Loading...
2011.07.19 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2011 INDEX Approval of Minutes May 17, May 19 & May 31 Page 1 Subdivision 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA Page 1 Site Plan 43-2011 Tom & Pat Burke Page 1 Site Plan 44-2011 Glens Falls Eye Associates Page 3 Site Plan 48-2011 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts Page 6 Site Plan 28-2011 Susan Clermont Page 8 Site Plan 42-2011 Michael Cantanucci Page 16 Site Plan 41-2011 Chris Granger Page 17 Subdivision 3-2011 Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt Page 19 Site Plan 40-2011 Quaker Country Club Associates Page 24 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER, VICE CHARIMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD, MEMBER DONALD SIPP, MEMBER PAUL SCHONEWOLF, MEMBER DONALD KREBS, MEMBER LAND USE PLANNER/PLANNING STAFF KEITH OBORNE SUE HEMINGWAY STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 19, 2011. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from May 17, May 19, and May 31, 2011. Anyone like to move that? MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM MAY 17, MAY 19 AND MAY 31, 2011, Introduced by Stephen Traver, seconded by Thomas Ford: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: We have an administrative item for further tabling consideration of Subdivision 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA and I also received a letter this evening regarding the same. Mr. Oborne: That was received obviously based on the date stamp on there. At close of business today Craig did receive a call from Mr. Tennyson who is in charge of DPW for the County and they have issued the permit for this. The next step is they now need to go before Glens Falls so see if they can dump the water onto Glens Falls property and that’s where we’re at right now, Phase I is done, now we move on the Phase II. Mrs. Steffan: So September th Mr. Oborne: September 27, at least we’d get a status check at that point. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll put for a motion-see below RESOLUTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/20, 9/28, 11/16/10; 1/20/11, tabled to 3/15/11 public hearing re-advertised, tabled to 5/17/2011; tabled to 7/19/2011 with a submittal date of 6/15/2011; No materials were submitted by 6/15/2011; MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to September 27, 2011, submission of any new materials will be August 16, 2011. The public hearing will be left open. th Duly adopted this 19 day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: We have several items under review for recommendation to the ZBA. The first item is Site Plan 43-2011/Area Variance Tom & Pat Burke; whenever you’re ready Keith. Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 43-2011 / Area Variance 40-2011 1 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 APPLICANT: Tom & Pat Burke REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community LOCATION: 67 Mason Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 25-96: Dock 6/25/96 BP 97-595: Residential addition 5/5/99 BP 96-358: Boathouse 5/19/99 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 264 sq. ft. one car attached garage. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio for the Waterfront Residential zone. STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel currently does not have a garage on site. The applicant is proposing to place the garage on a portion of the existing driveway and removed impermeable crushed stone surface north of the proposed structure; total decrease in impermeable surface approximates 234 square feet. A drywell that is traffic rated to be installed east of the proposal with roof leaders directing stormwater from garage to structure. Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Floor Area Ratio – Request for an additional 264 square feet of Floor Area relief from the allowable Floor Area of 2,120 square feet for a total Floor Area of 2,718 square feet. Note: Existing Floor Area is 2,454 square feet. Existing structure is considered a lawful existing, nonconforming structure as per §179-13-010F. Review: Page S-2 1.Limits and location of septic field and pump tank should be demarcated to avoid disturbance. 2.Concerning crushed stone to be removed, staff recommends a 12 inch scarification of the existing drive bed prior to seeding to promote vegetative stabilization. Application Protocol 7/19/11 PB recommendation to the ZBA 7/20/11 ZBA review 7/26/11 PB review Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening. Mr. Dybas: Good evening, Curt Dybas representing Tom & Pat Burke who are in the audience this evening. The Burke’s built this house as a year round residence in 1980. And they do reside there year round and as times passed on they have decided they really need a garage, there are sick and tired of scraping snow and ice off their cars and also in time of emergency if needed the vehicle has got to be ready to go, so they have come to me and asked if we could go through the process of adding a one car garage, a very modest 12 x 22, to the back of the residence in what is now the gravel parking area. When they built this house I have to say they were ahead of their time, there is a buffer zone in the front of the house down by the lake, they have an unfertilized lawn in the front of their house down by the lake, they have an unfertilized in the front of this house, they have a gravel driveway which back then we considered some calculation percentage for permeable, and the landscaping up by the rear of the house is lovely and we will be removing driveway and basically increasing the permeable area that’s on the property. And also being proactive we’re going to address the runoff from the driveway and the eaves by installing a drywell in the middle of the driveway and doing whatever measures we can to continue on their efforts to protect the lake. So with that does anyone have any questions? Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the board? Mr. Traver: It seems pretty reasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Ford: I don’t have a problem with it. Mr. Traver: Straight forward Mr. Sipp: The only thing I’d like to see is the location of the septic system; do they draw the water from the lake? Mr. Dybas: Yes, they do, and the septic system is, you’re looking at a house to the right and one of the staff comments I had was to stake the septic field and the pump tank prior to start of construction and also to remove the existing gravel driveway to a depth of twelve inches before we put any type of lawn back in that area. I responded to Sue that that would be included on the final construction documents. I believe the septic system is spotted on the documents that you have, but we will stake, we will locate and stake it. 2 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Sipp: Putting it on this- Mr. Oborne: Well that’s the survey. I believe it’s on the plot plan. Mr. Sipp: I’m just concerned about anybody having a well nearby. Neighbors or- Mr. Dybas: I don’t believe that that’s an issue; I think all the neighbors pull from the lake. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other comments concerns from the board? Anyone like to make a recommendation? Mrs. Steffan: Sure, I’ll put forth a recommendation-see below RESOLUTION TO ZBA-TOM & PAT BURKE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 264 sq. ft. one car garage. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2011/SITE PLAN 43-2011 FOR TOM & PAT BURKE: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and a)The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. Our next project is also a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Site Plan 44-2011 Glens Falls Eye Associates. Keith? Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 44-2011 / Area Variance 43-2011 APPLICANT: Glens Falls Eye Associates REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community LOCATION: 535 Bay Road EXISTING ZONING: O-Office SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/13/2011 ENGINEERING REVIEW: 7/15/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 17-1996 Office addition Approved 5/21/96 BP 96-735: 943 sq. ft. commercial addition BP 2002-1015: 43.6 sq. ft. free standing sign PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a 1,200 +/- square foot expansion and renovation of existing office to include a reconfiguration of parking and sidewalks. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to continue business operations on site during the expansion and renovations. Existing landscaping will be relocated when possible and new recessed lighting is proposed for the entrances. Stormwater controls in the form of eave trenches adjacent to the building and a drainage swale/trench located along the west parking lot. The applicant has requested a waiver from stormwater requirements. 3 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Soils: Raynham Silt Loam, Ra – According to the Warren County Soil Survey, these soils are characterized as level to nearly level, deep, poorly drained soils. Seasonal groundwater is at ½ to 2 feet with bedrock at a depth of 60 inches or more. Permeability in the surface layer is moderate with decrease in permeability to a poor state in subsequent layers. Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front setback/Bay Road – Relief requested for 10 feet, 10 inches from the 75 foot front setback requirement Travel Corridor Overlay/Bay Road - Relief requested for 10 feet, 10 inches from the 75 foot TCO requirement Front setback/Baywood Road – Relief requested for 44 feet, 4 inches from the 75 foot front setback requirement Expansion of a non-conforming structure – Must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals Parking relief – Relief requested from the requirement that the Bay Road TCO be open space. Site Plan Review Page C-1: 1.No immediate issues Page C-2 1.Parking expansion in Town R.O.W. requires Highway Superintendent approval. Note: The 4 spaces located on the northern boundary not to be counted as part of parking requirements as they cannot be located solely on subject parcel. Further, with adequate parking on site, these spaces appear unnecessary and may pose safety issues concerning traffic. 2.Parking requirement table should be updated to reflect a total of 47 spaces proposed and not 51. 3.Drive aisle width not 24 feet as indicated in parking summary; please revise statement to indicate a 20 foot width. Note: As the proposal calls for one way traffic movement, 12 feet minimum is the standard unless the drive aisle is used for emergency vehicle access in which case the drive aisle must be 20 feet in width as per §179-4-090E. Page C-3 1.For effectiveness and ease straw wattles should be considered as opposed to straw bale dikes. Page A-1 1.No immediate issues Page A-2 1.Is left side elevation existing or proposed, please clarify. Additional Comments: 1.The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to have the site plan sealed and signed by a Professional Engineer or Licensed Professional for final submittal. 2.Engineering comments attached. Application Protocol 7/19/11 PB recommendation to the ZBA 7/20/11 ZBA review 7/26/11 PB review Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening. Mr. Holbrook: I’m Rob Holbrook with V & H Construction. I’m working with Glens Falls Eye Associates and Ethan Hall. Ethan couldn’t be here tonight so I offered to help. Basically we are just asking for your recommendations to go before the Zoning Board for an area variance. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else to add? Mr. Holbrook: No, we felt that if there are any technical questions that come up they can be handled at the Planning Board. It’s pretty much a change in the regulations over the years has caused this property to go into a situation where it needs an area variance. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, I’ll open it up for questions comments from the board. Mr. Traver: Again I think it seems reasonable and enables them to expand their business in Queensbury. Mr. Krebs: And it certainly fits with the rest of the neighborhood Mrs. Steffan: And the parking plan will certainly make the parking configuration much better and much easier to navigate the site. Mr. Holbrook: Definitely, yes Mr. Hunsinger: The only concern I had are with the spaces that are perpendicular right there in the front with Baywood Drive, is there any way to maybe move those around in the back? Mr. Holbrook: The existing spaces? Mrs. Steffan: The 4 spaces. Mr. Hunsinger: Well there are 3 existing and then the site plan you’re showing 4 so you’re actually 4 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Oborne: Yes they want to expand one. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes. Mr. Holbrook: I think that’s a possible consideration but I guess I’d like to address that possibly at the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Ford: You’ll take it under consideration with the appropriate people? Mr. Hunsinger: They are also within the Travel Corridor Overlay district so they are related to the area variance request. Mr. Oborne: Yes absolutely, those spaces are not counted toward the calculation for the overall spaces because they do not line up on the parcel, they are actually in the right of way and they so they don’t towards their space requirements and they would need approval from the highway supervisor in order to keep those spaces there at this point. I pointed that out in the notes. Mrs. Steffan: Historically they’ve used those the doctors have parked there. Mr. Oborne: Absolutely, but it’s not a good traffic movement backing into a road like that. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s the concern. Mr. Krebs: You’ll notice in that picture they backed in so they wouldn’t have to back out. Mr. Oborne: But many times they don’t. Mr. Traver: And that too is a dangerous maneuver Mr. Oborne: I don’t know the Town vehicle in the middle, actually I did back out of there and I couldn’t say it was close call but there was somebody flying right by. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s the only concern that I have with the project. Mr. Ford: Good observation. Mrs. Steffan: And I’m sure from the doctor’s point of view they get there first thing in the morning before there is much traffic in Baywood and then they leave at the end of the day and so I’m sure from their perspective they don’t think it’s an issue, so we’ll at site plan I think we should talk about it a little bit more; any other issues? Mr. Hunsinger: Let me make sure I understand your comments though Keith, the parking on the southeast is in the Travel Corridor Overlay district Mr. Oborne: That is correct and that is specifically what I’m talking about as far as them needing to be open spaces. Mr. Hunsinger: So those spaces don’t count either? Mr. Oborne: Well they need to have relief for those spaces proposed. Mr. Hunsinger: Right, does that have to come from the highway superintendent? Mr. Oborne: No they do count because they are on the parcel in totality, these spaces are not, and they are partially on the parcel. Mr. Hunsinger: I wanted to make sure I understood the comment. Any other questions or comments from the board; anyone like to put forward a recommendation? Mrs. Steffan: I’ll put for a recommendation-see below RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA-GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 1,194 +/- sq. ft. office expansion to provide additional exam rooms and storage. Expansion of an office use and site improvements requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from front and Travel Corridor setback requirements as well as parking requirements for the Travel Corridor Overlay District. Further, relief sought for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2011/SITE PLAN 44-2011 FOR GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and 5 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 a)The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. And the last one this evening for Zoning Board recommendation is Site Plan 48-2011 for Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts. Keith? Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 48-2011 / Area Variance 50-2011 APPLICANT: Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. LOCATION: 26 Lower Warren Street EXISTING ZONING: HI – Highway Intensive SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further review needed PARCEL HISTORY: AV52-10: 900 sq. ft. storage shed, Side yard setback relief requested Withdrawn SP 59-09: 900 sq. ft. storage shed Approved 12/15/09 SP 54-05: 7,500 sq. ft. Storage Bld. Approved 10/18/05 SP 16-02: 1,300 sq. ft. Addition Approved 4/23/02 SP 19-92: Fence Approved 6/16/92 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes construction of 1,440 sq. ft. metal storage building 4.6 feet from the west side property line. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant states that the location of the proposed storage shed will promote better site management and efficiency and wishes this to be taken into consideration when deliberating the variance. The shed will be for parts storage and will not have electricity or water service. Permeability, which stands at 11% for the parcel, will not be affected as the area for the concrete pad to house the shed was impermeable crushed stone. A similar but smaller (900 sq. ft.) shed was proposed for this location last year but was withdrawn by the applicant due to Zoning Board concerns about encroachment on the adjoining parcel. The applicant purportedly purchased the adjoining parcel and as a result is requesting relief once again. Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: ? Side Setback Relief – Request for 45.4 feet or 91% relief from the 50 foot west side line setback requirement for the Heavy Industrial zone as per §179-3-040. Application Protocol 7/19/11 Open Public Hearing, provide written recommendation to ZBA 7/20/11 Zoning Board of Appeals review August 2011 Planning Board review Additional Comments: 1.Fire Marshal comments attached Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening. Mr. Lapper: Jonathan Lapper with Larry Brown, President of JBAP. I’ll give you the short story and we can fill any details you like. When we were here last time and the board recommended the variance, when we got to the zoning board the neighbor stood up and said they weren’t in favor of it so we withdrew. Larry had been talking to them for a number of years about buying the property, we signed a contract, had a closing the map references SBLB Properties II, SBLB is Steve Brown and Larry Brown, they also purchased the property on the other side recently and this whole project was part of we had to go to the Town Board last year to ask this to be it was a prior non-conforming use and after they went and looked at the site and saw that this is really a recycling facility and not your daddy’s junkyard like it used to be they rezoned it Heavy Industrial so now it’s a permitted use we just had DEC there for a site visit and they were very impressed so everything was going fine it was just a matter of we had to write a check and 6 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 buy the site which made sense so in terms of the title that the main site is still owned by his father ultimately we expect they’ll all be in the same title, it’s an estate planning issue but Larry and his brother bought both properties on both sides so in terms of the impact on the neighborhood there is no impact because it’s these guys. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else, any questions comments from the board? Mrs. Steffan: The only question I had on the site plan there is you’re talking about the proposed building but there is also a 900 sq. ft. proposed storage building Mr. Lapper: That’s an error, that was previously approved and built and we didn’t when the survey came in from the surveyor and that didn’t get caught so that exists. Mrs. Steffan: So it just needs, I thought it existed, I thought we approved that so the proposed just needs to be move out. Mr. Lapper: You’re totally right. Mr. Ford: Good catch Gretchen. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have plans to consolidate the parcels. Mr. Lapper: Ultimately I expect that’s what’s going to happen but because it’s in Dad’s name and there is estate planning issues so that’s where it is now so Jerry Brown owns this and Larry & Steve own the two side one. Dad is out of the business at this point, they are running it so we hope and expect that in the next few years that will get addressed but at this point it’s all in their control in any case. Mr. Krebs: Sure, certainly we don’t have any neighbors complaining this. Mr. Lapper: That’s right; we took care of that problem. Mr. Schonewolf: Paid them off as they say Mr. Krebs: That was going to be my suggestion if you owned both pieces of property was just expand one piece and then you wouldn’t need but because there are two different titles Mr. Lapper: We expect eventually that will happen but we can’t do it yet. Mr. Hunsinger: So now are both parcels zoned the same? Mr. Lapper: Yes Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, which eliminates the need for the required- Mr. Lapper: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments concerns from the board. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll put forth the recommendation –see below RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA-JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,440 sq. ft. metal storage building. Accessory structures associated with a commercial venture in a HI zone require Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from side setback requirements. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2011/SITE PLAN 48-2011 FOR JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs; and a)The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None 7 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. Mr. Brown: Thanks everybody. Mr. Hunsinger: You’re welcome. The next item on the agenda is an expedited review for Site Plan 42-2011 for Michael Cantanucci, am I close? Mr. Oborne: I don’t know if the applicant is here. Mr. Schonewolf: I don’t see him. Mr. Oborne: Let me make a call. Mr. Hunsinger: To see if they are in the back room? Mr. Schonewolf: We apparently should expedite this because it’s already up Mr. Hunsinger: What’s that? Mr. Schonewolf: I said we should expedite this because they’re already up. Mr. Hunsinger: Mr. Schonewolf: Why we have to do it in the first place I don’t understand. Mr. Krebs: We’re already on our third item and its only 7:20 Mr. Traver: Well they’re looking them, maybe they figured they didn’t even have to show up to debate it you know. Mr. Ford: That’s probably why they are not here. Mr. Oborne: Mr. Chairman you may want to drop that back at this point and hopefully Dennis will show up. Mr. Hunsinger: Moving on under Old Business, most of these items we do have a public hearing scheduled. The first item is Site Plan 28-2011 for Susan Clermont; whenever you’re ready to summarize the staff notes Keith. Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-below APPLICATION: Site Plan 28-2011 APPLICANT: Susan Clermont REQUESTED ACTION: Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review / approval. LOCATION: 28 Assembly Point Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PB: 4-13-2011 No County Impact PARCEL HISTORY: AV 20-11 Pending PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant has constructed a 200 +/- sq. ft. deck and proposed to reconfigure existing 120 +/- sq. ft. nonconforming dock. STAFF COMMENTS: The 0.01 or 235 sq. ft. parcel in question is associated with a land-locked parcel located approximately 600 feet to the southeast and separated by both Assembly Point Road and Old Assembly Point Road. Additional Comments: 1.The applicant received ZBA approvals for both the deck and dock on June 29, 2011, see attached. 2.The original plan has been altered at the request of the ZBA and now has the deck portion of the project two (2) feet from the existing stone wall to the north. Application Protocol 4/26/11: PB recommendation to ZBA 6/22/11: Variance approved 7/19/11: PB review Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board. It is a very unique situation to say the least Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, thank you, good evening. 8 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Ms. Clermont: Hi, Susan Clermont, 28 Assembly Point Road. This is our second meeting here for with the Zoning Board and originally the intention was and still is to construct the deck because of safety issues and so that I could get my 83 year old mother to th be able to view my piece of property. It’s taken six months and unfortunately my mom passed away July 9 so I’ve been robbed of that opportunity and would really like to be able to put this thing to rest, the deck itself has no impact on my neighbors as far as I’m concerned obviously and we’ll like to be able to utilize this piece of property that I purchased and go on with my life; any questions? Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the board? Mr. Ford: We want to express our condolences to you and your family for your loss. Ms. Clermont: Thank you. Mr. Schonewolf: I don’t have any questions on the deck but I did notice obviously the dock is a swimming dock because of its narrowness. Ms. Clermont: I can’t speak to that. Mr. Schonewolf: How many feet of water do you own on either side of the dock? Ms. Clermont: I have a ten foot strip, but the LGPC had approved the change of the dock to the two foot and grandfathered in where it’s currently standing. Mr. Schonewolf: How many feet is that on each side? Ms. Clermont: So if I was to do the two feet as proposed I’m going to have ten plus feet due to the- Mr. Schonewolf: On each side? Ms. Clermont: The left side, if you look at the lake the left side. Mr. Schonewolf: Because the neighbor on that- Ms. Clermont: The left- Mr. Schonewolf: He’s the one who is concerned about it I would think it would be pretty hard for you to get a boat in there if he’s got a boat in there whereas the other side you’ve got all Ms. Clermont: No he- Mr. Bean: He can’t put a boat in there. Ms. Clermont: He only has eight inches. Mr. Bean: He’s got less than one foot of water rights. Mr. Schonewolf: So you have ten feet of water right but you only have two feet on the other side. Ms. Clermont: I don’t have anything on the other side. Mr. Schonewolf: Nothing on the other side where you’ve got all that space. Mr. Bean: Yes but she’s not asking to put a- Mr. Schonewolf: I know that but I’m just saying- Mr. Bean: I know it’s crazy, it sounds crazy- Ms. Clermont: And the concern from the Randles was that for the last twenty years or whatever they’ve been able to put their son’s boat in there and a comment made at the Zoning Board Mr. Randle also stated that he was able to let his friends put a boat in there but for some reason chooses to think that I shouldn’t be able to put a boat in there Mr. Schonewolf: Well if you have ten feet you’ve got room to put a boat. Ms. Clermont: Right, exactly. Mr. Ford: And he can put an eight inch boat in- Ms. Clermont: Yes he could, thank you. Mr. Schonewolf: Like a little toy boat. Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the board? It certainly is an unusual situation. 9 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Schonewolf: I didn’t even know it was there- Ms. Clermont: I know it was only thing I could afford. Mr. Hunsinger: Well if there are no further comments or questions from the board we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the board? I would ask that you state your name for the record and address any comments or questions to the board. Mr. Brown: My name is Gary Brown, 45 Assembly Point Road, Lake George, NY. I’m here with Nancy Farry the property owner at 45 Assembly Point. This issue has been going on for years. In 1993 a stake dock was on that piece of property, it was removed without a permit, the stake dock didn’t need a permit, and a crib dock was put in there in 1993 without a permit. We have been working on this issue with the LGPC previous owner and basically haven’t had much success. The dock that Sue Clermont owns at the present time is not anything that she put there, was built by the Grachmal’s and was extended over the property line, there is about three feet of her dock extended over the water riparian water rights of Nancy Farry. Regards to that dock we’d love to see Sue use it but put it in her ten feet is what we’re asking. As far as the deck is concerned the last meeting before the Zoning Board I suggested that we accept a two or three foot setback. I have recently found due to the fact that Mr. Rehm, Sue Clermont’s attorney, has pointed out to us that nothing can be built on that property except for a dock. And I have given that paperwork to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board but it was late. But I just realized that when he pointed it out to me I went looking for paperwork, there is nothing to be built on that property except for a dock, and the existing dock extends over into Nancy Farry’s riparian water rights three feet. I’d love to see Sue use it her ten feet of property but don’t use three feet of ours so on and so forth. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay thank you, anyone else? Good evening. Mr. Salvador: Good evening, my name is John Salvador. I am property owner in North Queensbury and the reason for my attendance here this evening is that I have previously applied for and received two permits for undertaking hard surfacing within 50 feet of Lake George. Both of our marinas, both permits were for hard surfacing at our marina facility on Dunham Bay, a commercial facility. Our hard surfacing was required in order that our commercial facility conformed to the NY Justice Department’s requirement for barrier free access for corporate officers and guests at the facility. This application for a site plan approval SP 28- 2011 appears to be necessary because the applicant has constructed a 200 sq. ft. +/- deck on a lot of land measured to be 235.31 +/- sq. ft. without a building permit. I believe there is a stop work order on the project. And it’s not clear who issued the stop work order, so this is an after the fact permit. On site plan 28-2011 the lot area has been noted but the deck area is without definition even though the project has been noticed as a 200 sq. ft. deck. I think if you look at the plot plan even from a scale point of view it just doesn’t ring. Also included in the planning staff’s stated project description for part of the project this evening is a declaratory statement that hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. That’s not enough; it requires your approval of a site plan. And a site plan must be prepared in accordance with town specification for saying. The specification for a site plan has the following requirement in it, the map shall also show all properties, identify owner, subdivisions, streets, and easements within 500 feet of the property. The, it’s really not clear here, the subject of easements and it is required that a surveyor map those easements. If you look at this carefully you could conclude that the Clermont’s have a landlocked lot as staff has stated in staff notes. And a landlocked piece of land is not developable. The staff notes, they’re here but they state that it’s landlocked. Also it’s very confusing the location is said to be Old Assembly Point Road, the applicant has an address on 28 Assembly Point Road. I don’t know if it’s their residence or this parcel. In any case I have a copy of the town highway department inventory of town roads and there is no such road as Old Assembly Point Road, it doesn’t exist. There is however on this list a road Assembly point road and New Assembly Point Road. Now I believe a section of what was Old Assembly Point Road and by the way the road signs say Old Assembly Point Road, it just all wrong. I believe a portion of Old Assembly Point Road a large portion was abandoned and there is a record of that. And with that abandonment and where the current highway department maintains what is Assembly Point Road these people have no access. That road has been abandoned, and it was this lot fronted on that road and has been abandoned since sometime in the 1950’s so I think the point I’m trying to make is that the site plan is incomplete. The easements have to be mapped, easements have definition, they are so called negative easements called restrictions, and that has Mr. Brown mentioned a negative easement it’s only for a dock and it doesn’t say anything about a deck. So I would maintain that the applicant should furnish a site plan that meets the town’s code for site plan and include all easements within 500 feet of this parcel. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Anyone else-if you want to come back to the table. Mr. Oborne: I do have public comment-see letters from Richard & Susan Young, Peter Brothers and Mr. Randles in the file of record. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, yes. Mr. Schonewolf: First of all there is an Old Assembly Point Road, there are a lot of people living up there that don’t know about it, but it does exist. But you mentioned that there ten feet of water, if you look at your, if you look at the diagram here if you take from the, that’s from the middle of the dock, you can’t put the boat on the dock so if you come from the edge over to their property line there is 7.7 feet is what you’ve got to work with and that amount declines as the boat comes in further. Now whether that’s enough or not I defer to my colleague down there who knows more about boats than I do. But as far as the deck area you already got the variance from the ZBA right? Ms. Clermont: Yes. Mr. Schonewolf: I’m not going to comment on that? Mr. Hunsinger: Other comments questions from the board? 