the existing topography
adjacent to the existing house and that is where we developed that 2S foot height restriction and that is
the triangle of that roof that we showed in the previous diagrams. So,I'm sorry,you have a couple of more
images later we can talk about the architecture,but the goal being, while we have the existing structure
and the layout of that roof is parallel to the lake I'll say we're looking to not over emphasize the new
structure but give some relief to what would be a long continuous roof by turning this gable towards the
lake. There's a lower connection piece that we can get it to fit later.
MR. FERGUSON-So the next variance we're looking for is accessory structure area. So per the Code
you're allowed,an accessory structure is allowed to be 500 feet. Right now they have the detached garage
on the property. We're looking to renovate that to turn it to living space and part of the reason for that,
or the main reason for that is to kind of keep the addition to the house a little more minimal than what
they were originally thinking and we have some diagrams later on that will show you, but they want to
kind of keep,make that building part of the living area of the house without adding stuff to the shoreline
area. Keeping the development area where it's already developed. So they're not proposing a garage on
the site right now. Instead they're going to propose this accessory living area here and so it does go over
the 500 square feet. It's about 925,and really when you look at that existing garage which is 515,plus the
concrete slab is 955. So it's a little less impervious really than what's there now, and you're allowed a
detached garage that's up to 1100 square feet. So we're below what that would be, but since it's not a
garage,we're asking for a variance. And this is that existing garage right here. You can see it's a kind of
wood shaped garage and then here's that concrete slab that's got a retaining wall around it. It's used kind
of as a parking area right now. I don't think they really use it much right now. And then over here this is
kind of those stairs. This is the garage right here. This is kind of those stairs that go down and access the
house now. They're a little treacherous. And here's just some kind of quick renderings of the accessory
structure, kind of what it would look like. This image is from the driveway side and then once you get
down to these two images, this is kind of from the lakeside although you're not going to really see it as
much. It's going to be kind of tucked in behind the proposed house,and I think one thing on this accessory
structure, too , is it's not going to be visible from Old Assembly Point Road or even from the neighbors.
It's kind of tucked in the middle of the lot. It's not right up on the property line. It's not in a visible
location. And then we get into accessory building height. So because of using that location on the site,
nothing's flat there. So everything kind of pitches away off the drive and it kind of drops off quite sharply.
So trying to get that space in on the first floor you end up being over the 16 foot height requirement for
accessory structures and it's on the lake side of it,back behind it. Here's actually the highest point right
here. We're a little over 1S foot 9 inches to this spot right here. That's the highest spot on the house, on
the structure. The one thing is the existing garage is actually a little over 20 feet right now just because of
the way it's oriented on it. We're actually reducing the height by the way the Code is written from what's
there now, what this is proposing. So here's the existing garage. When you look on the back side of it,
because of how the gable ends up,you're at a little over 20 feet right now. So we're actually cutting that
down to a little under 19 feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can you go back a picture,Laura? No,forward.
MR.FERGUSON-Yes,so looking at the other gable end,this ends up at a little under that,IS foot S. That's
actually essentially the same on this side. We're measuring from existing grade.
MR. MAGOWAN-What are you changing the pitch of the roof?
MR. FERGUSON-So the roof goes the other direction from what it does now. So this actually kind of
shows that old garage, this kind of the dashed line. That's where the old garage is now. So if you were
just going to measure height the standard way, it's not really changing much from what it is now, but
because the gable changes and this grade is lower on this side,the height is actually reducing from what's
there now.
MRS. MOORE-Are you demo'ing the garage down to,what are you doing with that old garage?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. MC GOWAN-So the garage structure itself will be removed,but as long as the structure below will
be retaining much of the foundation as possible.
MR.FERGUSON-I mean with this project there are a number of site benefits that are being proposed here
as well. This is an existing 1929 camp essentially that they're looking to upgrade for their family now for
current generations and for future generations. As Alisha said early on in the presentation,her family loves
this lake and they plan on using this place for years and years to come. Her parents and her kids as well.
We are decreasing,once you get to the lakeside of the house,we're fixing some of those patios down there.
We're making one permeable,and we're reducing the total amount of patio area. We're adding stormwater
to this site. The Code has finally been updated for stormwater so we're not seeking any stormwater
variances on this one. So there's no stormwater for that house now. So we'd be proposing stormwater to
handle the proposed impervious as well as the existing impervious areas as well. And then really we can
kind of let Dennis get into this about,you know, what some of their original thoughts were for this and
how we got to this point here and now.
MR. MC GOWAN-So originally when we started the design with the Griffeys we had looked at several
options, and where we had originally kind of landed was the diagram on the left. This square here being
the existing house and having the addition go to the north,similar to what we're showing now,but taking
all the program that we're currently asking for and having it all be connected to the existing residence and
expanding from the existing up to what it's S2 feet from the existing house and that includes this,what is
accessory structure in our current proposed plan is attached to the house. So this all fits within the
allowable floor area ratio, but keeps the existing garage and concrete pad. Where we went, after
discussions with the Griffeys and their consideration of the lake and the impact that this 121 foot structure
was, was to take that, what is now accessory program, and re-use this existing built out area that is the
garage and move it up the hill,let's say, and what that did is reduce the overall lake elevation down to S3
feet,roughly 52 inches,but keep the program that they desire for their home,while using an existing built
area. So the impact, visually, as well as physically to the lake and to the existing site is minimized by
reducing the amount of built structure attached to the existing house,and this is that same concept but in
elevation this edge here is the corner of the existing residence and the house has a couple of angles. So this
isn't a pure elevation. There is,this addition is an elevation and then it turns back to the existing on the
right side here,but what you can see is the length that this original design is proposing and then from the
lake we had developed this three dimensional imagery to show the Griffeys and now we're showing you
where we were previously and from an impact standpoint,when you go to the next slide,you can see,while
this addition got reduced significantly by a third,based on linear feet, the goal was to reduce the impact
overall and currently the existing house is behind the good grouping of trees. So there's a diminished view
from the lake and then tucking that other program up in this accessory structure behind some existing
trees and then vegetation can bring down visually how much you see from the lake,particularly this is,you
know,an aerial view,but when you're down at lake level,that accessory structure will be more difficult to
see,particularly from boats and passersby.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that presentation. That was quite comprehensive. So you're concerned
about preserving the original structure. Instead of tearing it down and building a new house, you're
essentially putting a new house right next to it. Right? So you're doubling the width of the structure
facing the lake essentially,or nearly doubling it?
MR. MC GOWAN-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-And there was reference to an existing camp to remain,or cabin to remain,but I didn't see
that on the.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So if you go back to the kind of overall existing plan. So there's this little small,
little cabin up here. It doesn't have any plumbing. I don't know if it has electricity. It does have
electricity. No plumbing and this little one bedroom thing that was built around 1930 as well. So they do
want to maintain that, I mean it does have technically a bedroom in it because we're counting it in the
overall bedroom count.
MR. TRAVER-So no bathroom,no sink?
MR. FERGUSON-No bathroom. No plumbing at all in the building.
MR. TRAVER-I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at the engineering comments. The letter
was dated the 12`h,but there's a huge number of concerns that the engineer has, and the Town Designated
Engineer's comment to us in their conclusion is that the technical comments above are significant in
nature. We therefore recommend that the Board require to update their application to address these
comments as well.
MR.FERGUSON-Yes,I saw that as well and I was kind of surprised by that,seeing how,reading through
the comments,most of them don't seem that significant at all to me. A lot of clarifications. The first two
or three comments are just general explanations of the project overall and a lot of them are just asking for
S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
a little more information on our stormwater report,you know,inconsistencies like one thing's labeled this
in the report and on this on the model. So we didn't see anything in there by any means with this project
that would be any major changes to that stormwater design. I know there's a new reviewer at LaBella.
The old one I think just recently left there. So I don't know, I don't really agree with him in his wording
on that to be honest. It took me kind of by surprise that he worded it that way, especially when those
comments weren't,to me don't seem very significant.
MR. TRAVER-Well I'm sure you can appreciate that as a Board it's significant for us to see that as well,
and there are 16 specific comments. I understand that some of them are clerical or technical in nature.
That's not unusual. In fact we have comments on another application later this evening where that's
largely the case and their comment is that they're minor,but in this case they specifically say that they're
significant in nature, and we're not here for site plan. We're just here for the recommendation, but I
wanted to bring that up because that is something that I suspect we may be raising that concern with the
ZBA as well.
MR.FERGUSON-Obviously before we come back here we've already started making those modifications.
We're going to have some turnaround within the next day or so. I mean that's how minor they really are.
MS.BITTER-This Board,addressed here a few months ago,and unbeknownst to other projects before,we
allowed for engineering certification, construction. So the Griffeys are very much in tune with meeting
the engineers comments and making sure that stormwater is assigned that meets both the Town's
recommendations.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and there are a few that could potentially change at site plan. So,you know,I think
that's what is potentially significant. Not definitely but certainly potentially. And as you had begun the
meeting noting, the variances are significant that you're requesting and this is a Critical Environmental
Area. So we're very concerned about that as well. I'll open it up to questions, comments from other
members of the Board.
MR.DIXON-I have comments on the ancillary building. So on that building,you're going from 500 square
feet to S75 square feet. So overall it's S75. So that's going to have plumbing in there now. So I know in
the past when we've reviewed some plans that come before us,this may be more of a site plan,but as far as
the accessory building,the size,it would be nice to bring it back down in size and scope. It's a beautiful
project. I know why you're doing it. You explained that very well,but I think a recommendation that I
would have to the ZBA is that the accessory building variances just be reviewed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments?
MRS. MC DEVITT-I appreciate that comment and I had the same concerns. I do see like this is,it's just
built on such a steep area and I know that there's this huge driveway going in and I just,I get concerned
about the runoff of the whole project,and there's just not a lot of soil there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that might be required to be clarified to the satisfaction of the engineer for
stormwater.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can I chime in?
MR. TRAVER-Please.
MR.MAGOWAN-I had a lot of really major concerns with the driveway going up,and you guys went back
and you really crunched some numbers and made some changes,but I've been trying to look up the test pit
areas on I think it was five, six, seven and eight and the note says up here that June 2 d of 22 the results
varied between six to twelve inches. Now I know there's nothing but topsoil and rock on the driveway,
and now I'm looking,you know it really is,you've done a beautiful job laying this out and I really appreciate
you trying to look at different things,but different aspects and keeping the old nostalgia with the addition,
but this is,that driveway alone in my opinion is taxing that property due to there's no absorption. Six to
twelve inches of soil with rock underneath it is nothing, and now you're putting a paved driveway in and,
you know, they say that's permeable,but in my opinion that's still a solid stone and you have your edges
around which eventually clog up with silt,pollen,stuff like that. You might as well just pave it.
