06-25-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 25, 2013
INDEX
Site Plan No. 28-2013 Christine Lecce 1.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-86
Site Plan No. 22-2013 Whispering Pines Association 3.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-39
Site Plan No. 29-2013 Keith&Kelly Harris 7.
Tax Map No. 265.4-32,44
Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development, LLC 9.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No.48-2012 Steven&Jennifer Kitchen 13.
Freshwater Wetlands 3-2012 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Special Use Permit No. 3-2012 Robert L. Perkins 23.
Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.1,4.4
Site Plan No. 27-2013 Mark Gignac&Helen Levendos 29.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-8
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 25, 2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,ACTING CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS,SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
BRAD MAGOWAN
DAVID DEEB
GEORGE FERONE,ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday, June 25th. There are agendas on the table at the rear of the room. They can
help you with looking at issues that we'll be having public comment tonight, and I see from our
agenda that all of the applications in front of us this evening do have public content. There are
several for which the public comment remains open from previous reviews and we've received
extensive public comment on that. On those I'm only going to allow new information to be before
the Board. So, with that, we don't have any Administrative Items this evening. We have the first
application for Christine Lecce.
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SITE PLAN 28-2013 SEQR TYPE II CHRISTINE LECCE AGENT(S) LOU LECCE OWNER(S)
SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 208 LAKE
PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 676 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE
IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 38-07, BP 10-158,
BP 08-467, BP 06-521, BP 06-005 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2013 APA,CEA,OTHER L G
PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-86 SECTION 179-5-060
LOU LECCE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.TRAVER-Laura,do you want to give us an update on that?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. This application is for a boathouse, or a sundeck, rather. Applicant proposes
construction of a 676 square foot sundeck, and this is under the Planning Board Expedited Review
and no SEQR is required.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LECCE-How are you?
MR.TRAVER-Good.
MR. LECCE-My name is Lou Lecce. I represent Christine Lecce,who's my wife. I'm the lawyer and
husband. This is a request for a sundeck over an existing structure that we built I think about three
or four years,we put a new dock in and we're asking for a 676 square foot sundeck built on top of it.
MR.TRAVER-So back in 2010 you put a new dock in?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. LECCE-Yes. That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-I'll bet now you wish you'd thought about putting the sundeck on back in 2010
instead of having to re-design it now.
MR. LECCE-Correct. Probably should have done it then.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. LECCE-There's a slight error in the notice. You talk about removing an existing boathouse top.
There's no top on that dock.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. LECCE-That was the old dock.
MRS.MOORE-That's the old dock.
MR. LECCE-Now that we built the new one,there's no upper section being taken down.
MR. FORD-This is a new top.
MR. LECCE-This is a new top.
MR. FORD-On a new deck?
MR. LECCE-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. So 16 feet,that's within parameters.
MR. FORD-At no point will it exceed that,correct?
MR. LECCE-Correct. It's probably going to be lower.
MR.TRAVER-Probably lower. You understand that's the limit,the height limit?
MR. LECCE-Yes, I understand that,yes.
MR.TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. LECCE-No.
MR.TRAVER-Do members of the Board have questions or comments on this?
MR. FORD-No, I have none. Other than the one I just asked.
MR. KREBS-It's pretty straightforward.
MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt, too. You do need to open your public hearing and close your public
hearing prior. I apologize.
MR.TRAVER-All right. Are there members of the audience that would like to make public comment
on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.TRAVER-Seeing none,hearing none,are there any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR.TRAVER-Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 28-2013 CHRISTINE LECCE
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 676 sq.ft.sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning
Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II-no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2013 CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) 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;
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR.TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. LECCE-Have a good night. Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING OR PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN:
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATION AGENT(S)
RICHARD JONES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 WEEKS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 32' X 24' SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES TO HOUSE EXISTING
CONTAINERS FOR TRASH AND RECYCLING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN AN MDR ZONE
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 22-13, SV 72-
01,BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2013 LOT SIZE 15.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-
39 SECTION 179-5-020
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Richard Jones, the builder.
After you guys recommended the variance last week, we went to the Zoning Board and they
unanimously approved it. We had a nice discussion. They viewed this as a real improvement.
The pictures sort of tell the whole story here. This was what's there now and what's permitted to
remain. This is what's proposed, which two of these structures, this is existing in Syracuse,
$35,000,which I questioned my clients because that's a lot, and it's because there's a lot of concrete
work underneath so that the trucks can back in. So they have to do, you know, subsurface front as
well.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. FORD-Those trucks, I'm sure,are pretty heavy with their contents.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, go in, pull it out. We had a pretty full discussion with the one neighbor who's
behind. The Board ultimately said this is better for her because, right now, looking at the back of
the dumpsters for noise,odor and just visual that,you know,this is a$70,000 improvement that no
one's asking them to make that they're doing to just clean the place up,and I think I showed you last
time the issue with the neighbor's property is here with the blue tarp, which my clients would
rather wasn't there, if there was any way to work that out, only because it's pretty unsightly, and
they had, Jim Valente who was here, but is away tonight, one of the owners, one of the Valente
brothers, told a story at the Zoning Board that he had allowed them to bring a crane onto his
property so that she could take down the trees, which was a buffer, but she decided she wanted to
take down the buffer a few years ago. Now has replaced it with the tarp which is just, you know,
something that shouldn't be permitted, but it is. So, we just view this as an improvement for her
and for everybody else.
MR.TRAVER-Have there been discussions with her since this plan,well, of course it hasn't formally
been approved yet,but have you in anticipation?
MR. LAPPER-There was a discussion in the parking lot,but it didn't really conclude.
MR.TRAVER-I see. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. LAPPER-1 know she's here tonight to speak.
MR. FORD-I'd like to hear from the public first,personally.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We will open the public hearing. Are there members of the
audience that would like to speak to the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-I'll just ask. She also prepared a written statement. Do you want to read that for the
record? Okay.
MARIE HALLINAN
MS. HALLINAN-I just wanted to respond to this.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ma'am. Could you just state your name for the record, please, just for
the minutes.
MS. HALLINAN-Okay. Marie Hallinan. I live at 19 June Drive, the property directly south of
Whispering Pines, southeast corner where one of the proposed buildings is planned. This has all
been approved by the Board. There have been issues over the years. I did have a very nicely
wooded area. It afforded me wonderful privacy during the summertime for six months of the year,
and in the wintertime,unfortunately when the leaves came off the trees,there was no privacy, and
there were a series of, actually when the complex was Robert Gardens we never even knew that
they were there. We had no problem, and about three years ago, over a period of three months
ironically between November and January, February, there were several incidences on the other
side of the fence that I found offensive. Some of them were actually illegal and I tried calling
Whispering Pines office,just to let them know, and I was just brushed off basically, and a couple of
instances I did call the police and they took it very seriously, and I decided, well, you know, this is
kind of really enough. Enough was enough, and I felt that the thing to do was to take the woods
down. Over the years there's been problems with people cutting through, loitering in the woods.
So I know it was a drastic step,but the lot was cleared. I cleared it with the Town of Queensbury to
make sure that it was okay to do that and they said yes, and my plan was to plant shrubs that would
grow and give me privacy from the ground up, and I know it will take time. I told them I would put
the tarps up until I had enough coverage from the (lost words), and they told me that they didn't
have to come down,that they could be left up there. I don't intend to leave them up there. I know
they don't look great, but there are worse things to look at. It's not a spite fence at all. I've heard
of people putting up fences for spite,to annoy the neighbors. That's not it at all.
MR. TRAVER-So basically you, it sounds like your main reason for putting the tarps up was just so
that you're not observing behavior that you find disturbing and potentially illegal,or illegal.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MS. HALLINAN-Right.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-How are your plantings growing?
MS. HALLINAN-They're doing very well. There are 73 different varieties of arborvitaes, and I plan
to keep planting a number each year until the buffer area is restored.
MR. FORD-And then the tarps will come down?
