02-27-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBR UARY27Tr,2024
INDEX
Site Plan No.73-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 1.
Freshwater Wetlands 13-2023 Tax Map No.227.14-1-17
Site Plan No.5-2024 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 9.
Tax Map No.265.-1-23.11
Site Plan No. 6-2024 Francis&Cindy Steciuk 12.
Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-6
Site Plan No. S-2024 Michael Shearer 15.
Tax Map No.240.5-1-6
Site Plan No. 9-2024 Drew Ziehnert 17.
Tax Map No.252.-1-65
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 Meeting 02/27/2024)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27TK,2024
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN
FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY
DAVID DEEB
WARREN LONGACKER
MEMBERS ABSENT
BRAD MAGOWAN
BRADY STARK
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday, February 27`h,2024. This is our second meeting for the month of February and our
fourth meeting thus far for the year. Please observe the illuminated emergency exits indicated by the red
exit signs. If we do have an emergency, those are the exits. 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. We also ask that, other than public hearings, if you have a conversation amongst
yourselves in the audience,if you would go to the outer lobby to have that conversation,that also could be
confusing because we do record the meetings for the minutes. So we'd appreciate that. And with that we
will begin with our agenda. We have no administrative items this evening. So we'll go right to the agenda,
and the first section of that agenda is Tabled Items. The first item is Lauren&r Christian Freyer. Laura?
TABLED ITEMS:
SITE PLAN NO.73-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. LAUREN
&z CHRISTIAN FREYER. AGENT(S): RU HOLMES, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: PULVER ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,573 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF
2,874 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR INCREASED
PERMEABILITY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE
SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS
PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTING TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94, 179-3-040, 179-6-065, &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW
FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK
WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER
2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,WETLANDS,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRES. TAX MAP
NO.227.14-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,CHAPTER 94.
TOM JARRETT&JACE BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MRS.MOORE-So this application has been revised. The applicant has reduced the home with a footprint
of 1,573 square feet,a floor area of 2,874 square feet. The Zoning Board did grant the variances for setback
relief and just to let you know that the applicant has removed the garage that was originally a part of the
original application and reduced the permeability. So there was no permeability request needed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the variance for permeability has been removed.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR.JARRE TT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett with R U Holmes and Jace Brown with Beardsley Architects.
Also Lauren Wells Freyer is in the audience, a member of the family. When we presented this to you last
November,we described it as a single family residence on a vacant lot on Pulver Road. It's about one-third
acre in size. The picture on the screen shows the site from the lake looking south. Pulver Road is in the
background where that weird tree line is. There's a little bit of relief on the site. It's about a two foot
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
crown in the center that drains to either side. The wetlands that we're just discussing on the left hand
side. You expressed some concerns in November when we met with you and we took those concerns to
heart and the family re-designed the project to eliminate the garage which significantly improved the
permeability of the site. We're now compliant even with Pulver Road included. So we didn't need that
variance last week in front of the ZBA. It also reduced the house size. We were compliant from the floor
area ratio before at 220/o. Now we're down to 1S01o. So we're quite a bit below the standard, the Town
standard. Wastewater is to be managed on the upland parcel on Pilot Knob Road. There's no leaching
system on this property on the lake. Stormwater management will be managed on the lake on the east
side of this site away from the neighbor. There's some concerns in the file from the neighbor regarding
drainage. We took pains originally to make sure that that stormwater was away from the neighbor, and
then after those comments in November we re-designed the site to even reduce that impact further,and all
of it is on the east side. Stormwater management received signoff from the Town Engineer today. Jace,
do you want to add anything?
MR. BROWN-No. I think I would just add that the re-design included not only a reduction in the floor
area of the building,also enabled us to change some of the roof overhangs,also reduce not only permeability
but also some of the area variance setbacks that we were granted the other night. The fundamental design
of the house is the same program as it had been before. We just managed to tighten it up and think it's
going to be an attractive addition to the neighborhood.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well,you know, I looked at your updates. I wasn't sure, to be honest
with you, I wasn't sure if I was looking at a typo. I know that much of the concern that we had was
regarding the setbacks from the shoreline and the wetland, and back in November,I went back and tried
to do my homework, I went back into November and looked at our original discussion and the concern
was, let's see, the shoreline setback at that time was 32 feet, again, this is November, not today. The
setback from the wetland was 23 feet. So I looked at the update, and I see now that the shoreline setback
is 32 feet 6 inches, and the wetland setback is now 24 feet versus 23 feet. So I guess to my mind that
concern, and this is in a Critical Environmental Area. So in my mind that concern remains. It seems as
though this has really, in a Critical Environmental Area, seems like a huge, we're looking at a 50 foot
requirement minimum,it seems like it's a huge compromise to our Critical Environmental Area. Even with
the changes that you've made, it hasn't really changed the setbacks from the shoreline or the wetlands,
which is really one of our main concerns, and I recognize it's difficult to do anything about that. We had
a lot of discussion about that, it's reflected in the minutes, about the size of the lot being so small and
narrow,but that's really what we're faced with.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I agree with that,and as I looked at that east side and saw how much wetland there is
in terms of stream and then all of the fragmites and all of that wet part over there, and now what you're
saying is you're going to shift the stormwater all to that side,it's even more concerning. That goes right
into the bay and we have problems with harmful algae blooms all over the lake now,and I think that that's
just a possibility of being a real problem here.
MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from other members of the Board?
MR. STEFANZIK-I'd like to say I'm very familiar with this area,with this lot. I'd say for over 10,12 years
I've seen when there are significant storms or even a winter thaw that we get that lake raises up
significantly. The docks get submerged. The docks that enter the wetlands are significantly submerged,
but that wetland becomes basically part of the lake. That's how much that water rises. I've seen that
water rise up to Pulver Road,but more recently in December when we had that significant rainfall,I went
there right as the storm was ending,and what I saw was,because Pulver Road on the east and west side of
the property comes down,basically this property and the wetlands are kind of like in a basin, and I saw
streams of water coming down both sides of Pulver Road,basically accumulating by the wetlands where
your driveway's going to be. Also the wetlands to the south of Pulver Road,that's right across the street
from your property,those wetlands have streams running down towards Pulver Road. So all of that stuff
is kind of converging right onto the wetlands, to even the beginning of your property. I'm not sure how
much of the Board realizes that. I didn't realize that either until I was there for the storm. There's a big
culvert that comes out under the Pilot Knob Road and it collects the water that comes off of the Sherman
Preserve. That water was shooting out like a fire hose, and all of that was coming down Pulver Road. It
joined the water coming down Pulver Road, coming across the wetlands, and everything was converging
in the wetlands. It was streaming across the wetlands,Pulver Road, and the beginning of your driveway
where you're going to have hard surfacing, there was significant pooling there. When I walked on the
property,the water doesn't rise that high because the elevation is high enough that the water doesn't get
onto the property,but that property was extremely soggy. I saw in the swale on the east side,on the west
side where you have the nine foot variance now for the house, that swale had a lot of water in it and it
extended into the neighbor's house where there was a big puddle,big pond or pool around the shed. My
only point is that this is a very challenging lot, and it's in a very extremely sensitive part of the Critical
Environmental Area. I don't think that's a surprise.
MR. TRAVER-Other comments,questions?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR.DEEB-Yes. A couple of things. So what we're telling him,the person that owns this lot,is that we're
not going to allow him to do anything. Is that correct?
MR. TRAVER-We're only looking at the proposal that's in front of us. We're not talking about some
hypothetical other project. We have to focus on.
