Loading...
08-23-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 121-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80 Subdivision 6-2015 Maurice Combs 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 FINAL STAGE FURTHER TABLING Site Plan PZ 127-2016 Frank & Kathi Miller 2. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-35 Site Plan PZ 203-2016 Chris Boyd 5. Tax Map No. 240.6-1-17 Site Plan PZ 202-2016 Kevin &Annie Dineen 8. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 Subdivision PZ 197-2016 Meghan Cesari/Cleverdale Ventures, LLC 11. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240.9-1-8 Subdivision PZ 198-2016 FINAL STAGE Site Plan PZ 194-2016 John Salvador, Jr. 14. Special Use Permit 195-2016 Tax Map No. 239.20-1-1, 252.-1-75.3, 252.-1-91 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES, IF ANY, AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2016) AUGUST 23, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, August 23, 2016. There should be agendas on the table in the back of the room. We have six and a half items tonight. Two tabled. Three Old Business. One New and one Administrative Item. All of the items that we're hearing have public hearings associated with them, and we will begin with one Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM FURTHER TABLING OF SITE PLAN PZ 121-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS MR. TRAVER-Laura, is there any additional info.? MRS. MOORE-The Town Board is still reviewing the LED signage, and that actually had gone to the APA for their review and comment. So it's still in that review process with other entities. MR. TRAVER-For the digital? MRS. MOORE-Yes, for the LED lights and for gas pump toppers only, and you may not see it. Once it gets reviewed and moves forward through that process, the Planning Board may not see LED signage before the Board for gas stations only. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do they know how many gas stations are in Queensbury and how many of them will be going to that if they approve it? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-They will. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be a certain lumens that they can't go over? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So right now it's being reviewed as that film that covers it that that woman provided, plus the actual value of lumens or foot candles will be described as well. MR. TRAVER-Good. That will be interesting to see when they decide. Okay. We have a draft motion for that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 121-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS MOTION TO FURTHER TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 121-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption Tabled until the November 15, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we moved to the regular agenda items. We have two tabled items. The first one is a Subdivision for Maurice Combs. TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE TYPE I — COORDINATED REVIEW MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.37 TO 2.02 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES A PRIVATE DRIVE AND EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. TRAVER-We understand this is being tabled as well, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So that'll be tabled to the first meeting in October. They're in the process of preparing additional plans for the Board to review. That included clearing and items such as that. They did receive their Zoning Board variance for the number of lots. MR. TRAVER-So they hope to have that to you by the 15th, I assume. MRS. MOORE-September 15th MR. TRAVER-Very good. RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS MOTION TO GRANT FURTHER TABLING OF PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6- 2015 MAURICE COMBS , Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled until the October 18, 2016 Planning Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 23d day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item under Tabled Items is Frank & Kathi Miller. SITE PLAN PZ 127-2016 SEAR TYPE II FRANK & KATHI MILLER AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 22 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOME AND OTHER BUILDINGS ON SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,967 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 3,435 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF NEW SEPTIC AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2014-204 DOCK, AV PZ 67-2016 TEAR DOWN & CONST. OF SFD WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE .31 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-35 SECTION 179-6-060 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This is an item from previous months, and the Zoning Board did grant their variance, and they have revised their plans and actually flipped the garage to the other side, and it lengthened out the house. So it says in the Staff Notes that they're constructing a 2,967 square foot, and this is the footprint, and it ends up being 3,435 for floor area for a single family home. They're tearing down the existing buildings on the site and putting up this one. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2016) MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Frank and Kathi Miller. They're just walking in the door. I don't think they expected to get here that quickly. This project was in front of you earlier for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We went to the Zoning Board with our original application. They requested some significant changes, mainly floor area ratio, knocking down the overall footprint of the building, making some changes. In that rendition where we made the changes to the residence, to the house itself, we also decided that we would flip the building over. It tended to work a little bit better on the site that way and gave us some improvements. It moved the new sewage disposal system a little farther from the adjoining proposed well on the Sicard subdivision and allowed us to do some other things as well as reduce the height and the overall floor area. So we went back to the Zoning Board last week with that plan and we got an approval there, and now we're back to you with the new plan which we feel is a better site plan and a little better revision of the project. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and I see the Millers, Frank and Kathi Miller, have joined us. Good evening. That's all right. We just really got started in the review. So do you want to introduce yourselves for the record? KATHI MILLER MRS. MILLER-Hi, I'm Kathi Miller. FRANK MILLER MR. MILLER-I'm Frank Miller. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything to add? MR. MILLER-No, other than, you know, if anybody really took the time to look at the property that we own now, two buildings, we really believe that this will be a tremendous improvement to both the neighborhood and the entire area. The buildings are over 100 years old. One building in particular is the one that was used previously before we were there and any storage and actually a workshop, and we really haven't done much. We haven't done anything to that at all. So we just look at it as a chance for us to have a really nice place to improve everything. MR. TRAVER-And certainly the new septic is an improvement in any case. We're always looking for that, obviously. MR. DEEB-Yes, we love that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. Anything else MR. HALL-One item to note on your Site Plan, and it's a discussion I've had with Staff and with the Town Engineer. We originally had a paved driveway. We had shown a paved driveway and we've been talking with the Millers. They requested, hey, if we can make this a crushed stone versus a paved driveway we'd prefer to do that, save them a little money and they can do that. That kind of takes away the need for the stone filter strip that's along the side of the driveway. We can do that now with a dedicated swale, plus that takes away a stormwater device that's within 100 feet of that proposed well, and my comment to Staff was, that's been a proposed well for three years, and what's the statute of limitations on when that gets done, but in talking with Laura, if it became an issue it could be something that we petition to say, look, this was proposed three plus years ago and never undertaken, you know, can we get a little relief because we need to have that there, but we can take our part away and that takes that away from the neighbor and leaves that proposed well intact. MR. TRAVER-And even though it's not being paved, it's still considered impervious. MR. HALL-It is still considered impervious but we don't have to take as many precautions with stormwater and things of that nature because we can use the vegetative swale as opposed to something to try to catch water from running right off from the blacktop and from having to filter it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Do members of the Board have questions or comments? We've looked at this before but it has changed a little bit. In many ways for the better. MR. DEEB-For the better. MR. FERONE-Absolutely, it's much improved. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing, I note, on this project. Are there folks in the audience that would like to address the Board on this application? I'll note for the record I see none. Is there anything submitted in writing? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No, not for this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing, again noting this is a Type 11 SEAR. So no additional SEQR review is required. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there are no other questions, we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 127-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for demolition of existing home and other buildings on site for construction of a new 2,967 sq. ft. (footprint), 3,435 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home. Project includes installation of new septic and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/19/2016, and continued the public hearing to 8/23/2016, 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 8/23/2016; 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 127-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2016) 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 Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you. MRS. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we move on to Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 203-2016 SEAR TYPE II CHRIS BOYD AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 25 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,325 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 506 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK AND A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 2,989 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040(5) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08045 DOCK REPAIR WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE .31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-17 SECTION 179-3- 040(5) DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I will recuse myself from this item. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So noted. MRS. MOORE-This application is before the Board to construct a 1,325 square foot footprint single family home. This includes an open deck and an attached garage. The variance was granted in reference to setback for the side property lines. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello, again. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership here with the owner and applicant Chris Boyd for this site plan application for a single family residence at 25 Hanneford Road. Hanneford Road is the road that overlooks Pilot Knob Road, sits up high on the cliff area. We have been to the Zoning Board and received variances for two side yard setbacks. So we're back seeking Site Plan approval. Everything is the same as it was last week when we were here for a recommendation. It's a teardown and re-build of an old house site. We have already undertaken a new wastewater system for the property. That was the first thing Chris did when he acquired the property earlier this year. So that was done 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) separately in anticipation of just a modification of the existing, but it turned out to be more prudent to do a teardown and re-build. So we've got a good Town approved wastewater system. There is an existing well on site that will be used. There's been good communication with the neighborhood and some back and forth as far as making some modifications to the original design so that everybody seems to be happy in the neighborhood and I think we've got the supporting letters from several of the neighbors, including most importantly the two neighbors to the north and south. I think we're in good shape there. One clarification I would make. I know it came up before, was that we're right on the number for floor area ratio. We're at 22%, but that does include the provision to have some storage in the foundation area, in the basement area, and that is limited, as indicated on the plan to an area of about 225 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Almost like a crawl space. