02-25-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25,2014
INDEX
Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 1.
Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8
Site Plan No.9-2014 Ron&Cindy Mackowiak 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33, 59.122
Site Plan No. 14-2014 Matthew&Samantha Ball 6.
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2014 Tax Map No. 308.6-1-16.2, 25, 27, 28
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Subdivision No. 6-1984 Christopher Gaunt 10.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.18-1-32, 33
Site Plan No. 11-2014 M &W Foods 12.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43
Site Plan No. 13-2014 James Mackey 17.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-16, 17, 19
Site Plan No. 15-2014 Marc Fuchs; Betty Fuchs 21.
Tax Map No. 239.14-1-2
Site Plan No. 12-2014 H.D. Man, LLC 23.
Tax Map No. 308.15-1-39
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 02/25/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
STEPHEN TRAVER
BRAD MAGOWAN
THOMAS FORD
DAVID DEEB
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the Town of Queensbury meeting of the Planning Board on
Tuesday, February 25, 2014. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the
agenda on the back table. There's also copies of public hearing procedures on the back table. Most
of the items do have public hearings. First item on the agenda is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS: TABLED TO 2-24-2014; NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a date that we want to table that to?
MRS.MOORE-I would say until the summertime,whether that be June or July.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow,that far out?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. He's working with a new engineer on the information to update the, to address
all the engineering comments previously requested, and so I know that I met with them once, I
thought they were moving forward,and I have not heard from them since.
MR. KREBS-Do you have available the July first meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-It's the 15th.
MR. KREBS-The 15th. Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This thing will be two and a half years old by the time we get to it.
MRS.MOORE-Well,the Board does have that opportunity to deny it without prejudice.
MR.TRAVER-You said the first meeting in July,the 15th,the 15th and 221,x.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have met with the applicant,though?
MRS.MOORE-I have met with the applicant. I know they're working on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, if they weren't working on it, I'd be tempted to recommend we do
that,but.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. If I come across some additional information in the future, I'll advise you of
something different.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-But right now I'm comfortable saying that, if you choose to table it to a June meeting
that would be fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-A June meeting?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MRS.MOORE-Yes,or July,whatever, I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which would you prefer?
MRS.MOORE-Let's do July.
MR. HUNSINGER-July? Okay. July 15th.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Tabled until the July 15, 2014 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items on the agenda this evening that are Recommendations to
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2014 SEQR TYPE II RON & CINDY MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) CURTIS DYBAS
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 9
GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE.
THIS INCLUDES A NEW 288 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, A TWO LEVEL 56.1 SQ. FT.
ADDITION, 1sT LEVEL FOR STORAGE, 2ND LEVEL REC. ROOM AND TO ENLARGE 4 EXISTING
BEDROOMS WITH 266 SQ. FT. ADDITION 2ND FLOOR EXTENSION. PROJECT INCLUDES
RELOCATION OF SHEDS ON PROPERTY. UPGRADE TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS ALSO
PROPOSED. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AND EXPANSION OF NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 8-14, AV 4-13, SB 8-07 APA,
CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA,NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES, 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 289.11-1-33, 59.122 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010
CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Under the Nature of the Variance, the applicant requests setback relief for
construction of additions to an existing home. 1St and 2nd floor is to be 27 ft.where 50 ft. is required
to the shoreline; home addition on south would be 9.93 where 20 ft. is required; home addition on
the north side would be 12 ft. where 20 ft. is required. Under Summary, The Planning Board is to
provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the application for
alterations to an existing home, construction of a garage and relocations of sheds where relief is
requested for setback requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DYBAS-Good evening. For the record, Curt Dybas representing Ron and Cindy Mackowiak.
The Mackowiaks have come to this place for about four years now. It is basically a 50's camp that
was winterized some time ago. It's nicely done, and they have recently retired and want to make
this their year round residence,and in order to do so,there needs to be some expansion because it's
about 1200 square feet of occupied area right now. It is a four bedroom, and they want to move the
front wall of the second floor toward the lake in order to enlarge the second floor bedrooms, and
add a recreation room because really there's no open space in this existing building. That's a very
difficult site for anyone who visited it, and it's basically you have a first floor and you have I call it a
lower second floor, then you have an upper second floor, and what you're doing is adding about
50% of increase in occupied space to it. The garage that's on the site plan is basically a future
reference. I've always been told that the Boards want to see the overall plan, and the garage would
be built after they reside up here a while. There are two temporary structures up in the parking
area, one for the boat, for winter storage for the boat, and the other is basically stuff. The
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
Mackowiaks have purchased the lot in back of them. It's the large parcel which is driving the 20
foot side yard setbacks because of the average. The lots, well, one other thing. They negotiated
with a neighbor to straighten out a property line so that their dock was actually on their property.
So there's three deeds in your packet, and what has to be done is those three parcels have to be
united as one. Mike O'Connor's doing that, but I understand Mike O'Connor's in Florida and it will
get done when he gets back. Also there will be a Code compliant septic system installed. I was
informed today by Tom Hutchins that he's waiting for winter to break so he can do his test holes in
the area of the system, and he said it is designed. It will work, but he said he wants to wait,
obviously,to dig test holes because it's not the time of the year,but that is basically, oh,getting back
to the two temporary structures. One will definitely be moved down onto the new piece of
property for the boat storage for the winter. The smaller one will probably stay up on the hill in
some location for stuff. There is very little storage in this existing building. I don't know if I
missed anything. Any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're bringing that second story to be flush with the lower level where the
sliding glass doors are?
MR. DYBAS-That is correct. They're not sliders. They're casements, but, yes, but I am pushing it
out.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Floor to ceiling casements,then,they're pretty big?
MR. DYBAS-Well,the deck is like 20 inches above the floor. So when you're looking at the deck,the
deck is 20 inches above the inside of floor. So that's why those casements appear so low, and why
the floor appears so short,but the second floor basically is pushed out 10 feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that big tree right there in the middle?
MR. DYBAS-That's staying. Cynthia Mackowiak is in love with that tree. Don't you dare mention
anything.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not worried about it staying. I'm more worried about the foundation. That's a
big tree.
MR. DYBAS-That is a huge tree. That is a huge tree.
MR. DEEB-You're moving the bigger structure? You're moving the temporary big structure in the
back to where?
MR. DYBAS-Down, if you look on the map,you'll see there's another parcel in the back, Laura, right
there, and Hall Road comes down around, and right where she has the cursor right now would be
just about the location where we'll put the large structure because of ease of getting the pontoon
boat into. That's what it's used for.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it's definitely been kind of laid out for the land there with the stepping
foundation,and,you know,the addition. So you're kind of sloping it up as you go.
MR. DYBAS-It's a challenging site,to say the least.
MR. TRAVER-I see that you've requested that you not submit a stormwater, you request a waiver
for stormwater management. This is in a Critical Environmental Area. My own feeling is we do
need to look at stormwater.
MR. DYBAS-We will look at it and,well,there is,the well for the house is on the northern side of the
property, and in order to get distance separation, we can't do it and comply with the stormwater
management. We will turn around and do eaves drains. One of the advantages of adding this 10
feet on is that we can change the direction,the slope of the roof and remediate roof runoff by means
of eaves trenches, rather than just dumping it out onto the lakeside, and we'll do the same thing on
the entire structure,both the existing and the new.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I understand what you're saying. So your well, you can't get the separation
you need from the well if you submit, I see what you're saying about the stormwater.
MR. DYBAS-Yes,and I can't move the well.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR.TRAVER-Right,right, I understand.
MR. DYBAS-I mean, it's a typical small lot. One of the things was put the well up in the parking.
Well,then I have all the neighbor's septic.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. FORD-Where is the well currently?
MR. DYBAS-The well is on the.
MR. FORD-I don't see it on the map.
MR. DYBAS-On the north side, about mid-way, it's where the intermediate door goes in the side is
the well is just outside of that.
MR. TRAVER-Are you confident that your well has the separation from neighboring septic systems
and all that?