MR. DEEB-They made great strides to try and meet what this Board wanted, and I think they did a
marvelous job, and they own this property and they want to do something with it. Yes, there might be
some problems,but the Town Engineer is going to sign off on it. Tom's been around a lot of years. He's
one of the best engineers this area's ever seen, and he knows what he's doing when he does something,
when he does these projects. So I have to put my trust in what he's doing right now, and I really believe,
the Zoning Board approved this,and now it's back to us and we're saying,well,the Zoning Board approved
it,but I don't think we're going to. I really think we're off base here and I think we've got to give these
people some consideration. As a Board, we've got to compromise somewhere. I mean,we harassed him
the last time,and I don't think it's fair what we're doing to him tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Warren,do you have any thoughts?
MR. LONGACKER-With the elimination of the garage and then the decrease in the permeable surfaces,I
was kind of very pleased to see that when I saw it. Tom,could you possibly explain maybe a little bit of
the rain garden that you're using there,just to express how that does not necessarily,you're not using the
wetland,you're not discharging anything into there.
MR.JARRETT-No,actually you're right. The existing site right now,as I showed before,right now there's
a crown down the center of the site. So half the site currently drains to the neighbor to the west,and that's
some of the impact that was noticed when anybody visited the site. We're cutting that off with a swale
that routes water away from the neighbor over here. Our stormwater system is a wet swale along the
enter eastern boundary of the property. So it protects the wetlands. None of the runoff will get to the
wetland at all. We're not exacerbating the runoff from Pulver Road or Pilot Knob Road. We're not
touching that. It's totally distinct and separate, and this runoff will not be released, except through
infiltration,and wetland plant treatment. To the point that this is a challenging site,it's challenging from
a setback perspective,it's not nearly as challenging,technically from a stormwater perspective, as a lot of
sites we've seen. We have steep slopes, rock and very shallow groundwater like many, many sites that
this Board has seen,but this site is not nearly as challenging from that perspective. It's really just a setback
issue, and to reiterate what Jace said and the Board reflected on, we did improve the setbacks as much as
we could and we got rid of the permeability variance which I think is what this Board really was looking
for.
MR. STEFANZIK-To Mr. Deeb's point, I do agree with his point that you guys have tried very hard to
come up with something that will work. I love that house. That house looks beautiful,the Adirondack
style,and I think it would look really nice on that property,but,you know,I went back through the Codes,
because I was really trying to find how we could work this thing out,but when I look at the Codes and the
requirements and the concern that the Comprehensive Plan has for the work that's done adjacent to a
wetland, this project is going to disturb over S0010 of the land, with digging four feet deep for the
foundation,the driveway, digging down for the septic, running, digging a well and running the pipe, and
also I can't comprehend how the main pipe from the septic is going to run along Pulver Road and through
the wetlands basically to get up to the pond.
MR.JARRETT-Actu allywe're going to be using the road right of way there. We won't be in the wetlands
themselves.
MR. STEFANZIK-But you're going to have to dig down,right?
MR.JARRETT-Sure,but we'll be below the road right of way which is.
MR. STEFANZIK-So S0010 of the land adjacent to a wetlands is going to be significantly disturbed.
MR.JARRETT-As you can see from the drawing,the main disturbance of the site is going to be the house
and the driveway,which is not SO%. The remainder of the stormwater management and planting is in the
water, that's why we counted it as disturbance. It's not really foundation and house. It's not as major
disturbance as we're.
MR. STEFANZIK-This says 13,200 square feet is going to be disturbed out of 16,069.
MR.JARRETT-That's including the dryer lawn area and the stormwater wetland.
MR. STEFANZIK-But that's over S0010 that's going to be disturbed.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR.JARRETT-But the house and driveway,which is what we're more concerned with,is much less than
SO%.
MR. STEFANZIK-And then you've got the septic that's going to be.
MR.JARRETT-The septic is not on this site. We have the tanks that are underneath the driveway, or
actually next to the driveway right now, and the leaching system is off the site.
MR. STEFANZIK-Off the site, right, but a lot of disturbance, and I know the variances, you know, the
setbacks,over 500/o of the setback to the wetland is being,I don't know,violated. I know it was approved
by the Zoning Board,but still,over 500/o of that setback. Now I'm trying to find a way to say this works
for me,but this really feels like a big stretch to me. I'm not sure what else I can say.
MR. TRAVER-We'll be having a public hearing on this as well,but I wanted to ask you just briefly about
the shoreline buffer. I noticed that you have four large trees, 45 shrubs and S9 herbaceous plants, and it
looks like, if I'm reading correctly by the Code, there should be five trees, sixty-three shrubs and one
hundred and twenty-six herbaceous plants. Am I reading that correct?
MR.JARRETT-I discussed this with Laura and she counts the absolute shoreline here,including that little
inlet where the dock is,and we counted across the face of the site,meaning what's exposed to the lake. So
she's correct in her numbers. We're a little bit shy,technically based off of the Code.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I have another question. The easement where the water will be pumped to the other
property,is that an easement that is written in the deed and will be carried through in perpetuity no matter
who buys that other piece of property or leaves one piece of property for another?
MR.JARRE TT-Correct. That is in the works now and will be in the deed in perpetuity. It will carry with
the property in perpetuity.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Because that's one of the things that I know that we have said in the past,the Town,
it's come to my attention now that really properties are supposed to manage their own stormwater and
not have it pumped to another property.
MR.JARRETT-Well we thought this was a benefit to the area to move wastewater away from the lake
and onto the property they happen to have available. John Moore reviewed that in length and agreed with
us.
MRS.MC DEVITT-All I'm saying about that is that it just,to me,it adds to the problems with the property
that they can't even have their own septic system on site, which is what really is what the Town prefers.
My other question is so the driveway is permeable. Is that right?
MR.JARRETT-That was discussed with the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board expressed that desire,
and the owner agreed to make that permeable pavement. We haven't picked a product yet.
MRS. MC DEVITT-And so what's the maintenance going to be for that,to keep it permeable?
MR.JARRETT-It depends on the product selected. It can range all over the place,but it depends on the
product selected. We'll have to agree to that.
MR. TRAVER-We ask them to submit a maintenance plan as part of their theoretical approval as well.
MR.JARRETT-Back to the wastewater system. I could have designed a system on that property. It
would have required variances,but I could have designed one that would have been totally functional and
protected the lake. We decided it was better to move it away from the lake to get a better setback.
MRS.MC DEVITT-I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that it just seems like trying to fit a square peg a little
bit into a round hole, and I have concerns, and what about the patio in the front? That will also be
permeable?
MR.JARRETT-That has not been discussed.
MRS. MC DEVITT-And why is there a need for the patio?
MR.JARRE TT-That's their functional use of the site in front of the house,and it's more than the 50 setback
from the lake. The whole front of the site is compliant from a setback from the main lake. Our setbacks
are to the east,to the wetland.
MRS.MC DEVITT-But,as you mentioned,the whole property crowns. So the more we have,like a patio,
it will.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR.JARRETT-We're capturing all the stormwater from the site right now and putting it into the swale.
Whereas right now, the site without any development on it, sheds to the neighbor and sheds directly to
the wetland.
MR.BROWN-Yes,there are no controls on this site,whereas right now with the improvement there will
be stormwater control. That's a benefit versus direct runoff.
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,like I said,I went through the Codes to try and get myself comfortable,and in 179-
6, no permit to be issued unless Town deems activity is reasonable to prevent natural resource
deterioration. Now I just have a tough time feeling that the natural resources are not going to be impacted.
I also go to your, in the application, Item H, responding to the Site Plan questions, and it says, and I
paraphrase,some impact on natural resources could be expected.
MR.JARRETT-That's residential development in general.
MR. STEFANZIK-I get it,but in a very Critically Environmental Area. I don't know of any place that's
more sensitive than this area from what I've seen.
MR.JARRETT-With all due respect,sir,I'm going to disagree. There are many areas around the lake that
are much more sensitive,including many in Queensbury that are more sensitive than this area.
