The URL can be used to link to this page

04-28-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 73-2016 Faden Enterprises 1. Special Use Permit PZ 68-2016 Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Site Plan PZ 105-2016 Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson 1. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-42 Site Plan PZ 121-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 4. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80 Subdivision PZ 78-2016 Michael & Cindy Trombley 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-16 FINAL STAGE Site Plan PZ 109-2016 33 Silver Circle LLC 7. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-18.5 Subdivision Modification PZ 110-2016 Luzerne Holding, Inc. 12. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.13, 7.2 Site Plan PZ 93-2016 Luzerne Holding, Inc. 17. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.13, 7.2 Subdivision PZ 117-2016 Joseph Leuci 24. SKETCH & PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.15-1-6 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. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) APRIL 28, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER -LAURA MOORE MR. HUNSINGER-Welcome, everybody. I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on April 28, 2016. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There’s also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of our items do have public hearings scheduled and we’ll go into details on the first hearing. We do have an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES TABLED TO MAY 19, 2016 th MR. HUNSINGER-That is being tabled to the May 19 meeting pending the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Is there anyone in the audience here for that project? Okay. We will extend the public hearing. If anyone would like to make a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 73-2016 & SUP PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES , Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until the May 19, 2016 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 105-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK- HUDSON AGENT(S) GARY MC COOLA, ARCHITECT OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O LOCATION 543 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 X 24 MECHANICAL ROOM ADDITION, 8 X 16 ADDITION AND ENTRY WAY IMPROVEMENTS. ALSO, 70 +/- SQ. FT. NEW LANDING AND RAMP RELOCATION. BUILDING TO HAVE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR NEW MEDICAL FACILITY USE. PARKING TO BE AMENDED FOR NEW SPACES AND ARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 50-2004 900 SF ADDITION WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE .83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040 GARY MC COOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes an addition to the existing building for a 16 x 24 mechanical room addition, an 8 x 16 entryway and improvements to the Baywood side building, and the applicant did receive their variances last night. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. MC COOLA-Gary McCoola, architect, acting as agent for Planned Parenthood Mohawk- Hudson. I made a presentation to you Tuesday night, briefly going over the site plan. So without going through that same presentation again, I guess I can talk about any specific aspects if you’d like me to or just go right to questions. I guess I’d leave it up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any changes to the project as a result of the discussion with the Zoning Board last night? MR. MC COOLA-No, there was not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I know we had a brief discussion about the ramp, but we addressed that Tuesday night. So I have nothing further. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No further questions or comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR action. The applicant did submit the SEQR Short Form. Are there any items that the Board feels may lead to a moderate to large impact? MR. TRAVER-I saw none. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There is a draft SEQR resolution included with our Board package. Would anyone like to put forward the SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 105-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD The applicant proposes a 16 x 24 mechanical room addition, 8 x 16 addition and entry way improvements. Also, 70 +/- sq. ft. new landing and ramp relocation. Building to have interior alterations for new medical facility use. Parking to be amended for new spaces and arrangement of existing lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance alterations to an existing building and site work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 105-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK-HUDSON, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. HUNSINGER-We did have a draft resolution to grant or deny the application. Are you on a roll, George? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 105-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 16 x 24 mechanical room addition, 8 x 16 addition and entry way improvements. Also, 70 +/- sq. ft. new landing and ramp relocation. Building to have interior alterations for new medical facility use. Parking to be amended for new spaces and arrangement of existing lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance alterations to an existing building and site work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/28/2016 and continued the public hearing to 4/28/2016, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4/28/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 105-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK- HUDSON , Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: office area light poles from 10 ft. to 20 ft. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans, 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 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) c) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; d) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; e) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. Thank you. MR. MC COOLA-Okay. Thanks very much. SITE PLAN PZ 121-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. AGENT(S) CAROLYN PARKER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS LOCATION 110 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 8 ADDITIONAL SIGNS THAT ARE LED LIGHTED UNITS ON TOP OF GAS PUMPS. THE LED’S ARE FOR GAS PRICES AND WILL SHOW PRICE ON EACH SIDE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SIGNAGE IN MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LED SIGNAGE AS NOT PERMITTED. CROSS REFERENCE SV 95-2001, SP 49-2001 & AV 94- 2001 DEMO OF BUS. THEN CONST. OF CONV. STORE W/GAS PUMPS, SP 38-2001 MOD. FOR RE-BRANDING, AV PZ 119-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 1.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80 SECTION 140 MR. HUNSINGER-I understand this was tabled at last night’s Zoning Board meeting. MRS. MOORE-And I included in your information, they tabled it pending review by the Town Board because they gave guidance to the applicant that the applicant should approach the Town Board for changing the language in the zone, in the Code. MR. FORD-Well, that’s the logical step, the proper step to take. rd MR. TRAVER-To August 23. MRS. MOORE-Correct. That gives the applicant time to approach the Town Board and complete that information, for the Town Board application procedures. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that’s here for the Cumberland Farms project? We will table the public hearing as well. Would anyone like to make a motion to table rd this to August 23? RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 121-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 121-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled until the August 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE (AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING ALTERNATE JAMIE WHITE TOOK OVER FOR ALTERNATE JOHN SHAFER) SUBDIVISION PZ 78-2016 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 80 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.97 ACRE LOT. LOT ONE TO RETAIN OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, 3.75 ACRES: LOT TWO TO BECOME NEW VACANT LOT OF 3.22 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 54-2007 & AV 66-2007 KENNEL; BP 3/28/13 COMM. BLDG. VOIDED BY APPLICANT; BP 2002-781 CONST. OF SINGLE FAMILY W/GARAGE WARREN CO. REFERRAL LOT SIZE 6.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-16 SECTION CHAPTER 183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot, and lot one to be retained by the owner occupied residence, 3.75 acres and Lot Two becomes a new vacant lot of 3.22 acres and the applicant did receive the variances last evening for width and frontage as well as a second garage, and in my notes I note that the applicant requests waivers from stormwater management, wastewater, grading, erosion control and topography. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins with Mike and Cindy Trombley and their daughter Brianna. We were here the other night. We did receive the variances last night, and if you’d like anymore explanation or questions, we’d be happy to weigh in, unless you want to hear it again. MR. FORD-Thank you for the opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, 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? I don’t see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We 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-This is an Unlisted SEQR action. We do have a draft SEQR resolution that was provided to us this evening in our package. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB PZ 78-2016 TROMBLEY The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot. Lot one to retain owner occupied residence, 3.75 acres; lot two to become new vacant lot of 3.22 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 78-2016 MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY , Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivisions require two approvals, one for Preliminary and one for Final Stage. There is a draft resolution for Preliminary Stage in our package. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB PZ 78-2016 TROMBLEY A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot. Lot one to retain owner occupied residence, 3.75 acres; lot two to become new vacant lot of 3.22 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 78-2016 MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY , Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per resolution prepared by Staff a) 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; b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 4/28/16; granted c) Waivers on 4/28/16: stormwater mgmt., wastewater, grading, erosion control & topography; th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally a motion for Final approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION PZ 78-2016 TROMBLEY A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot. Lot one to retain owner occupied residence, 3.75 acres; lot two to become new vacant lot of 3.22 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) 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; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/2016. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 78-2016 MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY , Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: As per resolution prepared by Staff a) 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; b) 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; Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Great. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. Continuing on our agenda, we have four items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 109-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED 33 SILVER CIRCLE LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION 33 SILVER CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES VEGETATION CLEARING OF 6.8 ACRES OF A 7.78 ACRE SITE. REMOVAL OF 18” SOFT WOOD, 12” HARD WOOD. INTENT TO MARKET AREA FOR SALE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1793-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLEARING FOR FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 7.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-18.5 SECTION 179-3- 040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a vegetation clearing of 6.8 acres of a 7.78 acre site. Removal of 18 inch soft wood, 12 inch hard wood and the intent is to market the area for sale, and the applicant has requested waivers identified as location of structures, lighting, signage, topography, landscaping, alterations and floor plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with Joe Gross, owner of 33 Silver Circle. Joe has acquired 33 Silver Circle relatively recently. It’s immediately adjacent to his business at 27 Silver Circle, and he proposes to do some preparation of that property such that it can be shown and be a little more understandable for future development. I would make a note that in the description I thought it was a little bit confusing. We propose to maintain healthy evergreen trees larger than 18 inch diameter and maintain healthy deciduous trees larger than 12 inch diameter. There’s a lot of awfully small skinny little tiny pines and brush and stuff that we really wish to clean up and frankly make the property a little bit more visible. It 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) borders the industrial park property to the north, a remaining lot in the Silver Circle park It borders the Carey Industrial Park to the west. There is a small portion of residential on that strange angled section to the south where we’ve maintained a 30 foot buffer which, as you recall, is what we did when we were here before with Joe’s 27 Silver Circle property, and we’ve maintained 10 foot buffers in the remaining area where they’re bordering the industrial park, and, Joe, anything to add? JOE GROSS MR. GROSS-Just clean it up, grow some vegetation, and make it marketable and try to put some buildings up, try and create more jobs. Right now it’s hard, because people don’t have the vision. They just see a bunch of brush they can’t really walk through. So make it kind of like a park like setting and hopefully we’ll bring in some business to the area. MR. FORD-You anticipate trees in diameter smaller than you’ve indicated earlier, soft wood and hard wood? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. GROSS-Yes Smaller stuff, it’s kind of removal of up to, like we’re going to try to leave some of the bigger trees. There isn’t a whole lot in there because it’s a pine growth in there, but whatever ones there are we’ll leave them kind of what you did out there on Corinth Road on the Parillo property. Similar look, you know, there’s no reason just to go straight across. Just kind of give it a nice look and be able to get a feel for how big the property is so I can, I’ve had a couple of people look but it’s hard on paper to see it. MR. FORD-I just wanted to make sure you weren’t clear cutting. MR. GROSS-No. The goal would be, I want to keep it nice next to the property and I want, there’ll probably be even a little more buffer between me, my property, the business and that. MR. TRAVER-If I might follow up on that. You mentioned, with regard to the trees that are not to be cut, you said that the healthy trees above that size would not be cut. Can you give me an idea, is there a significant percentage of the ones that would remain, according to this plan, that would be, considered unhealthy? MR. GROSS-No. Just, once you got into it and started taking them out, we’d have an 18 inch or a two foot round pine in there we’re going to leave it, but unless it’s all rotted out and the woodpeckers have gotten all through the side of it, it doesn’t make much sense to leave it. Right? MR. TRAVER-But you wouldn’t say that it’s an abnormally high number of trees that would be considered unhealthy on this property versus general wilderness. MR. GROSS-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t believe so. It’s normal second growth forest. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea how many trees would remain? MR. HUTCHINS-How many, I’m sorry? MR. HUNSINGER-How many would remain? MR. HUTCHINS-I would be estimating. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Ten to twenty. Don’t you think? MR. GROSS-Yes, plus the buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. GROSS-Plus the buffer. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. GROSS-The buffer we’re not going to touch them whether they’re small or large. MR. FORD-How wide a buffer do you anticipate? MR. GROSS-Well, the residential side, which is just a small piece, which isn’t very residential, we were going to leave the 30 foot that was requested the last time, and then the other was just the industrial, and if it was industrial we were going to go 10 foot buffer. Because the ideal situation is somebody’s going to want an industrial building in there and you want to keep it somewhat close to the property line so you can have a fire road, you know, you’ll want a fire lane to go around whatever building you build. So I wanted to see a little bit of the mass of the property so I don’t limit myself in what they can do. MR. HUTCHINS-This portion of property here is residential so this is where we’ve kept the 30 foot buffer on the prior project and this portion we’re proposing to maintain that 30 foot buffer. This back here is Carey Industrial Park and this is another lot in Silver Circle. MR. GROSS-And the other lot is my neighbors across the road that are, we’re actually working together and we’re hoping someday maybe we’ll be luck enough somebody will come in and want to take, have us develop the whole 14 acres, but we’ll take one step at a time. Three small guys is better than one big guy. I don’t know, but whatever we can do to accommodate. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a really nice park you have going down there. MR. GROSS-Yes, it’s pretty nice. It’s hard enough to work, but when you go to work it’s nice, a little better. 