10 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Krebs: Well from somebody who navigates a boat frequently on Lake George I certainly do agree that that’s a very limited space and if you are going to have a boat you are probably going to want to have at least a twenty foot boat on Lake George and it’s going to eight feet wide so I personally don’t think there is enough room there. Mr. Schonewolf: On the one side- Mr. Bean: For a twenty foot boat with an eight foot beam so you’d have to go- Mr. Krebs: It’s unfortunate- Mr. Hunsinger: I’m sorry would you identify yourself- Mr. Bean: I’m Stephen Bean; I was representing her before at the other meeting. The way that the permit for the dock is the dock is in place right now. We just want to narrow it up; the dock does encroach on Ms. Farry’s water rights. It’s been there for I can’t we don’t even know how many years when the crib dock I guess got in there maybe it’s been twenty years or whatever it’s been but it does go askew out thirty feet from the shoreline it goes over about three feet or so into her water rights on her side of the property. The LGPC came out there as in in your notes and from the Park Commission and they had a meeting out there , they looked at it and they gave a permit to reconstruct that dock right in its same place only narrower, okay, and by doing that you’re going to get more than eight feet of water- Ms. Clermont: Ten- Mr. Krebs: Because you still have the three feet on the other side- Mr. Bean: Because you’re narrowing it off but it’s still in the same site. Now this is what she purchased, it was already permitted from the Park Commission when she purchased this lot. And that’s the way we went to keep it, then she can get a boat you know of a decent size in that water right, the Park Commission came out and they all agreed and they all as you’ve got I think you have in your notes the Park Commission’s recommendation and permit and as far as the Randles go on the other side of the dock they’ve got less a foot-it’s like eight or ten inches of water rights on that side, it was okay for Mr. Randle to put his boat in there okay he had a tin boat you know with a motor on it and he was using it all the time. Ms. Clermont: Using my water. Mr. Bean: And she gave him permission to do it when she purchased the property. To Mr. Randle you can launch it I don’t care, until I get a boat if I get a boat and I get a boat in there my boats in there you can’t put it in there because there is not enough room but you can do it and she gave him permission for that. Ms. Clermont: Now it seems that they feel that there is some sense of entitlement for some strange reason that for twenty years they got to use someone else’s water and that they should be able to continue to use a boat and swim on that side. That’s not their water, that’s not going to continue. Mr. Krebs: At the same time you’re doing exactly the same thing to your next door neighbor. Mr. Bean: We’re not encroaching with the boat on the Farry’s Mr. Krebs: No with the dock. Mr. Bean: But yeah it was a pre-existing condition that was there and I’m not saying that. You know we wouldn’t be coming in here asking for you to go let us put a dock on somebody else’s land, it was a preexisting condition, non-conforming use before for years and nobody stopped it Ms. Clermont: Dock, and I’m a full time resident of 28 Assembly Point Road, I live there year round so I’m not a fly by nighter just coming in or a city <unable to hear> coming in. Mr. Schonewolf: Why don’t you get permission from your neighbor on the other side to park a boat there? You can park 16 boats over there. Ms. Clermont: Well obviously Mr. Brown or they seem to have a very big concern about my three feet on to their water rights. Mr. Bean: And the deck that we built also. Ms. Clermont: Right so that was- Mr. Schonewolf: So he won’t let you park on the other side the boat away from their property. Mrs. Steffan: How do you get to this property? Mr. Schonewolf: Old Assembly Point Road. Ms. Clermont: Yes, it’s actually deeded in that I have a right of way from my property and I just go across the street past the neighbors, and Randles I think put law over that Old Assembly Point Road and just grassed it in. Mr. Schonewolf: Some of the pavement is still there. 11 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Ms. Clermont: They put grass over it so it looks like I’m walking across their lawn but I’m actually on Old Assembly Point Road which doesn’t exist. Mrs. Steffan: Wow, and you’ve owned the property for how long, 20? Ms. Clermont: Two years. Mr. Rehm: June of 2009. Ms. Clermont: My third, beautiful piece. Mr. Traver: I have a question for staff. One of the questions that was raised in public comment was whether or not this application would be deemed complete? I think I know the answer to this, I know you do a thorough review but in the opinion of your department have all of the required documentations been submitted and is this considered a complete application? Mr. Oborne: It is considered completed, absolutely. Obviously not to the satisfaction of some individuals but it is certainly before this board, I do believe you have enough information to render a reasonable decision. Mr. Schonewolf: Well are we supposed to limit our decision on the deck because that’s really what the application was for and that’s what the variance is granted for so maybe I shouldn’t talking about the dock. Mr. Oborne: The variance is granted both for the deck and the dock, they are piggybacked. Mr. Sipp: For both? Mr. Oborne: For both. Mr. Schonewolf: Oh well then- Mr. Oborne: You’re here for site plan review strictly- Mr. Schonewolf: Okay well then that’s- Mr. Oborne: The ZBA gave approvals with conditions to the deck and approvals for the dock. Mr. Schonewolf: Conditions to the dock or just conditions to the deck? Mr. Oborne: Just to the deck I believe. Mr. Schonewolf: Because I know even the dock, if the dock had conditions on it I can see where they might have gone with that, but if they’ve already done that I shouldn’t be talking about this. Mr. Krebs: They actually did it for both the deck and the dock. Mr. Oborne: Right. Mrs. Steffan: I guess I’m not understanding what conditions the ZBA put on it- Mr. Oborne: The ZBA required that the north portion of the deck be truncated by two feet along the northern property line and that was brought back before the board and the approval was approved as a small square foot deck than what was originally approved for. You’re required with a lot that size twelve feet of setback; you’ll notice that on the north side they gave them ten feet of relief. Mr. Ford: What did they grant as far as the dock is concerned? Mr. Oborne: They granted the dock as requested. Ms. Clermont: As permitted by the LGPC. Mr. Oborne: They didn’t make any conditions on that. Mr. Schonewolf: They did make any changes to it; they just left it there. Mr. Oborne: Correct Mr. Schonewolf: Well you’re both going to have to buy smaller boats. Ms. Clermont: I was only thinking a one boat. Mr. Schonewolf: I know you were. Mr. Traver: The Park Commission permit is issued to a Darcy Harding, Ms. Clermont: No, that might be an old one, I’ve renewed it, and that should be. 12 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Traver: 2009 that was the previous owner, okay, thanks. Ms. Clermont: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else from the board? Mr. Ford: How long ago did the Park Commission give that approval? Do we have that information? Mr. Traver: Yes, it’s in the application. Mr. Oborne: I think it is part of your application. Mr. Bean: 10/31/2008. Mr. Traver: The permit expires 10/31/2011. Mr. Hunsinger: You know you’re the deed description does talk about the public in and right of way and easements but you didn’t show them at all on the site plan. Ms. Clermont: Well it’s not you know, John did that what part of his lawn I can you know you just walk from the road straight to mine and it’s pretty much it. There is no other it’s not like you can willy-nilly around you just the road ends and you just walk like that and that’s the end of the road, that’s where my dock is. Mr. Schonewolf: You have to walk over Randles land to get to it right Ms. Clermont: Well actually it’s the old road- Mr. Schonewolf: Right, it’s the old road- Ms. Clermont: But I mean so it’s not there land it’s the old road. Mr. Ford: So the Park Commission will revisit this in October of this year, am I accurate in that? Mr. Oborne: It’s a yearly renewal, it’s my understanding, Mr. Traver: Yes. Mr. Oborne: So it was issued obviously in October, again approval of this board or denial of this board is not predicated on LGPC approval. Mrs. Steffan: The thing I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around here is that the dock is already built, it’s been replaced on the footing that were there so it’s the same configuration however there is two fee three inches that is technically on somebody’s else’s property? Ms. Clermont: The dock hasn’t been touched. Mr. Bean: The dock hasn’t been touched yet. Mrs. Steffan: Okay I’m looking at VanDusen & Steves maps, the map that was originally in our packet so it identifies the property line, it goes out to the water, and it identifies that the dock. Ms. Clermont: That’s the proposed dock. Mrs. Steffan: That’s the proposed dock, okay, I thought the dock was taken down and replaced in its place. Mr. Krebs: Not yet. Mr. Bean: Not yet. Ms. Clermont: That’s what we have the permit from- Mrs. Steffan: So it’s the deck that’s been replaced? Ms. Clermont: Yes there was this old stone patio that was crumbled down Mrs. Steffan: Yes we have the pictures. Ms. Clermont: Yes and all I did was we put a deck over top of it. Mr. Bean: I built the deck over it without a permit, I didn’t know about this thing with the 50 foot rule in the lake and the permit. Mrs. Steffan: Okay 13 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Bean: So I put a deck on there, now the ZBA recommended that we take, it was ten feet wide, they said take two feet off on the north side which now we propose to do that now. Mrs. Steffan: That’s the new drawing that we got, this is one of those situations where you can’t be right, and no matter what you do you can’t be right. Mr. Schonewolf: But we didn’t put it there Mrs. Steffan: Well exactly, but we’re the ones who end up having to make a decision on it so Mr. Schonewolf: And really I think you’ve got to keep in mind and I understand with what the neighbor’s saying and I really empathize with him. The issue here was the deck; that was the issue. And that is what you built without the permit which he is now going to change but the ZBA approved it with changes so we really, we can’t do anything with the dock, that’s not our business. Mr. Ford: Chris is the dock before us tonight? Mr. Hunsinger: Well it is yes, I mean, it is part of the site plan. Well what’s the feeling of the board here, do we want more information, or are we ready to move on this? Is there any information that anyone would like to see? Mr. Traver: Looking at the dock as I understand what’s being proposed and I’m not sure of my compass rose here I think the neighbor to the north that side of the dock is not proposed to be modified? So the encroachment there exists but would not be affected by what they’re proposing and on the other side the reconfigured dock would not encroach on their access to their water. It may have an impact provided the applicant puts a sufficiently sized boat there but it doesn’t fundamentally alter the issues with regards to any argued encroachment on the neighbor’s property as I interpret the documents before us. Mr. Ford: The deck itself does not impact riparian rights of either neighbor, am I accurate with that? Mr. Traver: Yes, particularly as modified by the ZBA- Mr. Hunsinger: Well I mean this isn’t the first time that we’ve seen a dock I mean we had a project at our last meeting where the dock was significantly in the properties of the neighbor. Mr. Schonewolf: Well I think it’s too bad that this neighbor can’t be a little more cooperative. Mr. Hunsinger: Clearly the use of the dock is limited by the property that you own, and that’s really not our issue, whether or not they can put in a large boat. Mr. Ford: That’s where I was going with the riparian right issue. Mr. Traver: There may be and in the public comment the matter of Park Commission regulations was raised and it might be potentially that when this dock permit comes up for renewal there might be a challenge to the issuance through the Park Commission and not through this body which would restrict the use of one or more sides of this dock even after configuration. Mr. Ford: That’s why I raised the issue when it was going to be reviewed again, it will occur in about three months. Mr. Traver: Yes, that’s not before us tonight and we’re not he Park Commission thank goodness. Mr. Hunsinger: Is the board comfortable moving forward. Then I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mrs. Steffan: Are there conditions? Mr. Hunsinger: The ZBA already did that. Mrs. Steffan: So we don’t have to put that in our motion waiver requests? Mr. Hunsinger: We may just reaffirm the ZBA’s conditions. Mr. Traver: I think we’ve already its sufficiently mentioned in the minutes but we might want to again note for the record that there are issues regards to access to navigation on the lake over which we have no regulations that that’s in the dominion of the LGPC and that the applicant might want to be aware there is the potential here for some challenge to the navigation how navigation of neighboring properties might be affected by future uses of the deck at the time this permit comes up. Mr. Krebs: Deck or dock? Mr. Traver: I meant dock; Park Commission doesn’t yet have authority over decks. Mr. Schonewolf: They’re working on it. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below Mr. Traver: You know just another comment in a way I’m surprised one of more of the neighbors applied the Jerry Brown Auto Parts solution to this and would have purchased this tiny piece of property along time ago. 14 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Schonewolf: There is still time to do that. Ms. Clermont: The price has gone up significantly. Mr. Traver: It probably won’t go down after tonight either. Mr. Hunsinger: What are you looking for Gretchen? Mrs. Steffan: Waivers I can’t see that they’ve asked for any. So the only notation that we want to put here is a note for the record that there are access issues and that the dock permit will be reviewed by the LGPC on 2011 at which time navigation issues will be reviewed. Mr. Traver: At which time navigation issues may be raised by neighboring wharf owners. Mr. Oborne: Is that for the edification of the applicant? Mr. Traver: For the record. Mrs. Steffan: Chris mentioned something about affirming the ZBA conditions. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes it is obvious but to make sure it’s part of the resolution. It is somewhat redundant. Mrs. Steffan: So do we do it or not? Mr. Krebs: I wouldn’t bother because it’s already- Mr. Oborne: I don’t know what the purpose of that is. Mr. Traver: Maybe to note that the final plans as submitted should reflect those changes although I guess again they are required to do that. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below- RESOLUTION TO APPROVED-SITE PLAN 28-2011 SUSAN CLERMONT A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant has constructed a 200 +/- sq. ft. deck and proposed to reconfigure existing 120 +/- sq. ft. nonconforming dock. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval; Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 4/26/2011; ZBA approved variance request on 6/282011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/28/2011 and 7/19/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 1)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2011 SUSAN CLERMONT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by staff. a)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; b)Type II, no further action is necessary; c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d)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; e)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; f)Although we would like to note for the record that there are access issues for this plan and the dock permit will be reviewed by Lake George Park Commission in October 2011 at which time navigation issues may be raised by the neighboring wharf owners. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: 15 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Okay you’re all set, good luck. Ms. Clermont: I’m sorry I took so long. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you know if our expedited review applicant showed up? Mr. Oborne: Yes Dennis MacElroy is here. Mr. Hunsinger: Sorry Grangers. Site Plan 42-2011 for Michael Cantanucci. Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 42-2011 APPLICANT: Michael Cantanucci REQUESTED ACTION: Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review / approval. LOCATION: 39 Brayton Lane EXISTING ZONING: CI-Commercial Intensive SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PB: 7/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 59-1995: Remodel/expand existing 10/24/95 AV 63-1995: Shoreline setback 9/20/95 AV 37-1996: Covered walkway Denied 5/23/96 AV 70-1997: Second principal building and Height relief Approved 11/12/97 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes the addition of two canopy covers to two existing boat lifts thus constituting a boathouse. STAFF COMMENTS: This application is eligible for expedited review per the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Bylaws and Policies & Procedures. As per Policy and Procedures, section VII J (2): Applications for covered boathouses, conversion of peaked roof boathouses to flat roofed boathouses, waterfront decks, normally requiring site plan approval by the Planning Board where the project does not require any relief from the Town’s zoning ordinance, may be eligible for expedited review. This class of project may be eligible for expedited review where the applicant and/or Zoning Administrator can identify minimal or no impacts to adjoining properties and the environment. Review: 1.No immediate issues Additional comments: 1.Permit issued by the LGPC for this project on June 7, 2011. 2.Project located 23 feet from side property line Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Does anyone on the board have questions comments? Mrs. Steffan: It seems quite straight forward. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, Mr. Krebs: I hardly call a tarp a boathouse. Mr. Traver: I would rather err on the side of caution with regards to the CEA and boathouses. Mr. Hunsinger: Typically in the past when there was expedited review I don’t recall that we held a public hearing but I could be wrong in my judgment on that because it’s been quite a while. Mr. Oborne: I believe it’s required it is site plan review I would err on the side of caution of that. Mr. Hunsinger: Well we do have a public hearing scheduled is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? We do have a comment, if you could give up the table please. 16 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Grasso: My name is Mike Grasso, 23 Rappaport Drive. I live in a house one door down from this, they are not tarps they are just covers on a boatlift, there are not obnoxious they are well made and I think they’re fine. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, thank you. All right I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mrs. Steffan: So I’m seeing Keith that there are no waivers requests even though the motion has waivers in it. Mr. Oborne: Well typically there is not any grading involved with the and I’m not trying to be smart here, there is hardly any grading or stormwater really involved with this, I would go ahead and grant those waivers, it should be on the boilerplate. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below RESOLUTION TO APPROVE-SITE PLAN 42-2011 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes the addition of two canopy covers to two existing boat lifts. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/19/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2011 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by staff: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II - no further SEQRA review is necessary; 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 5)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; and 6)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; and Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 41-2011 / Freshwater Wetlands 4-2011 for Chris Granger. Keith. Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 41-2011/Area Variance 37-2011/Freshwater Wetlands 4-2011 APPLICANT: Chris Granger REQUESTED ACTION: Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. LOCATION: 39 Meadow Drive EXISTING ZONING: MDR-Moderate Density Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required PARCEL HISTORY: AV 37-11: Pending AV 51-98: Construction of attached garage. Relief from shoreline setbacks & expansion of a non- conforming structure 8/26/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes construction of a 192 +/- sq. ft. deck addition to rear of structure. Project located within 100 feet of a DEC delineated wetland. 17 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant received approvals for shoreline setbacks as well as approval for the expansion of a non- conforming structure from the Zoning Board of Appeals, please see attached resolution. Application Protocol: 6/21/11 Planning Board recommendation to ZBA Completed 6/22/11 ZBA review Approved 7/19/11 PB review Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening Mr. Krebs: Question – is it 39 Mr. Granger: Actually it’s 39 Meadow Drive Mr. Hunsinger: Did you have anything that you wanted to add? Mr. Granger: No, we’re just Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll open it up for questions comments from members of the board. Mr. Traver: I think this has been thoroughly reviewed. Mr. Krebs: Yep Mrs. Steffan: And this is for the record it’s 39 Meadow Drive Mr. Hunsinger: Well if there are no questions comments from the board we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the board on this project? Do we have written comments Keith? Mr. Oborne: I don’t think so I think they were for the ZBA, I don’t see any Mr. Chairman Mr. Hunsinger: Let the record show that no comments were received and I will close the public hearing. It’s a Type II SEQR so no further SEQR review is necessary unless there is an issue we identify and with that I will entertain a motion. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll put forth the resolution-see below RESOLUTION TO APPROVE-SITE PLAN 41-2011 CHRIS GRANGER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 192 +/- sq. ft. deck addition to rear of structure, project located with 100 feet of a DEC delineated wetland; Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100 feet of a regulated wetland and Hard Surfacing within 50’ of shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/2011; the ZBA approved the variance request on 6/22/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/19/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 41-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2011 CHRIS GRANGER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by staff: 7)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; and 8)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 9)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 10)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 11)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; and 18 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 12)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. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Granger: Can I get my maps back please? Mr. Hunsinger: Absolutely. Good luck. Our next project on the agenda is Subdivision 3-2011 Preliminary Stage for Dawn Hlavaty- Starratt. Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below APPLICATION: Subdivision 3-2011 (Preliminary Stage Review) APPLICANT: Dawn Hlavaty-Starrett REQUESTED ACTION: Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review / approval LOCATION: Glen Lake Road, across from Ash Drive EXISTING ZONING: RR 3A-Rural Residential Three Acres SEQRA STATUS: Type – Unlisted SEQR Negative Declaration June 21, 2011 ENGINEERING REVIEW: 6/16/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: UV 1338 Gravel operation Denied 4/20/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.67 +/- acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 2.16 +/- acres to 5.10 +/- acres. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has increased the access road slope from 10% to 12%. As a result, cut slopes associated with the proposed road have been markedly reduced from the sketch plan proposal. The benefits and disadvantages of this action will need to be weighed by the Planning Board. Per §179-19-010, a property may not be subdivided in such a way as to not have enough frontage for a driveway unless provisions for a shared driveway, cross-access driveway, or interconnected parking have been made and recorded as an easement that shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Operating and maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded with the deed. Soils: Oakville Loamy Fine Sand (OaB) 3 to 8 percent slopes – According to the Warren County Soil Survey, this soil unit comprises approximately 30-35% of the site and is proposed to be utilized for the three home sites. These soils are described as gently sloping, deep, well drained coarse textured soils. Permeability is rapid with a seasonal high water table typically at depths of 6 feet or more. Due to poor filtering and lack of microbes in this soil, leach fields can be a concern in regards to groundwater contamination thus necessitating modified soils as part of any wastewater plan. Disturbed soils in general will need to be limed and have topsoil amendments as part of any landscaping, lawn plan and vegetative erosion control practices. Hinckley-Plainfield complex, steep (HpE) - According to the Warren County Soil Survey, this soil unit comprises approximately 55- 60% of the site and it is through this soil unit that the lower half of the access road will be sited. These soils are described as deep, excessively drained soils in steep areas of terraces and benches in upland valleys. As the term complex describes, many soils comprises this unit. Permeability is rapid in the surface and subsoil layers and very rapid in the substratum. Runoff is medium to rapid as a result of slope. The soils are extremely acidic and will need modifications and liming in order for vegetative erosion controls to succeed. Erosion is a hazard on steep slopes and reduces the use of heavy equipment. Hinckley cobbly sandy loam (HnC) 8 to 15% slopes - According to the Warren County Soil Survey, this soil unit comprises approximately 5-10% of the site, fronts the majority of Glen Lake Road and it is through this soil unit that the ingress and egress of the access road will be sited. Soil characteristics are the same as the OaB unit described above. As the base road for the access currently exists concerns are minimal. Note: Where vegetative controls are planned, amendments to the soils will be necessary along with seed mixture and rates. Acidic tolerant vegetation should be considered or a liming maintenance program should be explored for all vegetative establishments. Soil surveys are general descriptions and may not reflect actual on-site conditions. Subdivision Review: Page S-1 and S-1A 1.No immediate issues Page S-2 1.Emergency Vehicle access appears inadequate. Please refer to Fire Marshal comments. 19 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Page S-3 1.Stormwater management area cited on both lots 3 and 4 on page S-2 not located on this page. Details should be provided. 2.Gravel drive is strongly discouraged due to slope, soil type, and potential for erosion. Alternatives should be explored. 3.Entrance to site should have the banks adjacent to Glen Lake Road cut back for increased visibility. Page S-4 1.Concerning the stabilization of drive slopes, temporary biodegradable matting appears to be offered. Permanent slope stabilization should include permanent reinforcement matting with higher shear strength in conjunction with seeding. Matting should not be removed upon vegetation establishment as referenced in Erosion Control Implementation Schedule. 2.Any soil stabilization/compaction to be performed by tracked equipment should be accomplished perpendicular to slope to promote a terraced effect for vegetative stabilization. Page S-5 and S-6 1.No immediate issues Additional Comments: 1.Proposed Lot 1 has existing SFD on site. 2.Paving of drive should be considered as a condition of approval to mitigate erosion of road surface. 3.Site Plan review required for those lots with 15% slopes within 50 feet of proposed single family dwelling. 4.Emergency access issues along proposed drive as per Fire Marshall, see attached. 5.Queensbury Central Fire Chief should be consulted with any plan for subdivision of this parcel. Please see attached. Application Protocol 6/21/11 PB recommendation to ZBA, SEQR Completed 6/29/11 ZBA review Completed 7/19/11 PB review Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening Mr. Hutchins: Good evening, I’m Tom Hutchins and with me are Dawn and Gregg Starratt and we’re back with our four lot subdivision off Glen Lake Road. I’m going to be very brief. It’s a 14 acre parcel, we’re proposing three lots, lot 1 has an existing residence on it and will remain centrally as is, lot 4 will be built upon by the owner/applicant’s is the recently near future and lots 2 and 3 are going to be reserved by them for the fairly distant future in the event their children want a place too. And that’s the plan. You’re familiar with it I’ll turn it over to the board for questions and comments. th Mr. Hunsinger: Comments questions from the board? So there are no new engineering comments since the June 16 letter? Mr. Hutchins: I have no new engineering comments I have responded to those engineering comments and submitted them back through and that’s back in the system. th Mr. Hunsinger: I was also a little confused; did you see the July 19 letter from the Fire Chief? Mr. Hutchins: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: The grade near the beginning of the driveway is greater than 10% I mean I pulled in right off the road to the first I didn’t think that that was 10%. Mr. Hutchins: I think he means the initial section after the first curve where you pull in it takes off up pretty good I have profiles Mr. Hunsinger: So it’s not the initial right off the road it’s once you start to rise into the site Mr. Hutchins: You’re 150’ in, this is Mr. Hunsinger: That makes more sense. Mr. Ford: Thanks for that clarification Mr. Hutchins: It’s not where the drive meets the road, its 150’ in. And we’ve graded it down to 12% you’ll recall I believe the first time we came here when we had a 10% driveway graded out and it was a whole lot more cut and the cut slopes were wider and it was more disturbance and we decided to go the 12% approach. And we think it’s manageable, it’s well-built and we’re happy with it and we hope you folks are to. Mr. Schonewolf: And you are going to pave it? Mr. Hutchins: It’s proposed as a gravel drive but we’re willing to pave the portions that are over 10%, because it goes up at 12% and then it flattens and it’s all flat for another 600 feet. Mr. Schonewolf: He’s only worried about that because a) the weight of the truck is so heavy; and second he’s got drop chains and when he drops the chains if you drop them on pavement it catches a lot faster. Mr. Hutchins: Okay and we’re okay with asphalt with the first, well its 800 feet that it’s over 10% Mr. Schonewolf: Whatever he says is what we do but I know what he’s thinking. 20 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Traver: In his letter he doesn’t his recommendation that the road become a paved surface he doesn’t talk about part of the road so we’d want some clarification on that because as the letter stands he’s recommending that the entire road be paved. Mr. Hutchins: I think that’s the way I read it, what we’re prepared to agree to pave the sloped portion, we’ve got another 800 feet of relatively flat drive that we’re proposing as gravel across the top Mr. Traver: That would just need to be clarified Mr. Hutchins: This is as of today’s letter and I just received it so. Mr. Traver: Yes just as long as they are comfortable with it. Mr. Hutchins: Do you think that’s unreasonable to want the low slope sections to stay as gravel, I mean you’re a fire guy. Mr. Schonewolf: I’m not the chief and he’s got, even though it’s not a fire district he’s still got control over the problem. If it was mine and I had my house up there I’d pave, because I know then when I plowed it; it would melt. Mr. Hutchins: Yes. Mr. Schonewolf: We’ve been in some tight spots going up driveways like that, it’s not fun. Mrs. Steffan: When there is a thaw in the middle of the winter it gets pretty dicey. Mr. Hutchins: And you’re right asphalt driveways they melt very quickly when you plow. Ms. StarCraft: Yes, stone doesn’t, I mean stone is fine; I have a stone driveway- Mrs. Steffan: Well but some of the other things that happen some of it depends on sun exposure and I know even in the wintertime when there is no leaves on the trees if you keep the dense woods that you intend on keeping it’s not going to get as much sun as it might otherwise. I have a house in the woods so I totally understand this whole grade thing so it’s not a bad plan. Mr. StarCraft: Well we’re trying to build the house before I spend all the money on the driveway. Ms. StarCraft: It’s one house right now- Mr. StarCraft: Eventually I’d like to pave the whole thing and get it to that point but I want to be able to put a fireplace in the house and maybe have some doors and windows. Mr. Schonewolf: Pave it as far as you can go to each house. Mr. Hutchins: Except house number 1 is in the back, house number is lot 4- Mr. Sipp: Do you have a plan for preventing erosion when you put this road in? Mr. Hutchins: On the drive? We have an erosion control plan for construction phase, yes and it’s in the package and then particularly with an asphalt driveway we’ve got an asphalt driveway with two rock line ditches so and stabilize side slopes so erosion really Mr. Sipp: We let’s hope we- Mr. Hutchins: Well- Mrs. Steffan: The only that I know that it’s difficult from your point of view I mean you told us your story and what you would like to do and we totally understand that but for those of us who have been on the planning board for any length of time often we get into a situation like this where we approve a subdivision and the parcels get sold and so we really like to follow the rules and guidelines from our engineers and the fire marshals just because we never know what the eventuality is going to be. Ms. Starratt: And I don’t either. Mr. Krebs: Can we approve the subdivision with the restriction that they have to pave the road before those two other lots can be used? Mr. Oborne: What you run into there is building and codes would not release a building permit because of the fire code. I’ve had that discussion with Dave. Mr. Traver: I think from my perspective at this point we don’t necessarily have a penchant for paved roads it’s just that have a letter before us you know saying I would like to see the road become a paved surface so if that can be clarified by the applicant and it doesn’t need to be- Mr. Oborne: And the chief- Mr. Traver: What’s that? 21 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Oborne: It seems that there needs to be a little bit more discussion with the chief on this also, the width and length. Let’s get some parameters on it. Mr. Traver: Right, so if we can get some clarification on that moving forward then the issue goes away. Mr. Hutchins: And what we would, what we’d like to have is get through preliminary tonight and then we can iron out both the drive issue with the fire department and the engineering comments and come back for final and Mr. Krebs: Sounds good to me. Mr. Hunsinger: Members comfortable doing that? We have to get through SEQR to get through preliminary. Mr. Oborne: SEQR’s been accomplished. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s right. Mr. Oborne: Keep in mind this is an unlisted SEQR action and obviously it was a long form. I think it’s all about the level of comfort that the Planning Board will get because there are some outstanding issues but certainly you can make a conditional approval. Mr. Traver: We have final yet so- Mr. Hunsinger: And I don’t think any of the issues that we have are going to change the lot layouts- Mr. Traver: No, exactly there basically engineering and safety Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, okay, members comfortable with that? Okay we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the board on this project; any written comments Keith? Mr. Oborne: No written comments. Mr. Hunsinger: Let the record show that there were no comments received. I need to close the public hearing in order to do preliminary approval. Mr. Oborne: Yes Mrs. Steffan: And we are putting a condition on with the Fire Marshal but just the other thing you really do need to get sign off from the fire services because when you go to build your house and you go to get insurance if you don’t have all these things done then you’re not going to be able to have insurance written or it will be very expensive if you do without their approval. Mr. Oborne: To answer your question yes you would close the public hearing. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, thank you. Mr. Starratt: Yes we want to get them off the <unable to hear> we put the turnarounds in <unable to hear> we want to make sure that anybody can get up there especially cement trucks and everything else going up there so I do not want to not have a driveway that’s not going to hold together Mr. Hunsinger: I didn’t want to take my car up too far you’re okay if we do that? Mr. Starratt: Oh absolutely go right up. There are a lot of little oak trees starting to grow up off the ground because the acorns got in there; they are about that big, just run right over them. Ms. Starratt: Love to have you go. Mrs. Steffan: So we want to obtain fire chief and fire marshal opinion on road width surfacing and year round maintenance, that’s one of the conditions or do I need to phrase that differently? Mr. Hunsinger: Typically we don’t have conditions on preliminary Mr. Hutchins: They have to back final, we are agreeable to work on these. Mrs. Steffan: So they’ll just know that they have to address those. Mr. Ford: They’ll address those as part of the final. Mr. Traver: Yes, they’ll need to support fire marshal support of the design. Mrs. Steffan: Okay Mr. Oborne: I just want to make sure the board is comfortable with that approach. If you want to go ahead and approve preliminary this is the heaviest for the applicant at this point. Mr. Ford: We would want to stipulate that that they will address these issues that have been raised prior to final? 22 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: Yes I think- Mr. Hutchins: We have to do it regardless; we have no objection to that. Mr. Hunsinger: Gretchen you’re right; I stand corrected I think it is okay to put those in for preliminary. Mr. Oborne: What I would suggest if you want to go that way that’s fine but another avenue would be to, and I know you’re going to hate to hear this, is to table this pending engineering review and then come back and do preliminary and final on the same night. So either way it’s going to be the same amount of time but that’s one avenue that you can go. Mrs. Steffan: That’s true; we’ve done that before- Mr. Krebs: But we can also do preliminary tonight and then if they don’t meet all the conditions for final we don’t approve it- Mr. Oborne: And that’s fine. Mr. Schonewolf: Which is where we’re headed. Mr. Hunsinger: Are there any other concerns from the board besides those that have already been stated; the access, fire marshal’s comments? Mrs. Steffan: And the other thing is that the houses, the three houses on these three lots are proposed at the height of land, I don’t know if that matters to anybody so it will be at the 492 contour, all the houses are proposed for highest point on the land. It’s not a mountainside, it’s not like its West Mountain but Ms. Starratt: There is nobody behind me. Mr. Hunsinger: And they did give us a clearing plan. Ms. Starratt: They all face the other way Mrs. Steffan: And the other thing; are there are no test pits done at this point? Mr. Hutchins: There have been done and they are on the plans that were resubmitted to the engineer, but they are not on the plans in front of you. Mrs. Steffan: There is no ledge in there? Mr. Hutchins: No Mrs. Steffan: None okay. Ms. Starratt: Cobble, sand and gravel. Mrs. Steffan: Because it could be ugly if you hit ledge. Mr. Starratt: We might be able to sell some cobble to pay for the road, there is going to be a lot of it. We’re tying working every angle. Mrs. Steffan: Oh yeah, you’ve got to. Mr. Ford: Are you going to have her put in there reaffirming the negative SEQR? Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, it’s one of the general conditions. st Mrs. Steffan: Yes its right in the motion, the negative declaration was approved on the 21. Mr. Hunsinger: If there are no other comments I’ll entertain a motion Mrs. Steffan: I’ll put forth the resolution-see below RESOLUTION TO APPROVE-SUDIVISION 3-2011 DAWN HLAVATY-STARRATT A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.67 +/- acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 2.16 +/- acres to 5.10 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 6/21/2011; A Negative Declaration was approved on 6/21/2011; The ZBA approved the variance request on 6/28/2011; 23 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/21/2011 & 7/19/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 3-2011 FOR DAWN HLAVATY-STARRATT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution as prepared by staff. This is approved with conditions: 1. We would like the applicant to obtain Fire Chief and Fire Marshal opinion on road width, surfacing and year round maintenance; 2. And to address the engineering comments that have been put forth. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck, we’ll see you soon. Our last agenda item is Site Plan 40-2011 Quaker Country Club Associates, Keith when you’re ready to summarize staff notes. Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 40-2011 APPLICANT: Quaker Country Club Associates REQUESTED ACTION: Health related facility in a CI zone requires Planning Board review / approval LOCATION: 2 Country Club Road EXISTING ZONING: CI-Commercial Intensive SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PB: 7/13/2011 ENGINEERING REVIEW: 7/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 30-2004: Parking/lighting improvements related to a new office/retail use 6/22/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a Health Related Facility in the space formally occupied by Glens Falls Electric. Changes include a reconfiguration of drive entrances to include the elimination of the middle access point and a truncating of the northern access from 60 feet down to 24 feet. The existing 3800 square foot storage building to the north will be raised and accommodations for additional parking will be utilized in this area. The existing loading dock to the west will be removed as part of the project and plans for a covered drop off area at the north entrance to the rehabilitation center is proposed. Review: Page SP-1 1.No immediate issues Page SP-2 1.Snow storage should be indicated on plan. 2.Location and details of refuse enclosures should be presented if proposed. 3.Signage details should be presented for review. 4.Erosion and Sediment controls appear to be lacking, especially vegetative measures for soil stabilization as well as silt fencing if needed. With grading proposed, E&S should be offered. Additional comments: 1.Applicant requests waivers from landscaping, lighting photo metrics and drainage. 2.Applicant should be lauded for the reconfiguration of access and parking. Mr. Oborne: I did have communication with the project engineer and he did assure me that he is going look at those issues that I did point out. Obviously Sean has submitted his engineering review and with that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening. Mr. Lapper: Good evening, for the record Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Nace, Mike Grasso next to me on behalf of the applicant and Ron Zimmerman on behalf of the hospital to answer any questions. For the record also I’ll point out that it is 8:35 and we’re the last application that’s pretty nice. That doesn’t usually happen. I’m not saying how long we’ll go till we end but it’s nice to get started at this hour. We hope that you see this as a pretty simple update of an existing building, an existing site plan, and the comments from the town engineer and from the planning staff were really pretty minor and we’re concurring with all of those. Tom will go through our changes, one issue that came up was about the canopy and that got settled, the canopy is only five feet wide and 24 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 we now have so it wasn’t an issue with emergency vehicles, we have elevations that we didn’t have when we submitted just to clarify that point. Fire Marshal comments potentially confusing from the site plan because the drop off area is marked but the canopy is only over the sidewalk not over the driving area so that makes that issue go away. And just in general the new entrance faces the north side of the building, so it faces the woods near the National Grid site so there is really no impact and nobody there and most of the woods are being maintained, it’s really as it was pointed out by the town engineer the site is less impervious after the construction because some asphalt along Country Club is being removed and this area had the pole barn and the existing hard surface so even the area is being converted to an upgraded parking lot, was already impervious so with those general comments let me turn it over to Tom to walk you through the site plan and then we can address those comments. Mr. Nace: Real quick we’re as Jon said; we’re removing an existing driveway in the middle of the site on Country Club we’re considering narrowing the northern driveway and we’re getting rid of the loading docks in back and getting rid of the pole barn building. So in that we actually have less impervious surface in our proposal that exists now. We’re keeping the drainage very simple in that right now everything drains to catch basins at either side of the front or north end of the building, there is one catch basin back here in the yard area behind the storage building that we’re going to leave in fact that’s one of the engineering comments he has a good point, we’ve shown that as being raised too high, we’re going to leave that as he recommends leaving it back down to where it is and leave a low spot in there that will accumulate any drainage from the back of the site as it does now so that the anything there is no access that runs across the pavement so we’re leaving these catch basins there is another catch basin in here but the old loading dock we’re leaving it and keep drainage going to those structures as it does currently so there is no real drainage. We’re proposing four parking lot lights, two on the north side and two on the west side of the proposed parking area, we’ve shown photometric isometric foot candle levels for those, we have not shown your standard grid foot candle grid and we asked for a waiver from that requirement so it’s a very simple lighting plan. That’s really it, there is no, their utilities there is already water and gas service to the building so it’s a very simple site plan. Mr. Lapper: One last comment, one question that came up from Keith was on signage and that’s something that the hospital hasn’t yet conceived of but there will be a long construction project for this so what would ask with that that we either stipulate that will be conforming or if you’d like to see it that the tenant will come in with that sometime in the future we hoped we could get an approval that wouldn’t be the kind of condition that it wouldn’t be approved until you see it but that its approved subject to coming at some point in the future just to show you the signs, they don’t because it will be under construction for a while they may not come with a sign for three months but at some point before they need to come up they can come back and show you but it should all be conforming no problem just something that they haven’t gotten yet figured out exactly what they want. Mr. Krebs: As long as it’s conforming to the sign ordinance its fine. Mr. Oborne: Yes I believe that Glens Falls Hospital has a brand Mr. Zimmerman: It will very similar to the brand we have but in keeping in conformance with your requirements. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else? Mr. Schonewolf: When you add this square footage to the insurance company square footage how much of the building is left unrented. Mr. Grasso: I think we’ll have about 10,000 sq. ft. left unrented. Mr. Schonewolf: What is that 25 or 30% Mr. Grasso: 25% of the building, the building is 41,000 sq. ft. Mr. Schonewolf: So we’re getting there. Mr. Grasso: Getting there. Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the board? Mrs. Steffan: Just a couple of comments that Keith had brought up was snow storage, refuse, and enclosures. Mr. Grasso: There is more than enough places to put the snow and the operator we have doing that has a front end loader so that has not been an issue and I would suspect this won’t really impact that. Mr. Oborne: It’s just protocols on the site plan, that’s all. There’s really not many issues with this site plan, we should have more of these. Mr. Krebs: I mean the building exists and it was used so Mrs. Steffan: I think it’s a great location. Mr. Grasso: We’ll dress up the building too and taking down that metal shed will obviously enhance that area Mr. Hunsinger: What I want to know you willingly are giving up an easement onto country club road, you’re narrowing down the access now come when we ask other applicants to do those same things they give us a hard time? Mr. Oborne: Because Jon represents them that’s why. Mr. Grasso: We try to anticipate what you need 25 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Krebs: What are you trying to extend this meeting or something? Mr. Hunsinger: I just wanted the applicant to know how much I appreciated that. Mr. Grasso: You can thank Mr. Nace for that. Mr. Hunsinger: He’s been here before. Mr. Sipp: Is there a plan for future landscaping? Mr. Grasso: Not at this time. Mr. Hunsinger: It’s an interesting question because I looked at the plans at home I drive by there every day usually twice a day at least Monday thru Friday twice a day and I looked at the parking lots and said maybe we should have some trees inside the parking lot you know the interior trees and stuff and then when you drive by the site there are some very well established mature landscaping that is already there. Mr. Grasso: We’ve got a lot of trees down, a lot of trees. Mr. Hunsinger: Personally I don’t see a need for any additional landscaping at least around the parking lot the Quaker Road side Mr. Schonewolf: The good thing is you’re going pick up a lot of lawn area which would make it look nice, maybe a coat of paint too. Mr. Grasso: It’s in there. Mrs. Steffan: Keith you have a copy of this now so it’s part of your file? Mr. Oborne: I do, it’s in the file. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the board? Mr. Ford: Good move. Mr. Hunsinger: We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the board; any written comments Keith? Let the record show that there were no comments received. I will close the public hearing. The only other comment I have was on the new fixtures that you put in I think are fine but I don’t know how they compare to the existing fixtures. Mr. Nace: They’re not exact, they are the same style, they look the same, but I don’t know exactly what luminaire and what reflector are in the existing fixtures but they will look almost exactly the same. Mr. Hunsinger: You think they’ll be pretty close in terms of the level of light? Mr. Nace: Based on driving through the parking lot at night to see how it was lit I think so. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, that was the only other thought I had except they are too unbalanced to create problems with people driving through the parking lot. Mr. Nace: They are low enough levels of light in the existing and we’re not proposing anything that’s real bright here. Mr. Grasso: The originals were put in 2004-2005 and they met the requirements of what you wanted then so I don’t know if it’s changed that much Mrs. Steffan: Yes I think it has since 2005. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes I think so. Mr. Oborne: But they are existing downcast cutoffs right now as evidenced but you might want to if you have concern about that you might want to have them look at what the wattage of the bulb is now and match them to the current fixtures that are proposed. Mr. Krebs: Level Mr. Hunsinger: Well I was worried that the new ones would be too low compared to the existing that was more the other concern. Mr. Nace: We can certainly find out what fixtures or what luminaire is there now and make sure that we do have the mounting heights we can balance it so it is equal. Mrs. Steffan: Do we want to condition that or it’s their site and it’s going to look crazy if they are out of sync, it’s more of an aesthetic issue for them not for us. Mr. Grasso: We’ll balance it. Mr. Oborne: I would condition it. 26 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t know if it needs to be the exact same wattage but it just needs to Mr. Nace: I was looking for the same light level and what I don’t know is whether the pole, the old poles are twenty foot mounting height or whether they are higher. Mr. Hunsinger: Can’t tell from that picture. Mr. Traver: You look at it relative to the vehicles and the trees- Mr. Grasso: I want to say they are less. Mr. Oborne: I don’t think they are anymore to be honest with you. Mr. Grasso: That blue trim is twenty feet, It’s a twenty foot that parapet wall so if you can kind of do a visual from that front light to that if that gives you any scale. Mr. Hunsinger: Well it’s all parking lot lighting. Mr. Hunsinger: How would you like us to word that in terms of matching the lighting? Mr. Nace: It’s pretty much existing light levels. Mr. Hunsinger: So we’ll say match existing levels. Mr. Nace: Now are you talking about the existing ones in the back of the building or the existing in the front because these are new lighting it’s really more contiguous the lighting in the back of the building because the fixtures you’re looking at on the screen are on the front. Mr. Nace: Maybe you want say similar light levels instead of match. Mr. Hunsinger: Similar light level because I don’t know if you can be exact you know Mr. Nace: We’re close; not exact. Mr. Hunsinger: You just want to be close so there is no obvious glare. You have existing lights here you come around you have these here so this is the area I was concerned about because you drive through there if there is a major change from these lights to those lights. Mr. Ford: I would feel more comfortable if we said that the new lighting would not exceed the present lighting Mr. Hunsinger: Quite frankly my concern is that the new lights will be too dim compared to the existing lights more than the new ones would be a lot brighter. Mr. Lapper: Because of the new standards in the code. Mr. Hunsinger: You’re showing one and two luminaries coming out from the new lights Mr. Nace: If you’re resolution says similar light levels Mr. Hunsinger: You think so Mr. Ford You’re comfortable with not to exceed the present light levels? Mr. Nace: Well then as Chris says if it’s low, if it’s significantly lower than we don’t want it either. Mr. Hunsinger: Right, it needs to be close. Mr. Ford: What’s significant lower? Mr. Hunsinger: Good question. Mr. Ford: We’ve got a present level and we suggesting- Mr. Hunsinger: It depends on the location- Mrs. Steffan: What would you like to have as far as an enforcement mechanism? What would you like it to say? Mr. Oborne: I think it’s a lot easier to tie it in to the wattage of the existing lamps. Mr. Schonewolf: The halogen may be different. Mr. Oborne: Well whatever they are you know because over time they are going to be changing out and over time it will balance out. I think at first, you’re right, it probably will be, the existing ones are a little more dim based on the cover that’s there and what 27 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 shape that in you’re going to have nice crystal clear covers going in now for the new ones so it’s going to be a little bit brighter regardless, but over time I think it will balance out so if you tie it to a specific wattage and type of bulb that is currently existing that may be more enforceable than saying similar light levels. Mr. Ford: Then current lumens? Mr. Hunsinger: How hard is it to find out the current wattage is? Mr. Nace: It should not be hard. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, okay. Mr. Nace: That will get us close. Mr. Hunsinger: Close as reasonably possibly, so we can just say that the applicant will match wattage of the existing parking lot lights. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATES RESOLUTION TO APPROVE-SITE PLAN 40-2011 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a new Tenant-Glens Falls Hospital Rehabilitation Center with associated site development. Health Related Facility in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/19/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2011 QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by staff: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II - no further SEQRA review is necessary; 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4)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; 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6)Waiver requests granted: landscaping, lighting photo metrics, and drainage; 7)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; 8)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; 9)Approved with the following conditions: a) The applicant will denote snow storage on plans as discussed; b) The applicant will denote refuse enclosures as discussed; c) Any signage will be code compliant; d) The applicant will obtain an engineering sign-off; e) Regarding site lighting that the applicant will match the wattage of existing parking lot lights. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None 28 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: Is there any further business to be brought before this board? Mr. Oborne: I have nothing. Mr. Hunsinger: I will entertain a motion to adjourn MOTION TO ADJOURN PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 Introduced by Chris Hunsinger seconded by Paul Schonewolf; Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you everybody. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 29 Queensbury Planning Board-July 19, 2011 30