MS. HALLINAN-Yes. Ironically, I do appreciate Mr. Valente allowing the tree company to, and I
stated that in my letter, to let them work from his side, and he was out there, and let me know that
he allowed them to do that, and I let him know what my plan was. Right then his concern was,
because I had a first fence put up in front of the woods originally,and he was curious as to whether
I was going to take that down or move it back or somehow to give my dogs a larger area to run in
the yard, and I said,no, I don't desire to have a larger yard area. I'm doing this to have privacy, and
I reassured him that, because I know, well, I didn't know at the time, but I was actually concerned
that maybe the dogs might be barking,but they don't bark excessively at all, and ironically, once the
tarps went up, they are barking even less. So, one of the tenants had come out one day and
remarked how I was out in that area towards the back of the fence, and,before the woods had come
down, and she remarked how she liked to watch the dogs, and I asked,well,gee, do they make too
much noise, do they bother you, and she said, no, I don't even hear the barking, and I occasionally,
routinely check with my neighbors to see,are they a problem,because I don't want them to be. I try
to be a conscientious pet owner. They've always told me,no,they're not a problem.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Your comment period is up,but is it safe to assume that your main point is the
tarps are up, as I mentioned earlier, for your own reasons, and if and when you feel comfortable in
viewing that area again,you will take them down?
MS. HALLINAN-Yes. Absolutely.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much.
MS.HALLINAN-You're welcome.
MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure. There is a letter from the speaker now that's here. Is that
something that you wish to hear, or does that clarify information that you shared with the Board
now? Do you want this read into the record?
MR.TRAVER-Is this information different than the information that you just gave us?
MS. HALLINAN-Some of it is similar. I think what was different was I did have some questions
about the noise. I know everybody has said that, and I agree with, them that the building is
probably going to reduce the noise, but does anybody know, like, how much? Is it going to be like
75%?
MR.TRAVER-No,we won't know that until it's.
MR. KREBS-I have a question. Did you buy your property, build your house or buy your house
before or after the existence of the apartment complex?
MS.HALLINAN-I moved in with my family in 1966. It was all dense forest at that time. Whispering
Pines wasn't even there. The stores were not there. Then I believe it was about three years later,I
don't even remember, and I was eight, nine years old then. So I wouldn't have remembered
hearing my parents talk if there was any activity back there, and it just seemed like suddenly
Whispering Pines, or I'm sorry, not Whispering Pines, Robert Gardens was there, and the five foot
chain link fence was put up, and nobody had any objection at all, and then Robert Gardens came,
and then the stores were built and now it's the way it is today.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you very much.
MS. HALLINAN-You're welcome.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR.TRAVER-I think if we add the written comment to the file, that's sufficient at this point. Unless
members specifically want to hear it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think so,too.
MR. FORD-No. She's had an opportunity to elaborate.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not that I don't want to hear you read it,but I really don't.
MRS.MOORE-Okay. All right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. One correction to the agenda. This is listed as SEQR Unlisted, and we have
already conducted SEQR. So if you're comfortable in moving forward at some point we'll need to
re-affirm our previous finding.
MR. FORD-Good point.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any other members of the audience that wish to comment on this
application? Okay. Then I will close the public hearing on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KREBS-Okay,and I would like to move to re-affirm the SEQR positive.
MRS.MOORE-Negative.
MR. FORD-Positive or negative?
MR. LAPPER-Negative.
MR. KREBS-Negative, I'm sorry.
MR.TRAVER-Why don't you make that as part of the condition of the motion,if you would.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 22-2013 WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATION
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of two 32' x 24' single story structures to house existing
containers for trash and recycling. Accessory structures in an MDR zone require Planning Board
review and approval.
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/18/2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on
6/19/2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2013 WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATION, Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) Reaffirms the SEQR approval of 6-18-2013;
3) Waiver requests granted: Items A through 0 (Requirements for Site Plan Approval);
4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
5) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
7) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
MRS.MOORE-Did you grant waivers requested?
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I did grant.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR.TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and the intent here is to make it better for the neighbor. That's what this
is all about.
MR. TRAVER-True, and as you heard from the woman, hopefully at some point her goal is certainly
to be able to remove the tarps, and I guess I would just say if you are aware or observe any illegal
activity,do whatever you can to try to discourage it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. There've been some stuff in the Wal-Mart parking lot, but they, the Valente's
haven't been notified by anybody.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-So they run a pretty tight ship.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2013 SEQR TYPE II KEITH & KELLY HARRIS AGENT(S) BARTLETT
PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PAM HARRIS ZONING
RR-3A; LC-10A LOCATION 1653 & 1671 BAY ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF
SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%; CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN AN L C
ZONE WITHIN THE APA BOUNDARY AND MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECTS REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-13; BP 12-584
GAZEBO; BP 03-694 SFD; BP 10-296 POOL WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2013 APA, CEA,
OTHER L G CEA STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 123.13 AC; 28.76 AC. TAX MAP NO. 265.1-32,
44 SECTION 179-6-060, 179-3-040
JON LAPPER&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.TRAVER-Laura,do you want to give us a review?
MRS. MOORE-Sure. Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Construction
within 50 feet of slopes greater than 15% and single family construction in the LC zone within the
APA requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant did receive a variance for road
frontage,and they'll explain the project.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello,again.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper, Keith and Kelly Harris, and Tom Hutchins, the project
engineer. This is another case where last week you recommended approval, and we went to the
Zoning Board and they unanimously approved the variance and said that they recognized that
having the shared driveway was environmentally the right thing for that hill, and I know you've all
been there. It's a site plan approval for a single family home, just because of the zone that it's in.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
Tom's done a detailed engineering plan. There were some engineering comments. He's talked to
Sean. We see this as all pretty technical. The bottom line is that he was trying to cluster
everything as close as possible to minimize the disturbance, and the engineer is saying on some of
the separations between well and rain garden, for example, that they had to be spread a little bit
out, but there's 20 acres, and it's not going to be much different, but we're very comfortable with
the engineering comments. Nothing unusual here,but,Tom,did you want to give the details?
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins. This is a Major Stormwater project because of
disturbance size and it's basically a function of getting the drive in. The drive to be constructed
over an existing woods road, although it will be improved, but we're following the same path that's
already there. Grades wise,I hope you had the chance to go there. It's in an area that's mapped as
a very steep area, but the drive and the house site are quite reasonably compared to many we've
seen. Conventional wastewater system. We had some soils tests in the area, two to three feet,
three feet to groundwater,which is fine. We plan to fill an area in the central portion of the house
site and to bring the house up a little bit, and to match the uphill grade. Stormwater,we've done
what we could to divert up gradient, and manage any runoff generated from the project in a
reasonable, practical and compliant manner, and we do have a few details to tie up with Sean. I did
speak with Sean today on it,and I believe we can resolve those details,and with that,I'd turn it over
to the Board.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. We looked at this pretty carefully last time,but does anyone have
any follow up questions? There are some engineering comments. They do need, actually there are
quite a number of them, but they are mostly technical in nature, and they do need a signoff
according to the resolution. So I don't see anything that would fundamentally change the plan that
would require a tabling.
MR. FORD-Nor do I.
MR. KREBS-You're talking about runoff onto 20 acres, which is a little different than if this was a 1
acre lot and it was going on to somebody else's property.
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-So I'm not that worried about it.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-As long as we have the stipulation for the engineering comments to be addressed and the
signoff.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's in the signoff. It's a SEQR Type II. So we don't need to address SEQR on
this project tonight. There is a public hearing. I would ask if there are members of the audience
that wanted to comment on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. TRAVER-And I guess I'll say I'll formally open the public hearing. Are there any written
comments,Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Seeing none,hearing none,I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-I guess we're ready for a motion, Mr.Secretary.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 29-2013 KEITH &KELLY HARRIS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Construction within 50 feet of slopes
greater than 15%; construction of a single family dwelling in an LC zone within the APA boundary
and Major Stormwater projects require Planning Board review and approval.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/18/2013; the ZBA approved the variance request
on 6/19/2013;
SEQR Type II-no further review necessary;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2013 KEITH & KELLY HARRIS, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) The 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,
3) 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;
4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
5) 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 aU site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
6) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) when
such a plan was prepared and approved;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
7) 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.
8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
9) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR.TRAVER-Good luck.
KEITH HARRIS
MR. HARRIS-Thank you.