MR. DYBAS-Yes, all the septics are up on the, up in the back, and the property to the north is
abandoned.
MR. FORD-The septic is where?
MR. DYBAS-The septic right now is on the south side. There will be a new field installed up on top
of the ridge of the acquired property in the back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? Could you talk about shoreline landscaping?
MR. DYBAS-We were hoping to leave what was there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I hope you will,too,but the Code requires a little more than what's there.
MR. DYBAS-We haven't considered, quite frankly, adding anything to it. Everything would have to
be done by hand if we do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. DYBAS-And we'd make an effort to do something, and if the Board wants to see something next
month,we'll see what we can come back with.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the only question is now, since you're adding, you know, so much, you know,
square footage and more roof runoff,you know,looking at the picture here,you know,looks,there's
not much there to hold anything back. Is that like sand in that in front of the wall?
MR. DYBAS-It's typical gravel, Glen Lake gravel.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, you definitely have some nice mature trees there and I'm glad you're
keeping that,the big one there right in the center.
MR. DYBAS-I don't know how you'd take it down.
MR. FORD-Very carefully.
MR. HUNSINGER-In the winter from the ice.
MR. KREBS-There is a method, by the way, that tree people use, they go up and they cut pieces off
and slowly lower them down.
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. KREBS-But I don't think we want to remove it.
MR. DYBAS-It would be very small pieces. I can tell you that.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Any concerns with the
waivers requested,or, I'm sorry,with the variances requested?
MR. KREBS-Well,these are always difficult when you look at these lots that were created years ago,
and then you're going to expand them, but at least they are putting in a new septic system. So
that's going to help.
MR. HUNSINGER-And they did buy the additional property.
MR. DYBAS-That was the purpose for purchasing the additional property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And they're not changing the footprint,you know,they're just going up.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they are kind of changing the rear of the footprint, but they're not coming
forward anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-How about requesting some shoreline buffering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what I had asked. He said he'd comeback with something.
MR. FORD-Okay. I didn't know if we had concurrence on that or not. Good. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? I guess
before we do that, I mean, the Zoning Board is going to ask about that as well, if we have another
project later on where the Zoning Board did approve the variances, but that was one of their
recommendations is that we carefully look at the shoreline plantings. So,go ahead.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 8-2014 RON&CINDY MACKOWIAK
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes alterations to an
existing home and site. This includes a new 288 sq. ft. detached garage, a two level 561 sq. ft.
addition, 1St level for storage, 2nd level rec room and to enlarge 4 existing bedrooms with 266 sq. ft.
addition 2nd floor extension. Project includes relocation of sheds on property. Upgrade to the septic
system is also proposed. Site Plan: Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from minimum setback requirements of the
WR zone and expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AV # 8-2014 RON & CINDY MACKOWIAK, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. We do recommend that you look closely at
shoreline plantings.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. DYBAS-Thank you. See you next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is also a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2014 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2014 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW &
SAMANTHA BALL AGENT(S) TOM CENTER, NACE ENG. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION EAST & SOUTH END
MICHAELS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF 4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SITE
PLAN: FILLING AND CREATION OF HARD SURFACED AREAS (DRIVEWAYS) WITHIN 50 FEET
OF A SHORELINE. FWW: DISTURBANCE OF LAND WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED
WETLAND. VARIANCES: LOT 2-SHORELINE SETBACK RELIEF; LOT 5-LACK OF ACCESS TO A
PUBLIC HIGHWAY. CROSS REFERENCE A V 10-14, SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION, PH. II
APA, CEA,OTHER DEC WETLANDS,NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.36 AC.,6 AC., 10 AC., 1 AC.
TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-16.2,25,27,28 SECTION 179-3-040,CHAPTER 94
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SAMANTHA BALL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I'll start with the Nature of the Variances. The applicant requests relief on two of the
four lots that are to be developed. Lot 2 proposes to construct a dwelling within 39 ft. of the
wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. Lot 5 proposes to construct a home where the driveway
access will be through an adjoining lot to Michaels Drive relief is required for the lack of access to a
public highway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering representing Mr. and Mrs. Ball in
regards to this project. This is an existing subdivision, Sherman Pines Subdivision. The two
variances, as Laura said, the first one is, if she can pull up Drawing Number One, is to locate the
driveway on an adjacent lot so that we can avoid any wetland disturbance. That way if we are
approved for the variance, we can access the lot via Lot Six's parcel and have an easement to get
around the wetland and onto the lot in the location where the house is, within the wetland
boundary, we're greater than 100 feet from the wetland. The septic system will be a compliant
septic system. The only relief we're asking for is to locate the driveway on the adjacent parcel so
that we don't have to cross the wetland. All these parcels, all four of these parcels, are owned by
the Balls. They plan on building on some of them for themselves as kind of a retirement, build
their house that they have now, sell their house and build another house in that fashion, or be able
to market the lots for sale. The reason we had lumped all four together is because it's, all four of
them are adjacent to the same wetland. So it'll be the same wetland permit, the joint application
we'll be filing with DEC. We've met out at the site with DEC and gone over what we're proposing
with them. They didn't see any major issues. They've asked us to come before the Town Board
before we go back to them to actually file the permit for the wetland buffer disturbance. In all of
these projects we're not doing any disturbance to the wetland itself. There would only be
disturbance to the buffer area, which, we'll be back before the Board for a Freshwater Wetlands
permit for that. So that is for Lot Five would be the road frontage and if you could go to Drawing
Three, and on Drawing Three you'll see the, for Lot Number Two, we're looking for relief from the
shoreline setback. What we're trying to do there is use, the grade drops away, closer to the
wetland. What we're trying to do is locate the house back there along that so we can reduce the
amount of disturbance that we'd have to do for the foundation and grading and place the house
close to the location, actually, we're a little bit further to the, closer to the road than the actual
subdivision had shown the houses for most of these lots. If you look in the package, there were, I
believe, the existing subdivision had some of these houses located right within the wetland
boundary at the time that it was designed. So all we're looking for here is for disturbance of the
buffer, no disturbance of the wetland proper. All the disturbance will be outside the wetlands, and
we're looking for 39 feet of wetland setback in lieu of the 75 foot for the house on Lot Two, and
again,all the septic systems will comply. The other two lots, Lot Five and Lot Three,the houses will
be located outside the 100 foot setback.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I don't know, maybe I was the only one
that was a little confused on this. These are all existing lots?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. CENTER-These are all existing lots. They're all owned by the same owner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-They've all already been subdivided, approved. They were legacy lots. She actually
owns Lot Two, Three, Four, Five and Six. So they own that whole back parcel, and they reside on
Lot One,which is across from Lot Two,in that area. That's where their existing house is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-So she owns all of these lots,and their existing house is on that lot right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-And the original plan also called for a cul de sac to be located out to access Lot Two,
Lot One and Two, and now, of course, we're going to use two driveways, in lieu of a Town road and
a cul de sac. It'll be two separate driveways on their own lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought they were shown as a shared driveway on your plan?
MR. CENTER-No,there'll be,there's an existing,if you go back to Drawing Three,there is an existing
gravel driveway that's located on Lot One, and there would be a separate one all within the same.
So those are two separate driveways.
MR. MAGOWAN-So, right now, coming off the cul de sac, the paved cul de sac off Michaels Drive,
that first driveway,you say that's already in?
MR. CENTER-No, neither of those lots are constructed on. Are you talking about Lot Six and Lot
Five? Or are you talking about where her existing house is? Which drawing?
MR. MAGOWAN-No,the proposed house.
MR. CENTER-Neither driveway,there is no driveway on any of these lots here.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm sorry, I missed that, proposed driveway for that way, and then the other
proposed driveway goes to the back.
MR. CENTER-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that's the (lost words).
MR. CENTER-The driveways? Correct. Yes. The cul de sac has been constructed to Town
standards. I think it's been accepted, and we've got, the topography was basically, it was level
before.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fire protection stops at the end of the cul de sac.