MR. STEFANZIK-Not that I've seen, at least in the year that I've been here that I've seen. I've seen new
building. I agree existing old structures,but new buildings I'm not sure.
MR. DEE&Well,let me address that. I understand you two are relatively new to the Board. I've been on
this Board 13 years,all right,I've seen projects come before us with a non-conforming lot that's worse than
this, and those got approved,because they worked hard to get things done. Now this is, I know this is,
you feel sensitive about this,but this,there have been other projects that we have approved.
MR. STEFANZIK-I stand corrected,then,I stand corrected.
MR. DEEB-Okay. So I'm just trying to shed a little light upon this. Again, Zoning Board approval,
engineer's signoff. I don't see where we as a Board,you know,that we can disagree with that.
MR.TRAVER-The public hearing on this application is open. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted
to comment to the Planning Board on Site Plan 73-2023 or Freshwater Wetlands permit 13-2023? I'm not
seeing any takers. Are there written comments,Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-So I'm going to explain, these letters were written in November of 2023. They're dated
November 13, 2023. This first one, so these individuals they did see the revised information, but their
comments are based on the original proposal.
MR. TRAVER-The original. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So this,"Ladies and gentlemen,I think it's best to give you some history so you may better
understand my position. I purchased my home in 2004. At that time it was or had been part of a family
compound put together by Bud Walker. My house (1157) was previously occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Bud
Walker;the house to my north,(1159—3+bedrooms at the time)was occupied by Mr.Walker's sister,Lois
Clark nee Walker:;the house to my South(1155)a small two bedroom cottage was sold to Robert Strasser;
while the large (6 Br)house across the street (1154)was occupied by a couple part time from New Jersey.
We shared and share a septic field, across the street, away from the lake,in front of 1154. At some point,
whether with or without permits, 1155 was increased to four bedrooms. Along came COVID and what
happened? The three structures around me all became rentals. The modest two bedroom, (1155) now
expanded, advertises "sleeps ten". G-d and Google know what the other two advertise, but I think it's
something like ten(10)bedrooms and you all know and recognize that when it is a rental,those capacities
are met or exceeded,often or always! Pity the poor septic system—pity our magnificent lake. This year I
spent $5,000 on my septic and I was happy to do so if it preserves our lake. CONCLUSION; I have no
objection to whatever is legally permitted being approved. If a variance or some special consideration is
sought then it should only be done if in consideration therefore a written recorded restriction is obtained
from the owners, binding in perpetuity that the home or unit or part thereof will NOT BE RENTED for
periods of time less than thirty(30) days consecutively. Sincerely, thank you for your time and effort in
these and related matters. Martin M. Filler" And this one is addressed to the Zoning Board members.
"I'm writing on behalf of myself, Laurel Andretta, as well as my father-in-law, Vincent Andretta,Jr, and
sister-in-law,Bonnie Andretta. My property is 30 Pulver Rd and my father-in-law's two properties for him
and his daughter are 24 and 26 Pulver Rd. Let me begin by saying that I have witnessed for many years the
extremely wet conditions directly adjacent to the current .37 acre Freyer property in question.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
I explained to my 93-year-old father-in-law, Mr. Andretta, the current plan to build on the adjacent
property, and he went on to explain the history of what has gone on there. He's doesn't remember exactly
when this happened but when the Philo's owned the property in question, that land was extremely
swampy.Apparently,WITHOUT ANY APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN,Mr. Philo,filled in the swampy
area with top soil and then proceeded to build a dock.At that point,my father-in-law explained that every
spring his lawn began to look like a swimming pool.My father-in-law,Mr.Andretta,proceeded to have to
pay to build a draining system with a pump in his lawn that would take water and divert it to the lake.At
this point,the land is still extremely wet and swampy in the spring,it just doesn't look like a pond.It's just
so wet that you can't walk on it. He's sorry that he never turned in his neighbor,Philo,in the first place to
the town.He said that Mr.Philo did all the work himself so that he could rent out the dock in the summer.
I can't even imagine what will happen to his land if a 202E square-foot footprint home is built on that
property, along with IS14 square feet of paved,gravel,or other hard surface materials."We know that has
changed. "It would diminish the permeability of the land and create more water problems elsewhere.
Essentially it would be creating a hardship for my father-in-law. Also, given that they are trying to place
their new home closer to the Andretta property, and further away from the"wetlands"to the other side of
their property, doesn't make us happy either." Again, that has changed. "In essence,the owners want to
put their new home way too close to the lot line on the Andretta side of the property(9 feet instead of the
required 20 feet),way too close to the wetlands on the other side of the property(23 feet rather than the
required 50 feet) and way too close to the shoreline (32 feet rather than the required 50 feet). If you add
the Freyer's 1.66 acre parcel across the street to this.37 acre parcel,they would have 2.03 acres.They already
have one home on the property across Pulver Rd. They're asking to put a 2nd home on top of a piece of
property that was a swamp that the previous owners had filled in without permission. WR land is zoned
for 2 acres for one home dwelling. This is not a hardship case. We don't believe that this property is
suitable for a new home,and it will set a dangerous precedent for Queensbury in the future.You don't want
other people believing that they can fill in swamp land and be able to build a house on it later." And this
is from Laurel Andretta.
MR. TRAVER-And that's the extent of the written comments?
MRS. MOORE-So they were also present at the Zoning Board meeting, and as of right now they're not at
this meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well,with that we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Did you want to address any of the comments that are in the letters?
MR. JARRETT-I think the comments were raised by the Board. We've explained that we're
intercepting ng runoff so that it does not run to the neighbor and we're going to route it around away from
the neighbor. So that issue will not be exacerbated.
MRS. MOO RE-Also the APA had been to the site. I think you explained that.
MR.JARRE TT-The APA delineated the wetlands. That's correct,on both properties. That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-I find it interesting that there are no neighbors here. Usually in these type of situations the
neighbors pour in and most of the time they're anti,don't do this,don't do that.
MR. STEFANZIK-I don't think anyone's living nearby.
MR. DEE&Well,it's still close,it's still on the lake. So I just find that an interesting fact.
MR.JARRETT-There are quite a few neighbors on Pulver Road,quite a few people.
MR. DEEB-And none of them have expressed anti sentiments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Nothing further,then,from the Board? All right. Well I think the resolution we
have is a draft approval. So do you want to read that and we'll take a vote?
MR. STEFANZIK-Do you want to poll?
MRS. MOORE-You can poll the Board prior to making your vote if you wish,similar to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Sure,we can do that. Warren?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR. LONGACKER-I think they've done a nice job,I really do. I think the elimination,like I said, of the
garage,the decrease in impervious area,I think the plantings are nice. You really can't get that house much
narrower than that to make that house usable. I'm in favor of it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I think you know how I feel.
MR. STEFANZIK-I disagree with it. I'm sorry.
MR. TRAVER-I'm a no as well.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I'm a no.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have three to two. Where does that put us,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Effectively you're looking at like a no action, and then you would move for a denial,if you
used the motion that you typically do for approval and it didn't pass,then you'd have to make a motion for
denial.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-However,you're in a situation where you're missing two of your Board members. So you
could potentially,the applicant could request to be tabled and heard at a different time.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. All right. So we have no yet voted. You heard the poll, and we do not have
a full Board in front of us this evening, or in front of you I should say this evening. So hypothetically you
could request to be tabled.
MR.JARRE TT-The first question is,do you have any suggestions on what we can do? This is an existing
established lot that the owners have paid taxes on for years. Do you have any suggestions on what we can
do to satisfy your concerns?