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 58.8 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 36 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.52. PROPOSAL INCLUDES INTERCONNECTION
BETWEEN SHERMAN AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD AS WELL AS BOULEVARD ENTRANCE OFF OF
LUZERNE ROAD. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-12,SB 18-05,SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 64.89+/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3
SECTION CHAPTERA-183 179-3-040(A)(3)(b)
JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-This application has been reviewed in front of this Board,well,this'll be the sixth time
that we've taken public comment. So I will only accept new comment on this application from the
public. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Center and
Larry Clute is sitting behind us. As the Chairman said, this is another application that we've spent
considerable time talking about and another one, fortunately, that you guys recommended, and we
got to the Zoning Board and they granted the variance in terms of that lot size and density,which is
still larger than everything else in the neighborhood, and we have in the record, and I know you're
aware, that there's a public benefit to making the connection between Luzerne and Sherman that's
been recognized by the Highway Department and the emergency service providers. There are a
couple of neighbors that had submitted letters that they were opposed to that,but we think this is a
case where the community benefit outweighs the concerns of a few people that I don't think, at the
end of the day, it's going to be any different than any other neighborhood that people aren't going
to be zooming through because it's not a straight away, it's a lot of turns, but we think this is just
pretty straightforward and an improvement,finish out that neighborhood.
MR. TRAVER-And we did have a lot of discussion particularly regarding the traffic on that, which is
a legitimate concern.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think we came to the conclusion that the perceived problem was
miniscule compared to the certain benefit to the Town.
MR. LAPPER-Tom,would you like to talk about the engineering?
MR. CENTER-We did have a meeting with the Town Engineer, Laura's office, and DEC in regards to
the use of drywells for the stormwater management for the subdivision roads in front of the houses,
and we were able to come to an agreement with the, what you have before you for stormwater
management. Most of the technical comments within the Chazen letter are things that we just need
to clear up for the Town Engineer in regards to the calculations and changes to the drawings.
There's nothing in there that is a large showstopper. Most of them are technical in nature and deal
with the design manual, the requirements and making changes to the drawing as far as changing
notes,changing a couple of details into compliance and a few calculation issues.
MR. FORD-Could you spend a little time addressing the Highway Superintendent's letter, because
that gets pretty descriptive,and I'm interested in your reaction.
MR. CENTER-In regards to the use of drywells?
MR. FORD-Caitlin Drive subdivision does have the green design. It's a mess.
MR. CENTER-What he's talking about there is the subdivision, I believe, is called Point West at the
end on West Mountain,and I believe it's either Sherman or Luzerne Road. What they did there.
MR. FORD-He's referring to wash out silting and overgrown vegetation.
MR. CENTER-What they're talking about there is instead of doing the wing swales and drywells like
we've typically done, on that one, in coordination with the Town Engineer at the time, Dan Ryan,
Mike, Mike Farrell and Mike Travis,they took that subdivision and brought it down to a single point
and put two ponds on either side of the road, so the road drains down in the wing swales, and then
they go through a stone level spreader and into the pond,and then they have a raised drywell in the
center. So they were trying to do something a little different, and what they're finding is that it's
much more maintenance for the Town to maintain. They do have wash outs, and it's not as
effective as the drywells, and what we're proposing here is similar to what they maintain all over,
and we've done some modifications over the years to make sure that these things do work properly,
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
and we've worked with DEC in regards to this, especially when you have the well-drained sands.
So that was the difference between the two.
MR.LAPPER-Let me just clarify,Tom. That was the Highway Superintendent supporting what Tom
Center had proposed when he was in a little bit of a debate with the Town Engineer under the new
green infrastructure,what should happen. The Town Engineer supported this, so did DEC, and the
Town Engineer agreed ultimately.
MR.CENTER-Correct.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In other words,he didn't like the previous solution to the problem.
MR. LAPPER-We didn't like the Town Engineer's proposal at the time.
MR.TRAVER-Well, in many respects,you know, particularly when we get into the green infiltration
and wastewater and stormwater and all of that, it's almost an art, rather than, I mean, certainly the
calculations are what they are,but,you know,it's an evolving science.
MR. CENTER-It's evolving. We all have our own interpretation of how we meet the requirements,
and,you know,we're constantly, they are changing. They tell you different things when you go to,
as Planning Board members I know some of you,I've seen some of you attend some of the meetings
that we go to. There's a lot of question as far as how to meet that. There's a lot of discussion at
those meetings, sometimes vigorous, in regards to,you know,what we're trying to do here and the
end result. I think with what we have here it works. It works for other subdivisions,and similar to
the Geneva Drive and, you know, the same soils, the same layout, and I think it minimizes the
disturbance and allows the natural grade to work and do what it does now.
MR. TRAVER-Well,you're doing what you need to do by working with our engineer. He's the one
that's got to sign off on the project,like all the other applications. So as long as he's satisfied,we're
satisfied because we're not engineers.
MR. KREBS-Right. Well, and I always laugh at this, because we talk about green and we talked
about if somebody wants to build a six story building,which is extremely more green than six single
story buildings,but people will approve the single story buildings and not the six story buildings. S
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes,we've been through that.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Anything else?
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Again, this is an application for which the public hearing was left open. So
there is another opportunity, if someone has something that has not previously been on the record
they would like to offer on this application, we'd like to hear from you. Is there any that have
anything they want to add to the record?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR.TRAVER-Anything written?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-We need to do Preliminary first,right?
MR. KREBS-Correct.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB # 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52.
Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as
boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 4/23/2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests
on 4/25/2013;
SEQR was approved on 4/23/2013;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1/15, 3/19,4/23, 5/23 tabled to 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-I should clarify, before we vote on the Preliminary Stage, that, again, on the agenda,
it's listed as a Type I SEQR. We actually completed SEQR prior to sending it to the Zoning Board.
MR. KREBS-Right. SEQR was approved on 4/23.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,thank you. I just wanted to clarify that,because that is listed.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52.
Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as
boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1/15, 3/19,4/16, 5/21 tabled to 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2. SEQRA Negative Declaration-4-23-2013;
3. 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,
4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman;
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
5. Per Daniel Bagrow's letter dated 4-24-2013 . . . "has no concerns with the planning phase of the
proposed project but requests additional consultation when a final design is chosen." (See
agent's letter dated 6-19-2013);
6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of au site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
7. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans
must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan
was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR.TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN & JENNIFER
KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S.DE LAURA ZONING WR-WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO
STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER
AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND IN A WR
ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-10, BP 10-
556 (TEST PIT) WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.19-1-39 SECTION 179-9;CHAPTER 94
JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.TRAVER-Good evening,again.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Again, for the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center and Steve and Jen
Kitchen. I can't really give an explanation and introduction to this to describe how we got to where
we are,because it doesn't really make sense to me, but abuse of process are the words that jump to
mind, where they just, they bought a lot and they designed this to comply with the Town
stormwater codes which were implemented subsequent to this subdivision. They have a double
lot. They are meeting the stormwater code as much as possible. They're installing a lot of
stormwater devices. Because of, the stormwater code was really designed for one acre residential
lots or greater, they couldn't meet 100%,but compared to all of their neighbors,this site has ample
stormwater controls. Tom had a meeting with the Town Engineer today. There were only, I think,
four comments in the engineering letter at this point, and we've worked through all those today.