MR. CENTER-Correct. All the driveways are shorter than the 350, I believe, that's required to start
having turn offs and.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm confused why you wouldn't propose a shared driveway for Lots One and
Two? Those are the ones I was referring to.
MR. CENTER-That's something I could address with the owner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because you have, I mean,you're going to have four driveways within 100 feet.
MRS. BALL-Okay. So,for my driveway, I currently live on Lot One.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,are you Samantha?
MRS. BALL-Yes, hi, I'm Samantha. Sorry about that. Because I'm listening, and this stuff gets kind
of confusing. For Lots One and Two, we have a shared driveway. You actually, the Zoning Board
approved it. So when I built on Lot One, there are obviously two parcels, but we wanted to limit
any removal of trees because we like our wooded land. So what we did is we, you know, agreed
that we would share the driveway. So there is one small gravel driveway. It's really not even
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
enough for, I mean, two cars can pass, but we made it as small as possible. So there is a shared
driveway,and we did that in lieu of the cul de sac.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BALL-So,sorry. You weren't there when he did that,although you did our septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just looking at Sheet Three of Four, and it kind of looks like there's four
driveways within, I don't know if it's 100 feet,not even 100 feet.
MR. CENTER-We will make that change before we come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes,because the shows.
MR. CENTER-Shows one driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay.
MR. CENTER-We'll make that change before we come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes more sense to me,too.
MRS. BALL-Yes,that's because it was years ago.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. So really the biggest issue is you're just changing the proposed
location of the houses to move it around the wetlands?
MR. CENTER-Correct. We have to meet the,you know, (lost word) requirements in order to get the
building permit. So we have to file the wetland permit, the Freshwater Wetland permit for the
Town, the joint application for DEC, and we've already walked the parcel with DEC and they don't
have any major concerns. They just wanted the Town to have their say and then we will sit down
again with DEC for their permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when the original subdivision was approved, those wetlands weren't
identified?
MR. CENTER-I don't know if they were labeled wetlands at the time,back then,from the subdivision
drawing that was there,and I believe it's in the packet,it may be in the packet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's kind of hard to read,though.
MR. CENTER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-It says low seasonally wet area.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's before we had wetlands.
MR. CENTER-And that's also currently the area that the French drain at the end of Michaels Drive is
mitigating the issues that were there previously.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-This is, remember on either side of the cul de sac there's catch basins and a French
drain that comes down along Lot Six's property line. There's a 30 foot wide drainage easement that
comes down along the property line and then extends and goes down all the way out to Luzerne
Road. So there's a French drain and a series of manholes that the Town and Mrs. Ball did give an
easement for that drainage to cut across Lot Six and then goes down all the way out to Luzerne
Road through the Charlton subdivision. So that area is also being somewhat drained, if you will,by
that French drain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. CENTER-And I believe it's helped tremendously for the neighborhood on that Michaels Drive
area, where people, I believe, some people have said their sump pumps now hardly run at all, if any
have any water in them. So that has mitigated that.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions or comments from the Board? I guess the only
outstanding question I have is the Lot Two proposed house being 39 feet from the wetland.
There's no way to get anymore separation distance?
MR. CENTER-If we go to the, closer to the cul de sac or the Lot One and Two shared property line,
the elevation comes up and in order to construct the foundation in the basement, we're going to
have issues with grade and have to disturb,you know,the higher you go,you have to disturb more,
more area. So by trying to use the grade, we're trying to disturb less, and even though, I mean,
there's still a trail that comes up through there. We've kind of walked it in that area, and we feel
we're on, you know, a pretty good location that we're not going to impact the wetland, that the
actual wetland actually drops off quite a bit down below and the actual wet area sits down several
feet. I'd say almost four or five feet lower than where we're proposing for the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-What are the requirements of the future home buyer in terms of maintaining the
wetland and not using the wetland or filling in the wetland,and all of those fun questions?
MRS. MOORE-They all still apply. That's why that buffer is there, and that's been explained, in the
past, I've seen applicants identify that within the plat,so you cannot do anything in this,and it's also
in the resolution. So it shows up a couple of places, but I can't, you know, the owner has to take
that responsibility.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know we've had some site plans in the past where we said well they couldn't
have a back door out to,into the yard because it was a wetland and,you know,things like that.
MR. CENTER-That's where DEC, why on this plan DEC asked us to identify the lawn areas for
disturbance, and that's why we've kept that, we've defined that number in that area on these
drawings which becomes part of the record and part of the plat.
MR. FORD-To develop a lawn, you don't anticipate using a bulldozer to push over trees all the way
into the wetland like we've observed that on certain projects?
MR. CENTER-No.
MRS. BALL-No.
MR. CENTER-No, for Lot Two we've kept it to the higher side along the property lines closer to
Michaels Drive.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-These aren't wetlands. These are seasonal wet areas.
MR. CENTER-And it's one that we're currently allowing to drain through, you know, a manmade
device out to Luzerne Road. So it's got a control to it where it didn't in the past. Now it does have
a control that, you know, I've witnessed it pretty strongly coming out into the Luzerne Road catch
basin out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions?
MR. CENTER-We will be back before the Planning Board.
MR. FORD-Look forward to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any unexpressed concerns with the variance requests that are before us? Okay.
Would anyone like to put forward a resolution?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 10-2014 MATTHEW&SAMANTHA BALL
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes development of 4
single family homes. Site Plan: Filling&creation of hard surfaced areas (driveways) within 50 feet
of a shoreline. FWW: Disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. Variances: Lot
2-shoreline setback relief, Lot 5-lack of access to a public highway.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AV# 10-2014 MATTHEW&SAMANTHA BALL, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. We have several items on Old Business this
evening.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1984 MODIFICATION CHRISTOPHER GAUNT AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &
STEVES OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER GAUNT&ANDREW FEDELE ZONING MDR-MODERATE
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 24&26 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 140 & 141 OF BEDFORD CLOSE, SECT. 5. LOT
308.18-1-32 WILL BE REDUCED FROM 0.94 ACRES TO 0.85 ACRES AND LOT 308.18-1-33
WILL INCREASE FROM 0.77 ACRES TO 0.86 ACRES TO ADDRESS EXISTING POOL LOCATION.
SUBDIVISION: MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-14, BP 09-239 (POOL) LOT SIZE
0.94 ACRES, 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-32, 33 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a lot line modification of the
Bedford Close Section 5 for lots 308.18-1-32 and 308.18-1-33. The new lot line would address a
pool location on the neighboring parcel so the line is not in the middle of the pool. The proposed lot
line will not impact the pools location on either lot which will be compliant with the required
setbacks for pools.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Andrew Fedele and Christopher Gaunt on
this application. We were here in front of you last Tuesday to briefly discuss this, and we went on
to the Zoning Board Wednesday night and obtained that approval for the lot line adjustment for the
area of the lot. As we said before, the adjustment of the lot line makes both pools conforming on
the respective lots and puts the Fedele pool completely on their property. It's just a basic simple
lot line adjustment,and won't keep it going anymore than that. It's pretty straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-It's pretty straightforward to me.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I still want to know how they were so far off.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like they said, they found that one rod there and they both put up the fence on
either side. It was,you know,nobody knew. Those are some darn good neighbors.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were
received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And with that,if anyone's ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO SUB# 6-1984 CHRISTOPHER GAUNT
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between lots 140 & 141 of Bedford Close, Sect. 5. Lot
308.18-1-32 will be reduced from 0.94 acres to 0.85 acres and lot 308.18-1-33 will increase from
0.77 acres to 0.86 acres to address existing pool location. Subdivision: Modification to an
approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from
minimum lot size requirement of the MDR zone.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed;
PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 2-18-14; the ZBA approved the variance request on
2-19-2014;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2-25-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1984 CHRISTOPHER GAUNT,
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. 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.
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 February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2014 SEQR TYPE II M & W FOODS AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF,
STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE
LOCATION 797 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 3,730
SQ. FT. KFC BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW KFC BUILDING ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT.