MR. TRAVER-I saw actually in the minutes when I was doing my homework that you actually asked us
that question back in November and I think our response was we cannot make this our project. The only
thing I can say is that it would have to be something, I suppose it would have to be a smaller structure to
cut back on the setbacks. The issue, for me, aside from the seasonal flooding issue that was raised,you
have come up with a stormwater system on paper that certainly works. Our engineer's approved it. My
concern,in a Critical Environmental Area, are the variances for setbacks. So I don't know any way to get
around that. I mean there aren't a whole lot of shoreline properties on the lake that aren't developed. This
is one of them,and I don't know,I mean I can't offer you a specific suggestion except that for me personally,
and again I'm not speaking for the whole Board,but for me personally,the setbacks seem to me extreme in
a Critical Environmental Area. So if you can do something about reducing the setbacks, I know that's
maybe not practical for what you want to do for this particular property, but that's the only comment I
can give you.
MR.JARRETT-I'll let Jace address the house size in just a second,but if you go to Drawing EX-2 in your
package,it's in the actual Site Plan package. So right there, that sliver is 10 square feet in size. That is
the area of compliant site. Ten square feet is what's compliant on that property. So anything we do
requires setback variances.
MR. TRAVER-Understood.
MR.JARRETT-So,Jace,do you want to comment on the house design?
MR. BROWN-I think the Board can recognize that the effect to the neighborhood is an important one,
especially in this neighborhood. I think part of the reason that you're not seeing resistance is the fact that
it is a contextual design would be one point. The second point would be in order for the owner to achieve
the intended use of the property which as a single family home,there's two intergenerational parts to the
family. They need a certain number of bedrooms to accommodate their family. There is no functional
use to them without that number of bedrooms. The only other conceivable way of creating a more
compliant design in terms of the setbacks would be basically make it really long and thin. It would frankly
look like manufactured housing,which also wouldn't meet the Zoning Code. You need to have the house
have two bedrooms in width in order for this to work. There's really no way of making it much smaller.
The bedrooms are already approaching Code minimum. They wouldn't have functional capacity for the
client. I think it would create a hardship condition to request them to do something otherwise. Also the
setbacks themselves were approved. So I think the question is more on the environmental side. The
question would another design or another application be able to accommodate their functional needs in a
way that doesn't create undo stress, as already meted out by the engineering on the project.
S
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR. DEEB-If you re-design the building,how much more could you reduce the setbacks?
MR.BROWN-Inches.
MR. DEEB-Inches.
MR. TRAVER-It's reduced six inches from what we saw in November.
MR.DEEB-So I just want to go on record,this is a travesty. I really feel this is a travesty what we're doing
to these people,and the Zoning Board approves this thing,and we're saying to the Zoning Board,the heck
with you,we don't care if you approved it. The engineer signed off on it. We don't care. We, as a Board,
we're going to run these people's lives. Just because you feel it's overextended,and I think what this Board
is doing is wrong.
MR. TRAVER-So our next action is a motion. So we can either vote on,yes.
MR.JARRETT-I think we're going to ask for a tabling to decide how to handle this.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have a date that you would want us to table this to?
MR.JARRETT-No,I think we need to table it and really decide how to proceed. We'll get back to Laura
when we think we're ready to go.
MR.DEEB Just to throw it out,if an Article 7S was filed,I really think they'd have a good shot at winning.
MRS. MOORE-So do you wish to table to a March meeting or an April meeting? March's deadline has
past,but there's still room on the agenda,or do you want to move it out to April?
MR. DEEB-What can he do? He can't reduce the setbacks anymore. You guys aren't going to give in.
MRS. MOORE-Well,I think the applicant should table because there's not enough Board members.
MR. DEEB-I understand that.
MRS. MOORE-So,I understand what you're saying,but.
MR. TRAVER-For now,why don't we table to an April meeting?
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And that will give them,well, since we can't do a March meeting anyway. So let's do an
April meeting and then we'll take another look at it.
MRS. MOORE-So the first meeting in April.
MR.JARRETT-Laura,you said there was still room on March.
MRS. MOORE-There's still room on March's meetings.
MR.JARRETT-I would ask to table until March and then we can table again if we don't feel like we're
moving.
MRS. MOORE-So there's still room on March's meetings.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Which one?
MRS. MOORE-The first is fine.
MR. TRAVER-That would be March 19`h
MRS. MOORE-March 19`h
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.JARRETT-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I think the Board will accommodate that. So we have a tabling motion to the March 19`h
Planning Board meeting.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#73-2023 FWW 13-2023 LAUREN&CHRISTIAN FREYER
(Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,574 sq. ft..
The project includes associated site work for increased permeability, stormwater management and
shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across
Pulver Road and connecting to adjoining property by the same owner.Pursuant to Chapter 94,179-3-040,
179-6-065&179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline
and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 73-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 LAUREN &z
CHRISTIAN FREYER. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren
Longacker.
Tabled until the March 19,2024 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 27`h day of February 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT:Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark
MR.TRAVER-We'll see you next month. The next item on our agenda,also under Tabled Items,is Jeffrey
&Joanne Mann. This is Site Plan 5-2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN. AGENT(S):
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A.
LOCATION: 1551 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY
HOME WITH A 3,370 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, 1,060 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREAS, AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE NEW HOME WILL BE LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT AREA
THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED IN SUB 14-2022. THE NEW SITE WORK DISTURBANCE,
INCLUDING DRIVEWAY AND HOUSE, IS 1.7 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, WELL, AND SEPTIC LOCATION FOR THE HOME. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 147, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUS
APPROVAL AND DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN ONE ACRE IN THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
SUB (S) 14-2020, SUB (P) 5-2022, SUB (F) 14-2022, FWW 7-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
JANUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 11.57 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.
265.-1-23.11. SECTION: 179-3-040,147.
LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is to construct a single family home of 3,370 square foot,footprint. It
has a porch area of 1,060 square feet. It includes, this is new site work, disturbance including driveway
and house is 1.7 acres and in reference to this project,there was a subdivision approval in 2022 for this site.
It had the house in a slightly different location. The applicant has gone back and re-designed it to show
where the new home disturbance is to be and explained that the driveway is a bit different but still contains
similar grades.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Board. For the record Lucas Dobie with
Hutchins Engineering representing my clients Jeffrey &r Joanne Mann. Mr. Mann's a little under the
weather. Mrs.Mann is with us if we have anything that I can't answer,and also the site contractor,Ruben
Ellsworth, is with us tonight. We discussed this pretty extensively at the second meeting in January.
You asked us to tighten things up where we could, and address the Town Engineer comments which we
did. So we had another good crack at it if you will. Tightened the driveway up quite a bit. Most
significantly the first main turn,we pulled it back,if you will,to the north to stay off of a rather steep slope
to the south. So we were able to reduce our clearing and filling there quite a bit. So we're real happy with
that change. It simplifies the project somewhat for the driveway construction. The house location is the
same as we discussed in January,and our driveway grade is still the 120/o,which we feel is very manageable
for a mountainside driveway and by the numbers we reduced the clearing and disturbance. So our project
disturbance has been reduced,just about 9,000 square feet from where we were in January. So that's two-
tenths of an acre reduction in the grading and clearing for the project. We did do another good test pit for
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
our stormwater area down towards Bay Road and found beautiful sand there at over six feet. So we're
very happy with that result and it'll manage our stormwater very well and we did it, as we said,probably
the most significant that we addressed was the Town Engineer's comments and we received our signoff on
February 13`h, which just asked us to address three more small items at the staff level. So we're very
comfortable with that,feel we did a nice bit of business to wrap that up with the Town Engineer and we
listened to the Board to try to reduce our clearing and tighten up where we could, and with that I'd be
happy to answer any questions. We're here to ask for your approval tonight so they'd like to begin the
project as soon as they canto get a nice start on the building season here. Thank you for your time tonight,
and thank you, Staff and everybody, for getting us back on,because we were on in January and you were
able to get back on in February. We didn't lose our two months there. So I appreciate that. Thank you
for your time tonight,Board.