Laura was there, and we'll talk about that in a little while, but there's something here about
neighbors not wanting this to be developed or wanting to develop themselves or something else
that I don't really understand, but just so that it's on the record and the Board's aware, after we
were granted the variances by the Zoning Board in May, an engineer representing the neighbors
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
appealed to the State Board of Code Review in Syracuse and the Kitchens had to drive out on
Thursday to a hearing where the engineer tried to argue that this well needed a permit which it
didn't get and that the neighbor should be allowed to construct a septic system 10 feet from the
property line in a location that would preclude the development of this lot,because there would be
nowhere on this lot that would have a well location 100 feet from the neighbor's septic system,
even though that design would require the neighbors pumping their septic 300 feet up a hill to get
it to be 10 feet from the property line, and,you know, 27 years of land use practice I've never seen
a spite septic system,and it's just kind of disturbing,but the appeals board in Syracuse unanimously
denied that appeal, and sent the engineer packing, and although the Kitchens had to lose a day of
work to appear, everything worked out, and here we are, and then yesterday at 4 o'clock we were
served with a proposed,with an Order to Show Cause, us and the Town, where they tried to ask a
judge to stop us from appearing tonight for this, claiming that there would be some irreparable
harm if the Board granted this site plan review, and the Judge Nolan in Saratoga this morning said,
no, that this could properly appear before this Board tonight, and here we are. Again, there's
nothing remarkable about this application. The neighbor who, Mrs. Maloney who's here tonight,
who is opposing this, has a single lot. This is a double lot. She has no stormwater controls. Her
stormwater is directly running into the wetland. This has been designed by Tom and reviewed by
the engineer to avoid that. This has also been designed to treat some of the water that's coming
down Forest Road now that has nothing to do with this site, that is going into the wetland
untreated, and every time an issue was raised, certainly many issues by this Board to get to this
point,the application was changed,was upgraded,was reconsidered, and the Highway Department,
there were allegations that there were violations to APA, DEC. We have letters from all of them
saying that everything is fine and there are no violations. It's been a lot more effort than should be
for doing a conforming size house on this lot, on a double lot. The only thing unique is there has to
be more clearing than you would otherwise want to do on a lot,but here it's because in order to get
the house, the stormwater, the septic system,there has to be clearing, but there's going to be a big
re-vegetation plan,which is all part of this as well,but I'm sorry that this has been so crazy. I don't
think it's been the Kitchens' doing,but here we are, and we think that, from a site plan perspective,
it's pretty straightforward at this point, after all these changes, but, Tom, why don't you talk a little
bit about the engineering,where you are with the Town Engineer.
MR. TRAVER-Just to add to your comment, I know that when we first saw this I think in September
of last year, I mean, initially it did appear to be a complicated development, in terms of the
engineering and we had issues with the stormwater and so on,but as you say,they certainly appear
to be, I mean,the engineer's happy and,yes, I mean,you have managed to engineer a project that is
in compliance. So,but,yes,it's been a complicated project.
MR. CENTER-We met with the Town Engineer this afternoon to go over the four comments, and I
believe we walked away with that,where we were 99% in agreement. He just had to have time to
sit down and go through the calculations, in regards to some of the hydro Cad and look at the very
minor changes and the information that we did provide. His first question in regard to the stone
swale,we just added some additional construction details to that to show that the end of the stone
swale opens up to the roof rain garden. That's this pond right here, where that stone swale is,
opens up and it comes to zero at grade, that we're not putting any water in the ground, that that's
just a conduit for the water to come off the house and get to the pond. The second comment had
something to do with the time span within the hydro Cad calculations, the engineering involved,
stuff, calculations that we just had to increase the time span because it didn't show at Hour 24, but
at Hour 25 that was fine, and that's what he was looking for, just a clarification on that. So we
increased the time span, and that wasn't an issue. The second one was asking for some additional
soils evaluation in the area of this rain garden here, which we provided, and we've discussed that,
and that's some of the things that he's going over,just to agree with our numbers. He needed some
more time to look at that,but we've,you know,we do have what we feel is the adequate separation
in that area. The last comment was the emergency spillway,the infiltration below frost. That had
to do with,on our hydro Cad calculations we didn't take off the small weir that we had in there,now
the entire pond, if it does,worst case scenario larger storms,the 50,the 100 year,it goes across the
entire width of the pond, similar to a level spreader, and goes down the slope instead of giving you
the designated discharge. He was comfortable with that, and then infiltration below frost, we
changed one detail in regards to the size of the stone trench that allows, the stone diaphragm,
basically, that allows 10% of the water to get below frost during wintertime, and we explained that
to him and we changed that detail. So I think we were real close to being all set. There's just,
timeframe wise, he didn't have time to look at everything, and make sure that the I's were dotted
and the T's were crossed,but we were 99%.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well, I guess we will go to public comment,then.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just wanted to make sure that nobody got the wrong impression when you
said the engineer was representing the neighbors. The engineer is representing one neighbor,
George Hearst,and some advocacy groups who don't live up on the point.
MR. LAPPER-I think the Jaeger's are now represented by the engineer, the people with the septic
system.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. There's another one,right.
MR. LAPPER-And I think maybe Mrs. Maloney on the other side as well.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Probably.
MRS. MOORE-I can add to the comments about the engineering. I did receive information from
Chazen today, and the only comment that's there is the elevation summary table needs to be
reviewed again and adjusted. Other than that, all technical comments offered have been addressed
to their satisfaction.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thankyou.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-And as with the other applications,they need to get a signoff in any case.
MRS.MOORE-And this will,too.
MR.TRAVER-All right. Are there members of the audience who have information that has not been
provided to us that they would like to bring to the attention of the Board? Let's see, it looks like
there's two. Ma'am,why don't I take your comment first,please. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
DORIS HOPPER
MRS. HOPPER-Good evening. This is the second time in my life I've spoken in front of a Board. I
only spoke in my home. I've been a homemaker. However,years back.
MR.TRAVER-Excuse me,ma'am,if you could just state your name for the record,please.
MRS. HOPPER-I'm sorry. Doris Hopper.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-And I built a small cottage on Assembly Point in 1962. I just want to tell you a little
short story, and a couple of years later,the back lot became available, and I thought it would be nice
to keep it that way, so I bought it. Two years later the one next to me became available, and I
bought it. Of course in those days it was,you know, $2,000. So, my daughter bought a lot. She's
Linda DeLaura who owned the lot we're talking about, and she was hoping to build someday, and
life changes,and anyway she decided to sell, and George Hearst was the first one that made an offer
on this lot that John Owens had said a fair market value was between $50 and $60,000. George
Hearst, our neighbor, offered $17,000 that my daughter paid more and paid taxes all those years.
So she turned the offer down, and she said to him when you can make me a better offer, here's my
number, call me, which he never did. So anyway, I think it was Mike Grasso was interested, and I
don't know,everything became a big problem, and as a housewife, I hear the comments,and it's like
sabotage, let's sabotage this lot and maybe we can get it cheaper. I was at a meeting, and Ms.
Maloney at the time, she said how much is the lot. I really didn't check with my daughter and I said
I think$50,000. Kathleen called my daughter once, and I guess my daughter wanted a little more,
and then we heard nothing from Kathleen,but we didn't know her mother was sick at the time and
that's why we didn't hear from her. So we heard from nobody. Now the Kitchens came along, and
God bless them they're engineers. They're not looking to do anything wrong. They're looking to
do everything the Town wants them to do. They're lovely people, and this has been going on for so
long, I personally think it's a disgrace. It's almost it, to me, as a housewife, looks like someone's
playing a game of chess with people. Some people can afford that game and some people can't, and
I think it's just terrible. They're not looking to do anything wrong, and how can one house, 20 feet
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
down the road,have water drip off it and it's just water, and they're trying to make the water that's
going to drip off this proposed house acid. It just doesn't make sense.
MR.TRAVER-1 agree with you.
MRS. HOPPER-I'm just trying to use commonsense,okay.
MR.TRAVE R-Fortunately we're really just looking at the application and it's.
MRS. HOPPER-But it's, sometimes you have to look at commonsense and know what's really going
on.
MR. FORD-Thank you for sharing the historical perspective.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes,right. That's from the housewife.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's interesting, for sure. I can tell you I grew up in Lake George Village, and
there are hundreds of stories of,you know.
MRS. HOPPER-I used to rent in Lake George Village.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The history of this area, particularly in the areas around the lake, is quite
fascinating, and some of the prevails and battles and things, I mean, obviously going all the way
back to the French Indian War.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, but when it's a building lot, that's willing to comply with everything, why do
they have to spend all that money instead of making a nicer kitchen,dragging it out so long.
MR.TRAVER-Anything else?
MRS. HOPPER-No,I guess I've said a lot.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you for your insight.
MR. DEEB-Very informative.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We had another, I believe the Water Keeper. Yes, sir. Would you like to
comment? Good evening.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening.
MR.TRAVER-Do you have new information for us this evening?
MR. NAVITSKY-Sure.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That we haven't heard before.
MR. NAVITSKY-You can always listen.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,but he asked if you had new information.
MR. NAVITSKY-I do have new information. I have not spoken to this Board about this application.
So I think I do have the time to provide the information.