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 wishes to address the Board? We’ll open the public hearing and I don’t see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. This is an Unlisted Action. Are there any issues that the Board feels may lead to a moderate to severe impact? MR. TRAVER-I don’t see any. MR. FORD-Not that we haven’t already gotten assurances on. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s a pretty flat site. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a little roll, as you go further back there’s a little roll, but it’s pretty flat. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would anyone like to put forward a SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 109-2016 33 SILVER CIRCLE The applicant proposes vegetation clearing of 6.8 acres of a 7.78 acre site. Removal of 18” soft wood, 12” hard wood. Intent to market area for sale. Pursuant to Chapter 1793-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, clearing for future site development is subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 109-2016 33 SILVER CIRCLE LLC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any special conditions that the Board feels we need to discuss? MR. TRAVER-The only one that I’ve added so far to the draft is that the healthy evergreen trees larger than 18 inches and deciduous trees larger than 12 inches are to remain. MR. FORD-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns with the requested waivers? MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 109-2016 33 SILVER CIRCLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes vegetation clearing of 6.8 acres of a 7.78 acre site. Removal of 18” soft wood, 12” hard wood. Intent to market area for sale. Pursuant to Chapter 1793-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, clearing for future site development is subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/28/2016 and continued the public hearing to 4/28/2016, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4/28/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 109-2016 33 SILVER CIRCLE, LLC. , Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) 1) Waivers request granted: 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; Page 1 of 2 d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) 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; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) 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. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) Healthy evergreen trees larger than 18 inches and deciduous trees larger than 12 inches are to remain. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-The applicant has indicated that about 20 trees are going to be left, so I think that may potentially. MR. HUTCHINS-Estimated. MRS. MOORE-Estimated. However you’re saying that every healthy tree greater than 18 and every tree healthy tree greater than 12 is to remain. MR. TRAVER-That was offered by the applicant so we’re echoing that in our resolution. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I just don’t want. MR. GROSS-For this stage that’s perfect. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. GROSS-When we’re here talking about a new building, we’ll talk about that then. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not going to leave a tree in the middle of your warehouse. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. GROSS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 110-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES LAND SURVEYORS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION WEST DRIVE/LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION OF TWO PARCELS. 308.12-7-13 TO BE REDUCED TO 5.0 ACRES, 308.12-1-7.2 TO BE INCREASED TO 6.46 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ-0019-2015 RETURNED TO APPLICANT; DKC SUB 4-2012 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 3.86, 7.87 TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.13, -7.2 SECTION CHAPTER 183 TOM CENTER & LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a subdivision modification of two parcels. This is 7.13 to be reduced to 5.0 acres and 7.2 to be increased to 6.46 acres. Then Parcel 7.2 currently has 10 storage buildings, and a new cold storage building is proposed under a separate site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering, representing Mr. Steves and Mr. Clute. As Laura said, this is a proposal to subdivide the lot for a third lot in the rear, with the front portion basically moving the lot line further to the rear, north end of the lot for the future proposal of an additional building which is next on the storage building’s lot. The rear lot has the required frontage off of West Drive for a road entrance and we have worked through, I believe it was before you in Sketch and Mr. Steves was before you and made some changes with Staff and brought this today where they’re at with the two lot subdivision. Are there any particular questions of the subdivision portion? I can talk about the site plan next, what we’re doing on the other commercial building. MR. TRAVER-We’re actually doing it as two separate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re doing it as two separate items. MR. TRAVER-But that’ll be immediately following this. MR. CENTER-The subdivision portion is pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Questions, comments from the Board? I was a little confused by what you presented. We’re just moving a lot line. MR. CENTER-Moving a lot line, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not creating a lot. MR. CENTER-We’re not creating a lot. We’re moving a lot line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. CENTER-Revised lot line. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the only other question I had was that there be, there is road frontage on West Drive for to the revised Lot Three. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. CENTER-Yes, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, we went over that with Staff to ensure that we were good. Previously there was a right of way that went across the other parcel to get to the back side of that parcel, but it has since been researched with Staff and Highway that that is a Town road all the way to the back of the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. CENTER-I have none. MR. HUNSINGER-So we actually have two separate SEQR’s and approval processes for each step. We also have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? Yes, we do have one that wishes to comment. If you could give up the table, please. The purpose of a public hearing is for people to make comments to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state your name clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is available on the Town’s website and it’s also used to transcribe the minutes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN MACRI BALDWIN MS. BALDWIN-My name is Susan Macri Baldwin. I live at 22 West Drive, and I think I’m right across from where they propose to put the new storage unit, and I guess I don’t really have a valid argument to oppose the addition except that I live there and, you know, it’s a dead end street, a quiet street. I moved here 12 years ago and bought a little house and there’s forest out there and there’s deer that come from there, and, you know, I’m just saying that it’s sad that they want to take out a lot of the trees and forest, Number One, but, Number Two, my issue is that I have to look at these storage units now across from my house. I don’t think anybody would like to look at them. The existing storage units that are there are slightly to the left of me and there’s some trees blocking the way you can see through it, but there are like fights that go on there, you know, occasionally. I hear arguing from there, and my most, the most important issue is that they want to make a new entrance, unless I’m incorrect, on West Drive, which I don’t really want. Is there any other way that they can use the existing front storage unit entrance instead of like wanting to put an entrance down our street? It’s, you know, because I said it’s a quiet little dead end street and now this is not going to be the same street that I bought my house on 12 years ago, and I guess also if they are going to do it, is there going to be like trees that will buffer so we don’t have to stare at ugly storage units? If this project is going to go forward, you know, I don’t really want to be looking right at the storage units. Are there going to be a lot of trees still blocking the way or do they plan on taking down all those trees? And our street isn’t that wide. I don’t know if they planned on widening it. I don’t really understand all of what he was talking about. Are they taking down trees to widen the street and that’s where the cars will go down and the entrance will be? Because our street is very tiny, they have a hard time turning around, like with snow removal and the big garbage trucks, you know, so I don’t know if they’re going to take down all those trees to make the road wider for them to have that entrance, and how far back is the entrance going to be and, you know, it’s just going to impact the whole street majorly, and so I guess I’m here to see if there’s any possible way, like I said, they cannot have that entrance on West Drive. If they can somehow work with the front entrance that they already have there, and also the less trees they take down, there are deer that come out of there, and I know most people don’t care about all of the things like that. I know they want business and big business and making money, but, you know, they’re changing the whole landscape. I moved here 12 years ago from Queens trying to get away from all that and to look at pretty land and everything and now, right in front of my house is going to be taken away, and if there is going to be unattractive storage units, like if I can’t stop it or something, could they put like privacy fences where we don’t have to look at the hideous storage units? Somehow to make it more attractive, at least, if we can’t stop it from happening. I just hope that they don’t take out too much of the land and the trees and everything. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the Board? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I know we’re getting a little into the site plan discussion now in asking you to address some of the concerns. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. TRAVER-Well, we could always move it along. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don’t know if you want to make some comments now. MR. CENTER-In addressing the concern. The use of this building is separate from the storage buildings. Mr. Steves will be using it for storage of his work trucks, boats, different equipment that we currently can’t store at the Haviland Road location. So this building that’s proposed isn’t a storage use as much as it is a storage building for the owner’s equipment that he has in his other business. So that’s the type of garage that is propose is for that type of storage. It wouldn’t be general public, would be kept separate from the storage buildings that are used by the public and other folks that use the storage building. So it’s a separate sort of entity for the owner. It would be for his. MR. TRAVER-And therefore less traffic. MR. CENTER-Therefore less traffic, and it would be, you know, limited to, you know, they come in, pick up their trucks in the morning, go out to work and come back, or if there’s storage for, he does a lot of work on the river for different companies so they have a boat now. They have a four wheeler. They need to be able to store those places that they’ve kind of outgrown at Haviland Road. So that’s what this building is proposed for, in speaking with Mr. Steves. MR. MAGOWAN-So you should be able to have a greater buffer, then, because you wouldn’t be putting the bunch of units back. MR. CENTER-Yes. We’ve kept, the building is further to the west, which is closer to the industrial side, the commercial light industrial portion. So it’s off the road quite a ways. We’ve only cleared what we needed to clear to enter the building. Our parking area, the proposed gravel parking area is back off the road quite a distance. I’ve showed the limits of clearing there. So we are off the road quite a bit to keep that buffer, to keep that land between, and keep the disturbance closer to the existing stormwater retention area which we’re trying to get that stormwater from the building and the gravel parking to that existing stormwater system, so we don’t have to disturb more land. That’s why we located it where we did and we also shifted it closer to the west portion of the parcel further back from West Drive. MR. MAGOWAN-Now is it a metal building? MR. CENTER-It’s a metal building, metal roof. I believe there’s some elevations provided in the package we provided. MR. TRAVER-And also what about colors? MR. CENTER-It’ll be a neutral color. Similar to the storage building. MR. FERONE-So, Mr. Chairman, are we getting into the next project? MR. CENTER-We are kind of a little. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there is some eventual overlap. MR. CENTER-Yes, there’s some overlap with the subdivision, we understand, for this one. MR. FORD-I have a question for Laura. Do we know how long this has been zoned commercial light industrial? MRS. MOORE-For a number of years. MR. FORD-Longer than 10 or 12? MRS. MOORE-I believe so. MR. CENTER-I think this was one of the, the front, the parcel to the left I think I was involved with that at least 10 years ago. When did you guys do the storage buildings? 99’, somewhere in the project inception. It was somewhere around ’99, 2000. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute, one of the principles of Luzerne Holdings. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. FORD-The reason I ask that question, obviously, is to address this lady’s concern about when she purchased the property and purchased property that was across the street from light industrial zoning. MR. CLUTE-I was part of the 1988 Master Plan at the time, and I want to say that it was zoned industrial. MR. FORD-I thought it was. I was trying to get confirmation. MR. CLUTE-I went for the approvals on the extension for Burnt Hills, which we had to change that zoning. It was all light industrial, but I want to say it’s going back quite a ways. MR. CENTER-I know the original storage building was started around ’99, 2000. So at least from the survey portion and the design portion for our drawings. So at least we can go back that far that it was proposed back then. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on the questions and concerns about widening the road, West Drive, and/or any tree cutting that’s planned along the edge of the drive? MR. CENTER-The only cutting we’re proposing is at the end of the road where we’re accessing the building, we plan on leaving that buffer along West Drive as we go further back. I don’t believe, if there is any additional work that needs to be done in that right of way that’ll have, I don’t know if they’ll widen the road or, you know, whether the Town will extend the road or it’ll be up to whoever develops that back parcel. That’ll have to be fleshed out when we, you know, if there’s a project or when someone decides to develop back there, work with Highway to see whether it needs to be widened. There’s no plans here to widen it. Again, the vehicles will be survey trucks and boat storage trailers and things of that nature for the survey company. So there wouldn’t be a need to widen it for this purpose. MR. DEEB-Can you comment on Sue’s comment about, can you enter and egress from the storage units, or do you have to use West Drive? MR. CENTER-I think we’d have to use West Drive, just because of the nature of the storage buildings, and the nature of this use. MR. CLUTE-Well, the stormwater management for the original storage units is to the back side of those storage units, and by extending this lot you’re going to add to that. In other words it’s a pretty severe depression, so you can’t go across the stormwater management to get back up the elevations. MR. CENTER-And we’re also leaving a buffer between the storage buildings and this new, and the new building. So although the land does generally slope down to that storage area, we’re leaving that buffer so that you don’t see storage buildings, and then another building right behind it. We’re leaving a buffer in between the two because we can use that natural grade to allow whatever runoff comes through there to filter through that existing buffer and then to the existing. MR. CLUTE-Retention area. MR. FERONE-So there’d be a segregation between the two? MR. CENTER-Yes, the plan is to leave the fencing that’s in the rear of the storage buildings there, and any of that stormwater obviously will just flow right through that. You can’t go through the storage areas. MR. DEEB-I understand. Will that minimize the sight view? MR. CENTER-That will minimize the sight view looking back from Luzerne Road. The rest of it, the building itself and the disturbance we’re keeping, again, to the further west of West Drive. So all of our development predominantly is to the west, and we’ve left the buffer, except for where we need to enter off of West Drive, as minimal as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-It’s just for the lot line adjustment. MR. TRAVER-Right, exactly. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Although you could argue that, you could argue segregation if we didn’t talk some about what the plans were, segmentation, I’m sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-They kind of go hand in hand. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Were there any environmental concerns that the Board has that may result in any moderate or large impacts? MR. TRAVER-I see none. MR. FORD-No. Not on a lot line adjustment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There is a draft SEQR resolution where it does reference the SEQR resolution from 8/28/2012, which would have been the last time we looked at anything on this site. MRS. MOORE-You need to close your public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. Thank you. Any other final comments or concerns from the Board? Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB MOD PZ 110-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING The applicant proposes a subdivision modification of two parcels. 308.12-7.13 to be reduced to 5.0 acres, 308.12-1-7.2 to be increased to 6.46 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision modification shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Whereas the Planning Board adopted SUB 4-2012 on 8/28/2012 SEQR determination of non- significance; Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO REAFFIRM A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 110-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft motion to approve the modification. RESOLUTION APPROVING MOD SUB PZ 110-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING A subdivision application has been made: Applicant proposes a subdivision modification of two parcels. 308.12-7.13 to be reduced to 5.0 acres, 308.12-1-7.2 to be increased to 6.46 acres. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision modification shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has reaffirmed a SEQRA negative declaration; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 110-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item, as we had alluded to, is the Site Plan for Luzerne Holding Inc. SITE PLAN PZ 93-2016 SEQR TY\[E UNLISTED LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES LAND SURVEYORS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION WEST DRIVE/LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 4,800 SQ. FT. COLD STORAGE BUILDING ON A 6.46 ACRE PARCEL WITH ACCESS FROM WEST DRIVE. AN EXISTING STORAGE FACILITY IS TO REMAIN ON SITE. SITE WORK IS ONLY FOR NEW COLD STORAGE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW STORAGE BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ-0019-2015 RETURNED TO APPLICANT; SUB MOD. PZ 110-2016 WARREN CO. PLANNING APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 6.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.13, 7.2 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER & LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if there’s anything else from Staff Notes that you want to add at this time, Laura. MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 4,800 sq. ft. cold storage building and this would be on the newly created parcel, that is the 6.46 acres, and it’s not newly created. It’s just gotten larger. The applicant did request waivers from site lighting, signage, landscaping, traffic and demolition disposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, again, with Larry Clute, in regards to the site plan for Luzerne Holding. Again we’ve kind of discussed it already. I’m not sure if there’s any additional issues that the Board sees that we may need to address. MR. FERONE-I have a question pertaining to the lady who came up earlier. So you said there’s trucks and vehicles that go in and out of there and you said once a day maybe somebody coming in there on and off and they’d come back at the end of the day. MR. CENTER-It would be the surveyors for Van Dusen and Steves. MR. FERONE-Do you know how many times, how many vehicles we’re talking about? MR. CENTER-Right now there’s three survey trucks. They have one boat and they have one four wheeler on a trailer that they use. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. FERONE-So it could be three trucks going in and out. MR. CENTER-Three trucks going in and out. MR. CLUTE-Hi. Larry Clute. It wouldn’t be every day. Like his boat that’s essentially used out on the river. So it’s sitting down on the river for the season. When it’s pulled out, after season, the boat’s brought up. The same thing way with the four wheeler. So it’s not an everyday event. It’s for the tools, the vehicles that he doesn’t use on a daily basis, more for specialty jobs than every day usage. His every day trucks are parked right at his home site and they’re going to stay on that site on Haviland. It’s the specialty vehicles that he uses two, three months out of the year, just needs a place to put them. He has them scattered throughout Queensbury right now, and I’m going to make use out of the building as well, but for the same purpose. It’s more just overflow and non-use stuff that just seems to get in the way. Hopefully that answers your questions. MR. FERONE-Yes. I’m just trying to get a sense of activity on and off. MR. DEEB-How many vehicles will you be bringing in and out. Do you know? MR. CLUTE-I’m going to actually have less than Matt. My vehicles are also seasonal. Mine are more personal oriented, the boat, say the motorcycles, my summer vehicle, that kind of thing. It would just be a covered storage whereas now the vehicle’s in a cramped storage facility right out in front, and so the vehicle can be moved to a larger garage where I might be able to tinker on it on a Saturday. The same way with Matt. He’s got some, a couple of classic cars. So really just, it won’t be an everyday thing. Every couple of months. It’s something that’s shuffling in and out of there for seasonal vehicles, or seasonal toys, depending on how you want to look at it. MR. DEEB-So we can anticipate minimal traffic. MR. CLUTE-Very minimal. Absolutely. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. FORD-Larry, speak to us about the kind of upkeep on vehicles. Do you anticipate changing oil there and things of that sort? MR. CLUTE-That I can’t speak for Matt, and I don’t do that stuff anymore. So I bring my vehicles somewhere else for that kind, for maintenance, so to speak. I don’t believe Matt’s actually going to do any kind of vehicle maintenance there either, to be honest with you. I might be over-speaking, but I highly doubt it. I don’t believe any maintenance. I believe he’ll bring his vehicles to shops, just as I do. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t see him as a grease monkey. MR. CLUTE-I don’t, either. MR. HUNSINGER-So in the application you said it was for cold storage, but there is a bathroom in there. Would the bathroom be heated? MR. CENTER-Probably. According to Code, when we came with this, we did not propose it with a bathroom, but according to Code, when we went into Building and Codes with a building plan, we had to, we were forced to add the bathroom. So this is, you know, we just put in a minimum size bathroom, and a minimum size, you know, leach field for the system. It’s nothing that anyone’s going to be working on a daily basis. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you’re just going to heat the bathroom MR. CENTER-Probably just heat the bathroom with a small space, like a heater. MR. FORD-No shower or tub. MR. CENTER-No shower, no tub. Strictly just a single bathroom in there, but originally it was planned with no bathroom at all, but going through Building and Codes, any building’s required to have one. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you have quite a few parking spots. Is there a reason why you have so many with such a large garage? MR. CENTER-For the outside vehicles, for the vehicles, work trucks and things like that, for the garage, and basically that’s the area where, you know, turn around, back in a boat, be able to get in and out and assure parking. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess what I’m trying to get at is trying to keep a big enough buffer there from the neighbors across the street. MR. CENTER-And again, that’s why we developed it all the way. As far as, left that front area and left that small narrow strip there. MS. WHITE-Do you mind just going over the buffering a little bit and what trees are going to be left, just so that the commenting person from earlier has some reassurance. MR. CENTER-Right up here where we have the entrance, we’ll have that buffer all along the end of West Drive and whatever, you know, healthy trees and buffering along this corner. We already have the existing buffer that goes along, if you saw the picture, you can go back to the real estate, that shows. You already have a buffer that already goes way down here. So there’ll be this little piece in here in the corner, but all of this in here will be left up to, up in there. So that whole piece will be left as a buffer along that property line along West Drive. Then the building itself would end up being back in here which will leave a tree line here which will keep the view from looking from Luzerne Road back. We’ll have the tree line will still be there along the fence line. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-What about lighting? MR. CENTER-Lighting is just security lighting above the doors, downcast, which was submitted with the package. There’s no lighting for the parking area. MR. MAGOWAN-It would be on all evening? MR. CENTER-Over the doors, for security purposes, yes, but again, downcast lighting, which won’t shed beyond the parcel. Yes, it would be pretty low, the same light as on the storage buildings, and those lights are one on the west side at the rear door and two on the east side over the overhead doors. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MR. FERONE-The driveway entering the property will be gated? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You have a gas line coming into this? MR. CENTER-I believe there’s gas off of there, off of West Drive. MR. MAGOWAN-Well on the prints it says gas. MR. CENTER-We did show gas if it’s available that may be used for any space heater. Again it’s a pretty long run and if it’s there and it’s cost effective I’m sure they’d like to install a gas line. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? And you talked about the colors. You said it was an earth tone. MR. CENTER-It would be neutral. Very similar to the one in the picture. I believe it’s a tan, a beige earth tone. Similar to what the storage buildings are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-SEQR. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, we have a public hearing, too. Well, if there’s no other questions from the Board, we do have a public hearing for the site plan. Come on up. You’ll need to identify yourself for the record again. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN MACRI BALDWIN MS. BALDWIN-Hello. My name is Susan Macri Baldwin. I live on 22 West Drive. I was just wondering, I can’t really tell from the drawings. Is the entrance going to be past where the existing fire hydrant is? Do you see that on the paper? I was just wondering how far down it is. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see a fire hydrant labeled on the site plan. MS. BALDWIN-Is there an existing fire hydrant on West Drive? MR. CENTER-Is it on your side of the road? MS. BALDWIN-No, right across from me, on the storage side, it’s kind of right past our porch. Right where there’s a big thing of dirt to turn around. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-While he’s looking that up, ma’am, did you have any other questions or comments? MR. TRAVER-Could you summarize the discussion you had with the lady? MR. CENTER-The question she had was, if we could go to the site plan, was if we could move the entrance here from this location over and line it up with this end of the parking lot, and then allow this to become a buffer and just flop the parking to the south side. We’d swap the parking to the south side, the entrance to the north end of what we’ve shown. That way it would give more of a buffer to the house across the street, which Mr. Clute doesn’t have an issue with relocating that entrance. So we would allow that buffer. The buffer, then, would be from, on the southeast corner. MR. DEEB-Thank you for doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. So the only concern that we would have obviously is if, there seemed to be some confusion about exactly where the fire hydrant was and maybe where the driveway or house lot is, but when you get out there in the field and you realize that it’s not. MR. CENTER-So, I mean, the entrance we have is right there. We would just be moving it back a little bit. It’s not going to go back all the way, but it would be back to the far end of the property, the far end of the parcel. MRS. MOORE-And that’s where the new lot line, this is the original lot line, and the new lot line actually goes. MR. CENTER-The new lot line goes quite a ways. MRS. MOORE-So I think the new lot line creates the new entrance past the individual’s lot. MS. BALDWIN-It would be past the fire hydrant? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So really that’s what you’re looking for is to have your entrance drive past the fire hydrant? Is that? MS. BALDWIN-North of the fire hydrant. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Is that acceptable? MR. CLUTE-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And then you mentioned that the interior parking lot was going to be rotated to the south. MR. CENTER-What we’ll do is we’ll move the parking spaces to the south because you’re going to have to enter and drive through that corner of the parking area. So we’ll move those parking spaces to the south, the entrance to the north and allow a greater buffer along West Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-It adds more buffering to that southeast corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anyone else that wanted to address the Board in the public hearing? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-I’m just wondering if when we get to the motion, Mr. Clute can’t speak for Mr. Steves, as far as any mechanical work, or Mr. Ford’s concern. I’m wondering if we should make that part of our resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you hear the question? MR. CENTER-No vehicle maintenance, changing of oil. MR. DEEB-I mean, I know you don’t know what Mr. Steves intentions are and you can’t speak for him. So I was thinking we should put it in the resolution. MR. CLUTE-Yes, essentially we’re asking for storage. That’s all we’re asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have some engineering comments. Did you have any concerns with any of them? They seem to be pretty straightforward. MR. CENTER-No. They’re along the lines of stormwater. I will work with the Town Engineer and rectify those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-There’s plenty of capacity in the soil for runoff and stormwater. I think there was some confusion regarding HydroCAD and what not. So I’ll work with him. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s pretty sandy there, isn’t it? MR. CENTER-Very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Very sandy. Any environmental concerns that may lead to a moderate to large impact? Okay. Hearing none, if anyone would like to put forward a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE DEC SP PZ 93-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING The applicant proposes a new 4,800 sq. ft. cold storage building on a 6.46 acre parcel with access from West Drive. An existing storage facility is to remain on site. Site work is only for new cold storage building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 93-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I saw you taking notes, Steve. Are you preparing a resolution? MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 93-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to develop an existing vacant site with an 8,400 sq. ft. commercial building with associated parking and infrastructure. Commercial building for rock sport climbing, yoga, indoor recreation usage. Project includes installation of an on-site septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial development shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/28/2016, and continued the public hearing to 4/28/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4/28/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 93-2016 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. , Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) 1. Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) 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; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) 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. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) The entrance will be moved to the north of the existing fire hydrant and the parking area will be moved to the south. l) That the building to be used for storage only and no vehicle maintenance to be performed. m) The site plan be updated to reflect the buffer and revised entrance created by the changes to the site plan as submitted by the applicant and designated on the plan itself. n) That the site access is to be gated. th Duly adopted this 28day of April, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-The plans to be revised to show areas of buffer note those on the plans themselves. Right now there’s just a tree line shown, and if we can note them as buffer, and then the other item I had is you indicated that this was going to be gated, if you wanted to do that as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because it wasn’t shown on the plan. MRS. MOORE-It wasn’t shown on the plan. Then if we can get it updated. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I got the gated condition, and what was the, can you tell me the first one again? MRS. MOORE-The plan should be updated to show the buffer and designated on the site plan itself. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the new entrance and that buffer and the fire hydrant. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m going to amend my motion to include two additional conditions. Condition M That the site plan be updated to reflect the buffer and revised entrance created by the changes to the site plan as submitted by the applicant and designated on the plan itself, and also that the, Condition N, that the site access is to be gated. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION PZ 117-2016 SKETCH & PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) EXCESS LANDS ZONING MDR LOCATION JOHN CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 66 ACRE PARCEL AS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION WITH 24 LOTS – 23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING FROM 1.6 +/- ACRES TO 0.70 ACRES WITH ONE LOT OF 40.5 ACRES TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE PARCEL ACCESS THROUGH EASEMENTS WITH RUSH POND. LOTS WILL RANGE 1.6 +/- ACRES TO 0.70 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 11-1992 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-6 SECTION 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION JOHN WRIGHT & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing to subdivide a 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision with 24 lots. Twenty-three of the lots are single family lots, ranging in lot size from 1.6 acres to 0.7. There’s one remaining lot that is proposed to be 40.5 acres to be used as open space and potentially conveyed to the Town of Queensbury. This is being reviewed at Sketch Plan stage as well as Preliminary this evening. So the Board does have the potential to review it and conduct SEQR tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering, John Wright counsel from Bartlett Pontiff, Stewart, and Joe Leuci from Foothills Builders, the developer. As we’ve been up here before, this is a conservation subdivision where they’re proposing to subdivide a 66 acre lot into a conservation subdivision where 40.5 acres will be, is proposed to be conveyed to the Town and dedicated to be included in the Rush Pond Trail systems. That leaves 25 and a half acres to be developed for residential subdivision. The conservation area includes a low area that carries the overflow water coming out of Butler Pond and through the development and eventually to Rush Pond. This subdivision, it will be an extension of John Clendon Road to a th cul de sac. We’re proposing 24 lots with the 24 lot being the 40 and a half acre lot and the other 23 lots being .7 acres to 1.8 acres. The new cul de sac road will allow direct access to the public trails that currently are there. Right now you can access them on Fox Hollow and Rush Pond and Gurney Lane. This will allow access directly off the new end of John Clendon right to the trails, to the trail system. It’ll help enhance emergency service access to the trail system by allowing direct access off the public road right into the trail system. There’s already existing trails that go through the lot. The part of the dedicated area has an existing trail that goes right into the woods. We’ll also, I’ve talked with Highway regarding the length of the road and the cul de sac. Currently Highway plows into John Clendon and has to back out some 300 feet, then back in and plow out. This will allow them to plow directly in to the end of John Clendon down to the cul de sac and plow back out allowing for more efficient plowing of the road. I know, further on I’ll talk about a couple of waivers we’re requesting. The average size of the 23 lots, the average size is one acre, but again, it ranges from 1.7 to .8, with the larger lots located up along the existing end of John Clendon Road. Being the first two lots, Lot Number One, and Lot Twenty-Four are 1.8 and 1.1 acres. We’re also asking, in the conservation subdivision, for Lots Two through Twenty-two to reduce the side setbacks to 15 feet. What that will allow us to do on Lots Two through Twenty-two is to build a building up closer to the road, allow a one story sort of development so that we do not have to dig into any of the hillsides, and we can reduce the disturbance area and allow someone who wants a one story type of building to be able to locate them on the lots as proposed. Lots One, Twenty- 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) Three and Twenty-Four will maintain the 25 foot side setbacks and we don’t propose any other changes to the front or rear setbacks. They would be as required. We are going to request two waivers from Subdivision A-183-27, Layout of Streets and Roads; E for dead end streets that requires 15 lots or more to have at least two connections to existing roads, and I, Street design for dead end streets shall be no longer than 1,000 feet. Again, before we proposed this we got together with Highway, Mr. Vanness, and went through some different options and he did not see any issue with a cul de sac and a dead end road in this fashion because that would solve the problem that they have with the plow trucks having to back out and back back in. This allows them much safer access for plowing and maintaining the roads. At this point that’s all I have. The comments from the Town Engineer are regarding stormwater management. We have good well drained soils. We’ve been out there with Department of Health and done test pits and found the soils to be deep well drained sands with no issues. We even did some test pits on the very last lot at the lowest point and we still have adequate soils for septic systems We also flagged the wetlands with Roberts Environmental. That was pretty much limited to the drainage way channel that comes through and again, as part of this, as a conservation subdivision, tried to keep all of our development to the west of that area, leaving the remainder of that portion open space to be connected, and I believe I also have a map that I got from the Town regarding the Rush Pond Trail system. Can you pull up that map? Which shows how this parcel is the lands to be dedicated line up right alongside the existing Town parcel, and this is the Rush Pond trail. The red lines here is the existing trail which pretty much mimics the existing subdivision road that we proposed. The trail almost follows it exactly, down to the open space area, and will allow public access directly from a public street right into the trail system. I’ll leave it up to you if you have any additional questions or comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I’ll hold mine until I hear from the public. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things you mentioned during your presentation is some of the topography, I did notice that several of the lots have significant elevation changes. MR. CENTER-Correct, steep slopes. MR. HUNSINGER-Steep slopes. Could you comment on that? Are any of the slopes greater than 15%? MR. CENTER-None of the slopes are greater than 15%. What we are planning to do on the back side is to terrace those slopes. Again, these are one foot contours right across the large parcel. So it looks greater than it is. It looks worse than it is. What they plan is for the lots to the north are to terrace the lots, as you go down the subdivision road, to terrace them and step them down. That’s one of the reasons we requested the reduction to 15 foot side setbacks, allows us to spread the house out and get a garage underneath where you’re coming into a garage underneath the house itself. So we’re working with the land and the elevation, as we terrace those lots down and manage stormwater and manage septic systems through there, and again, that disturbance is on the back side, closer to the larger parcel to the north of us that is undeveloped. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? Okay. Seeing how there’s a big audience, I assume that many of them are going to wish to address the Board on the project. Again, the purpose of a public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments, questions to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to speak to address their comments to the Board and to state their name clearly for the record. I would ask, well, let me just ask by show of hands how many people wish to address the Board this evening. Okay. Not as many as I anticipated. If I could just ask, as later people comment, if you could try to keep your comments to new items, that would be very helpful. Sir, did you want to be first? I saw your hand go up first and you’re in the front row. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN DAVIS MR. DAVIS-So aren’t you guys. I’m impressed with your diligence and for a volunteer agency you’re very thorough. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DAVIS-And thank you for the time. John Davis, 10 Crownwood Lane since 1980, and because we’re the main connecting road I have heavy concerns about the traffic for 24 more 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) houses which probably means 48 more cars. The turnover has been twice in my neighborhood. We now have toddlers and little kids on Crownwood Lane which is really the main connecting road because nobody goes to John Clendon on the way out of that cul de sac. Second concern is this is almost the size of Lehland Estates, and Lehland Estates essentially is a cul de sac but it has two ingress and egress. I would think the same condition could apply to here with some foresight, and the third condition is, because it’s the nature trail, and it’s close to all our hearts and will eventually pay off to everybody in property values, and we know it’s a concern to everybody, is at the John Clendon end, at West Mountain, there’s an adequate parking spot that leads right to the trail. At Fox Farm Road, somebody blew it. There’s easements. You have to park a quarter mile away, at the FEMA plant. I would hope that there would be a paved parking lot with access to the road not having to cross the road and go through somebody’s yard to get to the nature trail. So those are the things I would ask you, and the final thing is the build out in the paper said up to 39 homes, and we’re talking 24. So there’s going to be another 15, by hook or crook, and I’m glad somebody has the faith to build in Queensbury because it’s good for everybody. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Who would like to be next? Go ahead, sir. Good evening. JERRY LEMMO MR. LEMMO-Good evening. How are you? My name is Jerry Lemmo. Not to be one up on John but, he’s a great friend, but I’ve lived on 16 Crownwood Lane for 41 years, and my wife says I’m still a hold out from the 70’s, by the way. I have a written piece that I wrote up just recently here. I speak for a living, I give lectures and things of that sort on nature, in particular, not just in Queensbury but all around the North Country and in the Albany area, which is most of my work, which is very tiring to run down that way, and well let me just read for you what I have here. I’m a Queensbury resident living at the same address, 16 Crownwood Lane, since April 19, 1975, that is 41 years since moving from Queens in New York City, for the purpose of a better and more peaceful lifestyle. As an avid naturalist and professional photographer for those years I’ve used the John Clendon, I’ll just abbreviate it as JC trail, frequently and continue to do so as a time and gas saving retreat from my work schedule, mostly revolving around the Capital Region. The treasured piece of land that’s accessed by the JC trail consistently offers me, my wife, who’s with me, and countless other community residents a wilderness experience right at their doorstep, as other area land parcels continue to become off limits due to home developments and other private postings. I would like to see the John Clendon trail remain in the wild state that is has since its beginnings as a true Adirondack trailhead. By leaving this trailhead open to the public and, I stress, not manicuring it, as with the Rush Pond trail to which it connects, the Town of Queensbury could purchase this parcel and its currently unpolluted watershed leading to Rush Pond with no more than a small parking area for business, much as John had mentioned, one that would not adversely affect landowners who already have adjacent properties. I also write, by the way. I enjoy doing that. In my 41 years of hiking and enjoying the JC trail, I have seen black bear, this is on the trail, black bear, coyote, deer and tracks of grey fox and bob cat. I’ve also seen many bird species including many woodland songbirds that require wild places to survive and birds such as the bard owl and the much declining whippoorwill which I’ve only heard, and that was just this last year, and that is a bird which, by the way, is a bird of special concern, I believe, in New York State. It’s really gone downhill, and it’s obviously breeding up in the woods right shortly down the road from where the trail begins is where I’ve heard that a couple of times. Used to be more frequent years ago where across from Mountain View Road is, and I’ve never heard one of there since, in the 80’s perhaps. So it’s trying to make a comeback. The further development of homes breaching the Rush Pond watershed will stress not only the quality of life for wild things but also that of our local residents. By continuing to push further into the watershed and wildness of the above parcel, human activity will not only serve to further deteriorate what many residents have move to Queensbury to savor. As a 41 year resident on a relatively quiet street as Crownwood Lane, I could only imagine the great increase of traffic that a 24 home development would create along with the ensuing noise of home improvements, landscaping, maintenance machines, dogs, etc. abutting the wilderness. It would be a very depressing end of the trail for me and many others. Pardon the pun. In conclusion, I ask that the Town of Queensbury seriously consider purchasing the acreage where the John Clendon trail begins and up to the Rush Pond trail convergence as a gift for the future residents and wild inhabitants of this unique Town. Sincerely, Jerry Lemmo. They have a sampling of my work in Adirondack Life magazine. Black bear, in Adirondack Life magazine, which is a prestigious magazine in the Adirondacks. Thank you very much for hearing me. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. DEBORAH PRUYN MS. PRUYN-My name is Deborah Pruyn. I live at 15 John Clendon Road. I’ve lived there 15 years with my husband. I am related to the prior owners of this parcel, which was Finch Pruyn. This parcel was actually supposed to be donated as part of the Rush Pond park and somehow through the millions of little parcels that Finch Pruyn, it got lost. This is a quality of life issue for us. We’re on the dead end. There is no other outlet for the heavy traffic that we’re going to have to endure here, and we’re going to have cement trucks, backhoes. He’s already trespassed to take his soil samples on the western part of my property to access that parcel. Noise next 15, 20 years that we’re going to have to endure this. This is not why we live there. We live there and we moved there because it was quiet. Also I have concerns about the down flow into the watershed area because that’s critical environment and its wetlands. So everything is going to move downhill, including all the waste, which could disrupt the watershed. Plus I have to point out that from my understanding this parcel had been re-zoned residential back in the 70’s prior to the SEQR program. So there’s never been a SEQR review on any of this, even though there is critical environment and wetlands there. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. SCOTT SORGER MR. SORGER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SORGER-My name’s Scott Sorger. I live at 18 John Clendon, directly adjacent at the dead end, and I don’t know where to begin. The 40 acres to be donated, there’s really no benefit to Queensbury. That’s 40 acres that would no longer be taxable. The land is already being used as hiking trails. It’s already there, and they would be taking away a lot of beautiful land. He mentioned the animals. I don’t want to go over the same things. Project length, including the current John Clendon Road down to Crownwood, would be 1789 feet. That’s almost double the recommended area for a dead end. When it comes to plowing I’m right there. There is really no issue with the plowing. It’s actually quite good the way it is because they plow it right to the end. They don’t leave so much on the side of the roads, and I’ve spoken to the plowman and they have no issue with backing up. It’s 450 feet. It’s not a big deal for them. Let’s see. Now also, looking on the maps, I have them here if you need me to open them. The two end lots have a brook running through them if you look on the map, part of the watershed. I don’t know how that was eliminated from the watershed. I could show you on the map where you’ve got the maps right there. If you look at it you can see the brook goes right through two of them, and Ms. Pruyn, she has a map showing federal wetlands that’s not listed on the State registry, and that encroaches on about four to five lots on the end. So, you know, the watershed’s right there, even though it’s not in the State or the County or whoever. They don’t really show them all. MS. PRUYN-This is off of Queensbury’s website. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could start it down at that end. MS. PRUYN-I’ve only got one copy. Since that’s the stream, his parcels, if you look at the map and compare it, and go straight across from where the stream comes in, his corner parcels all cut across that stream. MR. SORGER-Now also in regards to the road, the road at my house there is only 20 feet wide. You’re going to be adding a tremendous amount of traffic. Like the gentleman said it would be average two cars per house, that’s four-six more cars going in both directions. Now it’s just me and Ms. Pruyn down at that end of the road. The road’s only 20 feet wide. Now the lot sizes, I mean, that’s asking for an awful big reduction, you know, going down to one acre or less on the average, from a two acre zoning, with one of them being as small as .7 acres. Most of them at around .8. There’s a reason the Town made a zoning law for two acre zoning, so they wouldn’t turn Queensbury into a city. I moved here from Long Island seven years ago to enjoy more open space and that would be like a city down there. So this, I assume, would have to go to the Zoning Board for the approvals on the lot sizes. MR. HUNSINGER-No, sir, just the Planning Board. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MS. SORGER-So they needed variances for the lot sizes, it doesn’t have to go to the Zoning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-They didn’t ask for any variances. MR. SORGER-Well, he used a different term for reducing the lot sizes. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s asked for a reduction on the side yard setbacks. MR. SORGER-Not only side yard setbacks, but size of the lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. That all falls under the auspices of the Planning Board. There’s no variances being requested on this project. MR. SORGER-I’m confused on that because another neighbor of mine cleared a couple of lots that her property goes behind my house and she was looking for a reduction in lot size and had to go to the Zoning Board for that. MRS. MOORE-It’s a conservation subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why they have applied as a conservation subdivision, well, it’s all part of the Code, sir, which allows smaller lot sizes so that you can have about the same amount of density but have property set aside for the public good, and that’s what they have applied under. It is in the Town Code. We will be talking about it when we get into further discussion about the lot sasses and other things, but it is within the purview of the Planning Board. MR. SORGER-Okay. Now when you talk about the density, if the 40 acres is conveyed to the Town, that no longer applies to the density of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the way it works is when you do a conservation subdivision you look at the total acreage of the lot and you look at the number of lots that you would be able to develop as a standard two acre subdivision. MR. SORGER-I understand that, but if that land is given to the Town, it’s no longer part of that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true. MR. SORGER-So now your density is completely different. That is very true. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m trying to think of the best way to explain this. It’s specified in the Code. It is allowed in the Code, and it is something that is actually encouraged to maximize open space and public space. Again, I mean, it’s a conservation subdivision. They have not, they’ve followed all of the requirements to apply for it. Well, we now are reviewing it under those terms. MR. SORGER-Okay. Then back to that aspect, the land is already being used. The trails are there and it would be better accessed as it is now because you wouldn’t have 23 homes and, you know, if they were talking about better access to the trails for emergencies, there’s going to be homes there at the end of the cul de sac. There’s not going to be any access to the trails, and again I’d like to reiterate the size of the road, 20 feet wide. That’s a tiny road, and the 15, I don’t understand his reasoning on the 15 foot setback except it allows him to make, put more homes in, you know, reducing the distance between buildings is not going to be any kind of benefit to any drainage or, I don’t understand how that could be a benefit. It’s just allows them to put more homes in, and I know I have 25 foot setback when I put my garage in, and that was, that’s what it is, and again, the two acre zoning was put in there for a reason, and I don’t think the Town wants to build that kind of concentrated developments, something that size. It’s almost an 1800 foot cul de sac when it’s done, and it’s not off a main road. It’s not a high traveled road. It’s not off a main road. So it’s a very small road. There may be other cul de sacs out there like that, but they’re all off a heavily traveled road, you know, that have traffic on them already. So I just don’t see a benefit to the Town, loss of taxes and 40 acres that they’re donating to the Town. The property is already being used in that aspect and I do believe the Town doesn’t have the money to develop any additional trails through there. The other trails that were put in on West Mountain Road were, so there’s 40 acres that the Town would have that they really can’t do anything with. It’s already being utilized. So I don’t see any benefit to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. SORGER-Again, I wish you could look at the sheet that Ms. Pruyn said, how, on the federal wetland that’s in there. MR. HUNSINGER-It was passed all the way down., MR. SORGER-That was all passed all the way down. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. RON MONTESI MR. MONTESI-Good evening. MR. SORGER-I’m sorry. One more thing. Did you see the petition we had? I’d given it to other lady. MR. HUNSINGER-It’ll be read into the record, yes. MR. SORGER-Okay. We have 137 signatures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’ll be read into the record. MR. MONTESI-My only comment is, when I filled in, as you know, for Dan Stec as Town Supervisor, we built the Rush Pond trail, John Strough and myself and the Board. We do have access at both. As John pointed out, one of the ends is not fully complete yet but we will get there. The interesting thing is this subdivision said they would have access to the trail. Well, if there’s 24 or 27 houses in there, who’s yard are they going to go through? And where are they going to park the cars? I mean, that’s an issue. The only access to this 40 acres would be off of the Rush Pond trail. So you need to ask that question, how are they going to, even the neighbors that live in this subdivision how would they get to the trail? That was my only concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. RUSS PATTERSON MR. PATTERSON-Good evening. My name’s Russ Patterson. I live at 15 Moorwood Drive. I grew up in the area. I lived on Crestwood as a kid. I moved away for about 20 years, go my life together, my career together. Came back, settled on 15 Moorwood. Paid a nice price for my house because I have those woods right behind me. I’ll be backed up to this development. Not only my house value bothers me but maybe the fact that some of these other people sitting in this room have supported John Strough’s initiatives for the trail system, and they’re going to be blocked down from that. So you’re a taxpayer. You’re on the top of that line, or the bottom of that line for that subdivision and you’re going to be locked out of those trails at this point, unless you get in your car, drive around, increase the traffic, so on and so forth. The next thing I wanted to know, what is, they spoke, the gentleman spoke to the steepness of the hills back there and it’s not a concern. I grew up playing in those woods. Every couple of seasons I was back there on ice skates playing ice hockey. That, particularly behind Crestwood Drive, that drops off real steeply. All the neighborhood kids would be down there with their skates playing, and if you’re putting in a septic system in there, I think it would be highly suspect and I think it’s something that this Board might want to look into. We do have sand, okay, I understand that. The Town of Queensbury has great sand for these septic systems, but when that water level rises on the bad winters, I mean, I don’t know when they did their testing. I mean, this was a wonderful winter. I mean, I enjoyed it, but it might show soil conditions that are not necessarily representative of what they’ll see over the long haul. Yes, I think that’s all I had to say. I just wanted the Board to note it and think about that, it’s much steeper and one other thing. I don’t know, maybe it’s in here, maybe it’s been mentioned, but what is the nature of this development going to be? Is this going to be a situation where they come in and steamroll every tree that they have so that I’m on a wooded lot and I look out my, I mean, I look right off a hill, okay. It’s beautiful. I look right off a hill through some pine trees and I’m just going to see a clearing with a bunch of houses right there? It’s not something I really want to look at, and I think that that probably would be something that some of the people might want to know. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir. GEORGE WINTERS 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. WINTERS-George Winters, 4 John Clendon Road. I was the first house on John Clendon Road, go way back, 54 years. Do I like a lot of the development? No, I probably don’t, but these guys own this land and that land was supposed to be developed years ago. They took soil way down and when they were building Cottage Hill that’s how far it goes back, and they were drawing soil out of here to put on Cottage Hill for their lawns and stuff. So when I started there there were no lights, no water, nothing. It was a dirt road. I don’t know if you know Bernard Cogner was road commissioner then and he told Mr. Morehouse if he cut that road rough in there, that he would pave it and stuff and then you talk about things changing, things changed, and we couldn’t, they couldn’t put the road in and then I couldn’t get any power where my trailer was because there was, the Town didn’t own the road so the power company wouldn’t run the lights in. Eventually we got the lights and we had to pay for the water and everything, and then with the traffic. They’re talking about traffic on roads that I don’t believe are even going to be affected by this. John Clendon, Warner Pruyn built all of that. I go way back, and as far as more traffic, we picked up a lot of traffic when John Clendon was built. So now they come down John Clendon and go on to Crownwood, you know, and then this petition they sent around. He come to my house and they told me this was zoned for two acre lots, that petition, and he told me at that time that this, I don’t know, maybe he didn’t own it at that time, but he said the guy that’s trying to build down there doesn’t even own the land. So and then I find out tonight that they don’t have to be two acre lots. Mine’s less than an acre. So, you know, they’re small lots in there. I had to get a variance for my garage. The foundation was 10 foot from the house, from the neighbors, but the overhang on my garage was the 10 foot. So I had to come to the Board and get a variance, and I’ve signed variance for other houses in that area. So I’m probably one of the few that, do I like it, no, maybe not, but the only thing I would like to see is for the trails. There’s one trail that goes down through there and they could do something so that the people in the neighborhood could use that trail. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-Good evening. My name is Roman Jarosh. I’ve resided in Queensbury for the last 40 years and for the last 28 years I’ve lived at 8 Crownwood Lane. I commend you for your service and involvement as members of the Planning Board. It’s the most thankless job a lot of the time. You get to listen to our gripes, and, you know, I appreciate that you take your civic duty and responsibility seriously and not only listen and help the land owners and developers and business people but also the residents of the neighborhoods of Queensbury and such as yourselves, your friends and your relatives, and I ask that you protect and maintain the quality of life that we are entitled to and listen to our voices. I just want to read you a quote about this property. It’s a beautiful forest and trails and such he said. I was wishing I had my hiking boots on and had more time. You know who said that? MR. HUNSINGER-I did. MR. JAROSH-Exactly. So this is going to be destroyed, this beautiful forest and hiking trails and such. I did go to Mr. Leuci’s other development off Peggy Ann and it’s also a cul de sac and it’s clear cut completely, and you can see the junkyard down at the end of the cul de sac. I hope that’s not a precedent of what this is going to look like. I don’t even want it to go that far. I just want you to give me a little bit of leeway here, you know, as you drive around Queensbury and you take a look at what’s going on, you know, maybe some of you did have the power, maybe some of you didn’t, you know, you look at what your votes of approval have created, and, you know, the development, the subdivisions, this and that hotel, the apartment complexes that look like Army barracks, strip malls. Once where there were wetlands, woodlands and green space, there is now blacktop, clear cutting, traffic, pollution and overall degradation of the quality of life in the Town of Queensbury. I ask you not to spread that cancer into our neighborhood. You could say to yourselves, I’m the one that was responsible for that, either, you know, honestly and take a look at that and say, you know, that’s what I wanted us to be. Now, the impropriety of the Town of Queensbury accepting land from a developer as a prelude to approval of the subdivision, whether it’s in the Code or not, it smells much like a bribe. The developer’s plan should stand on their own merits and he should be able to keep the land and pay taxes on it and not use it as a deductible donation. The Town Supervisor should keep his comments private and not gush with approval as to the merits of the development just because the Town is receiving land, and that was in the Post Star after the development was announced. If the purpose of development is to attract more businesses and residents in order to create a larger tax base and ease the burden on existing residents, then we need to look at this idea and realize that it has failed. The prime example is the amount of my tax increases since I’ve owned my home at 8 Crownwood Lane. In 1988 my Town and County taxes were $500.52. My school taxes were $988.40. 2016 my Town and County taxes are $1488 and my school taxes are $3,123. One is a 297% increase. One is a 316% increase over that time. Where is 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) the benefit of development in increasing the tax base? Are we paying less in taxes? No. Providing more services because there’s more development, hiring more people to take care of that. You’re destroying existing wetlands and green space that has been a buffer for noise pollution and it can’t be replaced once it’s gone. Just from the recent developments on Fox Farm, and then the, you know, that was a huge development. I can hear Great Escape. I can hear the noise from the Northway. That whole area was a buffer zone. Now, you’re creating a public safety issue with more traffic that will be entering Crownwood Lane as the access point to this development. Nobody’s going to go down to Mountain View. We have people cutting through there now going to the malls, going to West Mountain. Do any of you live in the any of the adjacent areas abutting this development? Will it be affecting you? So the access, you know, people are going to be going down Crownwood Lane. They’re all going down that way now. The kids are cutting over West Mountain and they’re going to Lehland Estates. They’re going the outlet malls. Nobody goes down past Prospect. They don’t want to deal with, you know, a stop sign or kids crossing the road. This is a serious issue. You should at least do a traffic study, you know, an intensive traffic study. Speaking of which, and it seems that Queensbury seems to get this backward all the time. So you approve more outlet centers and then we have a traffic problem. You approve Fox Farm. Now we have a traffic circle to relieve the issue. Now there are too many cars going by Queensbury school. What are we going to do about it. It’s constantly. Let’s put the traffic issue first in this development. That road is much too small. You’re creating a hazard in there that there’s only one way in. We’ve had, you remember we had that microburst over by Lehland Estates where they had to close West Mountain Road? At least in Lehland Estates people have one way in and one way out. You have a fire in this cul de sac, you have a fire down in those woods, you have micro burst, those people aren’t getting out. They’re stuck. There’s no one out of there. There’s only one road in. So you’re really creating, you know, you’re going to be responsible for any circumstances or deaths or injuries by voting for that, okay. I’m almost done. So you’re, if you vote on this, if you approve this, you’re going to destroy the quality of life for the adjacent neighborhoods, additional environmental degradation, increased noise pollution, traffic and unsafe conditions, in the event of unforeseen storms sand fires in that area. It’s going to be a constant problem. Ask yourself, when you vote on any of these issues that come to the Planning Board, will I be doing something that will make my children, friends, neighbors proud? Will I be preserving the quality of life in Queensbury and make it a better place not just for a few but for all? I passed out the Town logo there. There’s something wrong with that logo. It should be upstate. There’s not one development. There’s not one road. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say, you want more houses in the queue? MR. JAROSH-There’s not one strip mall. There’s no blacktop, and if that’s what we’re leading to, then do away with that Queensbury logo, because it doesn’t not reflect this community anymore. So in closing I urge you to propose a moratorium on any proposed and future development in the Town of Queensbury. We just don’t need it anymore. There’s no justification, both from a civic and financial viewpoint, and the Town just can’t handle it. You’re stewards of the land. We’re here and then we’re gone, but what we leave behind is our legacy. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-As to what he was saying about Mr. Leuci’s other development on Peggy Ann Road, here are just a couple of pictures of how he just clear cut everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wishes to address the Board? Yes, sir. NORM FACKLAM MR. FACKLAM-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. FACKLAM-My name is Norm Facklam. We live at 25 Moorwood Drive. The back of our property buts up to the property that we’re talking about. There are a number of people who are not here who’s names are on the petition, and it just seems as, and they wanted to be here. They couldn’t be here for one reason or another. People on Moorwood frequently, summer and winter, cross Moorwood and cut through to the property that we’re talking about and make that walk. It’s why we’re here, and to change that is why some people won’t be here, and I really hope that you do a lot of soul searching. If you were a resident in that area, think about it. You’d probably be sitting here addressing you. I think the representation here is excellent. I also want to say that the way you handled the woman here earlier this evening, I was very proud of your work. You worked it around and you made some changes. That was wonderful. I have no axe to grind. I think that was really good. I really hope that you give our situation that kind of consideration. Thank you. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. JOHN SCRIVO MR. SCRIVO-John Scrivo, 23 Moorwood Drive. I’m also behind where this would be. I’ve lived there since 2010. So relatively new, but I just wanted to comment that from what I’ve heard I’m just extremely proud of the neighborhood that I live in. The people that have spoken tonight are intelligent and eloquent and I don’t have much else to add. I just wanted to be on record pretty much to show my support for my neighborhood, and just add to the thought that this word conservation being put in is just a farce. That, you know, this land that would be donated is land that would be useless to a developer anyway, but it’s extremely useful to the entire Town the way it is, but don’t get me wrong. It’s not a donation that is generous, at least in my opinion. I don’t see a need for more housing. Plenty of houses seem to be for sale in the area. We’ve got a house on Moorwood that they practically gave away. I mean, it was unbelievable the low the price was for it, and it was a foreclosure, but, still, it was a big, beautiful house, and it was for sale for months and months and months. So I guess if there is a big demand I’ll put my house up for $300,000. Any takers? But, yes, the quality of life issue. I don’t think there’s much else to add. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to that and I’ll add that I’m from New Jersey. So I know about overcrowding as well. So all my fellow kind of city people here. I saw beautiful neighborhoods in New Jersey that were ruined that you just can’t get anywhere in these towns anymore in New Jersey. The traffic is just horrendous. They were great little neighborhoods when I was a kid even, and my sister still lives in New Jersey and it’s just horrible. I’m like once I’m down there I want to get back up to Queensbury and I want to keep saying that. I want to keep saying that I want to come home to Queensbury because that’s where I’m hoping to stay for the rest, you know, of my time here. So I really appreciate your considering all that we have to say tonight. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. MIKE DI GREGARIO MR. DI GREGARIO-I’ll make this quick. My name’s Mike DiGregario. 24 Crownwood Lane, 21 years. I’ve been through those trails for 38 years, graduated from Queensbury in ’83 and beautiful trails, and it’s a beautiful area. To develop it would be a mistake. If you want to go out to brunch on Mother’s Day, take the grandchildren for a walk down through the trails Sunday. See how many salamanders you can find or birds or owls or deer. The school system is going to get overcrowded as it is right now with a lot of the other developers around the area. There’ll be more than two cars per household. Say there’s four, you know, a family of four moves in. There’s six cars or four. There could be over 100 cars there. Plowing during the winter, salt. When I lived in Aspen, they don’t use salt out in Colorado. It’s all going to flow downhill because it is mostly all downhill to Rush Pond, along with the septic system. So try and keep the peace and God made dirt. Dirt doesn’t hurt. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, did you want to speak? TIM CORDELL MR. CORDELL-Tim Cordell. Seven John Clendon Road. I would just like to invite everyone here, at some point, to just go down there, if you haven’t already, and take a look at what this land looks like. I think we can all say it’s this, this and this, but you have to see this and then you have to see in your mind what it would look like if this project were to go through. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? And there were written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MARC GUYS MR. GUYS-Good evening. Mark Guys, 17 Sherwood, class of ’92, Queensbury. I grew up playing in those woods, hiking in those woods, and my son fell asleep. I’d like him to be able to hike in those woods, too. That’s all I have to say. I think it’s an awful idea. I think the land should be in the Town. It should be the Town’s land one way or the other, regardless of any development. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) MIKE DALEY MR. DALEY-My name’s Mike Daley, 1 Crestwood Drive, and I live right on the southern boundary of the development, way to the east there. A couple of concerns is the stream that flows, that flash floods many times during the course of the year. You can walk back there and it just might be a muddy stream bed, but there’s times that that flows so hard that you can’t cross it. So a real thorough study needs to be done on that to see what effect any kind of building will have on that. Secondly, one of the lots to the east there, on the south side, there’s a pond back there. Russ Patterson mentioned that before, and there’s a pond there, and I don’t know that that’s being shown on the map there. I can’t tell if it’s the second or third lot to the east. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s kind of behind 3 and 5 Crestwood. It’s feet deep, by the way, not inches. It’s feet deep. MR. DALEY-Yes. It’s feet deep. I mean peepers and the frogs you hear they come up out of that pond every year. So, I mean, I don’t know if there’s any consideration about that or not. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that the triangular piece right at the bottom? MR. DALEY-It’s either that one or the one right next to it. MR. MAGOWAN-The one that actually is right behind the triangular one that goes kind of parallel with your property line. MR. DALEY-Yes, I think that’s the one. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like a little low spot right in there. MR. DALEY-I just can’t tell on this diagram where it’s at, and I just want to say that we use those trails all the time. It’s so beautiful. I mean, we talk about how Rush Pond is a great habitat for bobcat. We’ve seen bobcat in our backyard. They’ll be gone. Owls. We had bard owls last year with a, you know, an owlet hanging out in the tree. They’ll be gone. I’ve had fox, actually under my shed, raised five or six kits. That’ll be gone. I mean, you know, we just really do not need another development in. I know Finch Pruyn has had this for years. There’s no reason that this should not just go to the Town. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, ma’am. LYNN LEMMO MRS. LEMMO-My name is Lynn Lemmo and I live at 16 Crownwood Lane. I’m the wife of the photographer. I wasn’t going to speak because I’m always nervous, and I watch the Queensbury Town Board meetings when I have a chance, and I always see concerns about lawn fertilizers and things like that when they’re talking about Lake George and running into the lake. With the way these, you can actually see ditches and engravings of the way the water has gone through this land over periods of time. I’m wondering why this green lawn society that we live in, are these fertilizers which people will be using, Jerry and I don’t use any. We have a really crappy lawn. We have a beautiful lawn according to him, and I enjoy it also, but I’m just wondering isn’t this runoff of 24 houses of fertilizers and chemicals going to go down towards Rush Pond in the long run? If you could see the way this land is being pitched, is the word I should have used, there’s flowers growing there. What’s the name of that flower, the purple one? There’s flowers growing and stuff, and there’s Lady Slippers and there’s rare knotting trillium growing back in the woods there. So I foresee if you’re having green lawn, most people do, with people coming there, that a lot of these things, besides the things that are in the trees, a lot of the things like salamanders as the man mentioned will disappear also. Thank you for my nervousness. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. DAVID HOWARD MR. HOWARD-Good evening. My name is David Howard, and I see this tonight. God bless you guys for listening to everyone, you know, but it seems like everyone is against change, and I can understand sometimes, but at one point in time when everyone lived in the vicinity of this new development, I mean, I’m sure people opposed that as well. So I think things have to change, not just in the Town of Queensbury, but even in this country, but that’s another point, 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) but now that we have people up here that, you know, I don’t write books. I’m not very educated. I’m not an engineer like people pretend to be, but the people that are doing this development are wonderful people, and I’m sure the people that move into these homes are going to be wonderful neighbors to everyone here, that before they lived there, people might have opposed them moving in. So I think this is a great idea, and in reference to donating the land, when going on the land when someone owns the land it’s trespassing. So I think with them donating the land they could easily keep it for themselves for hunting or for their families and stuff, but they wanted to donate it and I think it’s a great thing. So I think everyone, I can understand how people oppose change, but sometimes it’s good, and that’s why people want to move to Queensbury. We have a lot of great businesses here. The people that are going to fill this neighborhood, they’re going to be wonderful people, just like these people are wonderful in their neighborhood. So it’s great. These are wonderful people that run a business and, you know, sometimes people are looking over at them and they’re great people, and they go to work every day just like everyone else. So some people really oppose change. Change isn’t a bad thing, and there’s great engineers working on this project and believe me, all the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted. So it’s going to be wonderful. So thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to comment? Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. Laura, you had some written comments? MRS. MOORE-This was addressed in an e-mail to Mr. Brown. This is from Kristen Lytle and it th was dated April 25, and it says, “I don’t know the area that Roman Jarosh, Norma Schott or Scott Sorger are referring to – in their opposition to the development in their area – but I would like them to think – if when their houses were built, if their neighbors were opposed to the development of THEIR area – would they have welcomed that??? I think if the residents do not want this development – that they all chip in to buy the property – to keep it undeveloped. To prevent someone from developing their land – is well, selfish on these individuals part - and is part of the NIMBY problem.” The petition, I’ll read the starting sentence. The top says SAVE THE JOHN CLENDON WOODLANDS “We the undersigned in order to preserve the quality of life and the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood, completely and utterly oppose the destruction and leveling of the Woodland and subsequent building of a housing development by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Leuci and any rezoning of the 66.4 acre parcel of land, (tax ID # 295.15-1- 6), owned by Excess Land LLC and located adjacent to the Rush Pond Preserve at the dead end of John Clendon Rd. If this development were allowed to proceed unhindered it would disrupt the surrounding, long established neighborhood with a huge increase of traffic, noise and air borne pollution for years to come. We the undersigned also object to the loss of the woodland habitat, contained within the parcel, that is rich with wildlife and has been enjoyed by hundreds of town residents in the surrounding neighborhoods for the last 50 years. The loss of this would be a tragedy to not only this generation but for generations yet to be born. We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to prevent this tragedy from occurring and the ensuing disruption to the peace and tranquility of the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the irretrievable woodland and wildlife habitat that would occur it allowed to continue unchecked.” And I did count 137 signatures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you want to come back to the table. I mean, you heard the number of concerns and the breadth of the concerns that were raised by the neighbors. I don’t know if you want to try to address some of them one at a time or just give some general comments or just answer questions. MR. CENTER-Well, some general comments would be the public will now have access directly off John Clendon. We left road frontage right there and along the cul de sac to allow direct access to, off the cul de sac to the parcel. There’s room there for the Town to develop however they see fit in regards to parking, access to the trails, trail heads and what not. When we went to develop this lot and Joe met with us and we walked the parcel and looked at this, the subdivision regulations allow us to go to as many as 29 lots if we were looking at the total buildable area, subtracting the wetland area out of it and any of the steep slopes. What we came up with was a plan that worked closer to what was the neighborhood. If you go through that area, there’s anywhere from a third of an acre lot to two acres lots. Predominantly, if you look at John Clendon, the 20 lots on John Clendon, they range anywhere from .22 acres to 2, with the average size on John Clendon of just under .7. So looking at that we tried to come up with a plan that was reasonable number of lots for the size of the parcel and to be allowed, and to still facilitate the donation of the large portion and the conservation of the 40 acre piece to the Town. There is some justification in the conservation subdivision to be able to do this, to leave that land for open space which people, yes, people are using it now, but they’re using it, it’s posted, it’s posted land owned by a private person, owned by a private company. We tried to give folks access to the land so that they could continue to be able to use that land and it connects to the Town system Rush Pond trail. So there’s a balancing act, and we tried to bring that forward in this plan to not go down to half acre lots or a third acre lots which is, you know, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) some of Crownwood, Westwood, John Clendon in there, and we tried to find that balancing act, if you will, between those, and that’s where we came up with an average of one acre lots, and then allowed those access to come back in. As far as buffering, if you will, we’re comfortable with allowing a 30 foot no cut buffer along that Westwood Drive would be the south portion of the parcel, but even if you look there, most of the development along Westwood, I think it’s Westwood, in this area here, and this area here, most of those houses, these houses here are built way up further away from the property. They have their own buffer before they get to that property line, but we’re willing to offer another 30 foot buffer there and include the 25 foot no cut along the western portion of it. MR. FORD-Another 30 foot in addition to what? MR. CENTER-That 30 foot off of the front of the property line in 30 feet. MR. FORD-So it would be a total of 60 you’re proposing? MR. CENTER-No, a 30 foot no cut, so from the property line back. MR. TRAVER-That’s on the south property line? MR. CENTER-That’s on the south property line. We would offer a 30 foot no cut from the property line in the 30 feet. MR. TRAVER-And what was the 20 foot you mentioned? MR. CENTER-The 25 foot would be along the John Clendon Road parcel, here. MR. TRAVER-So that would be to the west. MR. CENTER-To the west. We would offer that as a 25 foot no cut basically from that, from the property line in to the setback line, to allow buffers for the folks that are currently living there. That’s why we found a way to make larger lots and to develop those lots further to the east, in acknowledgement. When we were out there, yes, we had some folks that were against the project. We knew that there was going to be some resistance, and we tried to design those first few lots to keep them larger lots, to keep the development further to the east away from those existing folks and leave some sort of buffer between them and us, and then, you know, from that we laid out the rest of the subdivision and we tried to work with the land and grade it and that’s where we came, you know, along the lines of the 15 foot setbacks in the interior, but we still kept the front and the rear setbacks at what’s currently used for two acre lots. MR. TRAVER-What about the concern about the clear cutting of the part of the parcel that’s to be developed? MR. CENTER-The predominant part of the cutting, if you look on the, the predominant area that would be cut would be, if you go to Drawing 6, would be further on the back side in here. Most of these lots would be cut in here, just enough to facilitate the grading for a septic system. Would not be cut any further back. As you go further into the lot you get a larger setback up here, you know, because those lots, this lot right there is a little narrower, would have a, you know, still there’s almost a 40 foot, almost 40 feet to that septic system. The same thing back in here, but all these, the development, again, by allowing those, the houses to be built in a wider fashion, allows us to get them closer to the road and limit that development coming, clearing towards the south. MR. TRAVER-Can you add a no cut line to your plan? MR. CENTER-Yes, we can show a no cut line across that 30 foot setback line, and we can show that on the erosion and sediment control drawing. MR. TRAVER-Actually I think that would be helpful to reflect on that concern. MR. HUNSINGER-There were several other comments that were made. One related to the water table and the test pits. Can you just comment on the test pits that were done. MR. CENTER-We did look at that. One of the concerns that, when I was out there with Department of Health, was in the area of Test Pit Seven, which we did do a deep hole test pit, which we had 93 inches to medium course sand. We had a perc rate of one minute in that area. It’s had a loamier fine sand, loamy and course sand above that. We didn’t see any evidence where, you know, that’s, the stream or the drainage way that comes through there is 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) pretty defined, and when I was out there with Deb Roberts and she was reviewing it and looking for, you know, signs of wetlands, it’s a very defined path, and, you know, she did her test holes to make sure that our perimeter was correct, and she went through that and flagged it to those limits. Again, it’s runoff from Butler Pond and some of the surrounding areas. The one comment I will address that someone had, I think you may have been alluding to it, there is, over here in this corner there is Lands of Wolfe. There’s a, the Town has a storm drainage easement that comes somewhere in this area that discharges in here but it follows the path in here to a low point that actually ends up on Lands of Wolfe and in this area here, and that eventually does make its way to the stream. It doesn’t go in this direction out. Mr. Nace has seen that, has evidence of those areas that he’s seen that he relayed to me that once we got the survey and looked at it we were able to locate it, and you can see that on some of the tax maps when you look at the tax maps with the GIS and you open up the 2014 picture you can see the area, the low area. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m sorry, there’s an easement, a drainage easement? MR. CENTER-There’s a drainage easement that comes off of this road over here that comes down and discharges somewhere along that property line, but that runs down this way and eventually goes off, and into the woods and it dies in the woods. Some of it may runoff into this, when the original subdivision was built. MR. TRAVER-One of the concerns, too, was the potential threat to, for example, Rush Pond, of chemical runoff and that type of thing, and as you, I’m sure, are aware the regulations require that all stormwater remain on your site. So you can’t have anything leaving the site and going into the Rush Pond area, and the Town engineer has to review and approve that your plans demonstrate that that’s so. Do you feel confident that you can accommodate that? MR. CENTER-Yes. The road will be maintained with drywells and cross connected. The individual houses with capture their stormwater on their parcels and infiltrate it into the ground for any of those areas. MR. TRAVER-And that being accomplished, and the engineer singing off on it, then there should not be any leaching of any chemicals off of the site. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Can you comment on the Federal wetlands versus the State? MR. CENTER-Well, I mean, now with the Army Corps, any wet area that’s not a DEC wet area is a Federal, you know, under Federal Army Corps of Engineers. So this wetland, what we did was we surveyed it. We surveyed the, we had the wetland specialist go out and flag the areas and do the test holes and she’s done all of her documentation and we can provide that if required. Deb Roberts has done all of that. MR. MAGOWAN-With these test pits and all these perc rates and these septics, I mean, most of your perc rates are under a minute. MR. CENTER-Correct. Some of these septic systems will have to be modified soil. Again, we’ll be doing no different than any of the other subdivisions in Queensbury. MR. MAGOWAN-So I look at that, I look at the, you know, storm runoff. I look at the natural trenches that were up there where the water has been swaling down for so many years, and everything’s going downhill into a sensitive area, and then you can sit here and tell me that you can guarantee that there won’t be any problems. MR. CENTER-Correct. We’ve added double drywalls along the subdivision road. We’ve provided adequate stormwater management for those, and stormwater management for the individual houses. MR. MAGOWAN-Now we just had that major storm that came through her, and my double drywalls on my street filled up where the water started, it actually poured into the neighbor’s basement. I’ll be honest, I think it’s a lot. The lots are too small and I just see a beautiful area going to, you know, going to a development where it’s just, you’re’ stacking everybody up on something that’s going downhill. My development has those, you know, the houses are built on a hill, and, you know, I just saw the frozen ground and the rain wash down all the hills all through the yards. All right, and then with the salt and the sand and everything on the road and 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) right at the bottom, you have the watershed stream. I just, I don’t see where you can sit there and say, give me a guarantee that there won’t be issues there. Because the next thing, you know, that happens, and then what, are pristine watershed beyond that is ruined and now we say, oh, we made a mistake. MR. CENTER-Well, the Town Engineer has had their comments and they will have their comments in regards to the stormwater management for those. The occurrence of this winter was a one off occurrence. All the ground was frozen. We had very little snow. You had a rain event. MR. MAGOWAN-But the weather patterns are changing, and we don’t know if we’re going to have those again, and I’ve seen it before. My concern is I’d like to see the lots larger and not stacked on top of each other. I mean, we have a Code for two acres, and since it goes into a conservation we get to shrink it down, and I think this is too much of a sensitive area to build it out so large. MR. CENTER-Well, we’re trying to protect this sensitive area and allow it to be maintained rather than try to develop two acre lots and roads. Yes, could we have found a way to cross the stream, go with larger lots, and develop the entire 66 acres, I suppose that’s a possibility, but then the Town’s not gaining anything from, on the east side of that area. You’re developing the whole portion and you’re maybe protecting the stream and putting a buffer in, but you’re not getting that land in a conservation and attached to the access that currently people do trespass to gain that access, but now the Town will have it as part of their larger system at no cost to the Town. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re not selling me. I’m looking at this and I’ve been in building my whole life, you know, and I know the area and I’m voicing my concerns, and plus also down there at the bottom, all right, the access for this great wilderness that you’re donating, all right, if everybody wants to park down there, and then you’ve got the stream bed right there. How many cars are you going to be able to park down there? Plus the length of the road all the way down Clendon Brook, and the narrowness of it. I just see red flags all over this. MR. TRAVER-I was just going to comment that between what you’re presenting and the two acre limit, is there any way that you could consider reducing the number at all, like you’re looking at 23 homes now. Do you think you could maybe go to 20? Not go all the way to two acre, but make a little elbow room, to perhaps reduce the impact a little bit and still preserve the numbers that you need to make it work? MR. FORD-To reinforce what Steve just pointed out, I think there needs to be some time spent by your team, because when I look at something this sensitive in our community, I look for ways to make it win/win, and what I’m looking at right now in this plan doesn’t present that from my perspective, and I think more time needs to be spent considering what you heard tonight and what you’re trying to accomplish to see how at least there can be, if not compromise, then at least a move in the direction that is going to be more supportive of protecting our environment. Because where, you’re going to get one shot at this, and it either gets done right or forever it won’t be. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I used the number 20, but really what I’m just suggesting, again, is the, if you think of it as a, trying to accommodate the concerns that have been discussed, the location, the nature of, many of the things that were discussed tonight, and we understand that you have an engineering team and the Town Engineer has to approve this, but nevertheless there is a certain sensitivity, even with the, adding the no cut zones and trying to be diligent in preserving the wooded character of the property, reducing the number even by a few is going to lessen even the visual impact. It’s going to reduce some of the issues with the stormwater. It’s going to make it easier for you to accommodate, in terms of the number of dry wells, to accommodate that it’s going to be maybe a few less lawns that are going to be fertilized. So it’s a way, perhaps, that you could make this proposal more of a win for everybody. MR. WRIGHT-John Wright with Bartlett, Pontiff. I’d just like to address, I think, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, I think you’re all expressing the same concern here and I’d just like to point out what our client has done prior to sitting down before you here tonight, and I think that a lot of the neighbors that spoke earlier may not understand the concept of a conservation subdivision, and why exactly you’re allowed to go less than the two acre minimum. The reason you’re allowed to go less than the two acre minimum of course is because it is, to a certain extent, already a win/win, Mr. Ford. The Town and these neighbors are going to have 40 acres of land, which is currently posted, currently not publicly accessible, although members of the public seem to be accessing it. The Town’s going to get that, and if you look at the design reg’s, under the conservation subdivision chapter, one of the things that it encourages is open space, 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) which is connected to other areas of open space, which is exactly what we have here. The Town is going to get 40 acres of open space, which connects to the current trail system, and that’s a pretty unique opportunity that presents itself. Now under the conservation subdivision requirements, at least 50% of the parcel has to be dedicated to that open space. What our client has proposed is in the neighborhood of 60% rather than 50. Also, and I think Tom already mentioned this, under the regs, we could get up to 29 lots, technically. Before even coming to you, in recognition of the fact that we knew there would be neighborhood concerns, that 29 number has already been pared down to 23 . So to your point, Mr. Traver, with whether there’s wiggle room or elbow room, we’ve already shown that good faith and tried to pare that number down. Now obviously if the Board has concerns our client will discuss whether there’s a feasible way to continue paring it down, but I’d just like the Board to take into account the work that’s gone into addressing these neighborhood concerns, which are no surprise to us tonight, you know, prior to coming to you and in terms of the lot sizes, as Tom said, what’s been proposed is right along the lines of what’s already on John Clendon Road. These aren’t quarter acre lots shoved in there and trying to get 29. We tried to keep it in character with the neighborhood. The engineer, you know, our engineers are on it. The Town Engineer is going to review stormwater and, you know, all those things have been diligently looked into before we even came here tonight. MR. TRAVER-And I very much appreciate your explanation, and we do appreciate. It may not be that every community member of the Town does, but we certainly, as part of our responsibility, do understand the conservation subdivision, and understand that you’re not developing this on paper to the numbers, perhaps, that you are in title. I think that what we are trying to express. I can try to put it another way. I can put a conservation district in any number of places in the Town, and the regulations in terms of, you know, the density and the percentages of the conservation portion of that property that are to be donated would be the same. What we’re talking about here is a conservation district that’s not just in any part of the Town but is in this area immediately adjacent to the Rush Pond wilderness area. So whereas, you know, we appreciate the diligence of not going with the 29. You cut it down to 23. I think that’s great. I think it would be very, I think it would be essentially impossible for you to come in here with a 29 lot thing anyway, and I understand that you’re expressing that you could have done that. Realistically I think the 23 is about the maximum that you could possibly do, and I think what we’re saying is, we think that you, in this context, you could maybe make it a little bit smaller and yet make it work, financially make it work for the number of lots that you need to make this function, understanding that you’re donating the 40 acres to the Town, and I would just suggest that you consider that, but again, we appreciate what it is that you’re doing and the amount of work involved in a project like this, the amount of money that’s invested, even before you put a shovel in the ground, is tremendous, and we understand and appreciate it, believe me. MR. DEEB-I’m sure that you could have come in and said, okay, we have room for 29 lots. You could have said, like you said, we want 29 lots, knowing that we’d come in and say you need less and got it down to 23 and everybody would have been happy. So I think we have to do a balancing act here and it’s very important that this Board realizes it, also. Now just to get off this topic for a minute, Tom, I was wondering if you could address Mr. Montesi’s concern as to the access point to the trails. How much area, what is the size that’s going to be available? And you’re saying that the Town would be responsible for the parking at that point, to build parking to get onto the trails. MR. CENTER-One hundred foot, it’s a lot width, 100 foot road frontage which is the minimum required. It’s 100 foot road frontage that is there plus the 25 foot from the edge of the road out to the right of way. So you have that 25 feet from the edge of the road to the edge of the setback line, the right of way, and then you have that whole 100 foot arc that goes out into that area. So that’s about, you know, if I were to look at that, that’s 100 scale drawing. So there’s close to 100 feet between the edge of the right of way, which isn’t necessarily the edge of the road, it’s the edge of the right of way, to the edge of the stream. So there’s about 100 feet between the edge of the, between the property line and that wetland boundary marker, which is out there. So then if you were to come back and probably have, maybe have another 15 to 20 feet in there, on top of that, so maybe 120 feet from the edge of the road to that edge of the quote unquote stream, which is a dry bed right now which is walked across by everybody and down that trail and out and across, which will have to, you know, they’ll do what they did on the other Rush Pond trails, wherever they crossed any of those depressions that can contain water they put bridges and things in there that we’ve seen through the Rush Pond trail. There hasn’t been any discussion as far as who’s responsible for what in regards to the trailhead and everything else, but I know that there was discussion that Mr. Strough and Mr. Vanness, when we met with them, said, okay, are you just leaving us a pathway or are you leaving us a large opening to get there, and we left the full 100 foot frontage to get there. We didn’t’ try to narrow 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) it down to get more of a lot. We left the full frontage, a regular lot of 100 feet to access that parcel. MR. FORD-That’s walking access. What about parking? MR. CENTER-Well, again, that would be in that area worked out with the Recreation Department and Town on how to do that. We didn’t get into those specific types of conversations. MR. DEEB-Any estimates how many cars could go in there? MR. CENTER-Four or five maybe, maybe a bit more depending on how you rotated them through there. I haven’t looked at it. Remember, this is a 100 scale drawing. MR. DEEB-I’m just a little concerned that we have enough parking for the access to the trails. I think that’s an integral part of this whole project. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. TRAVER-Have you thought about putting a sidewalk on at least one side of the roadway so that people can walk through the development to access that trail system? MR. CENTER-That becomes a double edged sword I suppose, looking at the folks that live there having to maintain a sidewalk. Many of them don’t, versus having a sidewalk to get down there. MR. TRAVER-But at the same time they have a house right on a hiking trail. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Not everybody does. MR. CENTER-No, correct. I would be a sidewalk to the edge of the parcel. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-As opposed to some that have been proposed that were sidewalks to nowhere. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. FORD-At least this is a sidewalk to somewhere. MR. CENTER-Yes, and how we end it I guess becomes an issue, but that’s something we could look at in regards to a sidewalk. MR. TRAVER-I think that would add, I would say, I should say I think it would reduce the limitation on people feeling that they’d have easy access, and maybe reduce the number of cars that would need to park right at the end of the cul de sac. I don’t know, it’s just something I thought would be a good idea. MR. MAGOWAN-Did any of you look on S-4, on the big plans? MR. TRAVER-I haven’t recently. MR. MAGOWAN-Coming off of Clendon Brook Road, you start off at one percent, then you go down to an eight percent for quite a long ways, eight percent. All those houses are going to be built on an eight percent slope. Down on the bottom where it starts to level out there at two percent, minus two, minus two, then it goes up to a plus two. So at the bottom of that, right where the new fire hydrant’s going to be, you have a, you know, a catch basin, and you’ve got all the water that doesn’t hit the catch basins on the way down. It’s going to pool right down there at the bottom. Where is that water going to go? MR. CENTER-That’s a cul de sac. There’s a mirrored image there where the Code profile at the point, if you’re looking at the profile, somewhere around Station 15 it starts to spin off. You go back to Drawing S-2. Number One, at the top of the eight percent we placed four double stacked drywells with interconnecting perforated pipes at the top. At the bottom of the eight percent we placed another four double stacked drywells, and then as you get down closer to the cul de sac we’ve got two more sets of drywells closer together and then at the cul de sac itself 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) we’ve got a total of four catch basins, all, or four drywells, all double stacked drywells, again, with catch basins on the back side to ensure we’re within 10 feet from the wetland to direct the stormwater back to the cul de sac to get it down back into the ground before you get, all outside the 100 foot setback of the wetland. So we’ve provided excess capacity in regards to stormwater management in those areas. MR. TRAVER-It becomes an engineering issue. MR. FORD-Is that to accommodate how big a storm? MR. CENTER-It will accommodate a 100 year storm. MR. FORD-A 100 year storm. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Except in March. MR. FORD-Because we approved a project one time in this community that accommodated a 100 year storm and spoke later with the engineer, when there was flooding, and it was more than a 100 year storm. That was the answer, well, that didn’t accommodate the flooding or the people whose property was damaged by it. MR. CENTER-On the 100 year storm we’ve used five and a half inches per hour storm and I believe at the lower, the cul de sac drywells we still have capacity above the drywell, and these do not take into account any of the interconnections between the drywells, the interconnecting pipe and the four pipes that go in and out, connect them all together. We don’t take that into consideration. That’s beyond the capacity of the drywell itself. So we’ve kind of added additional layers of protection there. Certainly we’ll take a look at the drywells as we go down. If the other ones need to be increased, we’ll look at those regs. What we did, when we did get into the design, Mr. Nace, both of us looked at it and went with the double drywells at the top and bottom of that slope to try to capture it before it hits the slope and try to catch it at the bottom of the slope with a set of drywells in between. MR. MAGOWAN-So how long has this 100 year storm and drainage basin been in effect? MR. CENTER-This 100 year storm with the drainage basin? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I mean, the calculations, how long have they been in effect? MR. CENTER-15 years for the design. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Well, it didn’t work in my neighborhood. MR. CENTER-Well, this year was it completely? No, I’m going to be honest with you this year was an interesting year because you’ve got to consider, all of that area that is supposed to be permeable area was not impervious surface that should have shed stormwater to those areas. Whether it was wooded or not, it still shed water because it was frozen ground and it came into any of those. So those, they do, the erosion and sediment control drawings, most of them say not designed for frozen conditions in some erosion and sediment control. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I see that, but that doesn’t really just concern me as the frozen ground because I know trees take a certain amount of water when it rains, and now you’re going to be, you know, taking those trees away. That eight percent slope and those houses stacked going down, that’s my main concern, and they’re so tight together, you know, they kind of look like row houses, you know what I’m saying? Just a step down, some of the old cities you see, you know, they built the house along the street, you know, but eight percent, all tight together, no trees, lawns, gutters or no gutters, really fast perc, and then you’re going to have to bring in soil if it’s not an adequate soil for the septic. MR. CENTER-Well, we’d more than likely be using the soil. What we found in some of these subdivisions is we can compact the soil. The loamy soil that we take off when you’re grading the lots is saved and re-used in the septic system areas. When we do get down to grade with any of the septic systems that are, you know, faster than one minute perc. Using that loamier soil that’s in the top range, because you can see in some of those test pits that the perc rates were one minute. So we are, it’s fairly close. Some of those, you know, some of those, you can wet, a perc test, for up to 24 hours before you perform a test but that’s very difficult to do in the middle of winter. So I’m giving you the rates that I may carry one or two cans out and try to 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) get it up to a minute and wet the hole up, but, you know, the true rate is what it is. So, you know, these perc rates that are there for mottling, or for faster than a minute, yes, the soils will be amended, some of them, with enough water they do get up to a minute when there’s saturated conditions, but they’re not like they’re ten seconds or five seconds or you can’t even get any water to get a perc test. Most of these are around 30 seconds, 30 second percs, and again I’m carrying one or two jugs in, 20 acres deep, and doing test pits throughout these. I’m not bringing in 10, 15 jugs and trying to saturate the ground to mimic the saturated condition. So that’s where you may get, you know, less than a minute. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand, and it’s all in calculations and there’s a little give and take back and forth. MR. CENTER-But, you know, the soils do work. There are methods to perform for modified soil systems. MR. FORD-It’s going to make for some interesting leach fields, isn’t it? MR. CENTER-It depends. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the will of the Board? I heard some earlier comments about asking the applicant to re-consider fewer lots. MR. TRAVER-I think tonight we’re at sketch. That’s where I think we’re at tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-We had sketch before. We didn’t have this level of detail. MR. TRAVER-Right, but I mean that’s my feeling, that’s where we’re at. MRS. MOORE-You’re actually in Preliminary. MR. CENTER-We’re actually in Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Practically speaking. MR. TRAVER-We’re going to be at Preliminary again. MR. CENTER-Preliminary again, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So what additional information are we looking for from the applicant besides a consideration of fewer number of lots, some additional drawings that clarify the buffer no cut zone. MR. TRAVER-Yes, 30 we want, he’s going to add no cuts for the lots, however they end up. We’re going to add a 30 foot no cut buffer on the south side, a 25 foot no cut buffer on the west side. He’s possibly going to show a sidewalk on at least one side of the cul de sac. MR. FORD-The parking area. MR. TRAVER-Well, that would be the Town. Right? MR. DEEB-That would be the Town. MR. TRAVER-He can’t show a parking area that he’s not responsible to create. He’s showing the area that they’re making available to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think the question, the concern is valid, in terms of, even though we understand that it wouldn’t be developed by you, but to get a depiction of area that could be used for parking. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it’s difficult to tell from the scale of the drawing that’s been provided, especially when you have a stream that’s 100 feet into the lot. So if you could somehow clarify the value of that for the public use. Were there any other considerations that we’re asking them to make at this time? MRS. MOORE-I heard information or a request about what the phasing plan may be, phased lots. So maybe a narrative on that, a description, and then, back to the agreement that may be 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) broached with the Town or the Town Rec, some of that language needs to be fleshed out. The status of that. MR. TRAVER-Could we ask, by way of the Planning Office, for a comment from that Department on their reaction and just pure speculation what they might offer in terms of parking and so on? MRS. MOORE-Their needs or something? Yes, I could communicate with them. MR. TRAVER-I mean, they must know that this is potentially on the table and I’m sure that at their staff meeting they’re talking about it and what would we do with it if we got it. So maybe they could share some of those thoughts, unofficially, with us. That would be very helpful. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I’ll see what I can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to comment on the phasing? MR. CENTER-As far as phasing, the way this is proposed, the first phase would be construction of the road and the terracing of the lots. If you look on the, I believe it’s the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, you have Phase I lot limits and this dashed line that goes around, would be S-6, shows that area of the terracing would have to be done in construction of the road. So those lots, that area, would be phased in for construction, for construction of the road and clearing and grading of those lots, and then the lots themselves would be constructed. Phase I limit of disturbed is 4.95 acres, which is under the maximum of 5 acres, and then from there the individual lots would be constructed. No lots are proposed until the road is constructed, obviously. So we would construct the road, disturb to those 4.95 acres, re- establish, start establishing the slopes, and getting grass to grow, getting those ready for potential building, and then once that’s done, graded and seeded, then the lots would be built. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the length of time that you anticipate the individual lots? Because we heard a concern from the public, you know, 15 to 20 years, I think was the quote that was made. MR. CENTER-In a year and a half we have seven of sixteen lots on John Clendon Road. So it could be three to five. It all depends on how they market. I don’t think you can give a definite date. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. No, I’m just, you know. MR. FORD-Fifty percent build out in three years? MR. CENTER-Right now it’s 15% in a year and a half at Peggy Ann Road. MR. FORD-I understand, but how about this project? MR. LEUCI-We’re projecting 50% in a year and a half, yes. MR. CENTER-A year and a half also. MR. LEUCI-We need some time to build the road first. MR. TRAVER-Well, it would be more attractive with its proximity. MR. CENTER-I’ve been approached by a few folks because of access to the trails and the nature of the smaller sized houses that they’re looking, you know, in this area, and asking when they’re going to be available. Some folks are paying attention and are curious. It does have benefits to folks that would be moving into this area to be able to use those trails. MR. HUNSINGER-How quickly could you turn around some of this information? th MR. CENTER-If I could submit by May 15 to get on the June meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that reasonable on your part to turn it around that quickly? MR. CENTER-There’s a bit of work in grading with eliminating a couple of lots. but depending on, you know, if we come back, predominantly a lot of this is done and on paper. We’ll have to sit down with the surveyor. We certainly, I would know fairly quickly within a few days with 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) talking with Mr. Steves and the layout. The surveyors will be the ones that will look at the layout and look at options and then we can sit down with Mr. Leuci, and then it’ll be my responsibility to re-do the grading and manage that and modify the stormwater design, but if we thth were to say May 15 for a June meeting, I would know before the May 15 deadline where I was at and then be able to, and if it needed to be July, I would have that conversation with Laura and let her know, you know, by the middle of May where I was. MR. TRAVER-So should we do an initial tabling to one of our meetings in June and then make an adjustment? rd MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would suggest the 23. rd MR. TRAVER-The 23? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-The second one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. MR. CENTER-And if I could just go over my notes just to make sure I’m clear on what you’re asking for. You’re looking for sidewalk on one side, a reduction of some sort in lots, stormwater management to address Mr. Magowan’s concerns, the no cut zone on the south side and on the west side, try to highlight an area provided for parking, address phasing of the project, and Laura’s concern regarding, I don’t know, in talking with Mr. Wright, we may be a little early in having the attorneys draft a dedicated land, but certainly we can go ahead and discuss with each other and give you some sort of, are you looking for something in writing from the Town Attorney or some sort of draft form of that or? MR. TRAVER-Well, we’d still be at Preliminary the next time we chat. So I think really what I was thinking was just getting some reaction. There was a concern about the parking and how many vehicles and how are we going to make use of this land. So I just wondered if it’s reasonable if they have a comment. Maybe they won’t, but if there is a comment from say the Recreation Department that, oh, yes, we’re going to put in ten cars or whatever, you know, whatever, that would be interesting to know, but getting back to your updating of your plot, can you also show no cut on the lots? You talked about covering, you know, the septic and you were talking about different, on this particular lot it would be probably so and so. Can you provide us some lines to give us some guidance on what the no cuts would be as the houses are being constructed? MR. CENTER-We can look at that. I think it becomes an arbitrary line in space for. MR. TRAVER-I understand you’re going on what you have. MR. CENTER-And the house has setbacks and everything kind of effects that, and to try to do that, it almost, working with Staff, having done this before, coming off property lines and giving that clear straight line boundary becomes. MR. TRAVER-Well, if you can’t do it, I’m just saying I think it would make the visual impacts a little bit easier to see, especially with the concern of some people, both in the public and on the Board, that this, you’re talking, looking at a clear cut. I think if you have, you know, some, even if it’s speculative. MR. CENTER-To kind of give you a visual, we sit a little bit lower on our parcel. The lands to the south have almost, you know, a couple hundred feet. They’re deeper lots. There’s a deep buffer there that they already have on their lands. MR. TRAVER-I understand. MR. CENTER-So certainly anything we do isn’t really affecting them or improving the view line or what not. It’s not like we’re right back up tight where we would be up against them because we’re trying to, the road, you know, when we did design this road, we did take it out, you know, it had a natural start point that it had to start at, but we took it away from that so that we could keep our disturbance further to the north, and those back areas will be a natural buffering for most folks that are going to build in here. They’re not going to go cut into a slope and make a 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) bigger lawn or what not, and what they provide may slide east to west, but more than likely it would go north and south. MR. TRAVER-I understand if it’s not practical for you to do that, but anything like that that you could offer, I think, would enhance your application. MR. FORD-On your checklist, you should be looking at placement of a sidewalk and no cut zones. I want to make sure that you give very serious consideration to the number of lots, the number of homes to be built. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a tabling motion? MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PZ 117-2016 PRELIM. STG JOSEPH LEUCI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision with 24 lots – 23 single family residential lots ranging from 1.6 +/- acres to 0.70 acres with one lot of 40.5 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Lots will range 1.6 +/- acres to 0.70 acres single family. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION PZ 117-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI , Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the June 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting with the submission deadline of May 16th. So that the applicant can provide some additional information as requested by the Board tonight, including adding the addition of no cut zones; to reconsider the number of lots; and to consider the addition of a walking sidewalk for pedestrians on the cul de sac. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-And the public hearing remains open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to make that clarification. Members of the public, the rd public hearing will remain open. There will be an opportunity, on June 23, to make additional rd comments. Between now and June 23, you can also provide written comments to the Town Planning Department, either through the Town’s website or through the mail or you can just drop them off, but we will hold the public hearing again. Your comments will be maintained in rd the record and we’ll take additional comments on the 23. MR. TRAVER-And project paperwork will be available on the website. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and the project paperwork is also available on the website or in the office if you want to stop in and review any of the documents. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MR. FORD-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2016 , Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/2016) Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 46