MR.TRAVER-Well,thank you for that update,and congratulations. I think you did better to improve the
project overall than we thought, either of us thought that last month would be possible. So I think
congratulations are in order there. It is an improved project,while keeping the basic scope of what it was
you were trying to achieve. So that's good. We looked at this pretty thoroughly originally in January. I
think the improvements are fairly good as you describe. I guess I'd open it up for questions, comments
from members of the Board.
MR. STEFANZIK-Do you expect to have to do any blasting for your clearing of the driveway?
MR. DOBIE-There's a few spots that there's some rock. We're hoping not to. We're hoping it's going to
be loose and be able to dig a bunch of the big boulders with it,good sized excavator,but I won't guarantee
that there's not a little bit,here and there,of blasting. It's our goal not to,for financial reasons and impacts
obviously.
MR. STEFANZIK-Right.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So in a storm where it's just like one of those bursting things where you're getting
inches of water over a very small amount of time,the velocity of that water going down the driveway and
into,it'll go into a culvert that goes across Bay Road. Is that right?
MR. DOBIE-No. Let me explain, Mrs. McDevitt. Our design on this,we put a nice three foot wide,two
foot deep almost a riprap kind of stone as a trench on both sides of the driveway. So it's not a V-ditch.
These work really well, are cobble trenches which the water can get into those and under most
circumstances it's going to dissipate. For your point,for the large storm events,certainly the water's going
to travel through those trenches down towards Bay Road and into our storm pond down at the bottom,
which has a pre-treatment area and then it'll have a little stowaway into an infiltration basin with a large
stone trench in that to soak it up. So we design to a 100 year storm is a six inch rainfall which is a lot of
water.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Do you use a,in that calculation,do you use a calculation of error?
MR. DOBIE-We do not count infiltration that will occur in those trenches, the natural infiltration. We
don't count that. We assume the whole house,driveway and the up gradient area to the north of the house
is coming to the storm pond and in the calculations,I believe we use,this is getting a little technical,but
about six inches,I'd have to look,I believe six inches of infiltration per hour,whereas our soil testing with
this sand, exhibits much more, it will realize much more infiltration than that. So there is, we're quite
conservative in our calculations for storm design. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-One of the concerns with a large event as she was describing is the, especially on a steep
slope,is the velocity of the water and cobblestone trenches,as you describe,really slow that velocity down,
as I understand the mechanism, so that you don't get the tremendous volume flow because of that stone
trench. Is that correct?
MR. DOBIE-That's correct, Mr. Chairman, as opposed to a normal V-Dish if you will that's basically a
conduit with an open channel flow. We feel that this trench design,because it's hitting all the rock all the
time going through to slow it down.
MRS. MC DEVITT-And you said that also prevents a lot of the other kinds of leaves,twigs,all that sort of
thing,from going also down there? Did I hear you say that?
MR. DOBIE-I don't think, I don't recall saying that,but to your point,ma'am,they'll sit at the surface of
the trench. There is a little bit of maintenance to clean those out,but it won't get down in the bottom of
a like a traditional ditch and plug it up.
MR. TRAVER-Again because of the rock nature of the design.
MR. DOBIE-That's correct,sir.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on
this application. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address Site Plan 5-2024 with the Planning
Board? I'm not seeing any takers in the audience. Written comments,Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-No written comment.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions, discussions that Planning Board members wish to have
before we consider a resolution? All right. Good. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#5-2024 JEFFREY&r JOANNE MANN
Applicant proposes to construct a single family home with a 3,370 sq.ft.footprint,1,060 sq.ft.porch/deck
areas, and associated site work. The new home will be located in a different area than what was approved
in SUB 14-2022.The new site work disturbance,including driveway and house,is 1.7 acres.Project includes
stormwater management, well, and septic location for the home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 147,
site plan review for modification of previous approval and disturbance greater than one acre in the Lake
George Basin 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 1/23/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 2/27/2024 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 2/27/2024;
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 5-2024 JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN,- Introduced by Fritz
Stefanzick who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/
construction details,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal;
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 year expiration date on 2/27/2025-1
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;
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
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
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of February 2024 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. DEEB-Thank you,Lucas.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much.
MR. DEEB-I'm sure your client will be happy.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Francis & Cindy
Steciuk,Site Plan 6-2024.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. FRANCIS &z CINDY STECIUK. AGENT(S):
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLC. OWNER(S): FRANCIS J. STECIUK REV.
LIVING TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 374 GLEN LAKE ROAD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES EXTENSIVE HOUSE RENOVATIONS INCLUDING REMOVAL OF THE HOME,
CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONS AND A NEW ROOF. THE EXISTING HOME HAS A
FOOTPRINT OF 1,162 SQ.FT.,171 SQ.FT. OF DECK/PORCH AREAS AND A DETACHED 783 SQ.
FT. GARAGE. THE GARAGE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE ADDITION WILL BE 242 SQ.
FT. INCREASING THE CURRENT 1,945 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA TO 2,357 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT
WORK INCLUDES NEW PATIO AREAS,SEPTIC SYSTEM,SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS FOR
ACCESS, EROSION CONTROL AND IMPROVED VEGETATED BUFFER. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-6-065, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE
INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-46.
SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065.
BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The application is for extensive house renovations, including removing a portion of the
home, constructing additions and a new roof. The existing footprint is 1,162 with 171 square foot porch
and deck area and a detached garage that remains unchanged. The addition will be 242 square foot
increasing the current floor area to 2,357 square feet. The additions themselves, one's to the north side,
3S6 square feet,and then on the south side is a 170 square foot addition. The applicant did receive setback
variances as well as permeability. If I remember,permeability wasn't actually required. So they received
their variances that they requested.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here
representing Francis and Cindy Steciuk. The project is at 374 Glen Lake Road. This is a currently
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
developed site. It has a single family dwelling as well as an attached garage. As Laura can explain it,
probably you saw last week before the Zoning Board meeting,we are proposing to kind of modernize the
property. So there's an existing kind of storage area on the north side of the house. They're planning on
tearing that off and then constructing an addition on that side to kind of create a master suite,and then on
the south side proposing to put a small addition in order to improve the entry into the home, and then
they're also re-modeling the interior,the exterior as well with new siding,changing the roof lines. Kind of
give an overall better look to the dwelling unit. Since we're adding a bedroom we are proposing a new
septic system. The existing one's actually under the driveway now which is not typically ideal. So I think
this will be abetter situation. We'll put it out into the yard area. Soils are great,and then as far as other
improvements to the property,on the lakeside of the home now there's an existing deck structure. They're
going to tear that off,going to do a permeable paver patio area that'll be their outdoor space on the lakeside
of the house for gathering, and then as you get to the shoreline,right now there are timber retaining walls
down there. They're starting to fall apart, so they're looking at improving that whole shoreline area. So
they're going to tear out those timber walls, put natural stone walls, improve their access to the dock.
Right now it's kind of a wooden ramp. It's a little too steep, that goes down to there, with a concrete
landing. So they're going to get rid of that,put natural stone steps,a little permeable paver landing at the
bottom of it,and for dock access and lake access as well. We actually,this requires a DEC permit for the
shoreline improvements. We went up, sat down and actually met with DEC over it. They are very in
favor of projects like this that improve the shoreline stabilization and plant native species along that
shoreline as well. So we've got an application in to them now. We're kind of waiting for any comments,
but they seem to be in favor of it overall. So we got the variances last week. There was a permeable area
variance,too,which I think was kind of,I don't know if we needed or not,so we're here tonight to address
the Site Plan Review. So I'll open it back up to you guys if you have any questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I don't believe there were any changes in your proposal from your
discussion with the ZBA. Is that correct?