MR.TRAVER-Sure,by all means,sir.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. I'd like to thank the Board for the opportunity to provide comments.
We remain concerned about the potential impacts to the wetlands from the excavation,clearing and
grading,and fail to see the benefits of allowing disturbance closer to the wetlands and removing the
protective buffer. Our presentations to the Zoning Board showed the negative impacts of
vegetation removal, slope increases and soil alterations which can be produced by this project, and
we'd like to raise the following for the Board to consider. First,does the Board find it unusual that
the applicant was allowed to perform site activities,such as excavation and clearing,within Critical
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
Environmental Area,before receiving a wetlands permit or a site plan approval? And I don't recall
this being allowed by the Town before. The application does segment the Town road out of the
project and fails to provide stormwater management. A road is necessary for the site development
to provide access and therefore must be considered part of the project. However, no stormwater
management is proposed for the increased impervious cover in close proximity to the wetlands.
This violates the memorandum of understanding that municipalities have with the Lake George
Park Commission regarding stormwater management on highway activities and stormwater
management is required on new roads. In addition,the control proposed,the level spreader,fails to
provide stormwater management or treatment. We did have concerns about the 10% of surface
area for stormwater management, and that appears to be provided, but that has not been available
to the public,and the new information about the,we appreciate the additional soil test pits,but that
information also has not been available to the public. The project fails to provide the shoreline
buffer required by the Town Code. According to the Town Code,the Critical Environmental Area is
the area within 500 feet of Lake George and its wetlands which are located adjacent to the waters of
the lake. The wetland is hydraulically connected to the lake. Therefore, the shoreline is the edge
of the wetlands, and there is no information on a shoreline buffer. That needs to be provided.
Section 94-913 provides findings for issuing a wetlands permit, which includes proposed regulated
activity is consistent with the policy of the chapter to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater
wetlands and the benefits derived from, to prevent the destruction of freshwater wetlands and to
regulate the development of such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of the wetlands.
Clearly when we're reducing the protective area of this buffer and the wetlands, there will be
impacts to the wetlands. The proposed activity is reasonable and necessary. The proposed
activity exceeds what should be granted, and that's why they had to go to the Zoning Board and
have the extended hearing, and there is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated
activity and the Zoning Board of Appeals mentioned several alternatives that could be considered
on this project. So clearly based on the noncompliance with the Code and the reduction of the
protective buffer, the proposed project does not satisfy the findings of fact necessary to issue the
wetlands permit. Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else have new comment for us? Yes,ma'am. Good evening.
WINIFRED KATHLEEN MALONEY
MS.MALONEY-Good evening. I'm Winifred Kathleen Maloney,the executrix of the estate of Eleanor
D. Maloney,and my mother purchased the property in 1959.
MR.TRAVER-1959?
MS.MALONEY-1959,and my parents built their summer camp at that time.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me for one second because I haven't attended every single meeting on this
project. Is this new information that's not part of the record?
MS. MALONEY-Well, I'm just introducing myself at this point.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MS. MALONEY-Because it's the adjoining,in case somebody doesn't know who I am.
MR. KREBS-Just for the education of those in the, in 1959, 99% of the requirements that we're
asking for today did not even exist.
MS. MALONEY-No, I understand that, and of the six properties already developed on the street, all
of them except one were built,let's see, 1959. The one, the other one that was existing at the time
originally, until almost 1970, was destroyed and was re-built in 2006 and they are just adding an
addition now, with some limited stormwater management on that. However, the remaining
properties were all built in the 1970's and none of them had stormwater management on their
properties. So when everyone says the Maloney's are the only ones that don't have stormwater
management,the majority of the properties on the street do not have stormwater management,and
the majority of them are up at the start of the street. We're at the end of the street where it ends,
the pavement,and, Mr.Schonewolf,Mr. Klein is not my engineer.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-I didn't say he was.
MS.MALONEY-Yes,you did.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I didn't.
MS. MALONEY-You said it was probably that the Maloney's also had the engineer.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Somebody else said that,he probably did, I don't know.
MS. MALONEY-He's not my engineer. I want to clear that up. I have not employed him as my
engineer.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That house next to you has no stormwater management, either, because that
used to reside on my lot.
MS. MALONEY-There's only six properties on the whole street, and the only one that has any
stormwater management is the Wilcox property. All the other properties on the street do not have
any stormwater management.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Wilcox property was just built.
MS. MALONEY-Well,that's what I just said.
MR. TRAVER-Ma'am, if we could keep the comment confined to the application that's before us. I
mean, it's interesting. There are a lot of properties around the lake that have no stormwater
management. We know that.
MS. MALONEY-No, I understand that, but I'm just saying that my property is not the only one that
doesn't have any stormwater management on it.
MR.TRAVER-We appreciate that.
MR. FORD-So noted.
MS. MALONEY-Okay. Also, the fact, one of the rain gardens,the roof rain garden is the rain garden
that had no testing done at all, and the Town Designated Engineer asked for information regarding
that,and just received that information today. So no one else has been able to review that, and that
would have an impact on my property especially because it's right there next to it.
MR.TRAVER-Well,rest assured this project cannot go forward until the engineer is fully satisfied.
MS. MALONEY-In addition, I did file a complaint regarding the fact that clearing took place in March
of 2013 with the Zoning Administrator regarding that action that was taken,and I've never received
a response to my complaint. It was a written formal complaint. To this day I've not received any
response,and the clearing took place in March.
MR. FORD-And that was submitted to whom?
MS. MALONEY-Craig Brown.
MR.TRAVER-To the Zoning Administrator.
MS. MALONEY-To the Zoning Administrator.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-She's talking about the clearing on Hearst's property.
MS. MALONEY-No. I'm talking about the clearing on the Kitchen property that took place in March
2013.
MR. TRAVER-Again, it really doesn't matter, but do you have confirmation that your letter, your
complaint was received?
MS. MALONEY-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. I would just follow up with the Town.
MS. MALONEY-I sent it certified mail. So I know they had to sign for it.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. Well, I would just follow up with the Town, and,you know, continue to
seek an answer on that, and there could be a variety of reasons why it wasn't responded to, but I
can assure you they're very professional and they will respond to your concerns if you address
them. Perhaps you just need to go down there in person,if you get a chance,and say here I am.
MS. MALONEY-Well, I asked, in my letter I asked for a written determination and written response,
and I've not received a written response to my letter.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. You should be able to get that. Just be persistent.
MS. MALONEY-Well, I continue to have concerns regarding this matter, and there's still questions
that I feel have not been answered so that everyone can review it and determine that this will not
impact negatively my property, and the property on the other side, which would be Mr. Hearst's,
and also the (lost words) Jaeger and Mockel's property.
MR.TRAVER-We understand that's a reasonable concern,evidently.
MS. MALONEY-All right. I can give historical perspective. I may not remember exactly to 1959,but
I do remember over the course of the years, and I can tell you that right now the pavement ends
before my property line ends. So the Town stopped that. The Town also had to put up a snow
fence across to stop the illegal dumping of lawn materials and refuse and everything onto, into the
woods and the wetlands. Okay. Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you for that information.
MS. MALONEY-Thank you,gentlemen.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Yes, Mr. Navitsky,do you have something additional?
MR. NAVITSKY-Actually this is comments by myself,but somebody wanted to submit them.
MR.TRAVER-That's fine,sure. Give it to Laura and she'll add it to the file.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you.
MRS.MOORE-Thanks.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Go ahead. Good evening.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For the record,my name is John Salvador. I'm a resident.
MR.TRAVER-Do you have new information for us this evening?
MR.SALVADOR-This is the first time I'm speaking before this Board on this subject.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is not. You came up here and spoke about the road. I remember the night
you were here. You talked about the road in front of your property.
MR.SALVADOR-Okay. Fine.
MR.TRAVER-He's saying this is new information. Go ahead,sir.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Mr. Navitsky brings up a very good point, and it's the subject of
segmentation. Somewhere, somehow we've got to have a comprehensive look at stormwater
management. The Highway Department has failed to do its job. Our Town Code Chapter 147-11 H,
and that's not referenced here on this project for your review, that's our stormwater management
code, sub paragraph five. No variance shall be granted by the Town of Queensbury until first
providing notice to the Commission a minimum of 10 days in advance. The Commission shall be
deemed a party to the proceeding. Now if the Commission was a party to the proceeding with
regard to stormwater management on the site, and the memorandum of understanding that the
Commission has with all Town Highway, County Highway Departments and the State,it would get a
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
comprehensive review and it's not being done, and that's the very definition of segmentation.
Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. Anyone else for public comment on this project that is new public
comment? Any new written?
MRS. MOORE-There's no new written information. This information that's received today was
dated the 24th.
MR.TRAVER-Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-With regard to public comment, we heard some interesting historical information,
you know, some information on some of the transactions involving this property. One of the
comments, I think Mr. Navitsky mentioned, that intrigued me, was the idea that the wetlands
constitute a shoreline of the body of Lake George. That's, I had not heard that before.
MR. LAPPER-That is correct. The way, Queensbury Code was amended a few years ago (lost word)
definition of shoreline to include wetlands and that's actually why we're here, because this project
is nowhere near the lake, and the way that wetland tributary runs, I've been told it's about 500 feet
before it, more than that,before it,so we're at the end of this wetland that,you know,wetlands,yes,
need to be protected as a shoreline,but also act as a filter, and this is 500 feet or more before it gets
to the lake because this is an interior lot.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,just to clarify. I mean, I wasn't questioning that the wetlands needed protection.
It just seemed unusual to hear that terminology. I've not heard that terminology before.
MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, but in the general area, after visiting it again today for the second
time, the water would have to be 250 to 300 feet deep in order to get over the top of the hill to
affect the lake at all.
MR.TRAVER-Well,I'm not sure if I agree with that,but.
MR. KREBS-Well,in the immediate area. Maybe if you go.
MR. CENTER-You're looking at it from the other direction,it would be (lost word).
MR. TRAVER-We also heard comment about the Highway Department and failing to manage the
stormwater, and I don't want to mention Don's name, but we have had this subject brought up a
number of times. It is something of great concern to the Town. It is being looked at to some
degree, and, you know, it's something that at least has been recognized, and as the one lady
commented, there are a lot of structures and homes around the lake that have no buffering, that
have no stormwater management. I mean,we're doing the best we can with that.
MR.KREBS-And I hate to be repetitive,but,because I've said this to the Board before,but if you look
at Assembly Point in general, Assembly Point Road was actually tipped toward the east so that the
water would run off the road. It runs from the houses down the driveways, across the road, and
then immediately into the lake, but, go over on Pilot Knob Road. The first mile has six drywells
from the water coming off the side of the hill that go into a pipe that go under the road and directly
into the water. So if the Water Keeper wants to work on something, let him work on the obvious
problems that we have at the lake.
MR.TRAVER-They certainly,they are. I mean, all of the,the LGA.
MR. KREBS-And I could give you more, but, you know, there's another dozen areas around the lake
that have.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I like that story,you keep telling it,because the only thing you missed is that the
water goes right into the storm sewer, into a conduit, and then into the lake. So if you're worried
about the lake,that's where you start,not water running down some guy's pipe.
MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of very,very brief comments in response. All of the stormwater devices
are to treat the stormwater before it gets to the wetland to protect the wetland. That's what it's all
about because it's on a hill. It's still certainly an improvement over what's there now, without any
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
controls, and what was there, what the neighbors have. What Mrs. Maloney was talking about, in
terms of the alleged clearing, it wasn't clearing. What happened in March was that the well was
installed, and it was still mud season, but it was very carefully done with silt fences and such, and
that's where there was a complaint made to APA. APA came out, and there's a letter in the file that
Laura has where APA said we looked at it. There's no violation. So that's what that was about,but
there are also, in that area,this is a case where the neighbor allegedly clear cut this whole area after
the hurricane and said that it was because wind blew it down,but when you go look at it,which we
all have, the soil was all graded and cleared. So there's been a big disturbance right next to the
wetland, and that included trees were taken off of this property before the Kitchens owned it to get
to that neighboring property, without permission from the landowner. So what you look at when
you see some disturbance, it was actually done by the neighbor for the neighbor. The only thing
that was done here was just to install the well, and in terms of that segmentation issue that Mr.
Salvador raised, the Highway Department has looked at this. We have letters in the file. This is a
small extension of an existing,within the State,within the Town right of way for that roadway, and
this is something that the Town does as a matter of course to give people access to a Town highway,
and that's something that they're taking care of.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I remember a lot of discussion on that with the applicant and the Highway
Department and there were changes made,actually a couple of times.
MR. LAPPER-Yes,absolutely.
MR.TRAVER-To stormwater.
MR. CENTER-Yes, on moving the pond, we also tried to move the road further to the north. We've,
you know,narrowed it to what was acceptable to the Town Highway,and then we added,you know,
the level spreader to, within the right of way,to not take care of water coming off of this parcel,but
to take care of water that comes down the road and goes into the wetland. Whereas if this wasn't
constructed, that would still be a point discharge straight into the wetland at a closer point. We're
actually taking that stormwater back further, and letting it go out to where the wetland actually
goes further out away from the property, where there's a higher berm that's there. So any water
that comes down here gets caught in the level spreader and slowed down and sent out into this
area,as opposed to right now it comes right down,right into the wetland.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. That's what I recall. Okay. And then there was a comment made
regarding the, I guess it was the Park Commission. I mean, to the best of my knowledge and the
documentation that I have, you've gotten all the proper signoffs you need, but is there something
that we've missed here?
MR. LAPPER-No. We believe that we have all the proper signoffs, and what I just saw recently was
that the variance had to go, because this is in a hamlet, the variance that the Zoning Board granted
last month had to go to the APA for their review,the APA, and we just got a letter from the APA this
week saying that they have no problem with the, and that went to the Town as well, that they had
no problem with the variance.
MR. FORD-Could we have that read into the record,please?
MRS. MOORE-I'll read that. Thank you. We did receive this. I'll read it into the record. This is
dated received June 24th. This is addressed to Mr. Jackoski. "Agency staff review of the above
referenced variance determination has been completed. The applicant proposes to construct a new
3,171 square foot 2-story single family dwelling with attached garage. The applicant also proposes
to install on-site wastewater treatment and stormwater management. Relief is required from the
following Town requirements: (1) 30% maximum lot clearing, (2) 15-foot shoreline vegetation
buffer, (3) 100 foot separation distance from a wetland for a proposed rain garden, (4) 100-foot
separation distance from a wastewater treatment system for a proposed rain garden, and (5) 3-
foot separation distances for an infiltration devices. Based on the information presented in the
record, no further Agency review of this variance is required since the project does not vary
provisions of the Adirondack Park Agency Act. Thank you for your referral of this variance
determination. Sincerely, Brian F.Grisi Adirondack Park Local Government Assistance Specialist"
MR.TRAVER-Thank you very much. Anything else? No. Okay.
MR. KREBS-I just want to point out, too, though, that, you know, when we're talking about other
areas,that John Salvador has a large marina that is on a road at the end of Dunham's Bay that has no
water control on either side of the road.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. TRAVER-I think we've pointed out to members of the Board and the audience there are a
number of properties on the lake that are imperfect,and it is a process.
MR. KREBS-These are Town owned, County owned roads that are polluting the lake, and we're
worried about the wetland where we've got 18 zillion ponds that we're going to resolve this,but we
don't address the real problem. Hey, I love the lake. I grew up on the lake, okay. I think it's a
wonderful place. I think we need to make sure, but we need to address the real problem, not the
ridiculous stuff.
MR.FORD-But not at this time with this application.
MR.KREBS-Right,and we never seem to be willing to address the other problems.
MR.TRAVER-Do any of the other members of the Planning Board have any questions or comments,
questions for the applicant? Okay. Let's look at conditions. Where are we at? We had the
engineering signoff.
MR. KREBS-Yes,we did.
MR.TRAVER-I think that our draft,this is a Type II SEQR.
MR. KREBS-That pretty much covers everything.