MR. FERGUSON-The driveway is paved. We're not counting that as permeable.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a paved driveway? That's a 40 foot drop you're talking,from the garage to the
road, and you're taking out a concrete wall at the base. I wish when you came in for the driveway you
would have hinted about what you're going to be doing going further. I think this is, you did a great
presentation and you've done a great job. No offense, all right,but my job is to protect and from what I
see,this is just overtaxing this property which is nothing but a rock hill with a little bit of dirt on it.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR.FERGUSON-I understand what you're saying. One I think we're here tonight for the variances,right,
for the recommendation. I understand what we're talking about with stormwater as well and it's
something we have to work through with the engineer as well and this Board especially when we come
back here for site plan review.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,you know, and that's been brought up in the past as to why I bring this stuff up
at a recommendation. It's because I don't want to waste your time,the client's money, and filling up the
variance board. So right off the bat I like to say what I'm seeing against this, you know, so my
recommendation is a strong,this is overtaxing. What can we do to drop it down,shrink it up.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes. With the stormwater runoff thing the one thing I would point out as well is that,
I mean,you keep bringing up there's not much soil in there. Well,if that's the case and there's not much
soil,where is the water going down? If the water that lands on that site is not going into the ground and
it's not infiltrating it's ending up in the lake. So what we're doing is we're proposing to put in these
stormwater devices that we built up above grade to take that water, slow it down,treat it,which I think
is one of the most important things for the lake quality. Because in the end all that water makes it to the
lake no matter what,I mean whether it goes into nice sandy soil there or it runs on the rock,in the end,all
the groundwater,everything there ends up in the lake. That's the bottom of this reservoir. So I think the
most important thing is taking that runoff,not just from the proposed impervious but from the existing
impervious areas,too,that are on the site, and taking it and treating it and reducing that rate of runoff so
that you're not causing any erosion going into the lake, and that, I think, is the biggest benefit of
stormwater in a case like this overall and around the lake overall is treatment and prevention of erosion.
The volume of water is going to get into that lake no matter what.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'll give you a scenario on what you just said. All right. I have a bucket of
water. I take a bucket of water and I dump it right on the ground, all right. Then that water's going to
run,okay,or I have that same bucket of water,and I fan that bucket of water out. What's going to absorb
better?
MR. FERGUSON-Well,it depends on what surface you're throwing it on to start with.
MR. MAGOWAN-Do you know what I'm saying?
MR. FERGUSON-1 understand what you're saying, but where does that water go in the end, too? It
doesn't sit there. It doesn't disappear. It goes into the ground,into the groundwater, and then goes into
the lake. It's the same volume of water in the end that's essentially going into the lake. It's the speed and
the quality of that water getting there that are the greatest concern. Those are few the things we look at
with stormwater management is reducing, the main thing we look at is reducing the runoff rate and
providing treatment for all impervious areas.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So I have pine needles, leaves, topsoil and rock and trees, shrubbery,
absorption,all right. Take all that stuff away,build a little pond on top of a rock.
MR. FERGUSON-What's in that pond? That pond's also going to create,that pond's going to be full of.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're creating that pond by having all this runoff,all the water from the roof. You're
concentrating it into these little small areas and you don't have enough soil. It's the same problem I had
at the bottom of the hill and all the way along the side,and now I see this paved driveway going in,all right,
which is going to go right out onto the road where we've had the problems.
MR.FERGUSON-No,that's downhill. This new driveway is all downhill. Any of this runoff on this side,
Tall Timbers right here on the downhill side,none of that goes this way. It all goes downhill toward the
lake. This is all running downhill. This is all going this way. Up here,when we got to the driveway,yes,
some of it was going onto the Dunton's property. This is all staying on the Griffey,any drop of water falls
here makes it way down to the lake down towards Griffey's property. Without contributing anything
over into that area that was discussed before.
MR. TRAVER-And,Brad, I think because the engineering is going to be part of our comment to the ZBA,
I think we can certainly point out their concerns with the stormwater runoff related to the driveway. If
I'm understanding your concern correctly.
MR.MAGOWAN-I stand corrected. I looked at it opposite. So it's 3S0 at the road,340 at the garage. So
it does go down.
MR. TRAVER-Forty feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-But that's still 40 feet. All right. Well I've stated what I've had to state.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. TRAVER-Are there concerns, comments with regards to the multiple variances as they have
explained them?
MR.DEE&Well,I have a comment on,the wastewater system is going to be expanded. Can you expound
on that a little bit?
MR. FERGUSON-So they are increasing the bedroom count of the house right now. That system right
there, we went out and looked at it. It's not an old system. It was actually designed by Tom Jarrett not
that long ago for what's there now. It's a Pur-A-Flow,2000 and something.
MS. BITTER-It was designed in 2015 by Jarrett Engineers.
MR. FERGUSON-It's a newer system there right now. It's a Pur-A-Flow, a peat moss system. So we're
going to take that system and expand it out.
MR. DEEB-You'll have enough coverage for the number of bedrooms.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes. We're adding a couple of units.
MR. DEEB-You'll add plumbing to that one building that doesn't have any plumbing right now. Will you
expand that wastewater system to include that in the future?
MR. FERGUSON-So that living space is counted into the wastewater system. Everything is going to be
plumbed back to the house and then over to that wastewater system.
MR. MAGOWAN-I don't see a test pit around there.
MR. FERGUSON-We can add that information on that.
MR. TRAVER-That's part of the engineering comments they have to address anyway.
MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't have a chance to review those.
MR. TRAVER-We just got them today.
MR. LONGACKER-Is this accessory structure going to be Air B and B'd at all?
MR. FERGUSON-No,it's not going to be an Air B and B.
MRS. MOORE-So just as in the past,those bunk house units,we have asked them not to put kitchens in
it because that triggers it to be a second dwelling unit. In this case they have noted that there is a sink but
there are no kitchen accessories like a stove, a refrigerator, none of that is included in this accessory
structure.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a bathroom going in?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Hot plate?
MR. FERGUSON-No cooking appliances.
MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't see that on the plans. Did I miss that,too?
MR. DIXON-Well you can see when you come back for site plan review where the questions are going to
go.
MR. MAGOWAN-Gotcha. Sorry.
MR. DIXON-Do we want to include engineering comments should be reviewed as part of?
MR. DEE&Well we have a concern.
MR. TRAVER-Concern about the nature and number of engineering comments that remain unresolved.
MR. DEEB-The number of variances. The way it was presented and I think there's a concern for the
property and the overall good of the lake. I think they tried to do the best they could with the number of
variances. So at first when I read this I was a little concerned,but after hearing more of the information
my concern is less. The setback variance,that was only what?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MRS. MOORE-So in reference to stormwater?
MR. FERGUSON-Yes,that variance is gone.
MRS. MOORE-That's been resolved.
MR. DEEB-I'm okay with that.
MRS. MOORE-The house doesn't need a setback.
MR. FERGUSON-That's what pushes it into the existing non-conforming. It's over by a couple of feet so
now we're technically non-conforming. That's what requires that variance.
MR. DEEB-The height variance I was a little concerned about,but after looking at the overall picture on
the lot,there was really nothing,a lot of trees. So I'm not concerned about that.
MR. TRAVER-Well one thing to bear in mind for your anticipated return for site plan is the shoreline
buffering. It looks as though the numbers are slightly less than what is recommended. So just bear that
in mind.
MR. DEEB-Please try to get to the recommendations. Brandon knows. We talked about this several
times.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes,there's a lot on there and we're trying to maintain the existing area.
MR. DIXON-Does the Board feel there's any concern over the accessory building, as far as variances?
MR. STARK-I'm not too concerned with the accessory structure.
MR. DEEB-If it was a garage,it would have been okay. It's a tough one,but it's a unique lot.
MR. FERGUSON-And that's the thing,too,is they've kind of given up the garage for this.
MR. DEEB-Yes,I'm surprised no garage.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So there will never be a garage?
MR. FERGUSON-1 don't know if we'd say never,but I mean the plans right now for a garage,they looked
at keeping this as a garage and then they decided living space.
MR. DEEB-So is it going to be a year round residence?
MR. FERGUSON-They'll be coming to it year round.
MRS. GRIFFEY-I mean not living there permanently, but hopefully we'll retire in the not too distance
future. We have jobs that we have to maintain, but we would like to be able to come up here at
Thanksgiving and Christmas and use it at non summertime times of the year.
MR. DEEB-There's tough winters up here. You have to go out and clean your car off.
MR. DIXON-The driveway would be quite tough as far as getting down there and the concern that came
up when you're putting an accessory road in there was when you start putting a lot of salt on that,where
is it heading if it's all going to run downhill? Unless you're planning a heated driveway.
MR. TRAVER-So if we could let's go through the variances and see how people feel,if there's anything we
want to communicate to the ZBA. First thing is the addition to be greater than one-third, and they're
asking for 1,54E square feet of relief. Concerns about that?
MR. DEEB-If you put that in context,they're building a new structure,they wouldn't need that. So that
kind of offsets my concern somewhat.
MR.TRAVER-So we can assume if they were to knock everything down and propose a new structure,that
that would be approved.
MR. DEE&Well it would fall within the parameters.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the height variance,does anyone have any concerns about that,31.52 feet where
2S is the maximum recommended?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. DIXON-1 thought that was insignificant.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Taken in the context of the pictures and the layout of it.
MR. TRAVER-No,I understand. I just thought it would be sensible to go through them one by one.
MR. LONGACKER-And all those trees would be maintained the large white pines in the front?
MR. FERGUSON-In the front of the existing residence along the shoreline?
MR. LONGACKER-Yes.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Let's see. The bunkhouse also has a height variance,but again,I'm not hearing any concern
about that. The maximum allowed for an accessory structure is 500 square feet. They're asking for 575.
Are there any concerns about that?
MRS. MC DEVITT-I wouldn't mind seeing it diminished. I would like to see it diminished I think that
is just a lot going on on that property.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I think they could compromise a bit.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So concern expressed about the size of the accessory structure.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,why can't you turn that office into the bunk house,the second floor? I'm not big
on offices on the second floor that size with a closet.
MS. BITTER-Well the idea was that that portion of the house could have been extended along the lake,
and then that variance gets alarming. So I just want to be careful with that accessory structures purpose
is to push it back from the lake. That's the reason for the request. So I don't think I understand this Board
assaying they'd rather see it all along the lake. That way that variance is eliminated. So that's why they
were kind of distinguishing it. That's where the accessory structure, so I just want to articulate that as
you're discussing.
MR. MC GOWAN-In reference to the office, that's a two person office for a Alisha and Sean to use
simultaneously when they're away from their home and able to work remotely. Thus the larger size.
MR. DIXON-We just had the one concern,then,with the bunk house?
MR.MAGOWAN-If you have the bunk house out there,why don't you just put the office out in the garage
and not even change that.
MR. MC GOWAN-It's nice to look at the lake when you're working I think is where we're coming from.
MR. MAGOWAN-That goes right back to I think this is just too excessive and it's taxing the property.
MR. MC GOWAN-So if we were to keep the addition square foot, but re-look at program, that would
suffice? I guess I'm not following.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not happy with it. Whenever I see an office on the second floor I scratch my head,
all right.
MS. BITTER-Do you work outside,though?
MR. LONGACKER-It becomes a bedroom.
MR. DEEB-That's what he's worried about. It could be turned into a bedroom. That's always been a
concern of the Board.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So anything else in our recommendation for the motion to the ZBA? We have
accessory structure size and nature and number of unresolved engineering comments.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. DIXON-Concerned expressed over unresolved engineering comments.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not hearing anything else. Are you ready for that motion?
MR. DIXON-Motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of
Appeal for Area Variance 15-2023, Alisha and Michael Griffey. The Planning Board based on a limited
review has identified the following areas of concern: One, concern is expressed over the size of the bunk
house. The second concern is expressed over the unresolved engineering comments.
MR. DEEB-I have another question. Stefanie, can you clarify that statement you made? If you move the
bunk house closer to the lake?