MR. FERGUSON-That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. STEFANZIK-I do think it's a nice design what you did to the house, going from two bedroom, one
bath to three bedrooms,two baths but pretty much staying in the same footprint. So I think that's pretty
nice. So the comment I had I think you addressed about the protection of waters. That should be no issue
getting?
MR.FERGUSON-No.. I mean,like I said,we went up there and met with the Director,their main Director
up there as well as a couple of their engineers and they were definitely in favor of this.
MR. STEFANZIK-One question I did have last week is that paver patio on the shoreline, when you're
developing the base for that,will that end up being below the high water line of the lake?
MR. FERGUSON-It'll be slightly above the high water line, with the stone underneath it you're talking
about?
MR. STEFANZIK-Correct.
MR. FERGUSON-Really that area only requires six inches of stone, underneath the pavers. It doesn't
have any traffic load. Usually under driveways you have twelve inches of stone underneath the pavers.
You could probably get away with four. It's just foot traffic. So we can keep the stone base underneath
that quite thin in order to try to increase the distance to the maximum extent possible to the mean high
watermark. Just because of how that works with the lake having access to the dock. So they're going to
walk down those steps and they kind of get a little bit of a landing area to either,one,access the water,or,
two, get onto the dock. So they've got some kind of flat area right there. I think if we were trying to do
grass or something it would be hard to even maintain, weed whacking it. I think this will give a more
stable kind of landing for them that won't get destroyed.
MR. STEFANZIK-And I think there was another comment by a Board member about a maintenance plan
for the permeable pavers.
MR. FERGUSON-A maintenance plan,yes,we usually have one on the plan set. Yes, on the plan set we
do have our typical maintenance schedule,required maintenance schedule for the permeable pavers as well
as the installation guidelines,and I know that most of these proj ects now require a maintenance agreement,
and that's fine. We can definitely enter a maintenance agreement with the Town.
MR.TRAVER-Other questions,comments from the Board before we go to public hearing? Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan 6-2024? I'm not seeing any.
Written comments,Laura?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-Back to the Board members. Are there any comments? Are we ready to review an approval
motion? All right. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#6-2024 FRANCIS&CINDY STECIUK
Applicant proposes extensive house renovations including removing portions of the home, constructing
additions and a new roof. The existing home has a footprint of 1,162 sq. ft., 171 sq. ft. of deck/porch areas,
and a detached 7S3 sq. ft. garage. The garage to remain unchanged. The addition will be 242 sq. ft.,
increasing the current 1,945 sq. ft. floor area to 2,357 sq. ft.. The project work includes new patio areas,
septic system,shoreline modifications for access,erosion control and improved vegetated buffer.Pursuant
to chapter 179-3-040 &r 179-6-065, site plan for new floor area and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the
shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure 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;
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 2/21/2024-1 the ZBA
approved the variance requests on 2/21/2024 1-
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/27/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 2/27/2024 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 2/27/2024;
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 6-2024 FRANCIS &z CINDY STECIUK Introduced by Fritz
Stefanzick who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,r.
construction/demolition disposal,s. snow removal;
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 year expiration date of 2/27/2025-1
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.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
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
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of February 2024 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. FERGUSON-All right. Thank you guys very much.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also under Old Business,is Michael Shearer. This is Site Plan
8-2024.
SITE PLAN NO.8-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL SHEARER. AGENT(S) RU HOLMES
ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 RUSSELL
HARRIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,358 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1, 752 SQ.
FT. THE EXISTING 548 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 164 SQ. FT. SHED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED.
NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING GARDEN BEDS AND TREES. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES UTILIZING THE CURRENT SEPTIC SYSTEM AND MINIMAL
DISTURBANCE AS THE NEW HOME'S PLACEMENT WILL BE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE
PREVIOUS HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 170-6-050, 179-6-065 &z 147, 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 AND STORMWATER DEVICE. PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 33-2011,SP 36-2011,AV 30-2019,SP 42-2019,AV 7-2024. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.27
ACRES. TAX MAP NO.240.5-1-6. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-050,179-6-065,147.
BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; MICHAEL SHEARER,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new 1,358 square foot
footprint with a floor area of 1,752 square feet. The existing garage of 548 square feet and the shed of 164
square feet are to remain. The applicants did receive their variances. This includes setback for the
building and then setback for the stormwater device. Other than that,there's no other.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR.HOLMES-Good evening,Mr.Chairman. Again,Robert Holmes for R U Holmes Engineers. I'm joined
by Mr. Shearer and his wife Gabby. Just to continue the discussion,just as a refresher, we are replacing
an existing three bedroom residence with a new three bedroom residence. The footprint of the new
residence will only be 49 square feet larger,but we will have an overall reduction in impervious cover,by
we're changing up some of the walkways and patio areas. As Laura indicated we were before the Zoning
Board last week as well. Those variances were granted, and just a comment on that, that we, while
variances were granted,we were improving setbacks to all the side lots and for the new building compared
to the old. So while still technically variances, we are making improvements across the board. That's
what I've got. If the Board has any questions,we'll certainly entertain them.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR. TRAVER-Were there any changes to your proposal based on your review at the ZBA, or is this the
same?
MR.HOLMES-This is the same you had. I will say this,I know,Mr.Chairman,you made likely,assuming
the Board proceeds with an approval, a condition certainly will be that we have signoff from the Town
Designated Engineer. We have responded to those comments. A submission has been given to the
Planning Office and presumably they've gone to LaBella and the clock is ticking on LaBella at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,okay. All right. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. STEFANZIK-That increased footprint,49 square feet,is that a foundation?
MR. HOLMES-Well,it's a little bit,it has to do more probably with the steps going into the residence as
much as anything.
MR. STEFANZIK-So that's on the road side,not on the lakeside?
MR. HOLMES-Yes, the steps that I'm referring to are on the road side. I will say this, you know, it's
probably a little bit of give and take in the corner here versus there, just the overall footprint hasn't
changed,just the 49 square feet, and I wanted to make sure we could account for that by reducing the
pervious cover otherwise.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 8-2024? I'm not seeing
anyone in the audience. Are there written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any questions,comments from the Board before we go to a motion?
MR. STEFANZIK-Ready to go?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 8-2024 MICHAEL SHEARER
Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new 1,358 sq. ft. footprint home with a
floor area of 1,752 sq.ft.The existing 54 8 sq.ft.garage and 164 sq.ft.shed to remain unchanged.No changes
are proposed for the existing garden beds and trees.The project includes utilizing the current septic system
and minimal disturbance as the new home's placement will be similar to that of the previous home.
Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040,179-6-050,179-6-065&147,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard
surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 2/21/2024-1 the ZBA
approved the variance requests on 2/21/2024 1-
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/27/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 2/27/2024 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 2/27/2024;
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 8-2024 MICHAEL SHEARER; Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick
who moved for its adoption.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
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 year expiration date of 2/27/2025-1
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
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of February 2024 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR.HOLMES-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Drew Ziehnert. This
is Site Plan 9-2024 and Special Use Permit 1-2024.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2024 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DREW
ZIEHNERT. OWNER(S): FRANK PARILLO. ZONING: RR-5A,LC-42A,LC-10A. LOCATION:
2036 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW USE AT AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA
FOR RENTAL OF 1 DOCK AND 2 PARKING SPACES IN ORDER TO OPERATE A FISHING
CHARTER. THE ZIEHNERT CHARTER IS ALREADY APPROVED TO OPERATE ON LAKE
GEORGE BY THE LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION. THE LOCATION ALLOWS FOR
CLIENT PICKUP,OPERATING A MAXIMUM OF 2 TRIPS PER DAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-3-040 &z 179-10-040, SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CLASS A MARINA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: UV 98-1989, SUP 3-2004, SUP 32-2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
FEBRUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 24.77 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO.252.-1-65. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040.