MR.TRAVER-I think,then,if the Board is ready to move forward,we can accept a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #48-2012 FWW 3-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.;
associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland
in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18, 10/16, 11/27, & 12/20/12; /22, 4/23, 5/23/13,
Tabled to 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012 STEVEN &
JENNIFER KITCHEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Engineering signoff required prior to signature of the Zoning Administrator or approved plans. As
per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) The 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,
3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its
review,approval,permitting and inspection;
4) 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;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the
start of aU site work.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
7) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved;
and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
8) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
10) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
11)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-Good luck,and enjoy.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you for your patience.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2012 SEQR TYPE II ROBERT L. PERKINS AGENT(S) MARK
REHM, ESQ. OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
LOCATION 315 CORINTH RD. &26 CAREY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PAVING ALONG THE WAREHOUSE
APPROACHES TO REAR OF SITE AS WELL AS NEW PAVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH FRONT
OVERHEAD DOORS. FURTHER, ACCOMMODATION TO INCLUDE TREE CLEARING AND HARD-
SURFACING OF THE STORAGE OF UP 51 TRAILERS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ON
THE PARCEL. FINALLY THE PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL TRANSFORMER AND
BOLLARDS PROPOSED TO THE EAST. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 6 MONTH
EXTENSION. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-11, SP 57-11, SP 7-11, SB 10-10 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 1/11/2012 LOT SIZE 6.39 & 2.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4.1, 4.4
SECTION 179-9
MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. REHM-Good evening, Board. Mark Rehm, representing Perkins Recycling. I have Scott
Perkins here who is, he's running the show over there at Perkins Recycling. We have, back in
January we asked for an extension. There were some items that needed to be addressed from the
Town's perspective,which we've addressed to the best of our ability. We met at the site with Bruce
Frank, Laura Moore, with Nace Engineering and Scott. There were some items that needed to be
done, the striping, and there was some landscaping that was to be done, which has been done. I
looked at the Staff Notes. Points well taken. The only thing that we ask on this project is that
instead of a temporary, they're going to run this business and continue to run it, you know, in
compliance,because they have,in our opinion,complied,and certainly the Town,if we don't comply
in any way, have certain avenues to address that,you know,with a violation. So the only thing that
I ask is for us to not to have to come back on an occasional basis. They've just done a great job of it.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
They'll continue to do a good job with it, and I think that that's all that we have to say from our
perspective. So I appreciate any comments from the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, I guess I would ask you. You heard the applicant, and I see it's also in
your notes noting that the applicant has requested a permanent allowance for the recycling center
activities. Before we discuss that, and before we get into questions leading up to that discussion,
do you have any concerns?
MRS. MOORE-My suggestion is to do a year renewable, have them come back, in case there's any
other changes that need to be completed on the site or something happens to the site, to the
activities that are occurring on the site.
MR. KREBS-Yes,but doesn't he have to come back if he changes something anyway?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm hearing that you're not concerned about changes. You're concerned about
completing the compliance and the?
MRS. MOORE-The compliance. He has, this application is compliant. The applicant has met with,
has completed all the requirements that the Code Compliance Officer has asked them to do. That is
compliant.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. That's what I understood.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The renewable part is, after a year, if there's other activities that are occurring
on the site or something,this way it gives the applicant an opportunity to be back here in a year and
say I need more clearing or I need more paving, or I need to adjust something else on the site. It
gives them that opportunity as well.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Because it's a Special Use Permit, you, the Board, have the opportunity to make that
choice.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let's say that we grant, hypothetically, let's say we were to grant an unlimited
Special Use Permit tonight,hypothetically, and he wanted to change somehow the dynamics of how
he's using that property, wouldn't he have the option to come before us and ask for that
modification anyway,just as he's doing tonight?
MRS.MOORE-Yes,but I think you would have to include that in part of your motion to ensure that,if
something else happened.
MR.TRAVER-That would be an alternative to having him come back in a year.
MRS.MOORE-Yes,it is.
MR. KREBS-That's part of the current zoning regulation. If he changes the site plan,he would have
to come back.
MRS.MOORE-Site Plan does that,that's correct.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Special Use Permit,you,the Board,have an opportunity,extreme flexibility,to say the
applicant should come back in three months,the applicant should come back in six months. That's
your decision.
MR. FORD-Right, and would we have the opportunity, if we chose to go that route, and at the end of
a year,upon the return before this Board,we then could reconsider whether granting a longer or an
extended period of time before reviewing it again?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought Special Use Permits are either permanent,temporary, or renewable.
MR. KREBS-Right.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you're suggesting a renewal?
MRS.MOORE-A renewal in a year. You can change that to permanent after a year.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-But the applicant may have supporting information.
MR.TRAVER-And I apologize. I know I'm getting ahead of our discussions here.
MR. KREBS-I personally don't like that because we constantly do this to businesses. We force them
to spend money. If he doesn't change anything in the next year,we're forcing him to come, file an
application, come before the Board, hire a lawyer to do this. To me that's ludicrous. We have
approved something. Let him have it permanently. If he changes it,this is a Special Use Permit. If
he changes it,he has to come back before the Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,but why does he have to come back before the Board just to change it from
renewable to permanent?
MR. KREBS-No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is, let's make it permanent. If he makes a change in
what we've approved,he has to come back to the Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,that's the same thing.
MR. KREBS-I know.
MR. FORD-What is wrong with reviewing the efficacy of the Special Use Permit at the end of a year?
MR. KREBS-Well,do you want to pay his fees for that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what he's saying.
MR. KREBS-He's got to hire a lawyer. He's got to come back here. He's got to pay the fees to come
before the Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-These lawyers are expensive.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, and I feel I'm to blame
because I started this thing. So let's go back to issues with the site itself, and then we can get into
the details regarding the Special Use Permit. Are there any concerns, after looking at this
application and hearing the presentation of the applicant, that the members of the Board have
regarding the fundamentals of the application itself? Or are we satisfied with what's being
proposed?
MR. KREBS-Well, I thought that Staff pretty much indicated they were pretty satisfied with what
had been proposed.
MR. DEEB-That's the way I read it.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. Both as a Planner and Code Compliance Officer are satisfied with what has
occurred on the site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well, then let's return to the discussion regarding the Special Use
Permit. As was pointed out earlier, we can do renewable. We can do a term or we can do
permanent. Now, it seems as though the direction the Board is going is one of two options, either
permanent, admonishing the applicant to return should any change to this design or use be made,
and expecting the applicant to do so. The other option would be, as recommended by Staff,would
be to let them operate for a year and then come before us again and re-affirm that they're happy
with the configuration and we're happy with their operation in that interim period, and then take a
look at making it permanent. What I would like to do is poll the Board on those two issues. Now
how many people would be in favor?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. KREBS-Steve, my question is you're saying, let's see if he, we'll give him a year. Let's see, he
doesn't do anything different,and then a year from now we're going to make it permanent. So then
what if he does something different in 18 months? You've now given him a permanent after you've
just asked him to come back. I don't see what we're accomplishing.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to preside at this meeting. So if I can
poll the Board,how many are in favor of?
MR. DEEB-Quick question. What are the costs involved if he has to come back in a year? Do they
have to do a full?
MRS. MOORE-The cost, it's still, a plan, a presentation to this Board and copies of plans for the
Board. It could be a narrative,if the Board chooses to have a narrative.
MR.TRAVER-As opposed to a full site plan.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Which would not be nearly as costly and involve as much legal fees.
MR. TRAVER-Well, probably the applicant could do that himself, assuming it satisfied Staff and he
got on the agenda.
MR. FORD-That's where I was going with it anyway. Have the applicant come back in a year.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can we grant a renewable permit, and if there's no questions, becomes
permanent in a year? I know you can do it in other towns. Can you do that here?
MRS.MOORE-You,as a Board,can choose to do that if you wish.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That answers Don's question. If they change anything,then they've got to come
back,but.
MR.TRAVER-Well,it becomes an enforcement issue.
MR. KREBS-But he still has to come back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,he doesn't,if it's a renewable.
MR.TRAVER-Not if it's automatically.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Renewable,becomes automatically permanent after a year providing he doesn't
change anything.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. That sounds like an option to you, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-You can do that.
MR.TRAVER-Automatic renewal? I mean, I sense a bit of discomfort with that.
MRS.MOORE-Only because your opportunity is permanent,temporary,renewable.
MR.TRAVER-We're omitting the review is what you're advising?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,if you had a permanent one.