MS. BITTER-Well, no, I meant if we expanded it along with the, can you show that first plan? The last
picture.
MR. MC GOWAN-Essentially if we attached the bunk house program to the addition, we could fall
within,we would eliminate the variance.
MR. DEEB-And then get rid of the other one?
MR. MC GOWAN-And keep the garage as it is.
MS. BITTER-Because it would all be along the lake.
MR. DEEB-No,I'm saying about two structures.
MR. MC GOWAN-So it would be the house and then the garage structure.
MR. DEEB-And that would eliminate the.
MR. FERGUSON-Except the one garage on the site, specifically the attached garage. That would
eliminate the accessory structure variances,however your site.
MR. TRAVER-That would vastly add to the expansion.
MR.DEEB-Right. Okay. Well I'm just saying maybe our concern is overly warranted on the bunkhouse.
MR. MC GOWAN-The goal was to reduce the impact on the lake by moving that amount of program off
of the house while using an existing footprint of the garage and a concrete pad. So the permeability is not
impacted by the structure.
MR. DEEB-No,I understand that.
MR. MC GOWAN-So the idea that it is over the allowable accessory structure,you still have the same
amount of impervious area.
MR. LONGACKER-To play devil's advocate, it also makes it a heck of a lot easier for your stormwater
because if you did do that expansion on the side of that residence,that would take up part of the driveway
with the stormwater management area, as well. You wouldn't have any room for a stormwater
management area down there.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes,stormwater would definitely be effected.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready for that motion?
MR. DIXON-I read it once.
MR. TRAVER-You did.
MR.DIXON-Do we want,do we still want to keep the concern expressed over the size of the bunk house?
MR. TRAVER-Well we have at least one Board member that specifically requested that.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I can retract it given the explanation. I'm not happy about it but I'll retract it because
I would prefer to see it up above than toward the water.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. DIXON-Well, and here's the thing,if it were to be down by the water,there's no guarantee that they
would get that approved either because no matter what there's still going to be a variance that they're
greater than one-third of the existing home. So using that logic.
MR. TRAVER-Well that would increase the variance,though.
MR. DIXON-It would. This still looks like what's being proposed is the lesser of two evils.
MR. STARK-Could we poll the Board on where we stand on the bunk house to determine what we put in
the resolution?
MR. TRAVER-Well I thought I did that,but we can do that again.
MR. STARK-I don't care. I'm just saying because.
MR. TRAVER-So the size of the,let's see,one of the variances was the size of the accessory structure and
I heard one Board member say that they have a concern,one say it's not too bad. There's some talk about
if they don't do this they may do something worse,but where do we stand on that? Do we want to take a
poll,specific poll on? Warren,are you concerned?
MR. LONGACKER-I think it's a little big. I think,you know, if you take each one of these variances
personally, I don't think they're horrible, and I know it's a 2.79 acre lot and there's probably more for site
review. I mean you're really cramming everything in on that one-third of the size. It is a lot. It doesn't
bother me if it was taken by itself,but just as a whole, I think there's a lot going on there,that side of the
lake,I really do.
MR. TRAVER-So that goes to the size of the accessory structure above what's allowed. Right?
MR. LONGACKER-I would like to express, at least keep that in there.
MR. TRAVER-And also that's up to the ZBA in any case. We're just expressing whether or not we have
a concern about it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Along with no soil.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,well, again,that's.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's my concern is the lack of soil for the size of the project.
MR. TRAVER-How do you feel about the accessory structure? Is that a concern or no?
MR.MAGOWAN-No. The whole thing is for me,but,no,the height on the accessory,no. That wouldn't
really bother me. It's kind of tucked in there. Are the trees staying in between the buildings?
MR. MC GOWAN-Between the house and the accessory structure?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. FERGUSON-1 don't know if there's anything that significant in there, but, yes, we can try and
maintain.
MR. MC GOWAN-There are a couple of trees that.
MR. MAGOWAN-There's a couple of white pines in there,but I mean was this a mock up picture?
MR. MC GOWAN-There are trees shown in our rendering and those trees are meant to remain. There's
no intention of taking out any tree that we do not have to.
MR. MAGOWAN-This picture here. Is this like a shore picture or did you computerize this and throw
some trees in there?
MR. FERGUSON-It's definitely computerized.
MR. MC GOWAN-But it's from a photograph that shows the existing trees and how they would be in
relation to the accessory structure and the house.
MR. TRAVER-David,do you have any concern about the size of the accessory structure?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. DEEB-Given the alternative, no, I don't have. The alternative presents other problems. So I don't
have a problem with it,with the plantings. Let's get all the plantings up.
MR.DIXON-No,I think I'm in a better place now. I foresee you somewhere in the future doing something
with that other bunk house. That would have been a better scenario,working on that bunk house that's
to the east instead of doing something ancillary,but that's not what's in front of us.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Brady?
MR. STARK-No,I have no concerns with the accessory structure.
MR. TRAVER-Ellen?
MRS. MC DEVITT-I'll have to concede that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I guess you can remove the concern about the accessory structure. So that
just leaves the engineering stormwater and so on as issues. Okay. So do you want to read the amended
motion?
MR.DIXON-So I'm just going to read that over again. Motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the
Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance 15-2023 Alisha and Michael Griffey. The
Planning Board based on a limited review has identified the following area of concern and that is the
concern is expressed over the unresolved engineering comments.
MR. TRAVER-Any discussion?
MRS.MOORE-Yes. I guess I'm concerned that the recommendation that you're proposing doesn't narrow
down the relationship to the variances.
MR. TRAVER-Only because potentially the engineering comments, when resolved, could result in a
change in site plan and that could alter the variances.
MR.DIXON-I could modify it to include that to some degree because,yes,the engineering comments aren't
directly related to the variance,but could.
MR. DEEB-It could affect.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,if they're unresolved they definitely would. Any other comments. Maria,can you call
the vote for us?
MRS. MOORE-Well, I don't know, are you amending it? Because it's definitely not clear. So I want to
make sure that your recommendation to the Zoning Board has some wording in it that says that there's a
variance issue with these unresolved engineering,and I'm not,I'm just not sure that's there. I don't,I guess
I'm concerned about the comment.
MR. TRAVER-Well maybe add something in that variances could alter plans and therefore variances.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So it's the resolution of the engineer's comments that could affect the variances. Is
that what you're saying,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-If that's how the Board feels. I just don't know if that's there. You're saying that because
there's unresolved engineering comments,or this is what I'm hearing.
MR. TRAVER-That have been noted by the engineer as major.
MRS.MOORE-As major,and you're assuming that,or,I don't want to put words in your mouth,that these
engineering comments could affect the variances being requested?
MR. TRAVER-Well,I'm not assuming anything. I don't know. That's why I think it should be discussed.
MR. DEE&Well as far as clarification I mean if it doesn't get by the engineer's comments,this is really a
moot point because they're going to have to come back anyway if they can't get it resolved. You'd have to
come before us again.
MR.TRAVER-On the other hand,if it's not considered when they're discussing the variances and they get
a variance approval then it comes back to us for site plan and now we're looking at stormwater again
unresolved.
MRS. MOORE-So in reference to stormwater,there's no stormwater variances.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. DEEB-If they don't get engineering signoff.
MR. TRAVER-If they don't get engineering signoff before.
MR. DEEB-Even if we send it to them without.
MRS. MOORE-So the Zoning Board doesn't get it, at this point,unless you wish them to have it, there's
not an engineering issue for the Zoning Board. Typically that the Zoning Board,if there's a stormwater
setback, they would receive the engineering comments. At this point there are no variances for that sort
of item. So the Zoning Board wouldn't necessarily get the engineering comments. The Planning Board
gets them. So they would be,I think they would be at a loss when you're commenting on the engineering
comments that they're going to look to you to resolve when you go through site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Well my concern is that the engineer has expressed significant concerns with some of the
engineering details,and we've had some pretty extensive discussion about the driveway and various things
like that which could affect the site plan, and if we make our proposal to the Zoning Board that we have
no concerns,I don't think that that's accurate and it's not reflecting our true discussions.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I guess when you make this comment I want to make sure that you use the
words that it may be affecting variances,whether existing or modifications I guess.
MR. DIXON-So I'll give you a preliminary here. The concern expressed over unresolved engineering
comments in that variance could alter site plans.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-It says here Number Five in engineering that it is noted that the applicant has applied
for an area variance on the stormwater infiltration practices within 100 feet.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR.FERGUSON-That's anew Code that passed the Town recently. It's now 35 consistent with the Park
Commission. There's comments in there like that that don't even apply anymore because the Code has
changed.
MR. DIXON-Regardless, though, it's not going to get past the site plan. So we can include it, or we're
going to be that final judgment.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes,this comes back to you for site plan.
MR. DEEB-The ultimate solution, and I don't want us to,is you could say we would table this until they
resolve the engineering comments and then they come back and,boom,it's done.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,that would be acceptable.
MR. DEEB-I don't think that's necessary because they have to have engineering signoff.
MR.FERGUSON-And I think,too,with the variances the Zoning Board ends up giving us,too,if we don't
get a certain variance it's going to change this plan,too,which changes the stormwater. I think it's kind
of a cart before the horse thing. Which one's got to come first and as we're finalizing our stormwater,
depending on what variances we end up with or what changes we potentially have to make with the ZBA,
that could alter our stormwater design as well..
MR. TRAVER-My concern is, as a Board,we've been asked to discuss this in the context of the variances
and the plan as proposed and we've had a significant and lengthy discussion and has also the engineer
regarding concerns with some of the engineering details, and I think if we were to communicate to the
ZBA that we have no issues,we have no concerns,that would not be accurate and we would not be doing
what we're supposed to be doing.
MR.DEE&Well Mike's last statement,his wording in the resolution,I think it would solve it. That's fine.
MR. TRAVER-I agree.
MR. DEEB-Put that in the resolution and let's move this on.
MR. DIXON-That makes sense.
RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#15-2023 GRIFFEY
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two story addition to
the main home and to convert an existing garage to a bunk room with a loft. The existing main home
footprint is 1,540 sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,560 sq. ft.. The converted garage will have an S90 sq. ft.
footprint and a floor area of 1,034 sq. ft.. The site has an existing 4S5 sq. ft. guest cottage that will remain.
Total new floor area will be 7,910 sq. ft.. The project includes an extension of the driveway area with
clearing,permeable pavers on the shoreline side of the new addition, an upgraded septic system,planting
plan,and retaining wall in the areas of the additions.Total disturbance is 22,000 sq.ft..Pursuant to chapter
179-3-040, site plan for new floor area in a CEA, conversion of seasonal to year round and hard surfacing
within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for setbacks, building height, accessory structure size and height, and expansion of a non-
conforming structure.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 15-2023 ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY,
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) Concern is expressed over the unresolved engineering comments in that variance could alter
site plans.
Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this IS"day of April2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Magowan
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Joan&G. Thomas Moynihan,Jr. This is Site Plan 23-2023.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOAN &z G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN,JR.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 81 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE
EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3 BEDROOM HOME WITH A 2,760 SQ. FT.
FOOTPRINT AND A FLOOR AREA OF 3,900 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION
OF PERMEABLE PAVERS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA 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: SP 41-2013, AV 13-2023.
WARREN CO.REFERRAL: APRIL 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,.L G P C. LOT SIZE:
0.39 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-27. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065.