DREW ZIEHNERT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application is to use an existing Class a Marina for rental of one dock and a couple
of parking spaces to operate a fishing charter. The applicant has identified the location where the potential
parking area is and the docks that are being rented. The applicant did receive, recently we had, the
property owner was able to sign that. The Marina itself is operated by the son. The property's owned by
the father. So was addressed. The Special Use Permit criteria has been addressed. The applicant has
been working with the Lake George Park Commission. They already have operational approval to operate.
This is just adding a location for them to operate out of, and then in reference to the Special Use Permit
also,the applicant requests a permanent use.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Good evening. My name is Drew Ziehnert. I'm the owner of Ziehnert Guide Service,
LLC. Basically we were approved to guide last year,but we were picking up our clients from the Flamingo
resort, and so now we'd basically just like to go out of Dunham's Bay. Last year the agreement was that
I'd launch my boat from Dunham's Bay, but I had to drive somewhere else to pick them up, and then go
fishing from the Lake George Park Commission's. So this year it would be nice to just pick them up right
there. So that's pretty much.
MR. TRAVER-And the salmon numbers are finally coming up.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And it's a pre-existing marina. So you're not adding anything. It's really just utilizing that
space to access your charter.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And that's up to two times a day. Right?
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes. I talked to the owner, Frank Parillo, and we agreed to two times a day and two
parking spaces.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MC DEVITT-And that's no more parking spaces than would normally be offered for that space. Is
that right?
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-So you said it's the second or third dock from the bridge?
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes. It should be the second or third dock.
MR. STEFANZIK-I did happen to look at it. They're pretty beaten up.
MR. ZIEHNERT-The docks?
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes, I mean there's part of the side, there's a supporting structure that holds it, that's
falling apart,and the third one needs some work,too.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-That's a safety concern. Hopefully that gets done before.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes. We haven't made an official agreement on where it's going to be. That was the
idea,just easier to have people kind of park and go right there. So hopefully that gets addressed before the
season starts.
MR. STEFANZIK-Who would be responsible for that,you or the owner?
MR. ZIEHNERT-To fix the docks?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Hopefully the owner, but I'd be willing to help him make whatever adjustments are
necessary to fix that.
MR. TRAVER Just to clarify that,according to what we are looking at this evening,since he's not looking
to own the property,the dock,that would be the owner's responsibility.
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes, I agree. Just, if we're issuing a permit,just from a safety standpoint, we're not
issuing permits for a hazardous dock.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Understandable. Good point.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Can I just ask a question? In offering this,does it open the door to other,commercial
types of businesses?
MRS.MOORE-So it doesn't offer,so,yes,in the sense is offers other marina operations type that are related
to that. So it would also be in coordination with the Lake George Park Commission. So typically the
Park Commission won't issue their final signoff until the local community has done that,but most times
an applicant will approach the Park Commission first. So there's a lot of discussion between the Park
Commission and our office to make sure the applicant is following the process correctly. So I don't know
what types of additional marina uses,but they would apply through the same process.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So I just wondered if it opened the door for charters,that type of thing.
MRS. MOORE-It's already open.
MR. TRAVER-It's nothing new.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-It was existing prior to this application.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MR. TRAVE R-There's a public hearing on this application,but there's no public. So I guess I'd just ask
if there's any written comments,Laura.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are some written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And,I apologize,there is a gentleman in the back. Did you wish to comment?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-No comment.
MR. TRAVER-I didn't see you walk in. Go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-So this is addressed to Mr. Traver. We are writing this letter in opposition to Site Plan 9-
2024 and Special Use Permit 1-2024 submitted by Drew Ziehnert (Ziehnert Guide Service, LLC) seeking
to operate a tour boat fishing charter from the Dunham's Bay Marina. What is being proposed is another
money making venture that will only harm Dunham's Bay. This proposal ignores the fact that Dunham's
Bay is a "Zone Over Capacity" as stated in the 2015 Lake George Park Commission Recreation Study.
Despite the Dunham's Bay Association and individual residents' objections,new tour boat and Boat Club
ventures received LGPC approval. These approvals have exponentially increased boat traffic in Dunham's
Bay. Mr. Ziehnert has been operating a charter boat fishing business out of the Flamingo Resort, where
there are no over-capacity issues. The proposed change from dock rental to a fishing charter business will
increase the number of trips in and out of the bay. Dunham's Bay Marina doesn't offer rental boats (see
dunhamsbaymarina.coml; it only rents boat docks to individual boat owners. The aforementioned
recreation study found that individuals renting docks on Lake George used their boat an average of 2 times
a week(one trip out and a return trip). Mr. Ziehnert is proposing 2 trips a day(out and in) for a total of
2S trips a week. Consequently, this proposed modification to fishing charter boat usage would produce
another significant increase in boat traffic and contribute to shoreline erosion. The Town of Queensbury,
beginning with Supervisor Ron Montessi and continuing with the leadership of Supervisor John Strough,
along with the full support of the Town Board has worked with the residents of Dunham's Bay to support
measures to improve and maintain the water quality of Dunham's Bay over the past decade. Legislation
was recently passed mandating septic system inspections for all Dunham's Bay properties even before the
Lake George Park Commission instituted its'inspection program.Dunham's Bay residents have voluntarily
imposed a yearly property tax in order to fund inspections and other water quality initiatives.We are doing
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
our best to preserve the ecology of Lake George. We're asking for your help to do the same by
acknowledging and addressing "Over Capacity" in Dunham's Bay. One officer of the Dunham's Bay
Association commented after the LGPC approved a daily tour boat operation in the bay that we were
experiencing"death by a thousand cuts." We urge you to deny this money making business venture which
will only benefit one individual to the detriment of Dunham's Bay. Respectfully submitted Barbara and
Lenton Simms" This letter, this is addressed to me. The writer says, "I have several comments on the
proposed application for the Zoning Board. I am a resident in Dunham's Bay, I don't have a problem with
one fishing guide boat,but I hope this isn't an incremental approach to keep adding guide boats. I feel a
larger number of boats could lead to other potential problems in the bay. I strongly agree with Mr.
Ziehnert's statement in the permit the business will not be fishing in Dunham's Bay. Also, I expect that
these boats will obey the 5 MPH speed limit in the Bay and help keep the bay clean. There are several
boats every summer that launch and think the 5 MPH speed limit ends once they pass under the Route 9L
bridge. The 5 MPH speed limit extends out to the buoys at the mouth of the bay. A shining example of a
business in the Bay that has embraced the 5 MPH speed limit and the cleanliness of the Bay is the Queen
Boat Company. They have demonstrated how to be a business and a very good neighbor. Thank you very
much. Henry Butkiewicz" I think that's it. I'm going to look for one more as you chat because I think
there's another one.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the 5 mile per hour speed limit,I'm confident that you will obey that. As to the
previous letter where they were concerned about increasing boat traffic,you are not adding a dock to the
facility. Correct?
MR. ZIEHNERT-No,sir.
MR. TRAVER-So let me ask you, if you are not utilizing that dock, would it be rented to another boat
owner?
MR. ZIEHNERT-It's my understanding it's my dock for the season.
MR.TRAVER-And theoretically another boat owner may go out into the lake more than you're proposing,
twice a day. Correct?
MR.ZIEHNERT-One hundred percent,sir. I've also been launching out of Dunham's Bay last year for two
times a day every time and no one's complained. I've also operated in the five mile per hour zone. I've also
reached out to the Dunham's Bay Association in an effort to say,hey, I'd love to guide on the lake. They
never said anything to me, never got an e-mail back. Nothing. I tried my best to reach out to them to
make sure I was doing everything properly and they just never reached back.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MRS. MC DEVITT-I mean all I can say is twice a day I don't see that as a big problem,but I can see that if
there's an increased number of this type of request and activity that you could create a real problem in
Dunham's Bay.
