Loading...
06-23-2016 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 73-2016 Faden Enterprises 1. Special Use Permit PZ 68-2016 Tax Map No. 309.19-1-47, 48, 49 Site Plan PZ 57-2016 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 7. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 Site Plan PZ 147-2016 Chong S. Conway 10. Freshwater Wetlands PZ 148-2016 Tax Map No. 296.7-1-11 Subdivision PZ 154-2016 John M. Hughes Trust 13. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.6-1-7 Subdivision PZ 163-2016 Joseph Leuci 16. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.15-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. I QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, June 23, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There's copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. I think all of our items this evening do have public hearings with them. I'd just like to remind people to turn their cell phones on vibrate so that it doesn't disrupt the course of the meeting and with that I'll introduce the first item. SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016; SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE MAIN BUILDINGS, SHED AND SOME SITE GRADING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS IN THREE PHASES. PROJECT REVISED: FIRST PHASE A PORTION OF AN 8,200 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO BE 4,300 +/- SQ. FT. WITH PARKING FROM MAIN ST. TO PINE ST. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING PARCELS CREATING TWO PARCELS. FIRST BUILDING FOR FOOD SERVICE AND RETAIL. SECOND/THIRD PHASE TO BE REMAINDER OF FIRST BUILDING 4,200 +/- SQ. FT. THEN SECOND/THIRD PHASE IS A TWO STORY BUILDING 2,700 SQ. FT. FOOT PRINT (5400 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) WITH A DRIVE THROUGH (500 SQ. FT. +/-). PROJECT INCLUDES LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING IN PHASES ALSO. STORMWATER TO BE COMPLETED FOR WHOLE SITE IN PHASE ONE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON MAIN STREET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 91252 SEWAGE ALT.; 2005-221 SIGN PERMIT; 2002-0208 WALL SIGN WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24, 0.42, .046, TOTAL 1.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10- 1-47, 48, 49 09.10- 1-47, 48, 49 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-7-030 , 179-7-070, 179-10-040, 140-7 SCOTT LANSING &WENDY HOLSBERGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. We've been through this. This is, the reason why it was tabled is for the applicant to provide information about the second story of the bank and design as well as to provide traffic information for the bank drive thru, and in your packets tonight as well as I provided information that the applicant did have a response back to Chazen. Chazen does have that information and they're in the process of reviewing that. So I believe the applicant will provide some information about what that, the transportation piece is in regards to the bank and the Exit 18 Corridor Study. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing from Lansing Engineering. I'm here tonight with the applicant for the project, Mr. Russell Faden, and also Wendy Holsberger from Creighton Manning Engineering. Laura pretty well summed it up for the Board. I won't go through the details of the project. I think the Board is very familiar with the project, but basically at the last meeting I think we were in close position to obtaining final approval for the project, and it's also, I would like to ask the Board to consider this evening, but as you may recall at the last meeting there were two outstanding items. One was relative to elevations for the two story building on the corner of Main Street and Pine Street and then the other request was relative to IF:.IIair.uir.uuir.u., a traffic study for the drive through. It was my understanding at the last meeting that the traffic study was to be performed for the drive through function, and the drive through function only, but we did receive comments from Chazen Engineering, the Town designated engineer, that our opinion was beyond the scope of just the drive through and asked several questions about the intersection, general site access management. So the applicant did hire Creighton Manning Engineering, a traffic engineering firm, to address all of the comments. We couldn't take back the comments that were directly drive through related. So we asked Creighton Manning to address all the comments, but I think could be, hopefully, in position for approval this evening. So what I'd like to do is turn it over to Wendy Holsberger to go through generally the questions and our responses. We did have a couple of minor adjustments to the plans. MS. HOLSBERGER-Good evening, again, for the record, Wendy Holsberger from Creighton Manning Engineering. So as was referenced, we did originally complete a drive through analysis where we did some evaluations at an existing drive through facility, looked at what was provided at this site, the trip generation for the bank facility and percentage of vehicles that were anticipated to use the drive through and also did some research based on the institute of transportation engineers on drive through facilities as well. So we had several different methodologies where we went through and compared, you know, this facility and the volumes and looked at the space that was allotted for pretty much one vehicle to be serviced and a vehicle in queue, and that found that it fell within what we found on site specific as well as the research data on many, many drive through facilities that the space provided would be adequate on the site. Then again after that was submitted we didn't get any comments specific to the drive through analysis, but we did get comments referring to a larger scale analysis to be conducted at the site. So that is what was recently completed and submitted earlier this week, which we really went through more of a typical traffic impact assessment where we looked at the trip generation for the entire site. We did provide trip generation for the PM on Saturday which would be the peak periods for this land use and focused the detailed analysis more on the PM peak hour which is the worst case and also is consistent with the Exit 18 re-zone study that was completed. So a lot of the data that we use, the traffic volumes, the Pine Street intersection was included in that study. So there has been significant analysis already completed at this intersection, not specific to this parcel, but the Exit 18 re-zone study which was recently accepted, that was completed for the A/GFTC actually overall added about, in the PM peak hour, about 1500 additional trips in the Exit 18 corridor. So again that's substantial growth and that's the base condition that we actually used in our study and with that Exit 18 study there was no geometric improvements recommended at this Pine Street intersection with all that anticipated growth. So we did take those volumes and typical traffic study, looked at the IT, the Institute of Transportation Engineers study, the trip generation for this specific site and distributed the volumes and then did an assessment on top of the Exit 18 rezone with this site specific as well as looking at the driveway operations, and what we did find is that the Level of Service operation which was shown in that Exit 18 study stays the same with this additional traffic. Depending on the peak, it's about six to eight seconds additional delay that would be encountered specific at that intersection with the additional volume. A couple of the recommendations we had were, just based on the proximity of the site access on Main Street, and if a car is coming eastbound and to take a left into the site, if they have to wait at all because of the, in the flow they could actually, the through traffic behind them, because it's so close to the signal, could back up into that signal. So our recommendation was to provide some striping on the driveway so that the left hand turns into the site would utilize Pine Street and the signalized intersection for that. So overall we didn't find there was any intersection operational but we did make that one recommendation. We do have another recommendation in our study which is referring to the signal phasing, which is really separate and distinct from this project. It's not really a result of this project. It was just an observation of the offset intersection and the left hand turns which are right now allowed to be permitted and protected means that you go protected when there's an arrow but you can also go what we call permissive is when the arrow's not there you can go if you find a gap, but because of the offsets, if two vehicles are making a left hand turn at the same time they actually kind of conflict. So we, our recommendation would be to make that a permit a protected only phase, but again, it's in our study. It really doesn't have anything to do specific to an impact that this project is causing. We just felt, you know, looking at it, that it's a recommendation that we really had to make because of what we saw. So that's kind of a quick summary. I can go into additional detail if necessary, but I think that kind of covers. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with the discussion? MR. FORD-1 appreciate the information you've shared with us tonight in the study because I've noted that eastbound traffic right now, without the increased flow, can be challenging. It's good that you're looking at that light and the left hand turn in and so forth. Thanks for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? 3 MR. SHAFER-Wendy, excellent job, by the way. This report is very well done. MS. HOLSBERGER-Thank you. MR. SHAFER-You used the word restricted for the eastbound left bound turn to the Main Street driveway, does that mean not allowed? MS. HOLSBERGER-Correct. Yes. That's what I was referring to where we're saying we're recommending that the left turns in utilize the traffic signal, because if a car stopped on the main line to make that turn, what the model was showing was that, you know, even with the flow that that back up towards the signal and we don't want the traffic to back up into the signal because if the signal then changed over, we don't want people in the middle. MR. SHAFER-Talk a little bit about the cars coming out of the driveway going towards Glens Falls, the left hand turn. You talked about that in your report a little bit. If the light is red on Main, the queue will back up beyond the driveway and then how do cars get out? MS. HOLSBERGER-Well, there's a lot of commercial development on the four corners of signalized intersections. It's a prime location where commercial facilities want to be. So it's not uncommon for there to be queuing adjacent to a driveway. So what happens is there are times where what we call a courtesy gap happens which the models don't simulate that so it's not something that we're saying is mitigation or recommended or necessary, but it's something that does happen in the real world. So it's something that we know, you know, helps during the times when the queues are longer, people leave a gap and let people get out into the intersection. Then, if they don't get a courtesy gap, then when the signal starts, you know, when the light turns green and, you know, people move again, they will find a gap and they will get out. The differential is the delay that's caused is really on site. So if, you know, cars leaving on site, they're not competing with the main line traffic. They're not, you know, impacting flow of vehicles. So they might have, you know, sometimes have a little bit of a delay, but it's not causing, impeding the main line in comparison to that left. MR. SHAFER-If it gets too bad on the site, they can go out the back entrance. MS. HOLSBERGER-Right, and we also said that, too, you know, the local people that, you know, they're going to know, you know, how the operation, the flow is, and they will learn quickly that, you know, if they don't want to, you know, wait a few, you know, a little bit of time, they will go out Pine and then they will have the signal that automates when they. MR. SHAFER-You're comfortable with that courtesy gap idea the left hand turn coming on Main Street? MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes, again, our analysis isn't showing that it's needed. It just acknowledges that. MR. SHAFER-Did you get a chance to look at the accesses at all at this intersection? MS. HOLSBERGER-We did not look at that intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? So you gave us elevations for the proposed bank. Would the color scheme be the same as the Subway building? RUSSFADEN MR. FADEN-Most likely. I don't have a definite tenant yet. I'd probably keep it similar to what the Subway colors are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because you gave us some really nice color renderings of the Subway store. MR. FADEN-Yes, we would keep it similar to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. I believe in the audience is an individual that we discussed a fence and tree line that were to the rear of this property that would be to the 4 north of the site, and I just want to, I guess she's in the audience, so just confirm that there was a fence line and whether that was a tree line or not, and I apologize that I can't remember what was agreed upon. So I think that needs to be clarified. MR. LANSING-Yes, on the northern end we are proposing both a fence and a tree line for the section directly behind the parking lot, and as it wraps around it'll probably be by the back of the home on Pine Street just the fence and it stops at the cemetery. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, it stops where? MR. LANSING-At the cemetery. MR. HUNSINGER-So that entire western edge of the property line would have a fence? Did you want to comment, ma'am? AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 had a question, too, I was curious as to the height of the fence. MR. LANSING-1 believe we have it as a six foot high stockade fence. MRS. MOORE-And just to confirm, the fence runs from here to here? MR. LANSING-Correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER-So it's going to completely surround my property? MRS. MOORE-Right, and so you'll have a tree line and fence on this side, and then a fence on this side. MR. LANSING-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This was an Unlisted SEAR. The applicant, I believe, has submitted a Long Form. MRS. MOORE-Actually the SEQR has been completed. When we did the Sign Variance we coordinated that with the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, yes. MRS. MOORE-So you're SEQR's been completed. MR. HUNSINGER-So the SEQR's been completed. With that, is there any additional questions or comments from the Board? The two main issues that we've tabled it for were the bank elevations and the traffic analysis, which I believe the applicant has provided responses to. MR. FORD-Well addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-If there are no additional questions or comments, I would entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 73-2016 & SUP PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES 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 demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct two new buildings in three phases. Project revised: First phase a portion of an 8,200 sq. ft. building to be 4,300 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. First Building for food service and retail. Second/Third phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then Second/Third phase is a two-story building 2,700 sq. ft. foot print (5400 sq. ft. floor area) with a drive through (500 sq. ft. +/-). Project includes lighting and landscaping in 5 phases also. Stormwater to be completed for whole site in Phase one. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial development on Main Street 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 (2/23/2016); The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/22/2016 and continued the public hearing to 6/23/2016, when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 6 k) The Planning Board encourages the applicant to coordinate with the County regarding providing protected left turn phasing on Main Street. (See Creighton Manning Engineering letter to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, dated June 21, 2016.) Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Were there any conditions in reference to the traffic response? There was a coordination of traffic recommendations, whether you're going to consider that. If you're satisfied with the information that's been provided, it's not necessarily the applicants. I believe there's coordination that needs to occur at the Town and County level for the traffic lights and the restrictive light. Is that correct? MR. SHAFER-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-The recommendation for the changing on the traffic signal phasing in cycles, how would that occur, and should that not be part of? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that's what Laura's. MRS. MOORE-That's my question. MR. SHAFER-Plus the restrictive left turn on, into the Main Street drive. MRS. MOORE-So it's potentially possible you can include that as a condition is coordination should occur. Whether it actually is implemented, that's between the element that's in charge of that piece. Whoever's responsible for that traffic. MR. FORD-It needs to be addressed. MR. MAGOWAN-Who's road is it? MR. HUNSINGER-It's the County's road, right? MS. HOLSBERGER-It's the County. So the access itself would be addressed like with a, you know, highway work permit like a driveway process. The signal changes, like I said, are kind of separate and distinct, but it's something, you know, that Creighton Manning can talk to the County separately and just, you know, saying we did a study of here and, you know, we want, we thought it's warranted, so, you know, another look at, but we, you know, our report presents both ways, the signal phasing the way it is now and the signal phasing if that change was made. The project itself works either way. We just felt it was a recommendation that we could, you know, like I said, look at it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it doesn't matter, like you say, it's both the same way. I mean, basically eventually all those lights are going to have to be synched or something, because once you get down to the City, you know, down into Glens Falls, those lights are, you know, forget it, they're on their own. So everything needs to be, but being on a County road that would be something that the County would have to. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's outside the auspices of our control. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I mean, what's he going to do, hey, before I get my CO I need this light to change? MRS. MOORE-And I've seen the Board use coordinate or encourage that this event occur, but that is up to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So if we say encourage, just like a little nudge, but, I mean, at least it's not on the applicant's, it wouldn't hold him up, you know, for any approvals. MR. LANSING-For the Board's information, as far as the items that are in our control, as far as the left turn in restriction, that is shown on the board up above and also what we see in Chazen does include the recommended striping for the right turn in only as well as the signage on, the left turn in signage. We'd address that on the plans. 7, MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. So what's the will of the Board? Do we want to include anything in the resolution? MR. FERONE-I'm good. MR. SHAFER-1 would be much more comfortable, Mr. Chairman, with the word encourage than just being silent on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-1 like the word encourage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would somebody like to make an amendment to the motion? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll make an amendment to the last resolution to send an encouragement to the County. MS. HOLSBERGER-1 would say to look at the left turn signal phasing. MR. MAGOWAN-To look at the left hand turn signal phasing on Pine and. MS. HOLSBERGER-Well, it's the Main Street. It's on Main Street, the phasing to provide, it's basically to limit to protected only. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion. We have an amendment to the motion. Is there a second? MR. FERONE-Second. MS. GAGLIARDI-I'm sorry. Could you state that amendment just one more time so I make sure I get it right in the minutes? It was to encourage? MS. HOLSBERGER-Do you want me to say it? It was to encourage coordination with the County regarding providing protected left turn phasing on Main Street. Better? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that acceptable to the Board? MR. FORD-Absolutely. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. LANSING-Thank you very much. MR. FADEN-Thank you. SITE PLAN PZ 57-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 440 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO BE 16 FT. 8 IN. HIGH WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE LOCATED ON EXISTING GRAVEL AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE HOUSE RENOVATIONS SP9-14; SP 74-14, AV 8- 14, AV 58-15 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE .81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 SECTION 179-6-060 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant received their variance request yesterday with the Zoning Board of Appeals. They granted 16 foot 8 inches in height with a two car garage. The garage 8 is 440 square feet, and this is considered a second garage. The Zoning Board, again, granted the second garage. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant. With me is Ronald Mackowiak who is one of the applicants, and also the project engineer, Lucas Dobie. We were here earlier this week. If you have any questions other than what you had then we'd be glad to answer them. If not, we would ask that you approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-We went over it in pretty good detail the other night there. Pretty hard on them. MR. FORD-No, I have nothing. MR. MAGOWAN-Any word on the lot next door to you? MR. O'CONNOR-That's a year away. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 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? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 do have a written comment. There's two. One is addressed to Mr. Schonewolf. "We are writing this letter regarding the pending approval of the proposed garage to be constructed at 9 Glen Hall Dr. which is adjacent to our own property at 7 Glen Hall Dr. We are the 'southerly neighbor'. Earlier this year our neighbor Ron Mackowiak approached us seeking our support of a garage plan. At that time, we gave our support via an e-mail to him. We have since become concerned about the placement of the proposed garage. Our issues involve access to and from the garage as it will impact current traffic patterns along Right of Way/Easement Pathways/Access Points across our property. We understand that these are civil matters and do not concern the Planning Board. Therefore, we prefer to remain moot on the pending proposal for the Mackowiak garage and asked Mr. Mackowiak to remove our earlier email endorsement from his notes." This other one is an e-mail addressed to Mr. Mackowiak. "Ron, I have no issue with the proposed garage layout. Regards, David McKasty" Those are the two. MR. O'CONNOR-McKasty is on the north side. The other fellow is on the south side. There's an undefined right of way that's been there for probably 30, 40 years that serves four properties and there's ongoing discussions about the right of way that have nothing to do with the garage that's being built. In fact, Ron's property is the last property that is served by that right of way. So placement of the garage has nothing to do with the use of the right of way, except for Mr. Mackowiak himself. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Ron, it looks like you have an open spot for the Fourth of July picnic. I'm in. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing. You already addressed the comment provided by the neighbor. I still remember, 10, 12 years ago when we had discussions about a pass through going over Reardon Road and all of the discussion and controversy around that. I'm surprised there's some dispute. MR. O'CONNOR-The other side of Mackowiak's property that has never been built. The Town actually owns it. I've suggested on a couple of occasions that the Town abandon it to the adjoining owners, but no one has ever taken any action. That wouldn't affect this property because the topographical features are such that there's a pretty good size hill between the paper street and the lake lots. In fact, Mr. Mackowiak bought part of that land so that his septic system would be further away from the lake and he wanted to be able to build a new modern septic system. A lot of juggling, like all lake properties. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's just not enough room. IF:.IIair.uir.uuir.u., MR. O'CONNOR-Lots were created a long time ago. There's more people using them. I think of my little point. There are five houses that use a common 20 foot driveway, but we've got the other, we agreed. You can put your, 20 foot as it crosses your lot wherever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with access. People have shuffled it back and forth as they've built accessory buildings. MR. MAGOWAN-Also, too, the lots are smaller because they were basically camps, too, they were seasonal use and back then a 55 gallon drum was all you really needed. Things have changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? This is a Type 11 SEAR. So no SEQR review is required. If anyone would like to make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 57-2016 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for a new 440 sq. ft. garage to be 15 ft. 10 in. high with a two car garage, located on existing gravel area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 feet of 15% slope 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 6/23/2016, and continued the public hearing to 6/23/2016, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 57-2016 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1. Waivers granted 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. 10 f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Waivers are granted or not granted? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Was there waivers requested? MRS. MOORE-There were waivers. MR. MAGOWAN-Waivers requested were, G. site lighting. It's right there, Number One, waivers granted or denied. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Granted. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. SITE PLAN PZ 147-2016 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 148-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CHONG S. CONWAY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O LOCATION 633 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING SECOND STRUCTURE OF A 627 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AN OFFICE AND PERSONAL SERVICE WHERE OFFICE IS 358 SQ. FT. AND SERVICES 269 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A 139 SQ. FT. ACCESSIBLE RAMP TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE SUB 6-1989, SP 32-91, AV 95-90, AV 118-89, AV PZ 160-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2016 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS (PORTION) LOT SIZE 1.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is renovation of a 627 square foot building for an office and personal service. This applicant did receive the Zoning Board approval the other evening for setbacks to the front property zone as well as the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Chong Conway for this Site Plan Review application. The property located at 633 Bay Road. As Laura indicated, we did receive the variance for the handicap ramp last evening. So we're back for this Site Plan Review and included is a wetland permit through the Town. It's a 1.6 acre parcel with a pre-existing residential use and an accessory building that has been historically a garage and storage. The owner/applicant would like to convert that to an office and personal services use. By Code requirement the office floor area needs to be the greater area of the two uses as the personal services is an allowable use or an accessory use that needs to be less than the office, because the office is the overriding zoning. So that's what is proposed. It really takes no significant site changes. The footprint of the building has not changed at all. The existing parking is there. We've defined it on the plan 11 where the required parking can fit. So we're really not adding any significant impervious area, other than cleaning a few corners up and what not. So we've addressed all the different site issues. I believe there'll be municipal sewer and water service available to the property, and I think that the issue related to the wetland permit is because there is a stream corridor that runs through the property. There is an associated wetland area we've had delineated and identified, and because of that it just requires that additional step here before this Board to gain that approval. With that, if you have any additional questions, I'd be glad to respond. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-He answered all the questions I had. I think they were addressed well. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's kind of nice having them so close, Tuesday and Thursday. We can remember what we talked about Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-If you were here. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, Dennis, I don't know if you talked about it the other night, but in the past when we've had these types of structures put up we've added on to it that there'd be a sunset at the end of 90 days, whenever, you know, it's not needed. In other words it stays there as long as it's needed, but if somebody moves out or something happens to the house, that would go. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it's an allowable use within the zone. So I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is an allowable use, but we've put that on others, and it's not a big matter, it's not a big matter in this Town but it is in a lot of others. MR. MAC ELROY-1 don't know what we're, what are you sunsetting? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just the ramp. We're just talking about the ramp. MR. MAC ELROY-I'm sorry. Okay. Yes, well, any public use of that space would require that same ADA compliance. So I don't think that that's a risk necessarily on the owner's part. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's just some people don't want it left there if it's not being used. That's the simple explanation. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. There was a question the other night, I'll just add, about signage. Anything proposed will be compliant with the Town standard. As we've indicated it would be a wall sign type situation. It wouldn't be internally illuminated. It would be something that may have downcast lighting, lighted for visual purposes. Nothing out of the ordinary. MR. FORD-So it will be Code compliant for signage and lighting. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Are there any questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? Okay. Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received, and we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. There is a SEQR resolution in your package. Are there any SEQR concerns that have been identified by the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-Not that haven't been addressed, MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move the SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 147-2016 FWW PZ 148-2016 CONWAY The applicant proposes to update an existing second structure of a 627 sq. ft. building for an office and personal service where office is 358 sq. ft. and services 269 sq. ft. Project includes installation of a 139 sq. ft. accessible ramp to the front of the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial use and construction within 100 ft. of a wetlands 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 PZ 147-2016 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 148-2016 CHONG S. CONWAY, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's any other questions or comments, there is a draft resolution in your package. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 147-2016 & FWW 148-2016 CHONG S. CONWAY 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 update an existing second structure of a 627 sq. ft. building for an office and personal service where office is 358 sq. ft. and services 269 sq. ft. Project includes installation of a 139 sq. ft. accessible ramp to the front of the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial use and construction within 100 ft. of a wetlands 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; 13 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 6/23/2016 and continued the public hearing to 6/23/2016, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 147-2016 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 148-2016 CHONG S. CONWAY; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SUBDIVISION PZ 154-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION STATE RT. 149 & OXBOW HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 19.73 ACRE PARCEL WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK INCLUDING PRIVATE ROAD ONTO OXBOW HILL ROAD, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC AND WELLS, LOT CLEARING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE INCLUDES SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%. LOT SIZES ARE: LOT 1 — 3 ACRES; LOT 2 — 3.2 ACRES, LOT 3 — 3.6 ACRES; LOT 4 — 4.1 ACRES AND LOT 5 — 5.5 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB PZ 79-16, SKETCH PLAN SP 14-2001 4.9 ACRES MINING; AV PZ 155-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 19.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-7 SECTION 183 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a five lot subdivision on a 19.73 acre parcel with associated site work including a private road onto Oxbow Hill Road. The applicant did receive the variances the other evening for density, for lot width, as well as road frontage. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 14 MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Missed you the other night, Mr. Chairman. Welcome and thank you, Board. As you may recall, we discussed this at Sketch Plan back in March and went to work with our test pits and the lot layout did not change. It may have changed minimally since our Sketch Plan. The house locations are the same. We had a good discussion last night with the Zoning Board, and just two clarifications I'd like to make that we discussed at the Zoning Board. That there's no driveway cuts along Glen Lake Road or 149. So those buffers will remain, and it's our intention the clearing limits shown on the plans, those are enforceable and we're holding to those. So there should be minimal visual impacts, if any. So it's pretty well self-contained little neighborhood up here. We have, our endangered species they signed off from DEC just saying the found something once upon a time in the wetlands, in the Glen Lake Fen, and they recommended we do not disturb that, which obviously we won't since that's not on our property, and the archeological dig has been done a month or so ago in accordance, because we need our SHPO signoff for the stormwater permit, and we're here tonight to look for our Preliminary approval and we'll get back to work and polish things up and work through our engineering comments and hope to be back in a couple of months for Final if we can get your support on the project. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The no cut, will that also be in the homeowners association per the limit of cutting in case someone buys a house and decides they want to clear the top for a better view? MR. DOBIE-It certainly could be in the covenants. Like we discussed, the moment somebody fires up a chainsaw Bruce Frank will be getting a call. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you've got a sharp chainsaw it might be too late by the time, you know, Bruce could be on vacation, but I'm just wondering since the variance, you know, stated to stay within the buffer zone. It should be stated, you know, what the limit of the clearing of the lot is. So people don't decide that, look, I've got a great view, you know, quickly Saturday morning, because once the trees are down, they don't go back up that easy. MR. DOBIE-And it does happen. So, yes, certainly we get the language in our resolutions with the Town and certainly with the HOA to have some enforcement. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be up to the Chairman. Since the, you know, the variance board brought it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would there even be a homeowners association? We have five distinct lots. They just have a common driveway. MR. DOBIE-There will be because I believe three is the threshold for the shared driveway. So there will be a full homeowners association. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it was on the plans and it was brought up the other night. That's the only reason I brought it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that would make sense to add that. MR. FORD-1 agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-SHPO will be addressed by the time you get back to us? MR. DOBIE-I believe it will be, sir. It's my understanding for Final we need. MR. FORD-No, I said it WILL be. MR. DOBIE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you have to listen to his tone. MR. HUNSINGER-None of the engineering comments seem to be too troublesome for you. 15 MR. DOBIE-No. We've got excellent soils and some detail stuff to work through on our stormwater model that I'm comfortable we can deal with. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Anyone in the audience wish to address the Board? Okay. Were there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. There is a draft SEQR resolution in our Board package. MR. DOBIE-Mr. Chairman, could 1, just with regards to the SEAR, I had mentioned it Tuesday night, I'd like to mention it again for the record. Part B, our disturbance, I neglected to fill that in, digitally. That's 4.1 acres, and I'll be happy to sign whatever I need to just to clarify the record. MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks for bringing that back up. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB PZ 154-2016 HUGHES The applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of a 19.73 acre parcel with associated site work including private road onto Oxbow Hill Road, installation of septic and wells, lot clearing and stormwater management. Site includes slopes greater than 15%. Lot sizes are: Lot 1 — 3 acres; Lot 2 - 3.2 acres, Lot 3 - 3.6 acres; Lot 4 - 4.1 acres and Lot 5 - 5.5 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 154-2016 JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Do you want to just clarify that the applicant has clarified the amount of disturbance. That'll be amended to the SEQR form. MR. HUNSINGER-He already put it on the record. 16 AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And we also have a draft resolution to approve or deny Preliminary Stage. If anyone would like to do that. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB PZ 154-2016 JOHN M. HUGHES, TRUST A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of a 19.73 acre parcel with associated site work including private road onto Oxbow Hill Road, installation of septic and wells, lot clearing and stormwater management. Site includes slopes greater than 15%. Lot sizes are: Lot 1 — 3 acres; Lot 2 - 3.2 acres, Lot 3 - 3.6 acres; Lot 4 - 4.1 acres and Lot 5 - 5.5 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/23/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 154-2016 JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Waiver requests are granted. Plans to be revised for Final with notes that there are no road cuts on Glen Lake Road or Route 149 and the plans as presented for clearing should be made part of the final plan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to explain that the plans to be revised for Final with notes that there are no road cuts on Glen Lake Road or Route 149 and the plans as presented for clearing should be made part of the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, usually we put all the conditions on the Final approval, but since he's coming back, he can include those on the plans. MRS. MOORE-He can. MR. HUNSINGER-That's a great idea. MRS. MOORE-I just think it provides clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-So a motion will be made to amend the resolution to include the no cut zones as part of the plan and a notation that no driveways will be included on 149 or Glen Lake Road. Those are the two. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much, Board, for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We'll see you in a couple of months. SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE I JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) EXCESS LANDS ZONING MDR LOCATION JOHN CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 66 ACRE PARCEL AS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REVISED WITH 22 LOTS - 21 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING FROM 1.8 +/- ACRES TO 0.80 ACRES WITH ONE LOT OF 41.6 ACRES TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE PARCEL ACCESS THROUGH EASEMENTS WITH RUSH POND. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING, CLEARING, ON-SITE SEPTIC, MUNICIPAL WATER AND STORMWATER MEASURES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 11-1992; SUB PZ 117-2016 SKETCH PLAN WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-6 SECTION 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION TOM CENTER & JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to subdivide a 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision. The applicant has revised the plans since our last meeting. This allows for 22 lots, 21 of them to be single family residential lots ranging in size from 1.8 acres to be the largest, the smallest being 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel, access through easements with Rush Pond, and I would like to note the conversation with the Director of Parks and Rec, Steve Lovering with reference to this project. This project was referred to the Rec Committee from our office and they have no additional comments. They're aware of what's being proposed. They know that it's going through the process for the Town Board to review and accept or deny the dedication of land. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering, John Wright with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, and Mr. Leuci. The project you have before you. We've made some modifications to the original submission. We've reduced the number of lots from 29 to 22. We're proposing of those 21 will be residential with the 22nd being the 41.6 acres donated to the Town to be attached to the Rush Pond Trails. We're looking at a total area of disturbance of about 13.9 acres. This is a conservation subdivision which allows us to go with smaller lots. We've also maintained a reduced side setback on Lots 1, 2 through 20, reduced the side setbacks 1 o 15 feet and maintained the setbacks for the remainder of the side setbacks for Lots 1, 21, 22 to 25 feet. All other setbacks remain the same as in the two acre zone. The average size of the proposed lots would be around an acre, a little greater than an acre, with the smallest being .8 and the largest being 1.8 and we've also added the no cut buffer. We've added the 25 foot no cut buffer along the west subdivision line and a 30 foot no cut buffer along the south property line. We've also added an area the cul de sac to show that there's adequate parking for five to eight vehicles at the end of the cul de sac. There's about 25 feet deep in level space that we've graded, shown graded that it will drain back into the drywells that are in the cul de sac. So all the stormwater will be directed back into the cul de sac into the drywells and into the ground and away from the stream at the back side of the property. At this point I'll turn it over to the Board if you have any questions regarding the changes to the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-You talked about parking in the cul de sac. Would there be a curb cut for any potential additional parking the Town might put in at the end of the development? MR. CENTER-Fully built out what we've shown is an area for about five to nine cars, which is a little bit more than what the West Mountain trail head on Van Dusen, trail head. I think there's parking for four or five cars there. So we've got a couple more than that, and it certainly is the Town's prerogative if they wanted to grade out further. I think the thought process when they originally started designing this, the thought of the Town Board, was Mr. Strough was looking for access directly off of Town property, more for the subdivision residents, I suppose, than having parking area where people are coming to a destination like the Gurney Lane end or the other end. That was one of the things that he really wanted, he saw as part of the problem on some of the other subdivisions that the Rush Pond Trail traverses Indian Ridge and some of the other 18 subdivisions. There's no way to get from a Town road to the trails without crossing private property, and, you know, he was trying to get easements from some land owners and there was some hesitation to allow public to traverse through backyards and things, and one of the benefits that he saw of this project was you could go right off the Town road right onto the trail. There's a trail that's already there. You're into the trail system for Rush Pond. So they felt that that was a benefit. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to thank you for going back to the drawing board and, you know, reducing the number of lots, but for me personally, I'm actually looking for larger lots, with actually more trees, more absorption. I'm still really, that slope really concerns me, and once we go too far, we can't turn it back, and what that all leads down to is a nice waterway, and once we ruin our waters, that's it, because like I said, it's connected all the way out. MR. CENTER-Well, this is deep well drained sands. The eight percent slope is the slope you're talking about, which is, if you were to compare it to other slopes in the Town, it's less than the slope from Route 9 at Aviation and Quaker Road going up Route 9 to Wal-Mart. That's 11%, or if you look at another one that's closer, that's Friendly's to Burger King. That's nine percent. This slope is less than that. We've also shown that you've got to remember that the contours in the drawing as you're looking at it, one foot contours, at 100 scale drawing, on the smaller scale drawings that you have, we have to submit the subdivision to the County on a 24 by 34 drawings, or 22 by 34, trying to do another drawing here that's 30 by 42, kind of shows that there's actually more room than you think when you're looking at a 100 scale versus a 40 scale drawing. The slope at eight percent, it's not the maximum, ten percent is the maximum in the Town that you can go up to 12% over certain distances. MR. MAGOWAN-1 understand that, but it doesn't go down. Basically the wetlands and the pristine area that's back in there, the Rush Pond. MR. CENTER-Well, what we have is that cul de sac is tilted back up and draining back towards, back to the drywells back at the cul de sac. So you come down at eight percent, and then I believe there's three or four hundred feet of distance where it starts to flatten out to two percent before it gets to the bottom and goes back up along the cul de sac. So it's not a ski jump going straight down. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, then it goes up two percent. Well, that's on the last plan. MR. CENTER-And there's a series, at the top of the slope, there's a series of four drywells, two on either side, and at the bottom. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm aware of that. We did go over all that. The way I look at it, and like I said, no trees, tight lots, roof runoff, lawn fertilizer. You're going to have to bring in special soils for the septics, all right, all that, and with the fast soils that we have, all right, go down through the ground and then end up, you know, even if we don't get the stormwater that goes down, what about all the other stuff? I think it's a very condensed development for such a high environmental impact area. MR. CENTER-Well, we are, we're also proposing to terrace these lots prior to the lot development. Phase I proposes to do the terraced lots and the higher sloped lots and terrace those and get that covered, cut in, covered and grass grown back on them before construction starts, unlike when you look at the subdivision that we did for The Michaels Group at Burnt Ridge. Some of those have some deep cuts going back, cuts and fills. This subdivision, looking at it, knowing that we wanted those areas, that we're going to terrace them, that we're condensing this because we're a conservation subdivision. We are, you know, there's benefits to this. We are maintaining the rest of that 40 acres, which is two-thirds of the land that they have, and deeding that over to the Town that were going to be built on, including the stream portion, and that stream was more or less an intermittent stream. It doesn't carry water all the time. It's well drained. If you go out there right now there's no water in it at all. We do know that during times of rain it does have a flow, but it's not a flow that lasts year round. It's well drained sands. It's very dry down there. If you look at the back side of the existing subdivision that's there, I kind of walked around the property line of Crestwood, the south side, or, I'm sorry, west side of the property. They have an outlet pipe that goes directly out of that side hill, has sediment going right down towards the wetland, towards the stream, that entire subdivision, and it's on private property. Where this one there'll be nothing going in that direction, and that's what we're trying to do. One of the big things with this is erosion and sediment control and getting those terraced lots constructed and stabilized prior to construction of those lots, to get those weeds stabilized and I'm sure the folks that are going to buy these lots are going to plant their own trees. They're going to start their own, you know, landscaping. I") MR. SHAFER-The perc rates. All of the test pits and all of the perc rates are about one minute or faster. Talk a little bit about how you propose to not have that a concern of leachate running down the hill at an eight percent slope. MR. CENTER-Are you talking about on the roadway or are you talking on the lots? MR. SHAFER-The lots. MR. CENTER-Well the lots will be terraced. We will, you know, it's a softer grade in between some of the lots. The front of the lots will grade towards the road to the drywells. MR. SHAFER-My concern is the one minute perc rates. I mean that's faster than I've ever seen on an eight percent grade in any subdivision I've ever been involved with. Tell me how you're going to keep the leachate from running down that hill from one to the other? MR. CENTER-From one lot to the other? It's going to go into the ground like it does now. MR. SHAFER-But it's on an eight percent slope. MR. CENTER-Correct. Once we get the grass stabilized and the folks will plant trees and their own landscaping. In between the lots the rear roofs will go to shallow swale depressions. It's ideal for infiltration. Stormwater management wants you to, the first device that you chose was an infiltration device. That's the preferred method to get stormwater into the ground. So you look for high infiltrative soils for those. You have a large separation to seasonal high groundwater. We went down nine, ten feet, no groundwater. So sand, everything you drink that goes through a sand filter, goes through a couple of feet of sand. We allow septic systems to be two feet from seasonal high groundwater. We have well more than that here. So there are some qualities in the sand, the quality of the soils to drain the sands, whether it be fast or not. The State required us to reduce the perc rate in modified soil to a minute, but you also have to look at the separation to groundwater, seasonal high groundwater. MR. SHAFER-What will you use for the material? MR. CENTER-Will be what we call in layman terms red dirt which is a loamy sand. MR. SHAFER-The perc rate would be? MR. CENTER-The perc rate would be anywhere from, we'd prefer to see the perc rate between two and five minutes. We'd like to keep it closer to two minutes. What I've seen in replacement systems around the Town of Queensbury is that when you try to get higher than three to five minutes on replacement soils is you're seeing the fines and you're seeing the settling out in the silty materials that we use, they clog up. So we'd like to try to keep it closer to that natural one, two and three minute, less than three minute perc rate. Three to five feet the soil that's being replaced and turn it over, and sometimes we even try to use the existing soil that's there, and when we take the topsoil off and we re-grade it and compact it and get in that top 24 inches, get that perc rate, sometimes you get it up to a minute. Also you've got to remember when I'm doing these perc tests you're lugging jugs of water into the middle of the woods. You may only have one jug. You're allowed by the individual residential code standards for testing for the perc test, you can pre-soak it for up to 24 hours. Unfortunately there's not a hose long enough to be able to pre-soak some of the soils. So you do a little bit more pre-soaking on individual lots when you go out in the field where you can drive up, you can bring two or three jugs up and try to pre-soak your hole and get it closer to that saturated condition that we're looking for. MR. FORD-1 have a question. Is there the potential for homeowners, particularly along the south side of the project, to acquire any adjoining lots to their property that would extend out into this project? MR. CENTER-On the south side? Which? I'm not sure, you mean the landowners that back up along Crownwood and Moorwood? MR. FORD-Correct. MR. CENTER-1 don't think so. As far as us, people in this subdivision purchasing land from the people on the opposite side? "0 MR. FORD-For people who already live there, what's the potential for them to be able to purchase a lot? For example, if I own a lot there and I look out on the woods and I want to buy that lot rather than have a house built out there, what's the potential for that to occur? MR. CENTER-That would be up to the developer and, you know, what they're looking at is. MR. FORD-Has there been discussion about that? MR. CENTER-1 don't think so. I think, as far as view, you're talking about the view for folks who live over here? A lot of the, the most impacted would be the lower, the further to the west folks, but even then, they sit a little higher and they have, and their houses are developed closer to, is it Moorwood? I don't know the name of the road that goes in, but then you have, and we're offering a 30 foot buffer between that. That's why we brought that up the last time. So as far as impact, they already have, most of their rear lot is wooded now, and then we're going to add another 30 feet of buffer to these lots that we're offering as a no cut. MR. FORD-1 don't think I got my question answered however. Is there potential for one of those homeowners to acquire one of these lots that would be a natural extension out of their own property? MR. CENTER-1 mean, that's a question for you. MR. LEUCI-There could be. MR. CENTER-And how would that impact this project? Does that acquisition have to occur through the applicant or the current owner? MR. CENTER-Well, at this point the current owner is still the owner of the land. MR. FORD-Are you aware of any possibility of that occurring? MR. CENTER-No, not to my knowledge. MR. FORD-If I lived there, I'd be looking into it. MR. CENTER-The parcel's been for sale for a decent amount of time. Mr. Leuci looked to develop it and we went to the Town and, you know, this is a conservation subdivision. We tried to be respectful as possible of all the neighbors in how we develop, keeping the houses close to the front, keeping the larger lots closer to the existing folks on John Clendon. I think we tried to come in with what we thought was a fair proposal first. We came up with another revision after that and reduced the impact more and tried to address some of the issues by offering, I think Mr. Leuci is trying to be a good steward of the land and also not developing beyond the stream or wetland boundary that's there and offering it to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Well, if there's no other questions or comments, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I take it there's members of the audience that would wish to address the Board. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the board. I would ask that anyone wishing to address the Board to state your name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. The microphone is used to tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes and it's also available on the Town's website. So did you want to be first, sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN DAVIS MR. DAVIS-John Davis, 10 Crownwood Lane. Thank you for your time and effort. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. DAVIS-It looks like the revised one is a bunch of railroad blocks. How wide is the frontage to the main road on John Clendon, 40 feet, 50 feet? I don't know. I mean, they seem awfully long, you know what I mean, and awfully narrow, which really isn't the style of people selling real estate. Secondly, the concern about the drop off to Rush Pond is critical. You should consider it and make it like Hudson Pointe if you're going to open it up. Five cars are what he has at Fox Farm Road 100 yards away from the exit to Rush Pond. The Recreation Department has people, groups up to 25. You can't even park a bus to pick up the end. If he puts five cars in the parking lot there, it's way too small. It should be at least 15, and thirdly, if IF:.IIair.uir.uuir.u., you kill Rush Pond, you will kill Glen Lake. Once it gets polluted, it drains the whole Glen Lake, Glen Lake will be ruined within 5 years if Rush Pond goes because of septic seepage, phosphate, and the eight percent drop in 3,000 feet, and thirdly, this road connecting to Crownwood will make a 3,000 foot drag strip to Crownwood and a 3,000 foot drag strip with no traffic controls to Aviation Road the main way, and that is sinful. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. JAROSH-My name's Roman Jarosh. I live at 8 Crownwood Lane. I have a letter from my neighbors Scott Sorger and Norma Schott who couldn't make it this evening. They asked me to read this to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. JAROSH-1 would like to address the proposed conservation easement. I checked around and all the conservation easements I've seen the homeowners in the development retained ownership of the excess land used for the density calculation. This way the Town isn't burdened with unneeded land they could not collect taxes on and would need to obtain. If Mr. Leuci were to donate the 40 acres to the Town of Queensbury, it would no longer be part of the project and therefore not usable for the density calculation. Add to this the requested 15 foot setback, and then he has in parenthesis 25 feet required, would only benefit the greed of the developer. The next issue I'd like to address is the length of the proposed dead end. The Town's maximum length before a second access road is required is 1,000 feet. While use of the cul de sac may allow a small increase in this maximum length, the total length of this project would be approximately 1,780 feet. That is nearly double the Town maximum. This includes the current dead end road which is 450 feet. So what he's saying that's from the end of Crownwood and John Clendon to the gate that's there currently. The current 450 foot road is only 20 feet wide. This is much too narrow for a project of this size where there is no second access road. With regards to snow removal, the current dead end is a perfect place to pile the snow when they plow the road. When you plow a cul de sac the only place to put the snow is to pile it in front of the houses, blocking their access. It's not an issue for the plow trucks that back up 450 feet. The next issue is drainage. The perc test failed. The sandy soil drains quickly and even with the additional loam to the septic, it will drain to the sand and eventually drain to Rush Pond. The same issue would be with the storm drains. The proposal is for them to be nothing more than drywells. The next issue is lawns. Homeowners will be fertilizing their lawns and the runoff will be catastrophic to Rush Pond. Additionally this runoff will continue from Rush Pond to Glen Lake. The clearing of trees will prevent the absorption of sewage and lawn drainage increasing the migration of this water to Rush Pond. The project would chase the wildlife, deer, raptor, coyotes and woodpeckers, destroying the ecosystems. Scott Sorger and Norma Schott. Just a question. I sent you an article, mailed to the Town of Queensbury. MRS. MOORE-1 have it. MR. JAROSH-You have it. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. GEORGE WINTERS MR. WINTERS-George Winters, 4 John Clendon Road. I've been on that road for 54 years and there's been a lot of development and I think that this Board takes a good look at any projects that come along. You take Crownwood now. They left a bunch of trees they had a buffer, and most of those trees are all gone now because of the wind and stuff. Every time we have a bad storm on Pinewood, those trees are up there, a little different pine than I've got in my yard. It's tall and has the thing on the top and they blow them over. So, you know, they've lost a lot of trees on Pinewood but 1, for myself, I'm in favor of this project. I think it's a good project and before when we were here they said something about putting a sidewalk down one side. Is that still in the plans? MR. HUNSINGER-It was something we had talked about. MR. WINTERS-Yes, but that sidewalk's still there so you can walk down in. IF:.IIair.uir.uuir.u., MR. HUNSINGER-We can ask. MR. WINTERS-But that was there at one time. I thought it was anyway, but I didn't hear it here tonight, and then I have a neighbor that couldn't be here tonight, and he's in favor of this project, rather than have the Schermerhorn project with, you know, big housing development down in there. I shouldn't say Schermerhorn, but a big apartment house down in there, a couple of them. He believed that this would be the better of the two. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Ma'am? DEBORAH PRUYN MS. PRUYN-My name is Deborah Pruyn. I live at 15 John Clendon Road, which is the parcel directly attached on the west side, on the southwest side. This is a traffic issue. This is a water issue. This is a noise pollution issue. This is a quality of air pollution issue. The road right now is very quiet. There is no other access to this parcel. Every ounce of traffic has to go down this road. Every cement truck, every dump truck, every pickup truck, every paver, every backhoe. This is traffic that this road has not seen. This is noise that we didn't' have to bargain with before that we have not had to deal with. We didn't move here for noise. We didn't move here for traffic. The parcel drains down into Rush Pond. The entire area is surrounded by housing which is draining down into Rush Pond. You are just going to put more burden on that ecosystem if you let this go through. You're going to destroy the quality of life. You're going to make living there absolutely untenable for us because we're going to be virtual prisoners of this construction for the next 10 to 15 years, and I know he says he sold seven properties on his other property. I don't buy it. I know the way properties are going. This is the only cul de sac in Queensbury that is out letting onto a small residential road. Every one that I've been able to find, you've got one on Corinth Road, across from the water treatment plant. Corinth Road is a major thoroughfare. West Mountain Road is a major thoroughfare. Dixon Road is a major thoroughfare. Ridge Road is a major thoroughfare. Haviland Road is a major thoroughfare. Sweet Road is a major thoroughfare. Peggy Ann Road. Every one has a major thoroughfare to outlet. This is not that case. You're going to destroy the quality of life of the neighborhood, and no one in the neighborhood who is on John Clendon, pretty much everyone on Crownwood does not want this project. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. This is addressed to Craig Brown. This says, "I don't know the area that Roman Jarosh, Norman Schott or Scott Sorger are referring to — in their opposition to the development in their area — but I would like them to think — if, when their houses were built, if their neighbors were opposed to the development of THEIR area — would they have welcomed that??? I think if the residents do not want this development — that they all chip in to buy the property — to keep it undeveloped. To prevent someone from developing their land — is well, selfish on these individuals part— and is part of the NIMBY problem." And this is from Christine Lytle. The next letter is addressed to Mr. Hunsinger. "Congratulations on the John O. Cross award for Planning Board leadership. It was a hard earned distinction. I'm enclosing an article from the Wall Street Journal dated April 26, 2016, which I would like you to share with all the Planning Board members. I am sending you this in particular in regard to the Planning Board development of the John Clendon subdivision proposed by Mr. Joseph Leuci. Is it not out of community altruism but as a clever tax dodge and tax abatement ploy on the Town of Queensbury, its citizens and taxpayers, that he proposed this development as a conservation subdivision, hoping to gain approval from the Town Planning Board. As you will see by reading the article, no less a civic minded persona than Donald Trump has utilized this type of development loophole to line their own pockets and have the Town and taxpayers empty theirs to make up the property and school tax shortfall, along with providing the necessary infrastructure and services to the developer. I feel that the Town public officials should be just as savvy and knowledgeable as the developers and the minions that represent them." And this is Sincerely Roman Jarosh, and it is an article from the Wall Street Journal called, the title is Goat Herd Helps Trump Lower Tax Bite, and I'll pass that along. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no other written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. When you were here back in April, we talked about sidewalks, and I couldn't remember how we left it. We had asked you to think about it. "3 IF:.IIair.uir.uuir.u., MR. CENTER-We were going to look at sidewalks. We discussed it. We looked at it. I discussed it with Mr. Nace. It's very difficult. We only own up to the end of John Clendon. The sidewalk would be connecting to nothing that would take you out to another location, whether it be a bus stop, whether it be something else. So we look more at developing as much parking as we could and shifting the lots and developing, and moving that one lot that is on the southeast lot, taking that lot and sliding it further to the west so that we could develop more area for parking and allow additional access to that flat area. That would allow the Town, if they were ever to decide to extend and then develop additional parking, that flatter area to the south of the stream. So we looked at from that perspective is allowing, trying to find a way to get more parking down there in the future to do that, and just the fact that this sidewalk doesn't connect to other sidewalks. The rest of the subdivision is not a sidewalk community to attach to. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other comments to any of the other concerns that were raised? MR. CENTER-Well, I think that the portrayal as we were trying to use a tactic in the Code to develop land was something that was sat down and looked at with the Town Supervisor and the other Town Board members to discuss the conservation subdivision and discuss the possibility for this additional land to develop on one side and convey the rest to the Town Board. Before we would really go forward and put the money into a subdivision of a design of 66 acres and survey a 66 acre parcel, we met with the Town Board to discuss that, and Mr. Strough's who's well involved with the Rush Pond Trail system, was very enthusiastic when we approached him. I don't think it was a nefarious tactic to use something, the Code's written, the Conservation Code is written to try to conserve land. There's already Town owned land that this is adjacent to that will be an improvement on those trails and I think folks, a property owner to allow the public to come on his parcel in this day and age, they don't want to accept the liability to have the public traversing their land and the ability to get sued. So obviously to include this in the Trail system would be under the Town auspices of ownership of the land and maintaining it, similar to the land conservatory and the Town's own recreation property. So I don't think it was anything trying to use a tactic. It's very unfair to Mr. Leuci. I think this is a good project. It allows that other 40 acres, we could, you know, come in here, could I have designed something that would have been two acre lots compliant across the stream and gotten, you know, 20, 22, or 25 lots in there a two acre lots and brought something in that might be compliant? It's very possible, and then you wouldn't have the land and the improvement to the Trail system. I think this is a good balance in the project to be able to give some land to the Town and allow the persons purchasing it to buy the land and develop the developable portion on the one side. MR. MAGOWAN-I see your point. I still think there's too many lots. Too condensed, and I'm just worried. My main concern is if we've gone too far on this that we effect the water down below it. You can't turn back. MR. CENTER-Well, there's probably 2,000 feet or more. I just tried to scale it off the drawing. I'm not sure if that's a true to scale drawing that George had of the Rush Pond Trail system, but this actually loops around before it gets to Rush Pond it goes through a series of wetlands and the stormwater design manual allows you to create wetlands to clean water and to allow it to settle out. We're not discharging any stormwater into the stream, first of all. The individual lots are going to have their own grass swales. We have deep well drained soils again that allow for the infiltration. All of the subdivisions that are around here have drywells that infiltrate into the ground around the parcels. Route 9 runs right next to Rush Pond, and