JON ZAPPER,LUCAS DOBIE&r TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-This applicant proposes a demolition of the existing home and construction of a new three
bedroom home with a 2,760 sq.ft.footprint and a floor area of 3,900 sq.ft. Site work includes installation
of permeable pavers, stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Relief is sought for setbacks and
as noted the new home is to be located 75.2 feet from the shoreline where a 104.5 feet setback, this is
because in our Code we require adjacent homes,averaging of the two adjacent homes,is where the setback
is required.
1S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Trevor Flynn, the project
architect, and Luke Dobie,project engineer and Tom and Joanie Moynihan,the applicants, are right here.
The Moynihans are long-time residents of the lake and of Queensbury. This is a downsizing project for
them. They bought an older home that has very little character and they're proposing to remove it and re-
build it as not a majestic home but just a three bedroom home,first floor,master,two bedrooms upstairs
for guests. The only reason we're here,which is much simpler than the last one,is for one variance which
is just the lake setback and as you know in Waterfront Residential zone it's 50 feet setback or the average
of the two homes. So the home on the north side, and we'll show you in a minute,is setback dramatically
far from the lake,some 200 feet,because Assembly Point Road used to run along the lake on the north side
of this property. There's nothing on the south side. When we take the average,it would have to be about
104 feet from the lake,pretty far back,but what we're proposing is greater than 75 feet,because it's 25 feet
more than the minimum than the 50 feet. So it's in an appropriate location because of the neighbors, and
in this case the neighbors have all weighed in and say that they support this,you know, a modest home,
and it is 75 feet from the lake and there's nothing else that we're proposing that requires a variance. That's
simply why we're here. I'll just ask Lucas to walk you through the site plan and Trevor to walk you through
the architecture.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, and good evening, Board. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. We put
together a good team earlier this year with Trevor and Justin Meyers is our landscape architect and we feel
real good about the site plans and basically demo'ing everything that's there,drop the grade down around
the house to help with accessibility and basically everything on the first floor, garage level first floor and
then grade toward the lake so you walk out the first floor and onto the next patio,and provided permeable
pavers in the driveway and raingardens which is shoreline buffering down by the shore and also an
enhanced treatment wastewater system with a Fuji Clean then a brand new absorption bed out by
Assembly Point Road. I believe it's going to be a beautiful project,a nice improvement to the neighborhood
and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. Trevor can speak to the architecture.
MR. FLYNN Just from an architectural standpoint,we really did our best to minimize the impact on the
site. As Lucas mentioned accessibility was a major aspect of the project and fitting the entire footprint
within two side yard setbacks,maintaining the FAR, staying under the FAR and while also pushing the
second floor back to minimize its impact on the lake and staying under the height restrictions. We really
did our best to alleviate and have little to no variances.
MR. TRAVER-Again,we did receive,very recently,the engineering comments. I'm not sure,did you have
a chance to look at those?
MR.ZAPPER-Yes,we got them and we looked at them. Those comments include locating wells,and there
are no wells anywhere near us on any neighboring sites,no septic.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. ZAPPER-That doesn't affect it.
MR. TRAVER-That was a question, and then there was another thing. You mentioned the permeable
pavers. There was a question about the separation distance to the leach field.
MR.DOBIE-Correct. As far as I'm aware with a minor stormwater project there is not a Code requirement
per se. Best practice, what we're comfortable with is 10 feet horizontally and then the absorption field,
the bottom of stone is actually above the driveway grade so there's not a chance,in my professional opinion,
of the driveway pavers swamping out the septic because the septic is elevated. I feel 10 feet is comfortable,
MR. TRAVER-So you feel that you can come to an agreement with the Town Engineer on that?
MR. ZAPPER-We'll have all these addressed before we're back here next week.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. LONGACKER-You did a great job grading it. It's a real postage size style lot. I think it's really
awesome. The only question I had is are you sure about the 1400 and even square foot for your disturbed
area to be under, to make it a minor? One area, I see it's not really disturbed, it's about 15 feet from the
lake itself along the six and a half.
MR. DOBIE-The logic behind that,to your point,Mr. Longacker,15,000 square feet below that is a minor
stormwater project and the Lake George Park Commission and the Queensbury Code allows you to
exempt the septic area and it's common practice to exempt your stormwater areas so you're basically not
shooting yourself in the foot if you will and we show this disturbing basically side to side to give us enough
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/2023)
room to work,and I exempted the raingarden areas by the shore,but I did not take the credit for the septic
area or the driveway area.. I wanted to keep it as simple and straightforward as we can.
MR. LONGACKER-The raingardens are eliminated at 1500 as well.
MR. DOBIE-Yes,sir.
MR. LONGACKER-Everything on site,like I said,it's a great grading plan.
MR. DEEB-Are the plantings up to snuff? You knew I was going to ask you.
MR. DOBIE-I was prepared for you, Mr. Deeb. I spoke with our landscape architect today and you can
see that he's slightly below the calculated number of plantings as if it was an emergent site with no buffer.
Actually the first 12 feet closest to the shore has native brush and shrubs and that kind of thing. So we're
really only planting from the 12 feet to the 35 feet. So he's comfortable with this number, so as not to
overplant the area and choke itself out in a few years. I did speak with him about that today.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other comments? Does anyone have any concerns with the variance in that the
75.2 feet is a variance from the average of the two adjoining owners? Even though it exceeds what's in the
Code.
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then are we ready to make a recommendation to that effect to the ZBA? Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#13-2023 JOAN&G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN,JR.
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing
home and construct a new 3 bedroom home with a 2,760 sq.ft.footprint and a floor area of 3,900 sq.ft.Site
work includes installation of permeable pavers, stormwater management, and shoreline plantings.
Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&r 179-6-065,site plan for new floor area 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.
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 13-2023 JOAN &z G. THOMAS
MOYNIHAN 1R„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 IS"day of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Arties Camping&More,Site Plan 28-2023.
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ARTIE'S CAMPING &z MORE. OWNER(S):
ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1444 STATE ROUTE
9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE A 4,000 SQ. FT. TENT PLACED IN A PORTION OF THE
PARKING LOT TO OPERATE A TENT SALE FROM THE LAST WEEK OF JUNE THROUGH THE
SECOND WEEK OF SEPTEMBER IN 2023, 2024 AND 2025. THE SALES ARE FOR ARTIE'S
CAMPING&z MORE. THE 18 FT.HIGH TENT WILL BE ENCLOSED WITH OPENINGS WITH
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
ACCESS. THERE WILL BE A SIGN ON THE TENT FOR THE BUSINESS OPERATION.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR OUTSIDE SALES TENT IN THE
COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PARKING. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE:
SP 30-2018,SP 64-2019,SP 16-2020,SP 12-2022,AV 14-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL
2023. SITE INFORMATION: ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 7.02 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.
288.12-1-22. SECTION: 179-3-040.
JAMES BENEDETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this is similar to our Family Footwear project. This applicant is proposing a 4,000 sq.
ft. tent in an existing parking lot area. They have an existing business in the complex. They're going to
propose using the tent from September 23ra 24`h 251h and the last week of June to the second week of
September and the tent is 1S feet in height and it has access points. The concern here comes up because
of the existing site,that they are in need of 400 parking spaces and they will end up with 35S because the
tent takes up spaces and the tent itself requires X amount of spaces. One of the explanations is,and I think
you've all seen this,is that the back area of this existing outlet store has multiple parking areas as it is and
they're never used.
MR. TRAVE R-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.BENEDETTI-Good evening. I'm James Benedetti. I own Artie's Camping and More.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Didn't you have a tent set up last year?
MR.BENEDETTI-For the last 15 years,yes.
MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, I thought I remember going, I try to avoid that area when it's the busy
shopping season,but I think I went by last summer. Okay. So are there any changes from how you set it
up last year?
MR.BENEDETTI-No. There's no changes to anything. We're just looking to add days to it because as it
is now we have to run for 12 days and then close and then run for 12 days and then close and we can do that
up to 4S days, and we're just looking to eliminate the closing period and add IS days.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.BENEDETTI-But everything else is exactly the same.
MR. TRAVER-And what was the reason for running for 12 days and then close?
MR.BENEDETTI-Because that's the way the Town.
MRS. MOORE-That's how our Code operates for seasonal tent sales.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Versus site plan operation. So this allows them to keep that tent up,whereas we have a
seasonal operation where you have to pay a fee when it's open.
MR. TRAVER-But that doesn't require a variance? That's something we can look at?
MRS. MOORE-No. In the Town Code for emergent licenses,I'm sorry,I can't remember the terminology
off the top of my head.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,okay.
MR. DEEB-When you close,how do you keep all your stuff in there when you close?
MR.BENEDETTI-I just have security overnight.
MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DIXON-Are you going to utilize a generator or anything outside?
MR.BENEDETTI-No. There's power out there.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. DIXON-And the owner of the property is good with everything?
MR.BENEDETTI-Yes.
MR. LONGACKER-I just have two quick things. Is there a way to make it so it doesn't have to close? I
mean it seems like a major inconvenience.
MRS. MOORE-So it's not now. So that's the purpose of the applicant coming for site plan review.
MR. LONGACKER-Perfect. Okay. Perfect, and then the second thing is have you come back every year
for the last few years?
MRS. MOORE-No. The Family Footwear is the other applicant that will come every three years and
present the same information that we'll see Mr. Benedetti come back for.
MR. DEEB-You want a three year permit.
MR.BENEDETTI-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm all right with that. It's nice. It draws people in.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,it almost drew me in.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I have to say I've been in there. So you do a good job there. I don't think it eats
up any more parking spaces that were ever needed there,and like I said there's additional parking out back.
It's kind of nice to see the flow of people there. So I think it's a great opportunity for Artie's camping to
continue. So,yes.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments? I guess we're ready to do that motion,then.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#14-2023 ARTIE'S CAMPING AND MORE
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to have a 4,000 sq. ft.
tent placed in a portion of the parking lot to operate a tent sale from the last week of June through the
second week of September in 2023, 2024 and 2025. The sales are for Artie's Camping& More. The 1S ft.
high tent will be enclosed with openings for access. There will be a sign on the tent for the business
operation.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for outside sales tent in the commercial intensive zone
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for parking. 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 14-2023 ARTIE'S CAMPING &z MORE,
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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this IS"day of April2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda is John&Maryjo Sabia. This is Site
Plan 19-2023.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOHN &z MARYJO SABIA. AGENT(S):
RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 43 CANTERBURY DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN
EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 1,776 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME. THE NEW FLOOR
AREA OF THE HOME WOULD BE 2,672 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, USE OF THE EXISTING WELL,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-020, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE, AND NEW BUILDING WITHIN 15%
SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR FLOOR AREA, SETBACKS, HEIGHT AND PERMEABILITY.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 11-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: APRIL 2023. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .19 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-26.
SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020.
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-So this application is a demolition of the existing home to construct a 1,776 sq.ft.footprint.
The new floor area of the home is 2,672 sq.ft. The project includes installation of a new septic system,use
of the existing well,new stormwater management,and new shoreline plantings. Relief is being requested
for shoreline setback and a front setback. I'm sorry,the proposed height is,and again,the height variance,
side setback and then permeability as well as floor area.
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. With me tonight is MaryJo and Doc Sabia. They own the property at 43 Canterbury Drive.
It's right next door to the Canterbury's. It's just down slope, so the house that they own is down slope
from what used to be the Benton property. So the blue house that's up on the hill is the house that we had
designed a number of years back for the Benton's. The Canterbury house is the brown and green house.