MR. TRAVER-And that would be us.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So, in making a concession for one, we're not obliged to give that concession to
someone else.
MR. TRAVER-Certainly not.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So I did find another letter. So if you don't mind I'll read this one.
MR. TRAVER-Sure,go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-This is actually from the Dunham's Bay Association. It says "Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on Site Plan 9-2024 and Special Use Permit 1-2024 submitted by Drew Ziehnert
(Ziehnert Guide Service, LLC) seeking to operate a tour boat fishing charter from the Dunham's Bay
Marina. I'm writing on behalf of the Officers, Board of Directors and membership of the Dunham's Bay
Association, an organization of over 60 Dunham's Bay area property owners and their families formed to
address matters affecting Lake George and our bay. As you are aware,the Dunham's Bay Association has
ongoing concerns with the extraordinarily high summertime activity from the 3 Class A Dunham's Bay
marinas with approximately 300 (244 seasonal and boat club berths,25 quick launch and 25 day launch)
combined with more than 100 boats on lakefront cottage docks resulting in extremely heavy boat traffic in
and out of Dunham's Bay as well as corresponding pedestrian, traffic and parking issues on land. This
concern frames our response to these applications. The 2015 Lake George Recreation Study "...found that
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
individual boaters with annual registrations used their boat an average of once per week over a three-hour period for 10 weeks.
Rental boats on Lake George are typically rented out 3 times per day for a period of 2-3 hours during peak use days throughout
the summer.The average marina that offers 19 boat rentals would have the potential to generate 57 boat trips in one day."
This Special Use Permit would modify usage from motorized boat rental (in and out 3 times daily) to
charter vessel/tour boat for fishing charters (in and out twice daily). Using the 2015 Lake George
Recreation Study methodology this would predict a 33 percent reduction in boat traffic. However, the
Dunham's Bay Marina currently only rents docks to individual boat and does not offer rental boats (see
dunhamsbaymarina.coml. Consequently,this proposed modification would actually mean a 1300 percent
increase in boat traffic (2 trips vs 2S trips per week) using the 2015 Lake George Recreation Study
methodology. On hot and busy summer days when boating activity is high, the Dunham's Bay Marina
parking lot overflows forcing vehicles with trailers to park partially in the roadway reducing Bay Road to
a single lane(see photo attached).The proposed modification will also add to that problem.The 2015 Lake
George Recreation Study identified Dunham's Bay as a"Zone Over Capacity". Nonetheless,since then,the
Town of Queensbury and the LGPC have approved the conversion of 20 "slip rentals" to "motorized boat
rentals" for the Freedom Boat Club, and approved a new tour boat at the Dunham's Bay Boat and Beach
Club. Based upon the material presented,the Dunham's Bay Association feels the proposed fishing charter
operation will only exacerbate the already excessively high level of activity within the bay and we cannot
support these applications. Sincerely,Peter Lempert,President,Dunham's Bay Association"
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Any other written comments?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. So you reached out to them. You
heard nothing. Now you've heard a letter from them. Any response?
MR.ZIEHNERT-You know I just wish they had discussed it with me instead of just going to you guys and
just saying,hey,you know,or got the chance to know me or looked at my background. I built this business.
I was going to be a high school English teacher a few years ago. I graduated from Sienna College and while
I was student teaching I started this guide business and it blew up and, you know, I grew up on Lake
George. My grandparents owned a house on Warner Bay for years. They just sold it and retired to
Arizona. This is the lake I want to be on. We have 167 five star reviews right across the board right now.
I do everything I can for this business to make sure it runs properly. There's just not a ton of marinas on
Lake George,when I was doing the process,you know,that will approve a charter boat,and Frank is giving
me an opportunity to really make this work, and like I said,last season I was already going in and out of
there with no complaints, and this will only,you know, I can't see them having an issue with it,if I just
have a few, and the client is only four people,you know,so it's really not too many people going in and out
of the bay at once. If anything having me take people out that would be fishing,you know,not knowing
complete boater skills out on the lake,is safer,in my opinion.
MR. TRAVER-I agree with you there.
MR. DEEB-You have four people as a charter?
MR. ZIEHNERT-Four people as a max.
MR. DEEB-And you were coming in to get them to Dunham's Bay last year?
MR. ZIEHNERT-No.
MR. DEEB-You picked them up there and brought them.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Flamingo,had to pick them up at Flamingo.
MR. DEEB-You had to pick them up at Flamingo,but there's only four?
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes.
MR. DEEB-So maximum of four cars.
MR. ZIEHNERT-The maximum is two cars,four people.
MR. TRAVER-There's only two parking spaces.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Yes,two parking spaces.
MR. DEEB-Okay. All right.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? We have a draft resolution.
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#9-2024 SUP 1-2024 DREW ZIEHNERT
Applicant proposes a new use at an existing Class A Marina for rental of 1 dock and 2 parking spaces in
order to operate a fishing charter. The Ziehnert Charter is already approved to operate on Lake George by
the Lake George Park Commission. The location allows for client pick up,operating a maximum of 2 trips
per day. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&r 179-10-040,site plan and special use permit for modification of
a Class A Marina 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 2/27/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 2/27/2024 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 2/27/2024;
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 9-2024&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2024 DREW ZIEHNERT;
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request 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:
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 year expiration date of 2/27/2025-1
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.
h) Special Use Permit is to be permanent.
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of February 2024 by the following
vote:
MR.TRAVER-Okay,and there was also a Special Use Permit request that we grant that permanent status.
Does anyone have any issues with that? Okay. Is that,I didn't see that in the draft resolution.
MRS. MOORE-It's the last line of the resolution. It's on the one I have, Page Two. It says,under Letter
H it says Special Use Permit is to be either temporary,renewable or permanent.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right..
MRS. MOORE-And you just would say permanent.
MR. STEFANZIK-So we need to decide on which one.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they're requesting permanent,and I'm not hearing any objection to that. If there
was any change they'd have to come back to us anyway.
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. ZIEHNERT-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening?
MRS. MOORE-There's no other business, but I just want to address a procedural item that sometimes
comes up, specifically when a Board goes through and doesn't find a motion that would move through its
process, either for approval or denial. What I would suggest to the Board,if I saw that occurring,is that
you would table that motion. If you were moving as a group for a denial, I would suggest that you
communicate with Town Counsel or you address Staff to work with Town Counsel to come up with a
denial motion. Just because there's certain situations that will arise and I just want to make sure that
you're aware of the process that you would be following.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you for that,Laura.
MRS. MC DEVITT-So you're saying before the meeting we would?
MRS.MOORE-No,not at all. Just potentially say the process that occurred this evening,there's a process,
it didn't move forward,that I would give you guidance during the meeting saying,hey,it looks like we need
to table this project. I think you, as a Board, would give me direction to work with Town Counsel to
process drafting a motion that is either a denial or approval and you would give that guidance to me or
actually right through the Site Plan criteria and give me some ideas of what is,why you're approving it or
why you're not approving it. So you can go right through the Site Plan guidelines.
MR. STEFANZIK-That's a good idea,so it doesn't get out of hand.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So hypothetically if we had an application,for example,that we thought was too extreme
for like a Critical Environmental Area or something,and the only motion we have is an approval motion.
MRS. MOORE-So it's a denial or approval on it.
MR. TRAVER-But what we would do is not approve it and then we would have basically not take any
action at that point, and at that point we would then table the application pending a drafting of a,if we
polled the Board and we were looking at a denial,we would then table the application pending a draft,or
another resolution from Counsel.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions on that from members of the Board?
MR. STEFANZIK-That's a good idea.
MRS. MOORE-It saves you some legalities.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. If there's nothing else,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY
27",2024,Introduced by Ellen McDevitt who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/27/2024)
Duly adopted this 27`h day of February,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned,everybody. Thank you very much.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
25