SITE WORK INCLUDES DRIVE-THRU AND PARKING UPDATES WITH NEW BUILDING
LANDSCAPING. SITE PLAN: NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-14, SV 14-14, SP 20-
10,AV 13-10, SV 14-02 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.73 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-090
JON LAPPER&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the removal of an existing KFC
restaurant and the building of a new KFC in the same footprint. The Board may request
clarification of items that may be considered not applicable including stormwater management, soil
logs,and material disposal. That's all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I did, I meant to mention at the very beginning of the meeting.
If there's anyone here for a public hearing for Site Plan 15-2014, for Marc and Betty Fuchs, that
project will be tabled because the ZBA didn't act on it. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper and Tom Hutchins. We were here last year
for the site plan review for Wendy's, and I think this is a little analogous. Another sort of tired old
fast food building that needs to be replaced, this one probably worse than some of the others. The
Kentucky Fried Chicken that's there now just,nothing to do but knock it down,and what's proposed
is some minor but positive upgrade to the site. There wasn't a lot to work with, but increased
landscaping a little bit, a much nicer, newer building, better circulation. After receiving your
recommendation, the Zoning Board granted the variances. So we're here to discuss any site plan
issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You were going to take another look at that exit.
MR. FORD-The loop.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I was,and I did.
MR. FORD-Good,we're anxious to hear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I'm sure you folks may have as well. It's, at present state it is sort of a free for
all, and I think there's a couple of things that we could do to improve that, the simplest being some
signage. What we see as the problem movement, we don't have a problem with the movement
from Old Aviation Road,through into the Plaza. It's not a real frequent movement and a lot of times
they're customers either coming to the Plaza or to KFC or someone else. We have no issue with
that movement whatsoever. The problem traffic movement is someone going south or worse yet
north on Route 9 and cutting through and heading the right before the KFC and shooting through to
Old Aviation Road, and in order to discourage that movement, we both have, we have a signage
alternative as well as extending that curbing out in pork chop shape curb to make that movement
very difficult to go through there and take a right into Old Aviation Road.
MR. LAPPER-It'll stop some people.
MR. FORD-It'll slow it down.
MR. HUTCHINS-It'll certainly slow it down,okay, and the area we're,here being the restaurant,here
is the current curbing limit,and what we're talking about is a curb that allows for a 12 foot overflow
lane around, and a stacking lane, but it's curbing all the way out here. So this through right turn is
much more difficult, not impossible, much more difficult, and combined with do not enter, only
right. You've got three signs. We don't want it blocked off,but I think that's the improvement that
we identified as (lost word).
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. FORD-Well,that is an improvement. That definitely is.
MR. MAGOWAN-Camera sign,you know,you're under surveillance.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I don't know,did anybody have any other thoughts?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,you got them all.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, like you said, you're not going to stop everything, but that is definitely, and I
like you bringing it out to a point, too, and not a round one there. At least if they do go they might
catch the edge of their aluminum rims and think twice about it again.
MR. HUTCH INS-Realistically, anybody that is going to do it is not going to be able to do it at high
speed,and some of them go through there at fair speed now.
MR. DEEB-So traffic coming in is going to go behind the building,you want it all diverted behind the
building?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Because I've seen traffic come in and go down to the north side of the building.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,but that's not what we want. That's going to stop that. Yes.
MR. DEEB-Yes,that'll inhibit it quite a bit.
MR. HUTCHINS-That will inhibit that.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-I like it.
MR. FORD-It's a good improvement.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a great improvement.
MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions, comments did Board members have? I don't remember if
we talked about lighting at all last week.
MR. HUTCHINS-We talked to the degree that all of the new lighting we propose is building mounted.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's right.
MR. HUTCHINS-We're reasonably content with the lighting that's there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-It's down lighting.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,there's a couple of street lights, (lost words) lights there,but.
MR. DEEB-The two signs are going to be lit?
MR. HUTCHINS-The signs will be back lit,yet.
MR. DEEB-Back lit.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How long is it going to take you to do this?
MR. HUTCHINS-Eight weeks was what I was told when I asked the question,yes.
MR. LAPPER-They don't fool around.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's better than McDonald's.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. LAPPER-Wendy's went pretty fast.
MR. HUTCHINS-That seems pretty quick,but that's what their schedule is.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-With that and that area across the street, it's kind of shaping up that area up
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to talk about stormwater management at all?
MR. HUTCHINS-We, basically enhancing the impervious area, we are, the newly created pervious
area is around the buildings and their general patterns of the parking area in that area are going to
remain as is, and we have created some planting areas that will allow us to deal with roof runoff
and area walkway runoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Will the proposal address the problems with the entrance off Route 9 that currently
exist?
MR. HUTCHINS-We propose no changes to the entrance off Route 9.
MR. FORD-Okay. Is that ownership of the mall,that's their responsibility?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-It's not part of the lease parcel.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's not part of our,yes,it's the ownership of the plaza.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know when they just put in the new striping, that really helped a lot, you
know,the lane delineations for the entrance and exits.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think it works okay. There's certain times when you can't go left. I mean, I went
out of there today and the left turn was easily doable and traffic allowed for it. There are certain
time when you can't do it,and if you can accept the fact that you can't do it,it works.
MR. KREBS-Between 4:45 in the afternoon when everybody's coming out.
MR. FORD-I was thinking more of the potholes and the roughness of the entrance and exit, right
outside of the KFC.
MR. HUTCHINS-There is, I hit that pothole, and that's in the right of way,when I was turning left out
of there. That's in the right of way. So that's a DOT issue.
MR. LAPPER-It's going to be a rough Spring everywhere this year.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,the plants don't open for another two months,so good luck.
MRS. MOORE-I can just add that clarification should be given to the number of seats, because when
I talked to Tom this afternoon, my numbers in that front first paragraph are incorrect. There's
actually,it goes from 80 seats to 68 seats.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MRS.MOORE-Just a clarification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Laura.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the
Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and if there are no comments, we will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEQR, and
unless there's anything else from members of the Board, I guess a motion would be in order.
MRS.MOORE-Could I just ask,before you start?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-In reference to the updated curbing on Old Aviation Road, how do you want to
incorporate that into your resolution?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean,they have the plan there.
MRS. MOORE-I don't have that plan, just so that we're clear that that's, the Board is comfortable
with that plan that's being submitted as part of.
MR. HUTCHINS-I can provide copies of that,if that helps.
MR. LAPPER-As a condition of approval,we agree to that change.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, the only concern is if there's something on that plan that's
inconsistent with what we already have, other than the curbing. That would be my only concern, I
mean,the signage and the.
MR. MAGOWAN-We don't want you to pull a fast one on us.
MR. HUTCHINS-To my knowledge there's nothing.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's enough for me.
MR. DEEB-Tom,are you going to use all three signs?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. They're spotted on there. Two of them are right beside,well,they're all in the
same general location. This one is looking this way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. This one is looking this way.
MR. DEEB-All right.
MR. HUTCHINS-And this one the same way. So these two would be probably, sort of saying the
same thing but they're not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-They're saying only right,one says only right and the other says no left.
MR. FORD-Or vice versa.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-But it makes the point,in case you get confused with either one.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right,and you don't know the (lost word).
MR. FORD-Thank you for addressing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else, Laura,that you?
MRS.MOORE-No,that was it. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. Thank you. So I guess whenever you're ready.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 11-2014 M &W FOODS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 3,730 sq. ft. KFC building to construct a new KFC
building on the same footprint. Site work includes drive-thru and parking updates with new
building landscaping. Site Plan: New commercial construction in a Cl zone requires Planning
Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from minimum front setback requirements of the Cl
zone.
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 2-18-14; the ZBA approved the variance request on 2-
19-14;
SEQR Type II;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 2-25-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2014 M &W FOODS, 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) Additional condition of approval is per drawing submitted relative to curbing and signage to
Old Aviation Road.