Doc and MaryJo's is the white ranch in between. The house itself backs up to the embankment that runs
up to the Smith house. The lot itself is an undersized lot for the lake obviously. We've been in front of
the Town Board for a septic variance for a new septic system. We were in front of them actually twice.
Went the first time with a larger system than what they were comfortable approving for a larger number
of bedrooms. We came back and downsized the house,downsized the amount of coverage,and made the
sewage disposal system smaller and we got the variance from them. Some of the items that are listed in
the Town Engineer's review we already have area variances for, variances from the Town Board for
separation distance and things like that. The existing wells are shown on our site plan, the existing
adjoining wells are both shown, the two neighboring properties. We have area variances from those
properties as well from the Town Board. We have signoff from the neighbors when we got the variances
from the Town Board that they were comfortable with those. The one well is significantly up gradient
from the Sabias and the other one is on the opposite side of the house. So we're good there. The height
variance,yes, we're asking for a height variance,but if you look at the building section that we propose,
you can see that it's just the very top of the peak of the house that's over the 2S feet and that's actually only
about two feet higher than the embankment out back. So it doesn't affect any views from people behind
them. They look right over the top of the house anyway and it doesn't affect anybody else's views. The
variances for the front setbacks are exactly where they are now. They're not getting any closer. We're
tearing down the existing building and the lot is very small. So there's not a whole lot of available room
to build on. So what we tried to do is keep the front of the building where the front of the building is now.
MR. TRAVER-So there's really not much you can do as far as the shoreline setback. It is what it is now.
So the existing is 1S feet two inches.
MR.HALL-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-And you need a variance because you're going to retain that.
MR.HALL-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure.
MR.HALL-Exactly-
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We did get some engineering comments that were concerning, but it sounds, in
your application.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. HALL-I got that letter as well, and I looked back through some of the, and one of the previous
applications also mentioned it. This is a new reviewer, and I looked back on a couple of the engineering
comments that we've gotten from LaBella in the past and these comments that they made are very similar
to their, I call them cookie cutter comments,but it's the same,you know, they made the same comment
several times and they never said.
MR. TRAVER-We find that as well with different applications that quite often there's issues with the
type of calculation that was performed.
MR. HALL-Correct, and I've never had them before say that it was a significant issue. I mean they've all
been,obviously they have to be addressed and we got the information,actually Shauna sent it to me today.
So I do have a copy of it,and I've looked through them,and there doesn't appear to be anything in there,to
me,that's a significant issue that I can't address.
MR. TRAVER-Well,it doesn't sound like it is now because you've addressed them.
MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan,we've been through COVID, all right. Things have changed.
MR.HALL-Understand.
MR.TRAVER-So,let's see,we have the setback variance which is a pre-existing,non-conforming setback.
MR.HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-But it still triggers a variance as you pointed out. The front setback I guess is the same
situation,right?
MR. HALL-The front setback is the same situation, and oddly enough this is another one similar to the
Dansbury,but Dansbury Drive is a private drive. So this is actually a site with no front.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.HALL-We have a lake,two sides and a rear. There is no frontage. Doc and MaryJo are actually at the
very end of the right of way that is a maintained right of way for all of those people that live on that end of
the lake.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR.HALL-It's not a publicly owned road. It's a private road.
MR. TRAVER-That's been a part of a number of discussions that different applicants have had with us
over the years.
MR.HALL-We actually had the same discussion when we were in for Canterbury's.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Right.
MR.HALL-When we did Canterbury's it was the same discussion that it's a lot with no frontage.
MR. TRAVER-And the proposed height at 31, 9, where 2S is allowed, there's nothing you can do about
that?
MR.HALL-I've tried to do everything I can do to bring the house down and drop the house pitch to get it
so that I can use the upstairs which is really what we're doing. We don't have a lot of room to expand on
this lot. The only place I can really go is up.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's a tiny lot.
MR. HALL-It is. So what we've tried to do is build the master suite into the roof system and add some
dormers on it, similar to what we did with Canterbury's. So that you can use the upstairs, and that's as
close as I can get.
JOHN SABIA
MR. SABIA-I'm John Sabia, and this is my wife MaryJo. And sort of to be considerate,because we are the
fifth house on,the last house on the street,but to be very considerate of our neighbors above us,we have
really been very good about informing them every step of the way and they've been supportive. I just
wanted to share that.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR.DIXON-1 know I didn't have much concern,but when I was looking at the pictures,there's a beautiful
lawn there. So when you're near the water,if you're using fertilizers,just be aware there are restrictions.
MR. SABIA-We are the only ones on the whole street,five houses.
MR. DIXON-Yes,there's not a lot there.
MR.TRAVER-Which has probably exploded in the last week,like my lawn has with all the warm weather
and the rain.
MR. DEEB-I was looking at the FAR and that's at seven percent,seven percent for FAR relief.
MR.HALL-For the floor area ratio?
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. HALL-I would agree with that if we weren't a lot that was so significantly undersized. When you
take the FAR into account, it's set up based on a two acre zone, on a two acre lot. That would be the
16,000 in change for floor area that we could do on a two acre lot. When you take a lot that is only, our
total lot is 9,000 square feet. When you apply 220/o to a 9,000 square foot lot,versus 22 square feet.
MR. TRAVER-It limits the size of the house you can build.
MR.HALL-Exactly correct. So we've tried to maintain the footprint and keep things down,but again,in
our basement I have a crawl space so that I don't have the full basement. I can still get my mechanicals in.
It's less than five feet so we were able to get rid of that and take that out. We originally went to the Town
Board with a garage on the back side of the house so that they could get their car inside. We took that out
because that was one of the things that the Town Board didn't like the idea of having that back there,and
we knew that that was going to be a bigger ask for the FAR. So I've tried to knock it down as far as I
could.
MR. DEEB-Did you look at tiny houses?
MR.HALL-Have you seen the size of them?
MR. DEEB-This is a special situation because the lot is so small.
MR.HALL-Absolutely.
MR. DEEB-But we've said it several times before, we've got to try and work with what we've got and it's
just,it comes to the point where even if it were a little smaller I'd be happy,but.
MR.HALL-If I could do it without having to count the covered patio or the covered balcony,so when you
think about it the second floor has a very small balcony over it,okay. So that counts towards my FAR.
MR. DEEB-How much does it increase it,that one thing?
MR.HALL-Minor percentage. It's 145 square feet. It's not much,but because that's covered,it also covers
the porch below it, and then the patio on the bottom is also covered by the deck. So all those numbers
count into my floor area ratio. I wish they didn't. I wish I could talk staff into letting me knock out those.
MR. DEE&We just get pounded.
MR.HALL-Understood.
MR. TRAVER-Should we communicate that concern to the ZBA?
MR.HALL-I think they're going to see it anyway.
MR. DEEB-They're going to see it anyway, but I think our concern is we've got to address it with the
Town.
MR. HALL-If there was some kind of a sliding scale similar to how it is with the setbacks, with the
waterfront setbacks.
MR. DEEB-But there are certain people that come up here and they ask for the moon.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/2023)
MR. HALL-I 1000/o agree with you, and our original proposal was that way. So we knocked this down.
MR. DEEB-And I know you try to work within what you've got because I've known you for a lot of years.
MR.HALL-Yes.
MR. DEEB-But I just wanted to put that on record.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DIXON-So do we want that in the resolution?
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. TRAVER-Any other comments,concerns regarding the variances?
MR. DEEB-Ultimately it's going to be up to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I guess we're ready to hear that motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#11-2023 JOHN&r MARY JO SABIA
The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes demolition of an existing
home to construct a 1,776 sq.ft.footprint home. The new floor area of the home would be 2,672 sq.ft.. The
project includes associated site work for installation of a new septic system, use of the existing well,
stormwater management,and new shoreline plantings.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020,site plan
for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and new building within 150/0
slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for floor area,
setbacks,height and permeability.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 11-2023 JOHN &z MARY 10 SABIA,
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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this IS"day of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR.HALL-Great. Thank you very much.
MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also a recommendation to the ZBA,is for David Turner. This
is Site Plan 31-2023.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. DAVID TURNER. AGENT(S): STUDIO A.
OWNER(S): DAVID TURNER&z MARTHA BANTA. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 9 SNUG
HARBOR LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RENOVATION OF A SHORELINE AREA
INCLUDING LAND RETAINING WALLS,PLANTING BEDS,VEGETABLE GARDEN AREA AND
PATIO AREAS. THE REAR DECK IS TO BE ENLARGED TO 488 SQ.FT. THERE WILL BE A 210
SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PATIO AREA WITHIN A SECTION OF THE RETAINING WALL. THE
EXISTING 2,734 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-4-080,SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SHORELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 26-91, AV 16-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2023. SITE
INFORMATION: LAKE SUNNYSIDE. LOT SIZE: .23 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-26.
SECTION: 179-3-040,179-4-080.
JEFF ANTHONY,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes renovation of a shoreline area including land retaining walls,
planting beds,vegetable garden area and patio areas. The rear deck is to be enlarged to 4SS square feet.
There is to be 210 square feet of permeable patio area within sections of the retaining wall. Relief is being
requested for the new deck which is 29.97 feet to the shoreline where a 50 foot setback is required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. ANTHONY-Good evening. Jeff Anthony from Studio A landscape architects and engineers and we
represent David Turner and Martha Banta. They have this house on the lake there and they originally
came to us was, their first request was where the retaining walls along the lake are falling down and so
they were concerned that these walls were not stable and that they posed a problem to them. So our first
look at the walls, if you notice there's a set of stairs going down to the lake. The lake is on the left and
there's a set of stairs in the middle that come off of the middle terrace and the retaining walls to the north,
there's two of them. They're actually two tiers of walls there. The retaining walls to the north are in stable
condition. Our structural engineer in the office looked at them and determined that they're fine. They
need a little polishing up,but they are stable. The walls to the south of the set of stairs are leaning toward
the lake and they're crumbling and they're corroded. So the Turners propose to fix this problem and our
first recommendation was that we can save these walls and the stairs, but the walls to the south of the
stairs really need to be replaced and that's the essence of this project was to replace and fix these walls,
and so what we're proposing is to replace them virtually in kind in the same locations as they are now.
The middle terrace, if you'll notice there's a wall to the left and a wall to the right there it's like a little
terraced. That's a very funny area which the previous owner of this, before the Turners bought it, was
some kind of an artist who sculptured,and he had this pit. The Turners called it a pit. It's like a pressure
barrier between the two walls, the sculpture or artist used to put his outdoor works of are out there.
Virtually it's undesirable space and we don't even want to walk into it. It's like walking into a snake pit
basically, and so what the Turners were trying to, as part of this rehab and reconstruction of this wall,
saying what can we do with this space. We'd like to have it useful. So as part of our proposal we're
proposing painting over that and making it an on surface patio. That's not part of the application for a
variance. The variance comes with the upper terrace immediately adjacent to the house and between the
upper wall. That area right now is gravel and it's semi hard surfaces. There's a set of stairs that go up
onto a little porch which are part of the house, and so that upper terrace they'd like to make a one-step
wood deck on grade,as part of their landscape situation there. The situation with the house is nothing on
this piece of property is conforming. The house does not meet the minimum lot size. We cannot meet
the minimum lot width, minimum frontage, minimum shoreline frontage, minimum yard setbacks,
minimum shoreline building setbacks and maximum floor area ratio or minimum permeability. Nothing
conforms in this existing situation. So we, in reconstructing this piece of property and adding that on
grade basically wood deck and the upper terrace is precipitating the need for this variance. So one good
thing happening on this is when we re-designed and re-configured the entire situation, we were able to
increase permeability on the property so we're going in a positive direction for permeability and it there is
a stormwater plan. I've seen the review comments from your comments from the engineers that we seem
to meet their requirements And so basically it all boils down to one variance that we're asking for is the
shoreline setback variance for that one,that upper level deck which is one step above grade.