it discharges directly into Rush Pond, nobody, you know, we're a ways away from that and we're managing our stormwater on our site. We have deep well-drained sands. We're not near the groundwater conditions. Even when we did the test pit, Test Pit Seven down near the stream we still had a large separation to groundwater, even down there, and that's in the, on the side of the parcel that's closer to the stream that would be on Town property. So we've kept those septic systems. We've kept the infiltration for the cul de sac, we've piped it back so we're 100 feet away from the closest point to the stream which 100 feet is the setback for stormwater. Individually, you know, we'll have those swales that will capture from the individual lots coming down and infiltrate the roof runoff, and then as far as the lawns are concerned, they'll be graded. I'm sure that some of these folks, when you get to Lots 11 and Lot 13, that they'll be building their buffer, I believe we've got the houses located further uphill, and they would leave a buffer along that stream. So that, you know, we have that larger buffer there. So that that would be natural forest there. If it did go in that direction the land flow would go through that natural buffer and that tree line. MR. MAGOWAN-Usually wetlands, how are they created? MR. CENTER-Wetlands, this isn't necessarily a wetland. It fell in the line of it's a drainage swale from Butler Pond. We call it out the Town to fix anything, a stream, so it puts it all into a wetland. That is a wetland flagging. It was very difficult, when we went out there with Ms. Roberts to delineate where the stream really was, the channel that was kind of carved out during the last storm that came through, and channelized that in a couple of different directions. There's a shallower wetland that's to the north of us that kind of adds a little bit of a depression. MR. MAGOWAN-Because usually what it creates is a water line. MR. CENTER-What it creates is a water path. It's really a flow of water. I mean, it's a stream that used to run out of Butler Pond Reservoir. MR. MAGOWAN-1 understand that, but what I'm saying is that if we have land that is, has a perc rate of under a minute and down below we've got standing water, what is that telling you? The water only goes so far and then it comes back up. Correct? That's what I'm saying, and I'm not really, you know, the stormwater, all right, you're putting it down there. I'm more worried about the septics and the lawn fertilization along with, you know, the salts and that, you know, for being on the road, but the stormwater's going to collect that and it's going to put it in the ground, but eventually it comes back up in the water pockets that are down below. It's been there as long as I've been around here, you know, looking over across the Northway, you know, Story Town, Great Escape. I mean, I know that whole area back in there is, you know, it's so. My adamancy against these condensed lot, it leaves no room for any other form of natural, you know, absorption. The buffer zone, he brought up a good point with the trees. And you're right, but when you take a dense forest and all of a sudden you just cut all the trees away, all those trees have been growing straight up for years. They have nothing. They have no root structure. They've been working together as a group and now you're going to take out a clump of them so when the wind comes through, yes, they fall over, all right. Like I said before, it just brings red flags. I see the point, but I would like to see larger lots where you're able to leave some more trees. Why do we have to stack everything on top of each other? Because like I said, once you hit a point, there's no turning back, and if we go too far and then we say, you know, 25 years from now, gee, we probably shouldn't have done that. I'm saying tonight I don't want to have that guilt feeling 25 years from now. I've seen what, you know, the lawns and the septics and, you know, look around the lake. Why do they push the stuff in the lake. Look how the lake is dying off and the algae and the, you know, chemicals are changing what we use. Look what people are flushing down the toilets. The cleaners and stuff like that, that's all got to go down and it comes up somewhere, and this being such a high environmental area, that's why I'm very adamant to ask for larger lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-At our April meeting, as we were closing, I made sure that we added the recommendation that there be fewer lots and I appreciate the fact that you listened and you responded. I'm not sure that you listened hard enough or responded enough because I still feel that there are too many lots in this proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 don't want to belabor anything my colleague down here to the left has gone into because he made so many good points about the water and infiltration and so forth. There's nothing that I can say that's going to add to that, except I'd reinforce what you said. MR. WRIGHT-1 think it's important for the Board to keep in mind that we're dealing with a conservation easements and that's why the lots are small, that's the point, and the goal here was to keep all of the development to the west of that stream. The alternative to going forward with the conservation easement and shifting all of the development into a smaller area within the parcel, if you want bigger lots, to your point, Mr. Magowan, is to spread those lots out across the stream, and that's not good for anybody. That's not good for the Town. MR. FORD-That's one option. MR. WRIGHT-Right. MR. FORD-The other option is you take that area that you're already talking about and putting fewer houses on it and cutting fewer trees on it. You still have a conservation easement. MR. WRIGHT-Well, it's also feasibility in terms of investments here. MR. FORD-1 understand. MR. WRIGHT-And, you know, a lot of the concerns that Mr. Magowan raised are shared by Mr. Leuci and that's why we've taken great pains to have Mr. Center involved and of course the Town Engineer will be involved in reviewing all of these things, from the perc rates to the stormwater controls for each lot and stormwater controls for the road, and your point about the lake. Over the years with fertilizers and the development of that is well taken, but a lot of that is pre-stormwater regulation requirements and pre-engineering requirements, and I think what we've put forth here takes care of a lot of those issues because we have extensive stormwater controls, not only for the road, but for each individual lot. The phasing plan is going to take care of a lot of those concerns by making sure that the soils are stabilized before any of the construction begins. So we could have come in in April with a 29 lot proposal. I mean, that's what the Code would allow us to do, but we didn't, and we could have come in with 29 and then does some horse trading and then you whittle us down to 22, but what we tried to do was come in in April with something we thought was reasonable, which was five less than what we could have come in with. So, you know, we had already, what we thought had already done, was taken into account what we thought the Board's concern would be even before we got here in April. Mr. Leuci took your recommendation very seriously and he looked at it long and hard to see what he could do and he thought 24 was reasonable and we think 22 is, you know, balances this Board's interests, the neighborhood's interests, the Town's interests in getting the 41 acres and Mr. Leuci's interests in developing the neighborhood. So those are just my thoughts, perspective here on trying to keep the development to the west of that stream. MR. FORD-Would 20 do it? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm thinking more like 15, 10. Anybody else? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Zero. MR. FORD-I'm not shooting for zero. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's the last cut of Queensbury. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's the last piece of Finch Pruyn property. MR. MAGOWAN-1 look at the average size lots before and, you know, or, I looked at the lots before when we had what we had down at, and basically on an average you gain five feet a lot by losing the three, and five feet's not a whole lot. I understand the feasibility of the project and needing X amount of lots, you know, for the purchase price and all the make money, and I don't, you know, want to say things twice, but 1, you know, for this particular thing making money over the environment I have a problem with that. Really larger lots so we can have more trees, more of a gradual slope and not stacking them, I don't care about the conservatory, all right. I don't need the, you know, in my opinion, to connect the path that's great. If you could do it and the Town could do it, great. If not, that shouldn't be based on this project. If you could spread it out over, you know, and I understand not wanting to put the bridge over because that would be a major cross and everything, but I really just, they're too skinny and long and it's going to be nothing but grass and house and with slopes and it just scares me. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess maybe to vet some of your concerns more, if we could have the Town Engineer maybe here at the meeting. I think that would, I don't really see a lot of concerns in his letter. MR. CENTER-And if you remember, one of the first projects I worked on with Mr. Nace, when I came over, was Indian Ridge. Many of these questions were brought up during the Indian Ridge subdivision about soils, about, you know, runoff and issues, and I think they did extensive studies with regards to that. I think that we could take out, talking with Mr. Leuci for a second, we could take out one of the lots between Lots Six to Ten, in that area, and spread those lots out a little bit more and extend the grade and soften the grade in between those lots and offer a 20 lot layout out and change the grading on that side, which would allow those to be spread out. We did distribute the, when we reduced the number of lots, we distributed amongst all of the, both sides, left and right of the road, but if we do take out an additional lot, those five between lots six and lot ten in that area, that'll allow us to spread that grading out a little bit more. Again, we've kept the house development closer to the road. It'll allow us, that really doesn't change width wise the amount that we have to cut north and south, but it will change the slope, the grade in between the lots, allowing more room to create those swales to take the roof runoff from the back of the roof and the lawn area and get it back into the ground naturally. So I would offer that we can take one of those lots out from six to ten, reduce it down to 20 residential lots and do our best to soften that grading between those five lots. MR. FORD-You're down to how many total lots? "6 MR. CENTER-Excuse me? MR. FORD-Down to how many building lots now? MR. CENTER-It would be 20 building lots with 21St being the parcel to be, we would eliminate one lot. We would eliminate one of the middle lots from five to six. So we go down to 20 residential lots with the 21St being the parcel to be turned over to the Town. So we would take out one of those lots from lots Six To Ten to get down to 20 building lots, with the 21St being the parcel to be conveyed to the Town. MR. FORD-So there's been no changes in that, but you're taking one lot away. MR. CENTER-Well, if you take one lot away, you were talking 20 building lots. Try to get us down to 20 building lots with the 21 St being the parcel that would be conveyed to the Town. MR. FORD-Which was going to be conveyed anyway. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically what would that increase the lots, another five feet? MR. CENTER-Well, if we kept it to just that side, to those lots from, if you look at Lot Five is an acre. Lot Eleven is 1.6 acres. You take out one of those lots in there and now you're going to distribute that 105 feet of frontage over five lots. So 20 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty feet a lot? MR. CENTER-Yes. Going east to west. MR. FORD-And which lots would they be? MR. CENTER-They would be, if you're looking at them, between Lots Six to Lot Ten. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got 105 feet. How many times does 20 go into 105? Five times, so that's another five feet on five lots. Taking one lot out, it's 105 feet. MR. CENTER-Taking 105 feet out, and you're spreading it out amongst five lots. That's 21 feet per lot. MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty-one feet. On the remaining five going down that hill there. MS. WHITE-Those are approximately the five smallest of the lots. MR. CENTER-Those are the smallest. Yes, we kept the smallest .9 acres. So we'd be increasing those five smallest. MR. MAGOWAN-We still have the same small ones across the street. MR. CENTER-Correct, but their slope is different. You're not digging into that back hill as much, and you're terracing those lots. You're filling. You're cutting filling with the grade of the land on the south side. MR. MAGOWAN-1 still think 20 is too many. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the rest of the Board feel? MS. WHITE-This picture, I'm looking at this picture and this lot is in keeping with its surroundings. It's not asking for any more than what is completely surrounding it. So I guess when I see this picture my question is why is this any different than any of the other subdivisions in the Town? MR. FORD-The difference is if you look at this sheet here, you see the differential in slope, that is substantially different than what you've got out here. This is flat. MS. WHITE-But this is not. This is following the same. MR. FORD-We're talking about this area here. MS. WHITE-And I'm talking about this area that's developed on the other side which is following the same slope. MR. FORD-It isn't. It's flat. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's flatter. MS. WHITE-By some, but I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Comparatively I guess I'm looking at this area and this picture to me says we are not doing much different inside of this piece of property than has been done all over. MR. HUNSINGER-George, you've been kind of quiet. What's your feeling? MR. FERONE-Well, I don't think, you know, I can add any more to the conversation than what's already been said, but, I mean, if you want to take a poll here, I mean, I lean towards Mr. Magowan and Mr. Ford here that I still think there's too many lots here. I'd like to see a reduction in size. One doesn't cut it for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Paul? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I missed the previous discussion of this, so I'm not going to have input. You've both got good points. MR. HUNSINGER-John? MR. SHAFER-1 still have a concern about the septics on this slope with that grade. I'm just concerned that it's so unusual. I just have never seen something like this. I'm not sure if the remedy is, if it's the perc slow it down. MR. CENTER-Yes, it is. That's how you do modify a soil system according to New York State design standards, is a modified soil system. Most of the lots that were constructed up in the other subdivision were not modified soils. MR. SHAFER-Have you ever had any experience on terraced lots with a perc rate of less than a minute? MR. CENTER-Yes, we've got a couple of lots that are slightly fast that we're doing right now on Peggy Ann Road. MR. SHAFER-With a stream down at the bottom? Eight percent grades? I'm less concerned about the number of lots as I am on some kind of unique design for wastewater systems. I don't think a conventional system makes any kind of sense on this kind of a grade. I don't know what the answer is, Tom, but I just don't feel comfortable with a conventional system. I've never seen anything close to this. MR. CENTER-All of Queensbury is this type of soil in these areas. There's a large separation to the groundwater. Vertically, we're more at than 100 feet, the State allows you to build a septic system within 100 feet of a stream, a lake, a wetland, anything else. Our septic systems are greater than that. That's the horizontal separation. Again, you know, if this were a single development that were near a stream, 100 feet is enough. We're more than 100 feet. We're also greater than, you know, you can build a septic system within two feet of seasonal high groundwater. We're greater than that also, and the perc rate is one minute. Now these perc rates were, on average, some were a minute. Others were as little as 33 seconds, 47 seconds, but again, that's one jug of water lugged into the woods. It's not like a 15 or 10 or 5 seconds or like some of them that I've had where you weren't able to get it up to a minute, or up to an inch so that you could actually time it. There is some perc in the soil, but I look at the separation horizontally and vertically from the boundary condition. MR. SHAFER-It's the horizontal I'm concerned with. MR. CENTER-And we have that horizontal. We have 100 feet. Again, that will be, and the ones that are less than one minute would be modified. It's standard practice and all over for replacement systems all over West Glens Falls. We do replacement systems where the soils are deep well drained sand. MR. HUNSINGER-But what I've heard from the Board when you offered to reduce it a few minutes ago by one lot, I mean, I was thinking we might be able to table this and have you re- design it, but what I'm hearing from more than half the Board is one may not be enough. So I guess what I'd like to do is table this. Kind of put the ball back in your court and see if there's, you know, if there's another lot or two you feel you can eliminate and still make the project viable. We don't know that formula. Only you would. You did offer at least one reduction. I'm hearing from the Board that they would like to see more than that, and only you know if it's feasible, if you can squeeze a little more. So I think that would be what I recommend we do, unless there's another idea. MR. FORD-Toss it back to them because we don't want to sit here and try to re-design this thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and maybe when we re-hear it if we could have the Town Engineer here so that we can have him, you know, to talk about some of these, I don't pretend to be an engineer, and I'm sure our engineer does, but none of us do. I guess, you know, unless you want to offer up something else this evening that we haven't already talked about. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think you got a pretty good sense of how the Board feels. MR. HUNSINGER-How full are the July meetings, Laura? Do we have room in July? MRS. MOORE-We have, I know you have a copy. MR. HUNSINGER-How quickly could you get some new drawings to us? MR. CENTER-1 think with the questions that have been raised, I think a meeting with Laura and the Town Engineer to discuss Mr. Magowan's and Mr. Shafer's issues regarding the septic systems and the stormwater would probably be prudent for us to do a re-design of any substantial nature. So that we can have those answers when we come back. Because even, it sounds to me even if we came back with reduced lots, other than 10, it would be, there'd still be a question out there with regards to stormwater and septic systems. So it may be more prudent for us to set up that meeting with the Town Engineer, with Laura, and then come back with answers to the questions that these gentlemen had and come up with the lots that we think we can still make it feasible because I think that's the, you know, it's a lot of road. There's clearing that needs to be done, and I understand, you know, Mr. Ford says it's not necessary sometimes on the Planning Board side of things, but to my client, you know, the cost of that road is a big factor and the number of lots, and we have to sit down and sharpen the pencil and see what works. I'd just reiterate that I think that we did try to come in with something that wasn't the maximum. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we appreciate that. MR. FORD-Yes. I thank you for that. MR. CENTER-1 just wanted to bring that up. MR. MAGOWAN-You have the knowledge in the engineering department. I just have the foresight of seeing something that, you know, I don't feel comfortable with. MR. CENTER-Well, we'll sit down with the Town Engineer and with Laura and we'll see what we can flesh out. So I would say that August would probably be the better date. MS. WHITE-Can we still request that the Town Engineer? MRS. MOORE-Be at the meeting? Yes. I can. MS. WHITE-Just in case there's other clarifications or questions. MRS. MOORE-I'd be happy to do it. MR. FORD-Your skill as both a diplomat and an engineer have been noted. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a preference over which meeting in August, Laura, at this point? MRS. MOORE-There's not at this time. So the next meeting, the August meetings are the 16th ,d or the 23 MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the 16th or the 23 d of August. MR. CENTER-Could we have the 16th MR. HUNSINGER-The 16th. All right. I'll make a motion to table. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision revised with 22 lots — 21 single family residential lots ranging from 1.8 +/- acres to 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading, clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the August 16, 2016 Planning Board meeting. The applicant, with Staff's assistance, will set up a meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the stormwater and infiltration issues that have been discussed this evening. The applicant will come back with a revised subdivision plan that has a reduced number of lots. Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 believe it's 154. We do have a numbering issue between Sketch and, so I would just reference 154. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MRS. MOORE-We'll clarify that on our end. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Correction noted. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And for the Board's benefit, one of the things, when I went out to do site visits there, we used to do site visits as a Board, and I think this would be another good opportunity for us to go out together, to see, make sure that everybody sees the same thing. So maybe at one of our July meetings we could schedule a Saturday morning for us to all go out and do a site visit. MR. FORD-Great idea. MR. MAGOWAN-Good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven't done it in a really long time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because they took our car away from us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 liked those bonding days. MR. FORD-I'll be glad to drive. MRS. MOORE-Confirm that your public hearing is left open. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the public hearing was left open, yes, and the public hearing will be extended. On the 16th of August we will take additional public comment. You can also provide additional comment between now and then in writing to the Town either by mail or by e-mail. Thank you, Laura. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Will the Rec Department, which is going to get the benefit of this conservation 40 acres? 30 MR. HUNSINGER-That's outside of our realm. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and they already have been, this information has already been referred to them and they have, they're in support of the land dedication. So they don't have any comments on the subdivision themselves. That's not their jurisdiction. MS. WHITE-But Laura should be there. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 23 d day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. July 19th and July 26th On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 31