Loading...
09-15-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-2015 Omall Family L.P. 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.18-1-5 Subdivision No. 8-2015 Burnett Family Trust 4. PRELIM & FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 239-18-1-12 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 52-2015 John & Sandy Lambrechts 7. Tax Map No. 239-8-1-4 Site Plan No. 54-2015 Lake George Baking Co. 9. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-94 DISCUSSION ITEM Tambrie Alden Trustee 14. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-40 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, September 15, 2015. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the items later do have public hearings scheduled. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from July 21St and July 28th, 2015. 1 did have a correction on the July 28th meeting. While I was late, I was in attendance, but it was after the vote that was taken on the last item. I just thought that should be reflected in the minutes. Would anyone like to move the minutes as corrected? APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 21, 2015 July 28, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21 & JULY 28, 2015 WITH CORRECTION TO JULY 28, 2015 MEETING, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items that are recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first one is Site Plan 53-2015 for Omall Family L.P. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 53-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED OMALL FAMILY L.P. AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 63 QUAKER ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 339 +/- SQ. FT. ROOF CANOPY OVER THE NORTHERN LOADING DOCK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO FACILITATE BETTER MATERIAL/EQUIPMENT TRANSFER DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49- 15, SV 16-13, SP 59-00, AV 65-93, AV 42-93 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 3.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-5 SECTION 179-9-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; AL BOYCHUK, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to install a 339 sq. ft. canopy over an existing loading dock for the Mark Plaza on Quaker Road. The applicant has indicated there are two rear loading docks where the where the northern dock is to include the proposed canopy. The canopy will allow for the transport of items during inclement weather, and the applicant has 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) requested waivers and the nature of the variance is that the floor area ratio exceeds the 30 percent and the applicant proposes 37 percent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers for the record. Our project is very simple. We want to put a cover over one of the existing loading docks on the structure. It's on the east side of the structure. It's the northeast corner, as far from Quaker Road as you can get. The cover would protect equipment and materials from inclement weather, snow conditions during the winter, and I don't think there's really a whole lot to it, other than we are, there are two existing non-compliant issues. One is the rear setback, which is pre-existing, we're not aggravating that, and the other is Floor Area Ratio. That is pre-existing, nonconforming, but we are aggravating it by .3 percent. It's going from 37.2 to 37.5 percent with this covering. No new impervious area you know because it's an existing concrete loading dock. If there are any questions or suggestions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-1 noticed today there are stairs there already. Is that staying or is that being replaced, stairs along the backside? MR. JARRETT-Mr. Boychuk is in the audience. MR. BOYCHUK-Replaced. MR. JARRETT-Replaced, I guess. MR. FERONE-Replaced. Okay. And the structure is just to cover a roof? MR. JARRETT-Basically a very, very plain shed roof structure over the existing. MR. FERONE-No sides or anything? MR. JARRETT-No sides. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. FORD-Is it anticipated that semis the size of the one that was pulled up there today will be using that? MR. JARRETT-Was that a full semi that was there today? What size truck do you normally see at that dock? MR. BOYCHUK-Fifty footers. MR. JARRETT-Full size trailers. MR. FORD-Because it was up there very close to the roof line as it was, without a canopy. MR. BOYCHUK-We've got 10 feet from the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, if we could get you on the mic, please. MR. BOYCHUK-It would be under the canopy. Because the loading dock is about 42 inches up from the pavement right now, and we put a tape on it, and the truck backed up to the loading dock would be under 10 feet. MR. JARRETT-But obviously we'll check it. MR. BOYCHUK-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Forty-two inches out and ten feet? MR. BOYCHUK-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you've almost got 14 feet. MR. BOYCHUK-Well, yes, from the ground up. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-And tractor trailers I think have to be under 10 3, isn't it? MR. BOYCHUK-Well, to clear bridges. MR. MAGOWAN-I think 12 foot is the. MR. BOYCHUK-Twelve foot I believe. MR. MAGOWAN-You should be close. Not too much splash on a heavy rain, let's say. MR. BOYCHUK-That's plenty of room. MR. FORD-And what will be the slope on that from the existing roof surface? MR. JARRETT-The plans that you have in front of you, it's not a large slope. It's probably a one on twelve or roughly, maybe a little bit more, but not much. MR. FORD-Measure it careful. MR. HUNSINGER-Two to twelve. MR. JARRETT-Two twelve. My memory is failing me. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what the plan says. Any other questions, comments, concerns from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the only thing I have to say is, Al, I don't know why you waited so long for that. MR. BOYCHUK-After last winter, we decided it was time. MR. HUNSINGER-After last winter a lot of people are doing a lot of things differently. MR. JARRETT-Instead of moving it to the south, we're putting a roof on it. MR. HUNSINGER-There is no public hearing scheduled. There is a draft resolution if anyone would like to make the recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 49-2015 OMALL FAMILY L.P. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 339 +/- sq. ft. roof canopy over the northern loading dock on the east side of the building to facilitate better material/equipment transfer during inclement weather. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance changes to the exterior of the building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Cl zone. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2015 OMALL FAMILY L.P. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; 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 15th day of September 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. JARRETT-Hopefully we'll see you next week. MR. MAGOWAN-Just double check those measurements, okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) STAFFORD CARR & MC NALLY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.66 & 0.66 ACRES. SUBDIVISION WILL PLACE EXISTING HOUSES ON SEPARATE PARCELS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-15, BP 04-677 (2 DOCKS) WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM KNAPP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE BURNETT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 1.32 acre parcel into two lots of 0.66 and 0.66 acres, and what happened to the property is that the lot line actually subdivides the property in a way so that each dwelling unit is on its own lot. Right now the applicant is working with their attorney and other attorneys to re-draw that line a little bit so that on each lot there's appropriate maintenance opportunities so that one doesn't cross over to try to maintain a retaining wall and vice versa. So I asked the applicant to come tonight only because I knew there were some topographical constraints on the site, and just to present that information to the Board and maybe there's some kind of guidance that you can provide them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KNAPP-Good evening, Tom Knapp on behalf of the applicant Burnett Family Trust. I'm with the law firm of Stafford, Carr & McNally. More or less I think it's a subdivision. It's a parcel owned by Burnett Family Trust and David Burnett has passed away. We have been in touch with the attorney representing the administrators of Mr. Burnett's estate. They are in support of the application. The parcel is also subject to a partition action in Warren County Supreme Court. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Could you pull that microphone a little closer? MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, pull it right up to you. Thank you. MR. KNAPP-Again, the property is also subject to a partition action in Supreme Court Warren County, but both parties have agreed, more or less, that they want to divide the property and have taken the approach for the subdivision application. Currently there are two houses on the property, which each house would go with each newly subdivided property, and the real issue I guess right now is where the subdivision line is going to be. We need to have the original survey that was supplied to you. We have to have that line flagged, and we're also probably going to have another line flagged to give a little more room, in order to, again, maintenance in the middle of the property. MR. FORD-When do you anticipate that'll be completed? MR. KNAPP-1 would think within a week or two. Again, I've been in contact with one of the surveyors. The surveyor completed that survey. Again, we really just want to have the lines flagged to see exactly what we're dealing with as to the physical makeup of the area and where that line is coming through. Again, there's a few other things like a walkway and some minor things we want to include on it, and then once we have that completed, you know, we'll be in touch with the other attorney representing the estate of David Burnett, come to agreement as to where the line's going to be, and at that point I think we should be set to move forward. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. KNAPP-Also we have submitted a, recently sent a letter to the APA, jurisdictional inquiry letter. I received a response back that it is going to need a permit. I have that paperwork and hopefully we'll submit that, again, probably within a week or so. MR. FORD-It's not quite a done deal yet, is it? MR. KNAPP-No. I think also, to add to the application, at this time, this parcel was two different parcels. There was a boundary line adjustment I believe towards the northern portion of the property, and then the two parcels that were in existence at that time were formed into one. MR. FORD-That was referenced in the deed. Correct? MR. KNAPP-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? One of the concerns I had, and I didn't see it addressed at all, is the ability of the two separate lots to maintain a well and septic. MR. KNAPP-Well, I believe there is a septic on both properties. Each property maintains their own septic. Mr. Burnett, any comments as to the well or the property? This is Mr. Steve Burnett. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if we could get you to come up and speak into the microphone, sir. Because they weren't shown on the site plan that was provided. MR. BURNETT-Yes, I'm Steve Burnett. There were two septics on the property. Mine is operational. My brother kind of fell into hard times and I don't know how operational his was when he died. So I know where the locations of them, I can point them out, but there's no water. The power's off in the building. There's no water in the building right now, and so I don't know if there's a septic or not. I guess I could pour something down the toilet. MR. FORD-Your well is how far from either septic? Your well is how far from either septic? MR. BURNETT-We draw from the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-1 was going to say, there's two pump houses on there, isn't there? I see two pump houses. MR. TRAVER-Do both properties pump from the lake, both buildings? MR. BURNETT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KNAPP-And both septics are off to the sides of everything. So it hasn't been a problem for us, and we've drawn from the lake as long as they've had electricity. MR. BURNETT-1 still have the old piston pump somewhere out there on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. MOORE-1 can also identify the relief requested is because of the way that line is going to be drawn, there's going to be quite a bit of relief being requested. One is the lot width, road frontage, water frontage, the side setback, as well as having physical access to a road or the driveway from Lot A is not going to have its physical access. He actually has to go through the neighbor's property. MR. FORD-This is a tight squeeze. MR. KNAPP-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? So when should we table this until? An October meeting date? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-November is what I was thinking, only because our October is getting full, and that way it gives them enough time to communicate with the other attorney. MR. FORD-And the APA. MRS. MOORE-And the APA. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Which meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, does it matter? MRS. MOORE-I would make it for the first one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In November. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's all in one week anyhow, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they're both held in one week. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB# 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until the November 17, 2015 Planning Board meeting with information due by October 15, 2015. Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Information due by the deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-By the 15th of October. MR. SCHONEWOLF-October 15tH MR. KNAPP-One last question. Since we're going to be doing editing to the survey, would you prefer that I place the septics on there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That and the wells. There's only one pump house? MR. KNAPP-Septic. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, on the map it says pump house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's only one shown on the map. I mean, maybe it's in the basement or something, that's fine. MR. BURNETT-Yes, my pump is within my, you know, my water tank and all is under the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BURNETT-Yes, and my brother's water tank is under his house. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. MR. KNAPP-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We have two items, this evening, under New Business that have public hearings scheduled. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-2015 SEAR TYPE II JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 32 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL 225 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PAVERS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BOH 2O-10, AV 44-10, SP 52-10, SP 8-09 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-4 SECTION 179-6-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install 225 sq. ft. of permeable pavers within 50 feet of the shoreline. The Zoning Code requires hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design Partnership representing Sandy and John Lambrechts on this application for a site plan review. Sandy is here with me. As Laura indicated, it's a simple addition of 225 sq. ft. of open cell permeable block paver to serve as a seating area that currently exists but now we want to place the permeable block pavers in that area. This will help make that area a little more stabilized, you know, chairs and what not tend to scour things up a bit, so this will help this be a little bit more level area. MR. FORD-Could I hear that"P" word one more time, please? Permeable? MR. MAC ELROY-Permeable. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-With the addition of that, we're also suggesting that an area elsewhere on the property be converted from what is now impervious surface back to a permeable surface. So it's really a tradeoff here. Permeable block pavers require, or count for, you get a 50% credit for that in terms of permeability. We're actually replacing more than the actual area with block pavers. Two hundred and twenty square feet of block pavers, which only count half as much, but then the area that we're going to plan to convert back to permeable surface is about 250. It's a good tradeoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. FERONE-The area you're talking about that's by the road, where the garage is, on the drawing it says that's crushed stone, but it seemed like it was stone that had been, something poured on it to make it a solid surface. It's really not. MR. MAC ELROY-That's the driveway. MR. FERONE-That's the driveway. Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, but that area that we're going to convert is simply a crushed stone or a, you know, washed stone in that area, but that doesn't have that application to it. That's limited to the driveway area. MR. FERONE-Okay, but you're not doing anything with that driveway, though, that stays the same? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. MAC ELROY-Right, that stays the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? If there's no questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I don't see any hands. Do we have a written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-We have a written comment. This is dated September 15, 2015 from the Lake George Water Keeper, addressed to Mr. Hunsinger. "The above referenced Site Plan Review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper recognizes the desire of applicant for gathering space to enjoy the lake but recommends a balance for personal site development consistent with the intent and purpose of the Town Code for shoreline buffering and reducing hardscape in close proximity to the shoreline. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-040 Shoreline Buffers, §179-9-070.H regarding the imposition of conditions to address mitigation of project impacts and compliance with existing conditions, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced site plan application. The applicant should demonstrate compliance with previous conditions of approval prior to considering the current Site Plan Review Application. Site Plan Review Application 52- 2010 was approved in 2010 for the above referenced property and during the September 28, 2010 Planning Board meeting, there was much discussion about the installation of a shoreline buffer. Condition 3 of that approval was "That the applicant provide a Code compliant landscaping plan". (Copy attached of the meeting minutes) Based on the recently submitted site plan, it does not appear that condition has been satisfied as there is no buffer indicated on the survey plan north of the dock and the "existing stone pit" is within the required 15' buffer. In addition, the previously submitted site plan for Site Plan Application 52-2010 did not show an existing or proposed fire pit in the location. The Planning Board should require the applicant to verify compliance with Condition 3 of the September 28, 2010 approval prior to considering the current Site Plan Review application. The Planning Board should consider the existing patio space on the property prior to approving additional hardscape within 50' of the shoreline. The Planning Board approved Site Plan Review application 52-2010 in September 2010, which contained an approximate 240 sf pave block patio within 45' setback from the shoreline. The Planning Board should take into consideration this previous approval when considering the current Site Plan Review application. The Planning Board should require compliance with Town Code §179-040 Shoreline Buffers prior to any approval. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration." MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any others? MRS. MOORE-That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Had you heard this letter or seen this letter before? MR. MAC ELROY-Laura gave me a copy of it when I came in here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments in response? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the one thing that really you could respond to is that the Planning Board, in the second paragraph, the Planning Board should require the applicant to verify compliance with Condition Three of the September 28, 2010 approval prior to considering the current Site Plan. I can give you that verification. There is a compliant shoreline buffer in accordance with the definition of the shoreline buffer in the Town's Ordinance. There's a very nice planting area through there, that a shoreline buffer requires a mix of tall vegetation, shrubs and ground covering, and that's just exactly what there is throughout that, and this seating area won't affect that. It won't affect any of the plantings that are currently there. That's according to the Lambrechts. So I can verify that. He obviously, probably hasn't seen the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-There's no other comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other comments or concerns from the Board? MR. FORD-Are waivers being requested? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I'm going to mention it. Traffic, building construction and lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone okay? Go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2015 JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install 225 sq. ft. of permeable pavers within 50 feet of the shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 9-15-2015 and continued the public hearing to 9-15-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 9-15-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 52-2015 JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request for traffic, building construction, and lighting rg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 15th day of September 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, I failed to recognize that this was a Type 11 SEQR and no SEQR review is necessary. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 54-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LAKE GEORGE BAKING CO. AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CHARLES KANE III ZONING Cl LOCATION 538 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT PREVIOUS GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE INTO SALES OUTLET FOR BAKERY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020, 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO SITE PLAN WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS AND NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN A Cl ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-94 SECTION 179-9- 020, 179-3-040 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CARL ALBERINO MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to renovate a 1,496 sq. ft. addition to an existing commercial building for use as a bakery outlet store located on Aviation Road near the mall. The building alterations include adding a service door on the east side of the building. The interior alterations shown are minimal with a smaller storage area to accommodate the new door. The parcel area is 0.65 acres with a portion of the property to the rear that is undeveloped. The front portion of the property is to have 10 parking spaces. The applicant proposes no changes to the grading or drainage of the site. The application was referred to the Fire Marshal and to the Water Wastewater Director with no comments received by either, and Staff would encourage discussion on signage as the applicant has not provided information about signage for the building or free standing. And the applicant has requested some waivers and I have identified them. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Carl Alberino, the owner of Lake George Bakery. What we're attempting to do here is take a building that's been unused for a couple of years and use it as an outlet for the retail products for the Lake George Bakery. A chance for the owner to find out what the market's like down here in Glens Falls. We're proposing no real changes to the outside other than the striping of the parking lot to define parking spaces. The installation, or placement, I should say, of a couple of planters to buffer the current store against car bumpers, and put in some greenery and changes to the store to add an office space and a second required exit door on the east side of the building, and that's pretty much it in a nutshell. One of the questions that came up was signs, Staff wanted to know what signs were required, and I hadn't had a chance to speak to the owner until today. He intends to have a building mounted sign, Code compliant, and a freestanding sign out front. If we can we'd re-use the existing sign for the gas station. MR. ALBERINO-That's correct. I will make it look way better than it does now. I'd like to put some better awnings on there. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. ALBERINO-And like he said, the landscaping is important to us. So we want it to look, we've got to change the look from a vanilla box to a nice looking bakery. We'll do that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we get all the benefits of the bakery that we've got in Lake George, but we get parking, too. MR. ALBERINO-Yes. Yes, sir. MR. DEEB-You're not going to do any baking there, right? No baking? You're going to do it all up there in Lake George? MR. ALBERINO-Yes. Seven minutes away. MR. DEEB-And then bring it all down? MR. ALBERINO-Yes. MR. DEEB-How many trips a day are you going to make? MR. ALBERINO-Well, I've got a big truck. MR. FERONE-Is there going to be any eating on the premises or just retail? MR. ALBERINO-No, I don't think so. I'm all set up in Lake George. That's a whole different ballgame. I don't want to do that anymore. No, this would work, my only fear is July and August when it gets crazy in Lake George, doing both of them, but I've got a lot of time to fix that problem, you know what I'm saying. If it takes off and it's good, I don't know how I'm going to do that, but we'll do it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I know people will work for cake. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff had commented about lighting. Is there any new lighting proposed? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. NACE-Not at this point, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ALBERINO-I think Charlie put two new lights on the outside of it already. MR. NACE-Okay, on the building. MR. ALBERINO-Yes, I didn't even see them either. He said he just put some on each end of the building, a new lighting. MR. FERONE-What are the hours of operation? Do you need lights for hours that you're going to have in the evening? MR. ALBERINO-I'm thinking eight to six right now. MR. NACE-In the winter. Yes, the architect has indicated lights over the sign. But I'm thinking there would have to be at least two other building mounted lights to cover the parking area. We can specify the downcast. MR. HUNSINGER-So you talked about a sign. Is it going to be similar to what's shown on this drawing? MR. ALBERINO-I just contacted a sign company today, Signworks, and we're going to meet, yes, I would like to get the logo in there, but like I asked him, I need the word "bakery" prominent, so when they're driving by they know it's a bakery. That's a little busy, but somehow he's got to design it some way so that a bakery, you know, they've got to know right away, but I really haven't, we haven't finished that yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-1 would agree with you, though. The prominence of that one word is key. MR. ALBERINO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And whatever you end up with it will be compliant. MR. ALBERINO-Yes, sir. I just wanted to add, I've been looking 25 years on Aviation Road for a place. I'm really excited about this. Really. Way before Starbucks went in. MR. DEEB-You're not worried about traffic? It goes pretty fast by there. MR. ALBERINO-Yes, there's a lot of traffic there. To tell you the truth, somehow I'd like to incorporate a little message on the way out, please turn right, don't try to turn left, because it is pretty tough coming out of there. I know it is. Everybody knows it is. Any locals. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it really depends on the time of day. There's lots of times when it's just not a problem at all. MR. ALBERINO-Yes. That is true, too, because the last time I looked there was no cars either way. You're right. MR. NACE-It's fairly well platooned. There are lights along Aviation. Traffic comes in platoons. MR. FORD-Hopefully your establishment will slow the traffic down. MR. ALBERINO-Okay, yes, that's good. I like that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments. Any written comments, Laura? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This was an Unlisted action. MRS. MOORE-1 apologize. I did not put the SEQR resolution in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Uh oh. I was just looking for it, too. Are there any concerns anyone has identified in Part 11 of the Impact Assessment? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-That would not be small or moderate impacts. MR. FERONE-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-They aren't really making any environmental changes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. Do you have a draft SEQR resolution? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. It just says we've reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know how to say that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-So you'd need a separate resolution for the SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we just need a separate resolution for a Negative Declaration. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQR SP # 54-2015 Lake George Baking Co. Site Plan: Applicant proposes to convert previous gas station/convenience store into sales outlet for bakery. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020, 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance no Site Plan within the past seven years and new commercial use in a Cl zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 54-2015 LAKE GEORGE BAKING CO., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 15th day of September 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the resolution, I guess it just goes without saying that any lighting or signage would have to be Code compliant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do people feel a need to put it in the resolution? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we don't. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, it's implicit. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, it's got to be Code compliant anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. TRAVER-And evidently the lighting that they're using is already there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Are you ready? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 54-2015 LAKE GEORGE BAKING CO. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to convert previous gas station/convenience store into sales outlet for bakery. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9- 020, 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance No site plan within the past seven years and new commercial use in a Cl zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 9-15-2015 and continued the public hearing to 9-15-2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 9-15-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO GRANT SITE PLAN 54-2015 LAKE GEORGE BAKING CO., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: Waivers request for G. lighting, J. stormwater, K. topography, L. landscaping, O. alterations and new construction details, Q. soil logs, and R. construction disposal rg anted: 1) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 15th day of September 2015 by the following vote: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-Were we putting anything extra for any lighting to be Code compliant? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's implicit. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's implicit. We don't have to. It has to be Code compliant. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. I have one request. Let us know when you open and we'll come. Yes, let Laura know. She can send us an e-mail. MR. ALBERINO-I wanted to bring some, but I was afraid that would be wrong. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now you can. MR. HUNSINGER-I stop in almost every time I go up to the Village. MR. MAGOWAN-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-The last item on our agenda is a Discussion Item. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ITEM TAMBRIE ALDEN TRUSTEE SEAR TYPE N/A AGENT(S) ROBERT A. REGAN OWNER(S) RALPH FAMILY SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS TRUST ZONING MDR LOCATION 366 LUZERNE ROAD LOT SIZE 9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-40 DISCUSSION ITEM —APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR (4) LOT SUBDIVISION RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.0 ACRES TO 2.65 ACRES. ONE LOT AT 2 ACRES WILL MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. ROBERT REGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant is here for a discussion regarding a four lot subdivision with lots ranging in size from two acres to 2.65. One lot at two acres will maintain an existing single family home and just for the benefit of the Board, I did pull up the excerpts from the Zoning Code so you could take a look at that as you were reviewing this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. REGAN-Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to come and discuss this before we expended a whole lot more money in surveyors and all that kind of stuff. I thought it would be a good idea to run this by everybody informally. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. REGAN-Yes. I'm sorry. My name is Robert Regan. I'm an attorney for the Ralph Family Trust. Okay. Basically there's an existing home on the lot. One of the family members lives there. She's significantly disabled and pretty much unable to move out and they're trying to hold on to the place, and so we're trying to figure out a way to subdivide the land up to make it work. We came up with this layout. All of the lots are two acre minimum. They should, and this will require confirmation by the surveyor, obviously, but they should come out to a minimum of 100 feet average width. As you can see, I tried to, with the exception of the lot with the existing house, tried to make each one at least 110 feet wide with the idea that you could have a house that was 40 feet wide with a 20 foot garage, or something like that. They would each share a driveway with the adjoining parcel. So there would be two openings onto Luzerne Road and I believe there is public water but not sewer. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. REGAN-1 think that's it, unless I forgot something, but if you have any questions that might come up. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-From the aerial photograph and the topography generally in that area, it doesn't appear that there are any wetlands or steep slopes. Can you confirm that? MR. REGAN-1 will confirm that, but I would be of the same impression. It seemed pretty flat, dry and sandy. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The main concern that I have with the proposed layout is the Code specifies that flag lots are not allowed, and, I mean, the design is kind of a flag lot layout. Is there any other way that you could achieve what you want and have the lots? MR. REGAN-Well, we could certainly go back to the drawing board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. REGAN-It's, the challenge, obviously, is because it's such a deep lot, it goes back 868 feet, I believe, on the left side, on the west side. I couldn't, and again, maybe some stroke of genius will come to me, but having looked at this six ways of Sunday, that was about the only thing I could figure out to come up with, unless a surveyor sees something in a better light than I do. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, the lot next door to you is a similar lot. It's just not as deep, but it's the same design, you know, 85 feet wide on an acre lot. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But the Code does say pretty clearly flag lots are not allowed, and I'm sure that's why it was included on the Staff Notes for our consideration. I mean, you certainly have the acreage. MR. REGAN-Right, and when I sat down with the Planner, you know, and I laid it all out, and he seemed to think that they were all a go, and I said, well, I'd rather run it by the Planning Board first before we undertook anymore expense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. REGAN-But I can certainly go back to the drawing board. MR. FERONE-Is it an absolute necessity to have four separate lots? MR. REGAN-No, but, you know, we're obviously trying to maximize the value and do the most we could with the asset we had to make the money last for the house. That's essentially what we were doing. I mean, unless there's the possibility of. MR. FERONE-Could there be a shared private road and cut the properties along the depth of the property as it goes in off of Luzerne Road? So instead of having these long narrow ones? MR. REGAN-I'd be okay with that. They'd be okay with that. I don't know. MR. FERONE-Would that be acceptable, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would require a variance from the road frontage, but it might be a preferable layout. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think that would look better than the, you know, than the flag strips. MR. REGAN-I'm going to guess that that would increase costs because if you have to put in, I guess I'd have to think about what your requirements for that road would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if it was just a private shared driveway, you know, I would still be. MR. REGAN-Okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-You would have to run a water line down there. MR. REGAN-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-If it's Town water, I don't think you could put a well in there. MR. REGAN-Well, they're running water fairly long anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I mean, you're just presenting the lots, but, like I said, that would be something that, you know, you're talking about costs, one of the things that I would see is you would have to get a water line back in there. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, and then digging so deep, you know, would the Fire Marshal call for a hydrant back there? I don't know where the nearest hydrant is on the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can't do that. MR. MAGOWAN-You can't do that? All right. Because it's a private road? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So it's really, I think, you know, just getting a road in, and start off, I think, crushed stone. I don't think it has to be paved. That might be something, as you sell off the lots, and everybody wants to get together and pave it or, but I kind of like that idea of having the road along one side better than this. It's, 110 feet wide is not a lot of room to put a house. MR. REGAN-Right. I thought it was the minimum. I mean, in terms of, like I said, if you had a 40 foot wide house with a 20 foot wide garage, that would comply with your setbacks, 38 to 40, 20 to 22. So I thought we were okay in that aspect. I had not thought about a private road sort of going in and making sort of a, it wouldn't be a T because that would be across, but, which we could certainly explore. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, the way I would look at it is, you know, bringing her lot over here like this, then you bring your road up here, and then you'd have your lots this way. However you want to, and then you'd have your private road and then. MR. HUNSINGER-You could do a shared driveway, yes. Really, I mean, you could call it a private road. It's really a shared driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-A shared driveway, yes. MR. FERONE-Did the Fire Marshal have a problem with that, in regards to equipment? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it's their lot. I mean, we have lots all over this Town. MR. FERONE-That are like that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. FERONE-As long as it's not a Town road, there's not a problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. They have a responsibility to do that, but you can do anything you want on your private road. You would design it so that you could probably get, you know, water back to wherever there's a structure. MR. REGAN-So are you thinking of? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any input on the discussion, Laura? MRS. MOORE-What I was trying to figure out was the type of road that you were describing, and then coming up with the language behind that about the subdivision, so that we knew that giving them guidance that the road may need to be, you know, may need to have the turnaround to it or whether it's a "T" dead end or whether he needs a cut de sac. So I was just looking at, and I guess similarly we were looking previously at the Combs property where they had sort of like a cut de sac in there. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. FORD-1 was thinking cul de sac myself, as I looked at the property. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but that's more or less a development, too, isn't it, Combs? They're designing that as a development. I mean, this would be a. MRS. MOORE-This is four. They were doing seven. Four versus seven. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there was one that we approved, well, it might have been two years ago now, on Tee Hill Road. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Five lots. I mean, they paved it, and there is a road sign there, but it's a private road, it's not a Town road. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Something I can look at. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's not a cut de sac. It's just a dead end road, but there's lots on both sides, but the first lot, when you drive in the first lot is long and narrow. MR. MAGOWAN-Wasn't that the sandpit there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the old sandpit. MR. MAGOWAN-Where Britten, Laura Britten. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Britten. MRS. MOORE-So I guess you're looking to give them guidance about. MR. REGAN-Yes, I was going to, just so I can understand what you're thinking of, this cross hatched area with a private road, sort of going up that edge, and then this lot goes this way, this lot cross. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. REGAN-And we leave this more or less the same, the existing house? Actually that's not true. I'm not really leaving it the same, but this would be, all you would see from the road, then, is this. MR. HUNSINGER-Driveway. MR. REGAN-Right, and you're telling me that, as a private road, the construction standards are minimal? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it doesn't have to be built to Town road specs. MR. REGAN-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-But you'd want it wide enough to get an emergency vehicle in there. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you don't need the 20 foot requirement. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can get an ambulance in there with 10 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I don't want to send the applicant down this road if I'm the only one that has a problem with the flag shaped lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, would you consider that a flag that way? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I like that design much better than, I don't really like this design. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think this is a better alternative. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I don't want to design the project. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, you want a lot you can do something with. In my opinion, if you look at it now, don't the lots look more? MR. REGAN-No, they would be fine with what you're suggesting. I had it in my head that if we had to do a long road that that would be too costly because we'd have to go with the Town standard. If we don't have to do that with a private road, it looks doable to me. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Drive up and down West Mountain Road. You'll see, you know, Harley Lane, private road. MR. REGAN-Right, or like along the lake. MR. TRAVER-One thing, looking at the map, there is a house right on the property line, I guess it would be to the north. So where you're talking about putting that private road in, there's a house right there. MR. REGAN-They appear to have built that right to the line. It's actually a mobile home. MR. MAGOWAN-So they can move it. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't look like it's mobile anymore. MR. REGAN-It was at one time. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you might want to go up the other side. MR. REGAN-We can go up the other side. MR. MAGOWAN-But, you know, like you say, you hate to cut anymore trees because that's going to irritate the tree huggers. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, well, there's plenty of them there. MR. REGAN-The other side's also shorter. MR. TRAVER-Good point, yes. MR. FORD-1 like the other side better. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this is why we have a sketch plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you see how that mobile home sits on that skinny lot, you know, you won't have any side space, you know. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-So people would have to jockey their houses there so they're not, you know, shaking hands through their windows. MR. REGAN-Right. No, I think if the private road were put on the west side of the parcel, it would be slightly shorter, and really wouldn't, we'd just have to bring it to the tip of that fourth lot, and, you know, maybe they sell off the first lot and that gives them the money to continue the road or whatever. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, obviously the person that's going to want the first lot's going to be all the way in the back. MR. REGAN-Well, we'll do what we have to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why don't you take it back to them and see what they say. MR. REGAN-They'll be fine with it. They're just looking for some answers as to how to proceed. I can't speak for them, but I would be very surprised if they would be opposed to what you're suggesting. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-So the possibility that the application would also include variances there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's the only thing. You would need a variance for road frontage. MR. REGAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It would be a subdivision process plus the variance process, and, yes, that can happen all together as one unit if it has to, but it would be another step. MR. REGAN-Okay. That's fine. I mean, if that gets them the project, I mean, if this Board is looking at the current layout and doesn't like it and prefers the other one instead, then we would be willing to do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This one is Ward Four, right? MRS. MOORE-This one is, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Would any consideration be given to, as long as we're looking at where that new road would go in, that there would be fewer than four building lots? MR. REGAN-Well, it's a big loss of money. Of course it's all presumed they'll get sold and all of that. I think the thinking was if we are going to go through all these processes and the time it takes and so forth, we would try to get the four. Obviously you guys are in the driver's seat, but I'm going to guess if we went, I'm just thinking aloud. If we went down to three, we'd probably be back, and maybe we wouldn't have to do the private road set up that you're talking about. I'd have to think that through, but the four lots would, to have three lots besides where the house sits would be ideal for them. MR. FORD-It would? MR. REGAN-Yes. MR. FERONE-1 think they're trying to maximize value. They're trying to get as much money as they can. MR. DEEB-As long as it's Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, a two acre lot where it's flat and forest. I mean, you'll never know those houses are there. Until you drive in the driveway. Certainly I don't think it would bother any of the neighbors. MR. DEEB-I don't see any neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, part of where I got that idea is one house is set back behind those that are, not the adjacent parcel, but the second lot over sits way back. MR. REGAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Behind the houses that front the road, anyway. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Someone else thought that idea, too. MR. FORD-That's why I thought the possibility someone might take that driveway and want a good share of that back property. MR. REGAN-Well, I could see a situation where if somebody were interested in that, we could sell them both for less than what it would cost to build two separate. MR. FORD-Exactly. MR. REGAN-They would certainly entertain that. MR. MAGOWAN-Also, too, you know who owns that property? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. REGAN-Excuse me? MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't see it on the, that one back there looks like it's landlocked. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was wondering the same thing. MR. REGAN-Yes, a guy by the name of Clark owns it. I don't know who that is. MR. TRAVER-Looks like an ATV. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it looks like someone's riding. MR. REGAN-1 know that one of the developers just east of this parcel has built a road in, I forget who it is. I don't know if it's Clute or who it is, and I don't know if it turns and goes west and picks this up or not. MR. MAGOWAN-The only reason I'm saying it, that's landlocked in there, that access road, private road, might be able to be, you know, picked up, you know, if they're interested in helping pay for the road to get to that lot. You never know. MR. REGAN-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, from the picture here it looks like it's landlocked in. Unless, you know, they've come in for a lot adjustment since then. MR. REGAN-It seems to me that something was going on with the lots immediately to the east of that landlocked parcel. Somebody was, all this is conjecture. Somebody was trying to do a deal with somebody else. They were going to put a cut de sac in, but then I'm not sure which major road this is off of up to the north, but there's some subdivision I think comes down from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Pick it up from the north. Yes, you can see from that aerial there's a driveway, whatever, to your right. That's the lot we were talking about. The one above it. That one. You can see there's a driveway coming off. MR. REGAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't know, like I said. I just threw it out there. Who knows? MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you've got somebody that can layout some options for you, right? You've just got to sell it. MR. REGAN-Then would it make sense for me to do another sketch plan and bring it in, or would it make sense for us to take the plunge and come back with a survey set up like this? MR. DEEB-Well, even with another sketch plan, we can't say yes or no. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. REGAN-But I can get a sense of where you're going, I mean, in terms of. MRS. MOORE-It doesn't hurt to do another sketch plan. You can also work with Staff so that we can review what the Code requirements, with that length of road, and what variances you might be needing. MR. REGAN-Right, and even the variances are, okay. So would I appear before you as well as the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-If it were a sketch plan, it would only be the Planning Board. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be us, but when you file your complete application, and there's a variance request, it comes to us first for a recommendation. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MR. REGAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-To the Zoning Board, then you'd go to the Zoning Board and come back here for the subdivision. MR. REGAN-Right. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It's kind of like a ping pong ball. It goes back and forth. MR. REGAN-I mean, as much as you try to, you know, lock everything down, you can't. There's always going to be that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, Staff can really. MR. DEEB-We have a good Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-I think Laura could give you some good direction, you know, give you advice as to whether or not you'd want to come back. I mean, ultimately it's your decision if you want to come back for sketch. We always welcome sketch plan review if you want, but. MR. REGAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It's really yourjudgement call. MR. REGAN-All right. Let me take another whack at this. I like the plan, I mean, I like the suggestion. I think it certainly would be fine with us. So, let me take another stab at it. I'm inclined to do, if it's okay with everybody, to do another sketch plan, just to be on the safe side, and come back and, you know, see what you think. MR. HUNSINGER-That's fine. MR. FORD-We'll definitely react to it. You know that. MR. REGAN-Right. Okay. Any other questions for me? MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you throw some permeable pavers in there, it's a slam dunk. MR. REGAN-Yes. I guess that was the word of the evening, the term of the evening. MR. FORD-It's coming around. It's coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks a lot. MR. REGAN-Thanks. I appreciate your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else to come before the Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-There's nothing else. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we started, I had mentioned the Southern Adirondack Planning and Zoning Conference is coming up on October 1St, which is a Thursday, the EDC. It's up at Fort William Henry. It's from eight until one, right? Eight to twelve thirty. It's a half day conference to satisfy the Planning and Zoning training requirements. Laura offered to put fliers in our packages. MR. FORD-Okay. If it measures up as previous ones have, it would be a good one. MR. FERONE-Yes, I'd be interested in going. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Laura and I are both involved with it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can we move over and get credit for next year if we go this year? MR. DEEB-No, I've asked Laura that. You can't carry it over, can you, Laura? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's up to the Town Board, right? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 09/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-It's up to the Town Board. Some communities do allow you to carry over a certain amount. Warrensburg lets you carry over two hours. So, I don't know if the Town Board would. MR. HUNSINGER-The risk of doing that, George, is that they'll say no, then next year if you want to go to the Saratoga Conference. So that's the risk. MRS. MOORE-Next week from six to seven is a stormwater workshop. It is open to the public. You are all invited. MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought maybe you scheduled it right before the meeting so that would sort of force us to come. MR. MAGOWAN-1 won't be here next Tuesday. I'm actually heading out of town for a couple of days. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you give Jamie a call and see if she can sit in? There's only three items on the agenda. It's a very quick meeting. Anything else to come before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. FORD-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23