MR. TRAVER-And basically that is an existing setback. You're just adding the deck.
MR.ANTHONY-Right,exactly. All right. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DIXON-Nothing for this variance.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. No concerns to express to the ZBA,I guess we're ready for that motion,then.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#16-2023 DAVID TURNER
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a renovation of a
shoreline area including land retaining walls,planting beds,vegetable garden area and patio areas.The rear
deck is to be enlarged to 4 S S sq. ft.. There will be a 210 sq. ft.permeable patio area within a section of the
retaining wall. The existing 2,734 sq. ft. footprint home will remain unchanged. Pursuant to chapter 179-
3-040,179-4-OSO, site plan for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for shoreline setbacks.Planning Board shall provide
a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 16-2023 DAVID TURNER,
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 1S`h day of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR.ANTHONY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first item is The Body Barre Dance
Studio, Site Plan 27-2023.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL THE BODY BARRE DANCE STUDIO.
AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): JBJ QUEENSBURY LLC.
ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 17 CRONIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REUSING AN 11,785
SQ. FT. BUILDING TO OPERATE A DANCE STUDIO WITH ASSOCIATED OFFICE AND
RECEPTION AREA. THE PROJECT IS ONLY INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR ROOM
ARRANGEMENT WITHIN THE BUILDING. THE EXISTING EXTERIOR COLOR, ACCESS
DOORS, PARKING ARRANGEMENT AND LIGHTING WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-9-020,SITE PLAN FOR A PROJECT SITE THAT
HAS NOT HAD A SITE PLAN IN LONGER THAN 7 YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 29-1994,SUB 10-1994,AV 32-1994
(WITHDRAWN). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2023. LOT SIZE: 198 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO.296.16-1-16.2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020.
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is a re-use of an existing building. The building is 11,755 square feet.
This is to operate a dance studio with associated office and reception area. The project is only interior
alterations for room arrangement within the building. The existing exterior color, access doors,parking
arrangement and lighting will remain unchanged.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. Again for your record,Ethan Hall,principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture.
With me tonight is Annie Bennett LaFontaine and Katie Langdon from the Body Barre. There is a town
in Vermont that's spelled the same way that's pronounced berry. So what they're doing at this,this is the
former Social Security Administration office on Cronin Road there. They currently have their studio up
in the Mall and so they're in a lease purchase agreement with this building, and the building had a
significant water main break back 1S months ago or so.
2S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/IS/2023)
MR. TRAVER-The old Social Security building did?
MR.HALL-Yes. When the Social Security left they turned the heat way down I guess and one of the water
pipes burst and flooded the building. So the bottom 30 inches of sheet rock in the entire building had to
be taken out.
MR. TRAVER-Wow.
MR.HALL-To prevent mold and things like that from happening. So anyway,we went in. We met with
Craig Brown. We talked to him about the interior modifications that were going on, knowing full well
that we needed to have site plan review for the building. They gave us an interior building permit so we
could go in and fix/repair what was in there. They did have to add a couple of walls to break the space up
the way they wanted it and take out some of the stuff that was in there for the Social Security
Administration office that they don't need. So that's all been done. The interior work is all set and the
only thing that we had to come here for was the site plan. There really are no changes to the exterior of
the building. They're going to put a sign over the front door. We are not going to do the pylon sign at this
time. It's not within their budget right now to do a pylon sign. They figure they can get by with the one
over the front door. Outside of that,that's all we're doing.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-I know there's plenty of parking and it's good to see the building getting back into use.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,I'll say.
MR. HALL-So in order for us to get the sign, we're going to need to get a variance based on the existing
pole location. We had the surveyors go out and grab that for us,after we had filed and Laura had brought
up to us that it looked like with the turn perpendicular to Cronin Road,the overhang of the sign is going
to protrude into the 50 foot setback. So at some point we will have to go for a variance for the sign for its
location at the current time,like I said,it doesn't fall into their budget to do that right now anyway. So
we're going to go with the one that's on the front of the building. The one that's on the front of the building,
is that internally lit?
KATIE LANGDON
MS. LANGDON-Yes.
MR.HALL-Okay. So that's an internally illuminated sign. There are lights that shine on it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree, the visibility of that building on that road is such that a wall mounted sign
should be fine. So,okay. This is SEQR Type II,but we do have a public hearing. So we'll open that and
ask is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm
not seeing any takers. Laura's checking for written comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAGOWAN-You're going to be using pretty much all of it except for the existing to remain,
renovated,the offices?
MR.HALL-That was the chiropractic office up front,and we may be using that sooner than we think.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's great. What a nice re-use of that building.
MR.HALL-It's really going to be a good use of the facility. We have plenty of parking. Everybody's right
here at the front doors. There's actually two main entrances. There's one in the back and there's one in
the front. There's plenty of good parking.
MR. DEEB-Easily accessible.
MR. TRAVER-So we don't have any public comment this evening on this application. So we'll go ahead
and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any questions or concerns as far as going forward on this application?
I'm not seeing or hearing any. I guess we're ready for that motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#27-2023 THE BODY BARRE DANCE STUDIO
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes reusing an 11,755
sq. ft. building to operate a dance studio with associated office and reception area. The project is only
interior alterations for room arrangement within the building. The existing exterior color, access doors,
parking arrangement and lighting will remain unchanged. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-020,
site plan for a project site that has not had a site plan in longer than 7 years 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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/1S/2023 and continued the
public hearing to 4/1S/2023 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 4/1S/2023;
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 27-2023 THE BODY BARRE DANCE STUDIO, Introduced by
Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, o. commercial alterations/ construction
details, ,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal;
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) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) 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,
c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building and Codes personnel;
d)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
e)Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) 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;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR.HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Castaway Marina LLC. This is Site Plan 29-2023 and
Special Use Permit 3-2023.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2023 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. CASTAWAY
MARINA, LLC. AGENT(S): SRA ENGINEERS &z MEYER, FULLER &z STOCKTON, PLLC.
ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2546 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY
AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA PERMIT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF QUICK LAUNCH
AND THE NUMBER OF WINTER BOAT STORAGE. THE QUICK LAUNCH WOULD INCREASE
FROM 10 TO 50 AND THE OUTSIDE WINTER BOAT STORAGE WOULD INCREASE FROM 27
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
TO 75 BOATS. THE EXISTING PERMIT FOR 6 RENTALS AND TWO TOUR BOATS WOULD
REMAIN ALONG WITH THE EXISTING INTERIOR STORAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-
3-040 &z 179-10-040, SITE PLAN TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF QUICK LAUNCH AND
OUTSIDE BOATS STORED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-2012,SUP 4-2012. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: APRIL
2023. SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 399 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.240.5-
1-26. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040.
MATT FULLER&ERIK SANDBLOM,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to modify their Class A Marina permit to increase the number
of quick launch and the number of winter boat storage. The quick launch would increase from 10 to 50
and the outside winter boat storage would increase from 27 to 75 boats. The project includes hard
surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline,site plan to increase the number of quick launch and outside boat
storage and they're requesting permanent status.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.FULLER-Good evening. For the record,Matt Fuller with Meyer,Fuller&Stockwell. I'm here with
Erik from SRA Engineers. Lonnie and Talia are on their way back from spring break with the girls so they
can't actually they're on a plane right now but Laura introduced the project. There's not any real significant
on site improvements. It's more operational. What we have found,experience wise what we've seen is a
desire really for a quick launch, people being able to leave their boats and their trailer, versus trailering
them back and forth from home from an outside storage area, the storage field or storage site. So the
reaction to the quick launch was to do just that,to be able to leave a boat on site. We think that's a pretty
good improvement. As with a lot of the marinas during COVID they kind of slowed down the public
launch operation, and most of the time, actually now in general you can show up off the street and launch
your boat at Castaway.
MR. TRAVER-I think there's a sign to that effect.
MR. FULLER-Yes, when you drive by. So that's really the quick launch. The plans that were submitted
show the current parking. We're not introducing any new parking or additional parking,just utilizing
the existing parking on site, and then in the winter boat storage is again to use that existing parking on
site. We do have a storage facility over off of Ridge Road and then another just up the road where the barn
was that we got a site plan for,10,15 years ago. So you can see on the plan that the proposal is to double
stack the boats in the existing trailer launch spots,just to utilize those spaces. They're there anyway, so
versus transporting the winter storage off site of utilizing more on site.
MR. TRAVER-So this quick launch would entail the owners leaving their boats on their own trailers?
MR. FULLER-Correct.
MR.TRAVER-And then the facility staff would launch them from the owner's trailer,or would the owners
come and hook up the trailer and launch them themselves?
MR. FULLER-Good question. We do not launch trailers for customers. That's a good question because
there are quick launches around the lake that have forklifts,over in Bolton or.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,those are the ones that we're typically more familiar with.
MR. FULLER-Yes, Fischers over on Pilot Knob has that. Yes,no,this is strictly you hook your trailer up
to your vehicle with a boat on it, drop your boat in the water, go up,park your vehicle with a trailer, and
so when you look at the parking spaces up the hill,you know,by the storage barn now,in the summertime
we show two boats in the winter that can be stored there. In the summer that space is occupied by an old
truck.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. FULLER-Or a car trailer boat, and then when you leave you just leave the trailer right there, with a
boat on it.
MR. TRAVER-So I don't know if this is maybe a question for Staff, but, Laura, the definition of quick
launch,I mean this seems more like summer storage and winter storage,not quick launch.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So the definition is what it is. I can't change that,but their description is what
today's market is doing.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/IS/2023)
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-So there's no new language for what a quick launch is. So the Park Commission still
defines it as the terminology of quick launch.
MR. FULLER-Yes,the Town mirrors the Park Commission's regulation definitions.
MR. TRAVER-Makes sense,yes.
MR. FULLER-And the Park Commission.
MR. TRAVER-So even though this is not, if I participate in this, as opposed to, I don't want to mention
any of the other marinas,but if I have a quick launch at the other marinas,I show up,my boat's already in
the water and I just get in and go,theoretically. In this case,I still have to launch the boat myself and then
park my car and trailer.
MR. FULLER-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-But it's still considered quick launch even though it isn't so quick.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FULLER-That's right. That's a good point,because what you won't see is jockeying around of boats
waiting for people to pick up their boat.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FULLER-This is in and out.
MR. TRAVER-And you're unable to continue public access to the ramp?
MR. FULLER-No,there's still public access. It has not been curtailed. We don't plan to have it curtailed
with the Park Commission,but what they do is they self-regulate,right? I mean the reality is not all boats
are gone from the docks all the time. Currently, Lonnie can tell you, it's not open publicly. There's
probably a handful of people that they allow to come in and that aren't quick launch. They just show up
with their boat and trailer and launch it,or if you live on Pilot Knob or if you live up the lake somewhere
and you're just coming in,dropping it once and taking your boat for the year or for a month or something,
they might allow that, but they're not proposing having a wide open public launch and quick launch
because it's a parking thing. So at no point are they going to exceed that.