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 February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm going to watch and see if that's eight weeks. It's taken them longer than that
to do the Hobby Lobby project.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's what I was told,yes.
MR. DEEB-When are you going to start?
MR. HUTCHINS-I'm not sure.
MR. LAPPER-It'll be quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-You're welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2014 SEQR TYPE II JAMES MACKEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 5
& 7 GARRETT LANE, 27 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH TWO EXISTING
CAMPS AND DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,807 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) 4
BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, DRIVEWAY, AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM UPON
THREE EXISTING LOTS OFF GARRETT ROAD. SITE PLAN: CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT
ACTIVITIES WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 16-14 GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS
LOT SIZE 0.17, 0.16, 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-16, 17, 19 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS&JACE BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has completed a site plan application for the construction of a
new home within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15%. The Board may request clarification for
shoreline buffer plantings and retaining wall details. The Zoning Board comments to the Planning
Board requested attention be given to the septic location review to determine if it could be moved
further from the lake and to review shoreline buffer during site plan review as no information was
provided for ZBA review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Whenever you're ready,the floor is yours.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Good evening again. Tom Hutchins with Jace Brown from Finney Design
Group, the project architect, and I'll briefly touch on some site issues and then Jace will tell you a
little bit about the house's design. Again, this is, we're here on behalf of the Mackeys. The
Mackeys own the three parcels off Garrett Lane on Glen Lake. There presently are two cabins, a
garage, a whole bunch of asphalt. On the three parcels the Mackeys propose to remove the cabins
and replace them with a new residence. The three lots will be merged into one. The residence is
compliant in all means,with the exception that, as you were aware,we had to ask the Zoning Board
for a variance from lack of road frontage. We were granted that variance, and we're here for site
plan review. A couple of things that did come up, when we were at the Zoning Board, where they
had a concern in the location of the septic tanks, and they asked us to take another look at that. I
did take another look at that, and we were able to improve that location. We were able to revise
that location, and I'm sure they would see it as an improvement. We brought the septic tanks back
to the other side of the house that went further from the lake, which was the concern. We've also
shown shoreline buffering both on the northerly portion of the shoreline, southerly portion of the
shoreline. The site work includes permeable asphalt, substantial area of permeable asphalt, and
with infiltration of runoff beneath the asphalt. We've included an enhanced wastewater treatment
system. It's a peat bio filter system. It's a very accepted relatively simple enhanced treatment
system, which is not as simple as a conventional system. It's more complicated. It's more
expensive. It does a better job, and that's, it still is in compliance. We didn't ask for a wastewater
variance, but we've included the enhanced treatment system, and shoreline buffering, we have
added, since the plan that you see, we have added, as I said we've added shoreline buffering, and
with that I'll turn it over to Jace to talk a little bit about the house, and if you want to add anything
on the site.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. BROWN-Again, Jace Brown, Finney Design Group. Thank you for hearing us this evening. I
just wanted to point out that, you know, obviously, this is a sensitive issue sometimes with these
older camps,different era than today. The three existing lots are,you know,in aggregate,half of an
acre. Queensbury is looking for lots of two acres in this area. So obviously we're bringing this
much closer to conformance with the standard that the Town is trying to develop along these
sensitive ecological areas along the shoreline. We've attempted to do everything we possibly can,
not only in terms of the site plan, but also thinking about the environmental impact of the building
itself. It's energy envelope, use of local materials, that type of thing. In a moment I'll get up and
show you a rendering of what we envision the outside of the building to look like from the lake so
that you can assess its visual impact. The owners are big fans of the large trees that are along the
lakeshore. We're going to do everything we can to preserve those. They're kind of a landmark
portion of the property that we'd like to keep, and I could address anything further on the
particulars of the architectural design when I get up.
MR. HUNSINGER-You can bring the microphone right with you.
MR. BROWN-We're showing here the first floor plan garage and the deck facing the lake. We have
attempted to include some passive solar technology and design into the building. These floor plans
have been slightly modified. Obviously it's been a month of work with the client since then, some
minor tweaks to the interior, since what you see in your application. This is the second floor, but
all the major hallmarks of the design remain intact, building over the garage and having the four
bedrooms upstairs.
MR. FORD-Excuse me. You're saying all the tweaking has been occurring inside,no exterior?
MR. BROWN-Yes,very minor partition changes,all the exterior.
MR. FORD-All the exterior is.
MR. BROWN-Is exactly as you're,all those critical components are exactly the same.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-This is the lakeside of the building. This is the south side, and here's a view of the
drive, entry side. This is the side to the north, and then most importantly this is our color scheme
and we've, the owner would like to naturalize the look as much as possible. We're not looking to
make a big statement on the lake. Hence the use of, you know, subdued colors. We're retaining
some of the existing improvements along the shoreline, and most importantly I'd like to just point
out that the existing oak tree, we've actually outlined it here, and actually it really does block most
of the, it's a huge oak tree right along the shoreline, and the idea is to retain that as much as
possible,as well as the large pine trees along the lake.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's that,cedar?
MR. BROWN-Yes,that's cedar siding,yes,natural.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you show us where the septic system's going to be changed from the plans
that we have?
MR. HUTCHINS-Where is the change from what you have?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and also the additional shoreline plantings.
MR. HUTCHINS-And it's not actually the pods themselves. It's the septic tanks. I had the tanks on
this side, and you had the tanks in this space here, outside the 50 foot lake setback,however, this is
admittedly better.
MR. KREBS-Much better.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-And shoreline plantings, we're trying to maintain the shoreline access area that's
kind of outlined by these walls that are there. So we have buffering plantings here. Where it gets
steep it is naturally vegetated and there's no, that's not finished. We want to maintain the
vegetation on the slope. We've enhanced the buffer here and here with swales to pick up any (lost
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
word) runoff that would be directed toward these shoreline buffers, and again, permeable asphalt
will pick up much of the runoff. We will pick up much of the driveway(lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Can you address the barriers during construction to prevent erosion into the lake?
MR. HUTCHINS-Primarily it's two things, sediment control fence and a lot of monitoring and
inspection. You can put all the barriers there you want, but if you're not conscious of it and check
them frequently, they don't work. Sediment control fence, in this case, we're not talking about
steep slopes near the shoreline. There are some steep slopes to the back of this property. We're
not talking about steep slopes near the shoreline. We're going to try to keep the disturbance as far
away from the shoreline as feasible, and sediment control fencing and monitoring.
MR. FORD-Tom,who will be charged with the responsibility for monitoring during construction?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the general contractor will be of primary responsibility. I don't know, are
you guys going to be full time oversight?
MR. BROWN-If we are, yes, we would be on top of that as well. I would also point out that this
building does not have a full basement underneath it. So the lot is actually exceptionally flat and
we're not going to be excavating a tremendous amount of area.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. BROWN-So there is a minimization in that respect.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is it crawl space or slab?
MR. BROWN-It's a crawl space for mechanicals underneath the building,yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mentioned last week I think,you know, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan
and the goals to go to a larger, I mean, you mentioned it in your introduction, you know, the two
acre lot, I mean, even though this isn't a two acre lot, this is what was contemplated with the
increase of the lot sizes on the lake, and in that, you would take, you know, what were, you know,
three seasonal use lots and combine them into one to make more of a year round. I mean, I know
the house was a year round house,but clearly the camp was a camp, and,you know, I think that was
what was contemplated,and it's a beautiful design. It's really going to look nice.
MR. BROWN-Thank you. When the lots get larger as well the side setbacks will actually increase,so
you get all those kind of neighborhood improvements as well. The two lots right now are at 12 foot
and one's massively nonconforming. So all those things are being remedied and improved
simultaneously.
MR. FORD-Nice design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn't we see a house, Don,that didn't put that fence up and didn't monitor it?
MR. KREBS-Yes,but we never got to look at that one. It got approved by the Zoning Administrator.
MR. HUNSINGER-It never came before the Planning Board,yes.