MRS.MOORE-Correct. I would rather see you make the decision, I guess,versus.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. TRAVER-All right, well, let's, if we could, let us consider a third option, which it really sounds
like we just became aware of, and that is that the applicant merely filing a narrative report to Town
Staff before the end of the year, and if Staff approves that, it could be brought on the agenda as an
Administrative Item.
MRS.MOORE-You can do that,yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right? He wouldn't even have to come before the Board, unless, in seeing your Staff
Notes and preparing for the meeting,there were questions, and then we'd have to ask the applicant
to be there. How about that one?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-I like that one.
MR. FORD-Yes. I think that addresses my concern and Don's as well.
MR. DEEB-I think that works.
MR. TRAVER-So an option would be, it's a one year term renewable, right? At the end of that year,
or before the end of that year, the applicant submits,with however many staff you want to hire to
help you do it,that's up to you.
MR. FORD-Or not.
MR. TRAVER-But you would submit a narrative, or not, you would submit a narrative to the Town
Planning Office, okay. They review, based on your report, what has occurred on that site, and
advise us whether or not there's a substantive change. Otherwise, it becomes an administrative
item a year from now, and we're not requiring you to be present. You'd certainly be welcome to
come, and will get notice of the meeting, but we would basically then convert that one year to a
permanent. How do Board members feel about that?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-I like it.
MR. FORD-I like it.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Isn't it great when we write code at the meeting?
MRS. MOORE-A Special Use Permit gives you, that's why you put Special Use Permit in your Code
this time.
MR.TRAVER-Right. It gives us more flexibility. Okay. Good.
MR. FORD-And we just used that.
MR.TRAVER-We did,indeed.
MR. FORD-Thanks to our Chair.
MR.TRAVER-We did,indeed. Okay. Now all we've got to do, Don, is figure out how to put that into
a motion.
MR. FORD-He can do it.
MR.TRAVER-I know he can. Absolutely he can.
MRS.MOORE-And you do have public comment,or a public hearing that's still left open.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. Yes, I noticed every single one tonight has public comment. While
Don's working on a draft motion, I will open the public hearing, and ask if there are members of the
audience that want to make public comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR.TRAVER-Were there any written comments submitted?
MRS.MOORE-No.
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-And we can listen to a motion.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP # 3-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan to include additional paving along the
warehouse approaches to rear of site as well as new pavement associated with front overhead
doors. Further, accommodation to include tree clearing and hard-surfacing for the storage of up to
51 trailers located to the south and east on the parcel. Finally, the placement of an additional
transformer and bollards proposed to the east. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning
Board review and approval. Applicant is requesting 6 month extension.
A one year Temporary permit was issued on 1/24/2012; an extension was granted to June 2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/15/2013 and 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) Term of validity: The term of validity will be one year renewable with narrative supplied by the
applicant, submitted to the Town Planning Board for a permanent approval in the future. The
narrative is project activities that have occurred in the year, any issues that have developed that
have been brought up by the Code Compliance Officer,the applicant or anyone else.
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
MR.TRAVER-Is there any discussion?
MRS. MOORE-Can I, your narrative is project activities that have occurred in the year, any issues
that have developed that have been brought up by the Code Compliance Officer, the applicant, or
anyone else.
MR.TRAVER-That's a good point. That should be.
MRS.MOORE-The narrative needs to include.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,it should be specific. Okay.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. KREBS-Okay, Maria. Can you include that in the,what she said.
MR. FORD-And I'll second that amended motion.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR.TRAVER-You're all set. We'll see you, or hopefully maybe not see you in a year.
ROBERT PERKINS
MR. PERKINS-Thank you very much.
MR. FORD-We'll hear from you in a year.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MARK GIGNAC & HELEN LEVENDOS
OWNER(S) E. JAMES BARRETT & WILLIAM BARRETT ZONING CM- COMMERCIAL
MODERATE LOCATION 437 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEASE 1,496 SQ. FT. OF
SPACE, A PORTION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO OPERATE A CONSIGNMENT SHOP. NO
EXTERIOR CHANGES ARE PROPOSED; OPERATION INCLUDES LEASE OF A PORTION OF
EXISTING PARKING SPACES. NEW RETAIL USES IN A CM ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 59-11,AV 42-98, SP 9-98,AV 61-96, UV 46-
96,SP 43-96
MARK GIGNAC&HELEN LEVENDOS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-First I'll note that on the agenda this is an Unlisted SEQR. It actually is a Type II.
Laura confirmed that for us before the meeting. So we don't need to worry about SEQR. Laura, do
you want to review Staff comments for us?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Under Summary, the Planning Board is to conduct site plan review on an
application for use of a portion of the building to operate a consignment shop. Staff suggests
confirming outdoor displays and if necessary limiting consignment item display to the entrance
area of the shop with no materials to be displayed in the parking area. The applicant has indicated
the landlord has informed the tenants of the parking arrangement necessary for the site uses where
10 spaces have been allocated for the consignment shop. The applicant plans to place a sign at the
door entrance that is compliant with the sign code, and that's the information I have, and in our
application materials, also in yours, is a letter from the land owner in regards to the parking
arrangements,because there's two uses on that site. That's all I have. Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. I believe you stated your names for the record. If
not,please do so.
MS. LEVENDOS-Helen Levendos.
MR. GIGNAC-Mark Gignac.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Do you want to tell us about your project? It seems fairly straightforward.
MR. GIGNAC-Fairly straightforward. I'm looking to (lost words) a car dealership. I'm looking at
the left side of the building. It's about 1400 square foot to put in a consignment shop,basically.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. GIGNAC-I mean,it's pretty straightforward. There isn't much I've really got to do to turn it into
a consignment shop.
MR.TRAVER-Consignment stars,huh?
MR. GIGNAC-Yes.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well, looking at my own review of this application, it looks like he's
already done what he needs to do.
MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say,I noticed some stuff in the window myself.
MR. TRAVER-Really? Okay. I wasn't talking about that. Is there anything in your application that
you want to clarify or that you want us to be particularly aware of as we review this application this
evening?
MR. GIGNAC-Not really.
MR.TRAVER-I agree. It seemed fairly straightforward.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes.
MR. KREBS-The building is going to be filled,and we're going to collect some sales tax.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I guess I'll open it up for other members of the Board, for any questions
or concerns regarding this application they want to voice with the applicant.
MR. DEEB-You're going to delineate the properties? How are you going to do that? Were you
going to do that? Sometimes you have to use a fence or you have to use, you know, the used car
lot's over here. You're over there.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes. What is it is if you look at the property, it's actually divided in half. The car
dealership's actually going to stay right to the right hand side.
MR. DEEB-But it's all going to be open,so if people drive in.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes, they come in, you go right to the left hand side would be complete open at all
times.
MR. DEEB-And you've got those end spaces.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes, there's, I don't have it in front of me, but there are, I think, seven as you come to
the left.
MRS.MOORE-I was going to say,you can look on the board. I don't,
MS.LEVENDOS-This side.
MR. GIGNAC-Right there, there's three in the front, which gives the ten, but there's actually, if you
went off to where that line is right there, there's room for like three more if I had to put them in
there. So I can actually bring it up to almost 13 spaces if I had to.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-You know your neighbor well,the used car dealer?
MR. GIGNAC-I talk to him quite a bit. I mean,and we get along.
MR. DEEB-Good. That's the important thing.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes.
MR. DEEB-I lease some property and I have two different tenants. So you really want to know who
your neighbor is.
MR. GIGNAC-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. TRAVE R-Interesting. Okay. Anything else? Okay. I guess I have no concerns. I think we
have a draft.
MR. KREBS-Yes,we do.
MRS.MOORE-And you do have a public hearing. Sorry to interrupt you.
MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry. Thank you,again. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. TRAVER-And seeing no one in the audience, unless we have written comment, I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 27-2013 MARK GIGNAC &HELEN LEVENDOS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to lease 1,496 sq. ft. of space, a portion of an existing building to operate a
consignment shop. No exterior changes are proposed; operation includes lease of a portion of
existing parking spaces. New retail uses in a CM zone require Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/25/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2013 MARK GIGNAC&HELEN LEVENDOS, Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt.,landscaping;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
MR.TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MS. LEVENDOS-Thank you.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/25/2013)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 25, 2013,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Acting Chairman