MR. TRAVER-So the Park Commission doesn't want or allow you to have both quick launch and a public
ramp?
MR. FULLER-Yes. But it's parking limited, if you think about it. You can't exceed your parking.
Especially there.
MR.TRAVER-Well I wouldn't think there'd be that many because of the location. I wouldn't think there
would be that many, aside from people, as you mentioned, that live nearby, but, okay, I just wondered
about that.
MRS.MC DEVITT-So the Park Commission defines the number of launches you can do in season. Is that
right?
MR. FULLER-They don't. They've not gotten that far into the regs. They don't limit numbers of boats.
It's a,I don't know how you want to classify it,it's like a third rail at the Park Commission. They've not
gotten into limiting the number of permits on Lake George. If you have a boat, I just got mine yesterday,
you have to register it every year. You get your Park Commission sticker. They don't limit the number of
stickers on Lake George. So they don't limit the number of boats that can be on Lake George at any time.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So there's no regulation in terms of the number of launches that a marina can,I mean
you could,there's not like during the day,say,you can only launch 20 boats or whatever.
MR.FULLER-Yes,there isn't. And I mean that,I mean if you think about it,that applies not only to private
marinas,which are fine. They're not making more marinas on Lake George. What's there is there. You
couldn't get a permit to open anew one in reality,but you've got State launches,all right. You've got Beach
Road. You've got Mossy Point up north. You've got over on the west side up in Hague. They don't,it's
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
as many boats as those places can essentially tolerate. And it really comes down to parking. If you are
familiar, if you've tried to launch down at the Beach Road on weekends, if you're not there by seven or
seven thirty,you can't get on the lake.
MR. TRAVER-There's no overnight parking there either.
MR. FULLER-There's nowhere to park. Exactly. You bring up a good point that I didn't bring up in the
intro. We don't allow overnight,you know,like camping on the dock or anything like that. So there are
some people I know,because very good friends and family of mine quick launch,and they go out for a week
and if they're renting a place at the bottom of the lake,they go out for a week and they come back,but you
can't,if you're out on the lake and you're planning to come out that day,you've got to be back I believe it's
by six o'clock during the week and eight o'clock on Friday and Saturday, it might be Sunday, too. So
they've been really strict, and if you try to pull off camping on their dock, you won't be back. Because
there's not room.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well I was going to say, what about the boats that are, they're existing boats
because the docks are full?
MR.FULLER-If you've been to the,if you look at the drawing,right next to the launch,where the gas stop
is,that area is open,and depending on the size of the boat,when somebody launches,you might be able to
have two or three boats there,tops at any time. And if somebody's on a gas dock,that even cuts it down.
MR. TRAVER-But I mean there's boats that have apparently rented dock space.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-And so they're there overnight. They're there for the summer every night. But presumably,
I know the water's shallow there. So you might not have a boat big enough to stay overnight on.
MR. FULLER-Mine is,but it's not,it's only a 25 foot. My wife and I can fit in there,but,yes, they have
shore power,bathrooms. So if you have a boat you can stay at the dock,but not quick launches.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FULLER-They don't have that right. They're in and out.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can you show me the increase for the quick launch you're going 10 to 50. Now you
pull in with your car and your trailer,you drop your boat and then you back that trailer and car,or truck.
Most of them are trucks,you know. So I kind of count up all the double spots where everything is,you
know, and looking around,you know,I see comfortably,you know,20 spots,but that's if someone knows
how to back up a trailer,too.
MR.FULLER-Yes,I wish Lonnie were here. If you know Lonnie,you would know that he doesn't tolerate
well boating ignorance.
MR.MAGOWAN-Well,you're opening yourself up to ignorance,because it's funny this comes up,because
I got onto Facebook and I got onto I think watching something and,you know,you click on and you see,
and I came across this,it was a launch,it just happened to be a launch, and I probably watched a half an
hour of idiots. I mean I'm sorry to say that on the record,but,you know, I know them and I know their
tolerance level,but I mean you wouldn't know that going in. This one's an idiot. We're not going to give
them a quick launch.
MRS. MOORE-So just to note,these are customers that are already existing,or a majority of them. That's
the way it's worded. So that they can maintain their trailer there on the site.
MR. TRAVER-Instead of bringing it home.
MRS. MOORE-Instead of bringing it home or wherever they are.
MR. MAGOWAN-No,I understand that,but they're going to have to hook up and drop their boat in and
then go back to their spot. So now you go from a trailer to a trailer truck.
MRS. MOORE-They're existing customers is what I'm saying,is that they're sort of,I'm assuming they do
some sort of evaluation at some point of what your capability is. So I'm assuming that once you've met that
test that you have a spot.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,no,that's what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it's all right if you're just leaving
your boat there,but once you come up,you hook up and then you're going to back your trailer and your
car there. So you need two spots. So I count up where all the double boats are,taking out a couple there
at the end right there on that corner.
MR. SANDBLOM-There's a parking schedule on C-100 that identifies exactly the sizes and numbers.
There's 72 spaces that are 40 feet long,but 50 of those.
MR. FULLER-I can tell you where they are, Mr. Magowan. So if you pull in to the marina on the lower
driveway,closest to the lake,you come by the buildings. Those spaces down below are dock spaces.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's up a steep hill right?
MR.FULLER-Yes. So if you turn up the hill,you can launch your boat. You have two choices. You either
go up the hill, or make a left right there. As you go up to make the left, there's, and I forget how many
spaces are there. There's probably 10 or so spaces. In the summer you'll see it's a little bit of an angle,but
for smaller trailers, or even trucks. I've seen trucks with triple axel trailers,parked there. They park on
that hill. Believe it or not they pull it right up,park there.
MR. MAGOWAN-No,I've seen it. It's a rock isn't it?
MR. FULLER-It's rock.
MR. MAGOWAN-The hill's actually a rock.
MR. FULLER-There's the barn. There's four or five, there's five spaces right next to the end of the barn
and right across from that there's a good 10 or 15 spaces. Again if you continue up down the hill to the
lower parking lot, there's space down there as well. Those spaces are much longer. We didn't show
stacked up trailers there,but to Erik's point,there's,you know,we set out all those parking spaces on there
and there are sufficient.
MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, we tried to label the parking spaces. So anything with a QL is for quick launch
and then just launch or vehicle parking is with an L. Just a regular vehicle,your typical 10 by 20 space.
We've got eight of those. So there's 152 spaces available on the site currently and really,you know, all we
did is just clean it up. Really this parking pattern is no different from what.
MR. MAGOWAN-So when I see a 12 QL,that's 12 quick launches.
MR. SANDBLOM-Correct.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. DIXON-With this proposal you're not looking to add any dock space at all?
MR. FULLER-No. I mean the reality is there's probably not a marina left on Lake George that could add
dock spaces. They're all non-conforming.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's about as big as it can get.
MR. SANDBLOM-And as it is they're approved for SO and they can only fit 76. Something like that.
MR. FULLER-Exactly-
MR. TRAVER-All right. And then you're asking for the Special Use Permit to be permanent.
MR. FULLER-Yes,so that was something we discovered working with Laura with past files. Originally,I
mean back around 2003, Mr. Matthews, who is now deceased, came in and got approvals back when I
think some of the marina stuff was in its infancy. That was probably around 2005 or'07 that the Town
adopted the Park Commission regs, but he did get an approval, but it doesn't look like it was ever a
permanent Special Use Permit. So we're looking to clean that up.
MR. TRAVER-That also is not a unique situation around the lake. Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're asking for a permanent?
MR. TRAVER-Special Use Permit.
MR. MAGOWAN-On this? I mean this is a new idea. You think that's fair to ask to get a permanent on
a new idea?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. FULLER-Well for the marina overall I would hope, yes, that we would be able to. And I mean
obviously it's up to you guys. You can have time limits and things on that,but we're not,my thought on
it is we're not proposing anything that is additional use. We're just utilizing the existing parking and
things we have on site, right? Whether it's somebody that came in for the day and used it or somebody
that is a seasonal quick launch,the reality is the marina's not going to have any more boats launched than
they have for parking.
MR. TRAVER-And theoretically reducing the traffic on that road,too.
MR. FULLER-Yes, if they had 40 for a season, quick launches, and they have 10 spaces left, that means
realistically you can have 10 people come in for a day. There's no area here where more people could come
in on a day use. Right? So they're not going to exceed the parking on the site, and, I mean,from my own
experience, I'm just trying to think, I think I've been there five or six years, there's parking even on the
Fourth of July weekend,even on the nicest of weekends,it's not 1000/o full. There's still six or eight boats
on the dock.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you get the traffic coming off of Route 9 that taxes, all right. You have the
movement of going out of the bay,you know,with that many more boats. You have the use of the bathroom
which,you know,taxes the septic. I'm just thinking. Then you're going to have increased garbage,because
most people,you know,they have a cooler or two when they go out for the day and come back,you know.
I don't have a problem. I like the concept,all right,but to give a full go for it without a,you know,without
a two or three year trial to see how taxing it becomes to the Town and the lake. I would make it a full time
official Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit for what John got previously, I don't have a problem
with that because they've done a nice job with the marina. The kids have taken,really, they've done an
awesome job. It looks nice over there. This,it's a new concept,and that's a tough part of the road,a little,
you know, coming around, you know, especially coming from Cleverdale down, you come around that
corner,you don't have the best view. A lot of cars,you know,people,you know,if they back up. I don't
know. I would just be concerned. I think the numbers, I don't have a problem with the winter storage
part,but you're right,I mean.
MR. DEEB-You want to make it a conditional three year and then come back.
MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to see how it works, see if we have any, you know what I'm saying?
Because it's easier to say, all right,things have gone well for three years,let's go for it. Otherwise we give
you full fledge,I've got to come after you. I'm sorry.
MR. FULLER-Yes, I guess my thought on a few of the items. The garbage, you'd have to be up there.
There's two large dumpsters which, in my experience, have never been full. There's one up by the boat
storage building and there's another one down right by the parking lot,if you were down in the low part.
I don't think it's there yet for the season,but there's a cement pad that they bring the big full on dumpster
that's there every week, and really I guess what my thought is, we're not adding traffic to 9L. We're
actually pulling the traffic into the site because the boats,instead of people coming up for a day use and
stacking on 9L to get into the launch to launch every day,which frankly is why they shut it down. They
got to the point where people were waiting and they said this is a much safer scenario for us. Get the boats
on the property,have them quick launch to the extent that we can rent them and keep them there.
MR. TRAVER-And these are essentially the same people that are going there now.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So I mean it's not like you're bringing in,you know,50 new boats and trailers. These are
probably the same people that are there now.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said,it's a new concept. You're going to have the regulars that come and then
word of mouth is going to get out there,bingo,this is a good thing and we can do that. So I'm just putting
it out there. I don't feel comfortable. I mean I think the numbers are large. If it's doable I think it's great,
and if it doesn't tax the area and the road then,hey,I don't have a problem.
MR. TRAVER-So you're okay with the concept, but you have a concern about the Special Use Permit
length being unlimited?
MR. MAGOWAN-On this particular new concept.
MR.DEEB-Maybe a year or two years and then they can come back. If everything is fine then we can issue
a permanent.