MR. KREBS-You mean one on the lake,is that what you're talking about?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn't this lake.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, Lake George.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board
on this project? I didn't seethe hand because you were behind the sign. We need to get you on the
microphone, please. The purpose of the public hearing is for neighbors or interested parties to
make comments to the Board. I ask that anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their
name for the record. We do tape the meeting,and that's why we have the microphone.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAULSHEEHAN
MR. SHEEHAN-Yes, my name is Paul Sheehan. I'm going to be a neighbor of the Mackeys, and we
are looking forward to them coming in there and making tremendous improvements on the lot, and
obviously I know the parents. I don't know his son as well,but I know they're generally concerned
about the welfare of the lake. I also would like to make a testimony to Hutchins Engineering and
Finney Design, since I'm currently working with them, and believe me,with the work they do is just
terrific, and being a resident of Queensbury my whole life, I'm very happy that we made the choice
to go with them in building the home we're building,and I'm sure that they'll do a terrific job for the
Mackeys and the Glen Lake residents will be happy and I think the Town of Queensbury is really
getting a real improvement for the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. We have the same issue
with this one we did with the last project in that we have a late submission of materials. So
obviously those would be incorporated into the resolution and into the submission. I don't know if
there's anything more we need to say than that.
MRS.MOORE-You could identify the plan number and its revision date.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,it's Revision One,relocated septic tank,added shoreline buffering.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the date?
MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sorry. February 21St.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.M00RE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 13-2014 JAMES MACKEY
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to demolish two existing camps and detached garage and construct a new 4,807
sq. ft. (floor area) 4 bedroom single family dwelling, driveway, and wastewater system upon three
existing lots off Garrett Road.Site Plan: Construction and project activities within 50 feet of slopes
in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from road
frontage requirement of the WR zone.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 2-18-2014; the ZBA approved the variance requests on
2-19-2014;
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
A public hearing was advertised and held on 2-25-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2014 JAMES MACKEY, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Per the draft provided by Staff,with the addition of Item Number Eight,
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 new septic location and shoreline buffering per revision dated February 21, 2014.
Shoreline buffer to be code compliant or as approved by the Planning Board based on
submission.
4) 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.
5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
7) 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 February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. It's a nice project.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2014 SEQR TYPE II MARC FUCHS; BETTY FUCHS AGENT(S) BARTLETT
PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-
WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 19 WOOD POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES 136
+/- SQ. FT. WOODEN PATIO AND 23 SQ. FT. OF STAIRS OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE AREA
ALONG SHORELINE. SITE PLAN: HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM
MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV
17-14, AV 36-10, AV 40-02, SP 49-9, BP 11-009, 98-524, 09-025 WARREN CO. REFERRAL
FEBRUARY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.14-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to do anything other than to mention that it was tabled?
MRS.MOORE-You need to open the public hearing and leave it open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This project was tabled by the Zoning Board of Appeals last week, and so
we will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-And we table the public hearing. Is there anyone here for that project? Good.
Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why did they table it?
MR. HUNSINGER-You know,it didn't say. It just said until the April meeting with requirements that
a submission in March be made. So I wasn't really sure what the purpose.
MRS. MOORE-It's in reference to, they wanted to know additional information similar to what you
asked at your meeting was how it's structurally going to not break apart,the concrete and things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was wondering,yes.
MRS.MOORE-The same questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can thank Brad for that, all your questions about the deck,how it was going to
stay together.
MR. MAGOWAN-The engineer came out of me. I'm sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we will table that,do we need to make a formal resolution to table it?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,we really can't do anything with the project until the ZBA acts anyway.
MRS. MOORE-Well,you've done it in the past. You can just open the public hearing and know that
you're hearing it when they prepare their submission for the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's your preference? Do you want us to table it to a specific meeting?
MRS.MOORE-Yes,because they're doing the same thing at the Zoning Board level.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we'd probably,we'd have to table it to the second meeting in April. So that the
Zoning Board can meet.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we'll table this to April 22nd.
MR. KREBS-April 22nd.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 15-2014 MARC FUCHS; BETTY FUCHS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes 136 +/- sq. ft. wooden patio and 23 sq. ft. of stairs over an existing concrete
area along shoreline. Site Plan: Hard-surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline requires Planning Board
review and approval. Variances: Relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements.
SEQR Type II;
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 2-18-14; the ZBA tabled the variance to an April
meeting;
A public hearing was advertised for 2-25-2014;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2014 MARC FUCHS: BETTY FUCHS, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Tabled to the April 22, 2014 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2014,by the following vote:
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2014 SEQR TYPE II H.D. MAN, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER-
MEYER & FULLER OWNER(S) ESTATE OF BURNHAM ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 442 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RE-USE OF AN
EXISTING 3,980 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THE EXISTING 20'X20'
SHED AND GRAVEL PARKING WILL BE USED FOR COMPANY AND EMPLOYEE VEHICLES; WITH
THE SHED TO BE USED FOR STORAGE AS NEEDED. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN A CLI ONE
AND LACK OF SITE PLAN WITHIN PAST 7 YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE OPS 1-03, BP 03-836 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY
2014 LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-39 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEVIN TUCKER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the reuse of an existing
building for a construction business where new uses in the Cl zone require planning board review
and approval. There are no changes to the building or site other than cosmetic; interior changes are
to accommodate an office area, break room and employee area, and the Board should consider the
waiver requests from K - contour lines, L -lighting plan, N -traffic plan, Q - soil logs, and R -
material disposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer and Fuller in Lake George, and
I'm here with Kevin Tucker and we're under contract to purchase that property and move his
business where it is now in Queensbury to that location. We did request the waivers that are there.
The property's at 442 Corinth Road. I've got some pictures and the lighting. I think in terms of
use, obviously the lot's a little smaller than would generally be allowed in that zone, but Kevin's
business isn't a heavy land intensive use. I think this is a good location for him. Meeting in the
morning with the crew, go out, hit the jobs they've got to, and maybe have a meeting in the
afternoon. As far as staging and things like that, they may put together cabinets, build cabinets,
things like that, in there and move them onto a site, but there's not a lot of, you know, heavy
construction, pre-construction on site. Vehicles and things like that, Kevin's got a couple for his
business, one bigger trailer and a smaller trailer that would fit out back. There is a small like, it's
almost racks out back. If anybody got out there it's like a small shed rack structure. That'll be
good for the storage of materials and things. So there wasn't,you know, I think we've been looking
for a while and this is a good location for Kevin's use, not far off the Northway, for projects and
things like that. In terms of parking,you know,he's got obviously a few employees,the guys on the
crew. Some of them use their own vehicles to ferry things back and forth to sites. Some guys leave
their vehicles at the shop, not a lot, a couple,but I've been over there. Interior wise we showed you
the cut up there, put a small office in there. Crew room for small meetings and things like that.
Exterior wise, are looking at new signs, painting the building,you know, freshening up the exterior
trim and things like that that might be needed, but nothing too massive. We did show you the
lighting, really just replacing the on building sconces that are there with some better lighting,
obviously nothing casting off. The lot is heavily treed, all the large pine trees that are in the sand
out there. Two neighboring uses. One's a church. The other's a commercial structure would be to
the east, and really no impact, you know, no light carry off from the sconces that he's going to use.
Really just more of a security thing, I think because it's darker out there than out. So, you know, I
think ingress and egress to and from the site, again, it is Corinth Road, but the lines of sight along
that road are fine, and really for what Kevin's proposing. I think the hope would be to grow into
the site and if you ever wanted to,you know, pave a parking lot or do anything like that, we'd have
to come back, have some stormwater plans, few things like that,but really allow him to get in there,
make improvements,start generating more revenue for the company and then make improvements
as he goes forward, but in general I think it's a good re-use for a building that's been on the market
for a little while. It alleviates a bigger issue in a site that we have right now that someday we'll be
back here. He leases from Mr. Batease there on Big Boom right now,the big site behind Carl R's. So
the plan is to get out of that site within the next couple of weeks and get in here and start making
improvements.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. FULLER-That's it for us,if you have questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I have a question relative to the size, type and the specific equipment that you might
have internal to that for any type of construction work.