MR. FULLER-I guess what I don't see the difference of, though, is whether we allow 50 people on a
Saturday to come up and park, there's no limitation on that. Right. We could open the public launch
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
right now, charge people to come in and out. That's 50 boats coming in and out. I don't understand the
difference between that and the quick launch? It's the same. In fact I think it's a little better because
those boats and trailers aren't traveling across the roads to get there.
MR.MAGOWAN-What I don't like is the thick. All right. You're a lawyer. I'm construction. We think
at different levels,but all I'm saying is I like the concept and I'd like to see it,but you're still going to get
people coming off the road and you're going to get the regulars, all right. So,hey,two years,three years,
go three years,you know,but it's, if you need to close the special permit when John came in,you know,
fine, but this is something new and I don't feel comfortable releasing a full-fledged go for it without
knowing.
MRS. MOORE-There are some public comments. I don't know if you want to do the public hearing and
re-think that issue,give you a minute to do that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone,we'll open
the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application?
I'm not seeing any takers. Written comments,Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Yes. I have two written comments. It says,"We own the property immediately adjacent
to Castaway, abutting on the Seelye Road side. We are concerned with the added traffic and parking, and
question if the septic system,which received a recent variance,is truly capable of handling the increase.
There is no additional green space mentioned,which is one of the essential parts of the Lake George area.
The fence and trees cited are on our property- not Castaway. We request that along with their
reconfiguring they provide an improved buffer to the residential area, replacing the fence with one of a
commercial quality at the maximum permitted height. The gasoline tank was installed in 1999, and
probably is reaching the end of its useful life. What are the plans to replace it, and could it be relocated
further from residential areas at that time? The first notice of hearing stated an increase in quick launch
from 10 to 15," We corrected that. It's actually 50. "but supporting documentation showed 50-we assume
that the 50 number was correct. Please feel free to contact us for further clarification of these questions."
This is Karen and Gerald Hausler 143 Seelye Road and again with the septic system that was approved.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'm sorry,did they say the existing septic was 1999?
MRS. MOORE-No,they said the gasoline tank.
MR. TRAVER-The gasoline tank. Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-And what was it about the septic?
MRS. MOORE-The septic variance that was recently granted,because it's the location and that variance
was granted recently. They say the same thing. They're questioning if the septic system can handle the
increase.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's one of the concerns I would have. Yes.
MRS. MOORE-A septic variance was recently granted for that. There's another public letter. It says
"Good afternoon. I have some comments that I would like to be addressed and added to the record for
the 4/1S/2023 meeting for the Special Use Permit 3-2023. My residential home is across the street from the
Marina on Route 9L.The Notice of Public Hearing letter states that they are requesting the outdoor winter
boat storage to be increased from 27 to 75 boats. My comment is that that is a large increase. I currently
must look at the (11) boats in the driveway in front of the garage area for the winter season. There is no
screening to protect my view of the stored boats in this area. I would like to see some landscaping added
to minimize the view of the boats at this location. Could these winter storage spots could be relocated to
the rear of the property? The drawing shows (12) boats to be parked on the upper lot to the left of the
repair building.I cannot tell from the drawing if these are new spots to be created. If this new boat storage
location is going to visible from my home, I would request landscaping be added to hide the view of the
boats. Thank you for the time to address my comments." And this is Jeremiah Crean of 2557 Route 9L.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that's it,Laura,those two comments?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR.TRAVER-I know that there was,when the upper parking lot was reviewed some years ago,there was
a, we had a berm put in, I think, there was some landscaping. Can that be expanded upon with the
increased number of boats that are going to exist there? If this is approved. I forget,but I think we had
some trees planted on the top of that berm or something.
MR. FULLER-Are you thinking of the barn?
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say I think that's the barn.
MR. TRAVER-Well I'm just hearing this resident across the street is concerned because they're looking at
the relatively few number of boats that are there now and now they're going to be there all the time except
when they're in the lake. So I'm just thinking can we add some landscaping to try to hide that a little
better.
MRS. MOORE-So I think there's the west property line and then it sounds like the south property line is
in the winter and the west property line is in the summer.
MR. FULLER-Yes that house is right kind of across from the upper driveway.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,this is the upper storage area.
MR. FULLER-It is all treed. It's treed along that part of 9L. It's not open.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,but it's not dense. Do we know anything about the septic?
MR.FULLER-Yes,so we can talk about that. The standards for the septic have,and Erik can get into this.
They're designed for a certain gallons a day. The septic that we have,that's there now,was inspected in
January of this year by the Town and passed,but coming in with this,what we propose is to run metering
for the summer to get actual usage. Because you can have your septic system designed to the design
standards or to actual usage plus a cushion obviously, and the reality is we don't want to overdesign the
system for the area. If it's functioning now. It hasn't failed. It passed inspection in January,that's in the
application materials. What we proposed to the Town Board was to monitor it for the summer and then
based on the actual usage,if any changes are needed,the Town Board said to come back to us.
MR. TRAVER-So how long would you monitor the usage,just one summer?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. SANDBLOM-It'll be a minimum,well the Code says one year. Effectively it's one season. So the plan
is to get the,I believe the Board actually put a date in which they have to start monitoring.
MR. FULLER June 15`h
MR. TRAVER-Well the concern I have is that it wouldn't be this summer that you'd get the normal use.
It would be next summer when the word spreads and you're at your maximum quick launch capacity.
Because when you start, in a couple of months, you're not going to be having 50 quick launches. Next
summer you will.
MR. SANDBLOM-Well once the,you know,the systems are set up,the boat launch.
MR. DEEB-The Town Board said that. We didn't set the date. We can't alter that.
MR. SANDBLOM-The owners are committed. If we come up with some numbers that are higher than
what that leach field is rated for,we're going to be looking at modifications.
MR. LONGACKER-Can you modify it with the rock there? Can you modify it because you have the rock
up on top of that hill. Is there room to expand it?
MR. SANDBLOM-There's quite a bit of room by the disposal area. Yes.
MR. FULLER-Yes, we were talking about that. If you think about it geographically where the soils are,
it's not far from where the Town was looking at, I think they still are,the system,it's just behind that,off
the Kirkpatrick property.
MR. SANDBLOM-And that disposal field was not part of any of the variances that were received. It was
just, there were some tanks that were too close to the shoreline and that sort of thing, but the actual
disposal field where that takes place meets all the criteria.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR.TRAVER-So before we finish our discussion on the Special Use Permit duration,are there any further
concerns or comments regarding site plan issues? Okay.
MRS.MOORE-So I just want to say that the trees,it's really the north and the south property line,and the
north property line closest to the shoreline, Karen Hausler, and they've identified that, which is on this
plan,is the location of the gas tank. So she's talking about screening in that area. Does that make sense?
MR.FULLER-The pavement to the fence where the launch is is not very far. What they do in the summer
is they lean a couple of towline floats that are for sale up against the fence. That's about the width of the
end of the pavement to the fence. I couldn't lay down height wise.
MRS. MOORE-So is there a fence between these two properties now?
MR. FULLER-There is.
MRS. MOORE-And so one of her questions is if it could be replaced.
MR. FULLER-It's a six foot fence. I think that's the max,right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. FULLER-And honestly to Mr. Magowan's point the fence is not old. If you went by it it's a solid
wood fence.
MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure I get you the right location.
MR.FULLER-I think the other comments were across 9L. That was the other individual that commented
about trees there.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So let's get back to the Special Use Permit duration.
MR. DEE&Well I'd like to err on the side of caution. I think,you know.
MR. TRAVER-Three years?
MR. DEEB-Two or three years. Two years is fine. We give them a conditional permit, and then if they
come back and everything is then they apply for a permanent.
MR. TRAVER-I think two years is pretty thin for them to get it up and running and have experience with
it. I think three would be better. That would be my preference.
MR. DEEB-Three years, and then they can come back and if everything is fine they can have a permanent.
MR. LONGACKER-I think that's great, especially if they're going to monitor the septic for that long.
That's outstanding in actual usage.
MR. TRAVER-So three years.
MR. LONGACKER-Three years is fine.
MR. TRAVER-And, Brad,you said you could deal with three and you're okay with three. I'm okay with
three.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,it says here it's designed 199E wastewater system,500 gallons a day.
MR.FULLER-The Town Board required that if it exceeded 500 gallons a day we've got to come back with
a design.
MR. TRAVER-Well if you go through 500 gallons a day you've got other problems than a quick launch.
All right. So it sounds as though, with regard to the Special Use Permit, we're looking at a three year
renewable, and I'm sensing that if all goes well in three years you might be in much better shape to get a
permanent.
MR.MAGOWAN-On that fueling,with the quick launch I'm sure the fueling's going to be a,and probably
with the,I don't know where those vents are.
They're usually right where the tank is.
MR. FULLER-Yes,I mean we have our PBS permit from DEC that we get inspected every year.
3S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not worried about the inspection. What I'm saying is that it's right up on that
property line. You're going to be using it more. You're going to have more fills. Usually you get more of
the smell when they're filling it,you know, from the tankers. When you're pumping it's sucking the air
in,but when you're flowing it it's flowing the air out.
MR.SANDBLOM-That is the case with the older ones,and all of the newer ones are required to have vapor
covers. So what happens is the vapors go back into the truck.
MR. FULLER-You have to.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'm aging myself a little bit,but if they're doing that,that's right. I was just
wondering what her concern was, explosion wise or something like that,but just for a holding tank that
doesn't concern me.
MR. DEEB-Are you regulated by APA and Lake George?
MR. FULLER-The APA gets involved if you get into certain wetland activities on Lake George, but
generally no. There's a memorandum of understanding between the Park Commission and the APA.
MR. DEEB-But the Park Commission.
MR. FULLER-Yes,we're going to the Park Commission.
MR. DEEB-So you have to go there. Have you gotten any comments from them yet?
MR. FULLER-We did. We addressed them.
MR. TRAVER-They're waiting for us.
MR. FULLER-Yes,you can't get their permission until you get through here.
MR. DEEB-Yes,they always come after us.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So are people comfortable moving forward on this proposal for approval?
MR.FULLER-Were you okay with the existing Special Use Permit for the marina going back and the three
years is the storage and the quick launch? Are we okay with the marina in general?
MR.TRAVER-Yes,I think we're looking at a new Special Use Permit for what you're proposing for a three
year span, and then renewable. So in three years you can come back and again request a permanent or
whatever. So are Board members comfortable moving forward on that? Okay. All right. I guess we have
a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#29-2023 SUP 3-2023 CASTAWAY MARINA,LLC
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify an
existing Class A marina permit to increase the number of quick launch and the number of winter boat
storage. The quick launch would increase from 10 to 50 and the outside winter boat storage would increase
from 27 to 75 boats. The existing permit for 6 rentals and two tour boats would remain along with the
existing interior storage. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179-10-040,site plan to increase the number of
quick launch and outside boats stored 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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/1S/2023 and continued the
public hearing to 4/1S/2023,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 4/1S/2023;
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,
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 29-2023 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2023 CASTAWAY
MARINA,LLC.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,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,
n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r.
construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as the site conditions are not changing existing
gravel areas are being used for quick launch spaces;
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) This Special Use Permit will be renewable and is eligible for renewal after three years from
today's date and would require Planning Board approval.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Etu
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. See you in three years.
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Being no other business before the Board,we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. DEEB-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 18Tx
2023,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon:
Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April,2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/1S/2023)
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
41