MR. TUCKER-Table saws, chop saws, to build, you know, cut a piece of trim if we're going to
someone's house prior to going, or staining out or pre-painting anything to take with us. There's
no heavy equipment whatsoever. I own one bobcat that would be parked inside. That's pretty
much it, and then we have a large box truck that we work out of that goes inside every night, in the
overhead door to the back left.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? How big is your crew?
MR.TUCKER-Nine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Nine,and do they all come,would they all come here in the morning?
MR. TUCKER-Most of the time, and it depends on what time. I get there around 7:30. Sometimes
we have earlier jobs, commercial jobs. They would go straight to the job. Most of the guys have
company trucks that go to their home. So they keep them at their homes. They can go right from
their homes to where they're going,if we're on a continuous job. Right now there's typically maybe
two trucks that stay at the shop for the day, and the rest are company trucks that are gone all day
on odd jobs.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the most you would have there at one time would be the nine?
MR.TUCKER-People?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TUCKER-As of right now. We'd like to grow at some point, but that's enough to manage at the
moment.
MR. FORD-How many anticipated vehicles would be left overnight potentially?
MR. TUCKER-Overnight? None outdoors. We have one Chevy pickup that sometimes goes. The
only other thing that's left there overnight is the box truck,which is indoors.
MR. FORD-Indoors.
MR. TUCKER-If the Chevy truck were to stay there, it would go out behind the building where we
would keep the two trailers, out behind, and like I said, I have a bobcat, but that stays inside the
building as well.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
MR. KREBS-I've always loved the name of this company,the Honey Do Man.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-It makes me think of my wife.
MR. HUNSINGER-I always wondered who it was. I see your trucks once in awhile. I always that it
was just one person.
MR.TUCKER-It was at first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I think it's a good use of the property.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I assume that you're here for the
public hearing? No?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Just to observe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So no questions or comments? Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This also is a Type II SEQR so
no review is required. And unless there's anything else from the Board, did you say you were going
to paint the building?
MR.TUCKER-Yes,it's a block building. It's red and gray. We'd like to paint it.
MR. HUNSINGER-What color?
MR. TUCKER-Preferably I'd like to paint it black, maybe something that matches the truck, maybe
with the yellow.
MR. FORD-That matches up your color scheme on your vehicles.
MR.TUCKER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Black's a little unusual for a building,but.
MR. FULLER-I thought about that, too, but tucked in where it is, there in the trees, I think if there
was a big four or five thousand square foot building out in a parking lot it might look a little odd.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-But given where it is,tucked in the trees, I just think it works.
MR.TUCKER-And the roof is silver. We're not touching the roof. It's a metal roof. Just the block to
clean them up. There's been some times where it's been cut and windows have been removed and
there's just patches. To give it a uniform look and just clean it up a little.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FULLER-Black and gold,the Honey Do colors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions, comments from the Board? Any
concerns we didn't address? Let it roll.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 12-2014 H.D. MAN, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes re-use of an existing 3,980 sq. ft. building for a construction company. The
existing 20'x 20' shed and gravel parking will be used for company and employee vehicles; with the
shed to be used for storage as needed. Construction Company in a CLI zone and Lack of site plan
review within past 7 years requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 2-25-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2014 H.D. MAN, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
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: K- contour lines, L -lighting plan, N -traffic plan, Q-soil logs, and R-
material disposal.
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 February, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.TUCKER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set. Before we consider a motion for adjournment, Mr.
Krebs had asked if we could spend a couple of minutes on a handout.
MR. KREBS-Yes. I have, you probably have had it, some of you people have had this once before,
but I had a discussion with Sean, while we were down at Saratoga. This is relative to having some
sort of a conference with the engineering people,when we have an engineering situation,you know,
sometimes we have as many as 35 engineering questions, and comments and we don't get them
until the Friday before, or Saturday before the Tuesday meeting. So I had put together, this is a
flow chart that actually I did long ago. We can adjust this. What I really wanted to ask is that we
think about this over the, until we have our next meeting, and if you guys can come up with a better
way, but what Sean and I talked about is the fact that, in reality, even for them, it would be nice if
they could set up a morning where the applicants could come in, prior to being at the Planning
Board, and let them go through the engineering problems together, solve those, and then all we
would face, and all they would provide us with at that point, would be a report for those that they
couldn't come to an agreement on.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would shorten the process.
MR. FORD-And address the issues.
MR. MAGOWAN-Don,that's great. The problem is it's too simple.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I certainly like the idea of the applicant trying to resolve engineering issues
ahead of time, and we have changed the policy, I think a year or two ago, to accommodate
complicated projects when it was clear that would be helpful, with regard to only seeing the
engineering issues that are outstanding. I do find it, personally, helpful, even if an engineering
issue has been resolved,to be aware that it was an issue. So,you know,with that caveat, I like your
idea. I think there may be possibly some timing issues, but maybe we could organize a workshop
with the different players involved and walk through it
MR. KREBS-All I wanted to do is just bring this up and suggest this was,you know, my thing which I
did a couple of years ago.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Which I thought might solve the problem.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think one result of that was when there were clearly, like you say, 30 or
some odd things, we would automatically send them to the engineer and have them come back
clean.
MR. KREBS-Right, but as Sean said, you know, for all the applicants, if he picked one particular
morning and every month it was the same morning that they came so they could meet with the
people, then the people would know in advance as to what date it is that they would have to come,
and they would schedule themselves into that morning,or whatever.
MR. TRAVER-What would happen if the schedule that morning was full and we had an applicant
that wanted their applicant heard, and yet they weren't able to meet with the engineer, would they
not be on the agenda?
MR. KREBS-Then I guess we'd have to expand it beyond that,but.
MR.TRAVER-You mean add additional days?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-I don't think, he didn't seem to feel that it would take, you know, that much time that
the great majority of them don't have that kind of a problem, okay,that they really need to sit down
and they could come and (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,yes, I mean,just look at the projects tonight.
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't have one. So there'd be some months where there might not even be a
meeting, and then there'd be other months where it might be real heavy with two or three real
complicated projects.
MR. KREBS-And Laura would actually control that situation because what she would do is if there
were people who wanted to meet with the engineers, she'd set up that meeting, and if there weren't
any, but that is going to require Chazen to get the engineering comments back earlier than they do
today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR.TRAVER-If I could suggest,the last time we discussed this,we came up with the procedure that
most of the time seems to have worked fairly well with the very complicated projects. Maybe we
could try another kind of pilot with this. Rather than try to implement this with every project,
maybe during the review process with Staff, if a project is identified specifically as having few
engineering comments, we could try this process, and leave the ones that are extremely
complicated to be reviewed and sent to the engineer, and sort of the medium ones that, you know,
couldn't maybe be done in one day per month,we would continue with our current process and see
how this works as a pilot with very,very simple engineering wise projects.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And to your point, they could provide us, when they have these conferences,
they could provide us with a list of subjects that they discussed and resolved, so then we would
know.
MR.TRAVER-Exactly.
MR. FORD-Yes, I'd like to reinforce that as well.
MR. KREBS-Yes, my problem has always been the fact that, you know, I get the engineering report
on Saturday and a meeting is on Tuesday, and sometimes there are 35. Of those 35 comments by
the engineers, there may be six that I don't even understand what the real question is, okay. So
how can I come to a meeting three days later and make any kind of an educated judgment on that?
That's why I'd like to have the engineer review it first.
MR. TRAVER-Well, our practice has, if I could just respond to that, and my experience has been
since we last had this discussion, and you had suggested this remedy before, I think, using your
example of 30 some odd engineering,we've generally what we've done since then is either table the
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
application and send them to the engineer, or,you know, ask them to, I mean, generally we haven't
been able to process an application that's had that many.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-You know, and most, I think most of the PE's in Town, because we've been fairly
consistent with that, they know that, and they will generally try to narrow that down to technical
discussions and,you know,most of the major stuff is off the table.
MR. KREBS-But the problem is that every time you table that because we can't resolve those 35
engineering comments, we force that applicant to spend the money to bring back his professional
engineer,his lawyer,and.
MRS.MOORE-That's the cost of doing business,though.
MR.TRAVER-Yes, I'm not sure I agree that we are forcing them.
MR. KREBS-Why should it be the cost of doing business, if you resolve it so that he doesn't have to
come back.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,but, Don, I'm not sure I agree that it is we, as the Planning Board,that are forcing
anybody to do anything other than be in compliance with what is well understood to be the
procedure and the engineering requirements of the Town. I mean, if they have outstanding issues
and they do know, coming into the meeting,what those issues are, and they choose to debate them
to us or try to use some process other than getting an engineer's signoff,that's not our problem.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but they also do not get that information until the Friday before our Tuesday
meeting.
MRS. MOORE-But there's a process of review, I mean, the process of Staff receiving an application,
reviewing the application prior to it being submitted to the engineer. So I guess I want to just
explain how that process works, look through this chart and see if I can, maybe I can come to a
consensus of how quickly we can maneuver that information through the system. This is good. I
like this to take a look at.
MR. KREBS-That's why, Laura, this was just a try was to, you know, set it up so, now it's a longer
period of time, but the application would have to be in two months before, rather than just one
month before.
MR. TRAVER-If I could suggest what I think would be helpful, because I think we need to have a
fairly lengthy discussion about this if we're going to come up with something concrete. What might
be helpful would be to, and, Don, maybe you could do this, is sit down with Laura and look at a
couple of sample applications that we have processed, find one that's fairly simple, one that's in the
middle, one that's very complicated, and then we can talk about what actually happened with that,
look for the weak points in that, how that process is handled and see if this suggestion or another
might mitigate some of that, to speed that up. That would help with our agenda planning and
everything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So do we want to have a more extensive discussion with maybe the engineer
here, and do like a workshop?
MR. TRAVER-I think if there's a discussion with the engineer and Staff and maybe Don in advance,
and they put together like a proposal or a presentation,they come to us in a workshop and say,you
know,we went back and we looked at here's a couple of,like Don said,you know,here's an example
of what I mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, and if anyone else wants to, I mean, we obviously don't want to have
more than two or three, no more than two or three members, but if anyone else wants to be
involved.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can quantify the projects by size, too, I think, Don. If you like maybe have
three hoops,okay, and a different process for each one.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,and then you can come up with a modified,you might want to come up with more
than one timeline, depending upon the,you know, we could have an A, B, or C project or something
that Staff could identify and then you could have a timeline. It wouldn't necessarily, I mean, it
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
would complicate things possibly for Staff on the one hand. On the other hand it might simplify
things. We might have a classification where we'd have a different timeline for different classes of
project.
MR. HUNSINGER-That might work real well.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, they wouldn't always have the same submission date, you know, they wouldn't
always have the same.
MR. KREBS-Yes, certainly, you know, like the last person tonight, what was it, there was no
engineering to worry about at all,okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and if I may tie into another thought with this whole discussion, and that is,
and I was thinking about it this evening as we were getting through the agenda,you know,we went
to the agenda control that we did because our meetings were taking forever. I mean,we were here
until 11,midnight.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,one,two at night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Pretty regularly, you know, and here it is we got through the full agenda and it's
8:30.
MR.TRAVER-Well,we did have one tabling.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we did have one tabled, but, you know, maybe, and part of all this
discussion we also consider the number of items that are on the agenda, and I think, you know,
especially if we're going to change the process with the engineer review, there might create an
ability for us to hear more projects. I don't know if we tabled projects to March that could have
been heard in February? I don't know what the March.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant had, there's two applicants, originally, with the Planning Board
Recommendation and things like that, we try to complete them in one month. This month I had
two applicants say,no, I only want to do half in one month and half in the next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So otherwise you would have seen them all and been done with it, but, yes, when an
applicant requests that,we try to meet their needs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure,yes,and that's fine.
MR.TRAVER-Well,we might be able to do like an agenda,you know,you might be able to say,when
you do your agenda review with Staff,you could say well I'll do three A's or two B's or one C.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we do try to balance that out a little bit anyway. It hasn't been a big
issue,in terms of making sure we had complicated projects on alternating evenings.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We haven't had any complicated projects.
MR. DEEB-This was an easy month.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess I would just throw that in as part of the discussion and consideration,
too.
MR. FORD-Let's not try to solve too many things simultaneously.
MR. TRAVER-No, I think if we just have a discussion with the players there, Don, is the advocate,
and we have the engineer and maybe Laura, and let them talk ahead of time and say, you know,
with an actual packet, and apply it in a way that we can clearly say here's an example, it was
submitted on this date,blah,blah,blah.
MR. HUNSINGER-I like that idea.
MR. KREBS-Sure, I'm willing to work with it.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. FORD-And then we may get to Chris' point of that may lend itself, or lead us right into a
discussion about number of items on the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I know we're getting to the time of year when people go to Florida and
other warm places. If you could just make sure you let us know if you're not going to be here. I
know, Paul,you said you won't be here next month.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the first meeting of April.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the first meeting of April. Anyone else not going to be around? Okay. So it's
just Paul.
MRS. MOORE-I do have one other item in regards to the zoning maps that's available to you. You
can have them either a hard copy or I need to sort of need to know whether you like to look at the
zoning map on line or whether you would like to have your own copy every time like a zoning
change happens and the sizes that you can get is a half a poster size or a poster size and things like
that. So I'm just curious. I've been asked to ask for the past month and I haven't done it, so this is
my time to ask.
MR. HUNSINGER-How big are the poster size? Are those the great big ones?
MRS.MOORE-They're the great big ones.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I like half.
MR.TRAVER-I prefer on line, simply because if I have a map, and this is happened to me,you know,
I look at it and I'm never absolutely sure that I have the latest version. If I go to the Town website,
I'm pretty sure.
MR. FORD-Yes,that's the latest.
MR. HUNSINGER-Plus you can zoom in on that.
MR. DEEB-Then I would like both.
MRS. MOORE-So I guess the question is every time one of those zoning changes happens,those that
wish a hard copy would like to have that updated?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,and maybe an e-mail reminder that the change has happened.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. FORD-That's a good idea.
MRS.MOORE-Okay,but right now Paul's the only one that's asking for a map? Don is?
MR. KREBS-I'd like a map,too.
MRS.M00RE-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like a half a one so I can put it in my binder.
MR. FORD-I'll check it out on line.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. FORD-I have one additional question before we adjourn. Do we have anything new on the zip
line and APA?
MRS.MOORE-You will see a revised application in March.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see something in March.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2014)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Matt Fuller was conversing with some of the people out here tonight and he
said that the equipment would be moving in the field this week across the street.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-To start the project. The judge ruled that they couldn't stop the construction.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting. They must be fairly confident they will go forward, then. We wouldn't
want them,if they lose their case,they have to go and remediate everything back to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. Wow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Also,well, if you read the weekly,the Kitchen,their case,he wants to appeal the
judge's decision, but the people that were in the field, the Fund for Lake George and the Water
Keeper,had to drop out of supporting the appeal.
MR. HUNSINGER-I saw that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Water Keeper had to drop out because he's an employer of the Fund for
Lake George and the Fund for Lake George didn't want anything more to do with it, and so now it's
just a couple of crackpot neighbors and the publisher.
MR. DEEB-That didn't go on the minutes,did it?
MS. GAGLIARDI-The tape is still rolling.
MRS.MOORE-Your minutes are still rolling.
MR. KREBS-Shall we have a motion to adjourn,then?
MR. HUNSINGER-There you go. We have a motion,is there a second?
MR. FORD-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25,
2014, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The meeting's adjourned. Thanks,everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
31