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, no, it would give the ability of a full basement, full height, more than five feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Because if it was a crawl space under five feet then it wouldn't apply to floor area ratio. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-So this is the provision that's shown in an area within the footprint of the house that would provide some mechanical space at the basement level and the project's going to encounter ledge in that area. So it provides some space but it minimizes the amount of disturbance and expense of, it's not like they were going to blast a full basement anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say it's kind of a rock ledge. So you were able to find some depth there. MR. MAC ELROY-It's good hard soil there. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Anything else? MR. MAC ELROY-That should do it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well I know this was reviewed last week prior to going to the ZBA. Are there any additional questions or comments from Board members this evening? MR. FERONE-We vetted it pretty well last week. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well, in that case, let's see, this is a Type 11 SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this this evening. Are there, is there anyone in the audience, I don't see anyone, that wants to comment on this application. There are written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. So this first one's addressed to myself. "This e- mail is intended for the public hearing phase of the above application. As the neighbor to the south at 21 Hanneford Road, I am writing to state that I have no objection to the construction of the single family home proposed by Chris Boyd on the adjacent lot immediately to the north. John H. Shafer, PE 21 Hanneford Road" This is addressed to the Planning Board. "Ken and I have no objections to the plans for the construction of a new single family home open deck and two car garage. We feel that this new construction will improve the surrounding neighborhood." And this is Kenneth and Diana Kambar, and that's at 27 Hanneford Rd. And this is, To Whom It May Concern. "We, Dave and Jane Hopper, of 35 Hanneford Rd., have no objections to Mr. Boyd's project. Any improvements to our road is gratefully welcome. Sincerely, Dave & Jane Hopper" And then the next one is, "Joseph & Jill Barone are welcoming the addition and improvements of 25 Hanneford Rd. We wish Chris Boyd the best of luck with his building endeavors." And this is from joseph & Jill Barone, and on top of that on the same letter it says, "I am in agreement as well Torren Moore, 69 Hanneford Rd." And then another individual is, "I am also in agreement Ann K. Storandt 63 Hanneford Rd." Another neighbor says, "I want to endorse the home improvements Chris Boyd is doing on 25 Hanneford Rd. We look forward to the improvements. Kathleen M. Tateo 87 Hanneford Rd." And the last one is addressed to neighbors, "I write in support of the Applicant Chris Boyd; PZ- 025-2016. 1 have known Chris for ten years, and I believe that he is a conscientious and good neighbor. I think that he is honest and sincere, and his application is made with good intent. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) My understanding is that he has previously altered his plans after consulting with the adjoining landowners and hearing their concerns. This shows his integrity and efforts at being a good neighbor on our road. I encourage you to honor Mr. Boyd's request. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kenis Sweet 8 Hanneford Rd." MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. They're all supportive. MR. DEEB-We've never had that before. Wow. MR. MAC ELROY-He's an all-around good guy. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. All right, well then with that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-As I said, this is a Type 11 SEAR. So we can go ahead and go directly to a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 203-2016 CHRIS BOYD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,325 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home with a 506 sq. ft. open deck and a 576 sq. ft. attached garage. Total floor area is 2,989 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040(5) of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8/23/2016, and continued the public hearing to 8/23/2016 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 8/23/2016; 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 203-2016 CHRIS BOYD; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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; 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) 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 Motion was seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on the agenda, also under Old Business, we have Kevin & Annie Dineen. SITE PLAN PZ 202-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 68 SQ. FT. MUDROOM AND A 106 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,011 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME INCLUDING INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. IN ADDITION TWO DORMERS, TOTAL 63 SQ. FT., ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SECOND STORY OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE/LOFT. THE TWO DORMERS INCLUDE BATHROOM EXPANSION AND SITTING ROOM; EXISTING FAR 336 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 399 SQ. FT. (LOFT AREA ONLY). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDITIONS IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 26-12 & AV 24-12 96 SQ. FT. ADDITION; SP 11-07, SITE WORK AND VEGETATION REMOVAL; AV 60-92, AV 27-97, SP 37-92, BP 97154 PORCH, BP 95295 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 92709 DEMO & REBUILD RESIDENCE; BP92545 ADDITIONAL ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE .62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a few things on the property. One of them is a 68 sq. ft. mudroom, 106 square foot open porch, and this is to an existing home of 2,011 square feet, and it will include interior alterations, rearranging the kitchen and access to the mudroom. In addition there's a detached garage/loft area, and there is proposed to be two dormers totaling 63 square feet. This allows for expansion of the bathroom and sitting room in that area of the loft. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you, Laura. Good evening, again. MR. HALL-Good evening, again, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. I'm here tonight representing Kevin & Annie Dineen. As Laura said, it's a very small addition to the main house to provide a mudroom. Currently you come down to the main entry and it goes right, literally right into the middle of the kitchen. They want to give a place to come in and get shoes off. We're going to put a roof over that section which will also cover a small section of the side 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/23/2016) porch to provide a place to get out of the weather to get into the building. So that's the sum extent of the addition to the main house. The existing garage has a loft over the garage which Kevin used to use when you were playing professional hockey, use that as his workout space. It has a three-quarter bath, but it has very limited headroom. So in the bathroom portion we're just going to put a full dormer over that, give it full headroom, and then balance it on the other side, put a dormer for a small sitting area which is up in that loft space. We were at the Zoning Board a week ago. Got our approvals from them, and we're back in front of you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've never seen a Dineen plan with no hockey wing. MR. HALL-I asked him if he wanted one. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions comments from the Board? This was reviewed prior to referral to the ZBA again I know. Are there any follow up questions? MR. HALL-There was one thing that we provided since our last time. I believe the septic was follow up after the referral, or was that before? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HALL-It was after the referral. Staff has requested that we do a little bit of investigation into the existing septic system, make sure it's compliant. We had IBS Septic out there. They installed and maintained the system since it was installed originally. This spring they had to replace the lid of the drywell. It had a crack in it. When they were in there doing some work they found a crack in the lid. So rather than try and repair it, they pulled it up, replaced it. At that point they inspected the drywell. It's an eight foot diameter three stack. So it's 12 feet deep, and it was completely dry. So it's doing its job. They took a look at the system at the time. So they've gone through and it's been a maintained system ever since it was installed in '95. So that is a compliant system. MR. TRAVER-Did you provide a letter? Did they want a letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes, I did provide Staff a certified letter. MRS. MOORE-Yes, there's a certified letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HALL-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then to the Board, any follow up questions or concerns? Hearing none, we have, again, a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? I'm not seeing any. We have one written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes. So this is addressed to Mr. Hunsinger and the Board members. "Annie & Kevin Dineen are our next door neighbors and having submitted a petition to extend dormers on their garage as they renovate a bathroom and sitting room. Several garages in the neighborhood, ours included, have dormers. We agree with the Dineens that the dormers add style to the boxiness of garages as well as adding natural light to the space within. We would suggest that the Board approve their request. Any home improvement project they have pursued has resulted in an aesthetically pleasing addition to the property." And this is Kate and Wally Hirsch. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. So another project supported by the neighborhood. That's good. We always enjoy that. MR. HALL-Actually at the Zoning Board both neighbors were there. The neighbors on both sides were at the Zoning Board meeting. Neither of them spoke, but they were at least there. MR. TRAVER-Very good. This is also a SEQR Type II. So no SEQR motion is required. If there aren't any other concerns or questions or comments, then we can entertain a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-You just need to close the public hearing. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. With that I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 202-2016 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a 68 sq. ft. mudroom and 106 sq. ft. open porch addition to an existing 2,011 sq. ft. (footprint) home including interior alterations. In addition two dormers, total 63 sq. ft., are proposed to be constructed on the second story of an existing detached garage/loft. The two dormers include bathroom expansion and sitting room; existing FAR 336 sq. ft. and proposed 399 sq. ft. (loft area only). Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, additions in a CEA and hard surfacing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. : Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8/23/2016, and continued the public hearing to 8/23/2016 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 8/23/2016; 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 202-2016 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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; 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2016) 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 Motion was seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. MR. HALL-We appreciate it. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PZ 197-2016 & FINAL PZ 198-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MEGHAN CESARL, CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NC LOCATION 2660 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.148 ACRE PARCEL INTO 1.004 ACRES AND 3.144 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-95, BP 2009-319 SIGN COPY CHANGE, BP 983-293 SIGN, BP095682 320 SQ. FT. ADDITION WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 4.148 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-8 SECTION CHAPTER 183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a subdivision of a 4.148 acre into 1.004 and 3.144. The variance was granted, as we discussed during the Planning Board recommendation. The new lot line causes the two buildings to not meet the required setbacks. So the Zoning Board granted that. So the applicant's back before this Board to complete the subdivision review process. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. One question I have. It notes on the agenda that this is a SEQR Unlisted, but was SEQR not performed before it went to the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-They acted independently. They don't have to do that. It's an Area Variance, so they're not required to complete SEAR. It's a Type 11. MR. TRAVER-No, I meant this Board. Usually before we do a referral for a recommendation sometimes we do. MRS. MOORE-Sometimes you do. The Zoning Board can act independently. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we do need to do SEAR? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing the applicant, Meghan Cesari/Cleverdale Ventures. As was stated here we were here last week for the recommendation to the Zoning Board and got the approval at the Zoning Board. I don't think there's any questions from the Zoning Board. Then we're back before you again. Again it's a two lot subdivision, breaking off the realty office from the actual Store and the cabins in the back. There's no change in the use whatsoever, no site changes to the property at all. It's just that any division line required a variance if you break off that realty office because of the fact 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) that there's less than 40 feet between the two buildings so therefore any place you put a line requires a variance. Obtaining that variance last week, both lots comply with the Zoning Code, road frontage, area, green space. There's no proposed modifications to the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or concerns for the application on the part of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing for this application. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this application? I don't see any. Laura, any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Actually I guess we have to leave the public hearing open while we do SEAR. Right? No? Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we'll move on, then, to consider the SEQR resolution. There is a draft resolution in the materials provided us by Staff. Are members of the Board feeling any concerns regarding environmental impacts? Obviously this is a line, a lot line, but I ask in any case. Okay. If you want to go ahead with that motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUBDIVISION CLEVERDALE VENTURES The applicant proposes two lot subdivision of a 4.148 acre parcel into 1.004 acres and 3.144 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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. Seconded by Brad Magowan Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we have two more motions, the first one being Preliminary Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB PZ 197-2016 CLEVERDALE VENTURES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes two lot subdivision of a 4.148 acre parcel into 1.004 acres and 3.144 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 08/23/2016; 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 197-2016 CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Lastly we have a resolution for the Final Stage of the Subdivision. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB PZ 198-2016 CLEVERDALE VENTURES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes two lot subdivision of a 4.148 acre parcel into 1.004 acres and 3.144 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/23/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 198-2016 CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requestsrg anted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3. 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 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) 5. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final 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; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 just see this. Item Number Four, I don't believe there's engineering signoff required. So you can strike that on this one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the engineering signoff? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we want to amend the resolution to eliminate Number Four on the draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-Yes. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 194-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 195-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-2A LOCATION BAY RD. AND STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY IN-USE CLASS A MARINA AND EXISTING BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLASS A MARINAS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3-2005 BUILD CABIN; SEVERAL- 2005, 2004, 2003, 2001 & 2000 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRE, 6.4 ACRE, 0.19 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-1, 252.-1-75.3, 252.-1-91 SECTION 179-10- 040 JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this application is for an already in-use Class A Marina. The current Marina has an existing 67 slips and 75 parking spaces. I've described the information as a Special Use Permit and a Site Plan application. Part of the Special Use Permit is that it meet the requirements of the Lake George Park Commission. The applicant does have an existing Park Commission permit as well as a DEC permit. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For the record, my name is John Salvador, I'm the owner/applicant for the Site Plan Review application before you. I am a 43 year resident of the Town of Queensbury living in the vicinity of Dunham's Bay and the marina project at hand. The issue of New Business before you is described as a proposal to maintain an already in-use existing Class A Marina, and I want to digress a minute here. This word existing has different meanings in different codes, and it's very important in this particular case. We all understand what existing, pre-existing nonconforming use means with respect to the Town Code, but the Park Commission has an entirely different description of a definition of existing and I'd like to read it to you. An existing dock, wharf or mooring or a marina means a dock, wharf, mooring or marina registered or for which a permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of Sub Part 646-1, and its predecessor regulations. What are the predecessor regulations? And the confusing thing here is the use of the term Part 646. There are actually two codes with the nomenclature Part 646. This was done by the Park Commission and why I can't tell you, but there was a Part 646 with a promulgation date of July 3,d, 1981, promulgated by the DEC. Those regulations still in effect and those are the regulations under which I have presented this DEC marina permit that's in the packet tonight. We were required to register our marina facilities in 1981, and we received for that a permit to operate by the DEC, and in order for you to qualify as an existing Park Commission marina you must have registered for that program. Now who was to register? That was also a bit of a limitation. You were only allowed to register legally pre-existing facilities. Legally pre-existing, okay. They did say that even if you didn't have legally pre-existing, if you registered, you would be allowed to continue to use them. Nobody said how long, okay, but that was a privilege that they gave, and of course everybody took the bait and registered, even though they may have been illegal, and this has tended to be used against them. So much for 646, the two 646's, and the current 646 is this, these regulations, very extensive, very, very involved. Over 50 definition units, but that's here. The other thing is that we always refer now in our Code to Part 645, Part 645 and 646. 645 was purported by the Commission to have been revised. They put those up, and they were a regulation that they were revising at the time that they were also revising 646. 645 never, it was promulgated a long time ago. It was their sign ordinance and it had never been revised. So those are, can be some confusing things, but what I'd like to do is I'll read to you from the 646 of the DEC.. It says here all wharfs legally existing on Lake George, whether or not they meet the requirements of this part, may continue to be maintained providing the property owner or the owner of such wharf registers the same with the Department on or before January 1, 1982. That doesn't mean that if you registered they were legal. Okay. So in any case, it turned out that we were one of the, if not the only, facility on the lake that could claim to have been legal by virtue of the fact that we own the land under which the marina rests. The marina facilities are all located on our own private property, even the underwater land is owned by us, and nobody else could claim that. MR. TRAVER-1 believe there's at least one other that I'm aware of, over. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MR. TRAVER-1 believe there is at least one other private marina that I'm personally aware of that's over between Diamond Point and Bolton Landing that was also pre-existing in '81 and went through the same procedure that you did? MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Diamond Point? MR. TRAVER-Between Diamond Point and Bolton Landing, yes, somewhere in there. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Where was 1. This came to light because we were cited, in 1992 we were cited by the Commission for having illegal docks, and we were cited because the claim was made that we were on State land without a permit, and I wasn't smart enough in 1992 to say or to ask what about all the other people? Okay, but in any case I conformed to the requirement. They reported us to the OGS, and the OGS manages the State's underwater lands. Reported us to the OGS. The OGS sent us a letter and said either we get an easement or we were going to have to remove the facilities from the bed of the lake. So what do I have to do to get an easement? They sent me a packet, and I went to work, and one of the first things you have to do to get an OGS easement is to demonstrate that you have good title to the upland, to the upland, an they're willing to give you an easement to use the bed of the lake, and so I went to work, and Io and behold not only did I show that we owned the upland, but we owned the underwater land as well, and we have a confirmation of that from the OGS. So that kind of blew that argument that the Commission had, just blew it away, but in any case, I understand that they were able to hold everybody, they were able to hold everyone hostage on 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) that lake to their program because no one has their facilities on their own land. Everybody has their facilities on underwater land that is owned by the State of New York, and you're not allowed to occupy that land unless you have a permit, and now the Commission has set themselves up as the agency authorized to dole out the permits, and of course they cost money. That might help to clarify that situation, but in any case, our Class A Marina permit Number 5234-24-96 was first issued by the Lake George Park Commission on April 27, 2007, whereas we satisfied all the criteria to be awarded an existing permit, remember I told you we had registered, the Commission issued us a new marina permit and that subject is still being contested. They paraded us in there for a new marina permit, and we're not a new marina. Under their regulations we are an existing marina, and I continue to make that point clear. The Commission issued us a permit for a new marina. The 2007 permit was once again renewed in 2012 and will again be up for review, for renewal in 2017. The Commission does not give lifetime permits. They are five year operating permits, up for review every five years. We intend to again challenge the Commission's issuance of a new marina permit because we qualified from the beginning, in 1988, as an existing marina and still are. Also we expect to have this Special Use Permit approved by that time. Before the review of this application proceeds, we request this Board to take into consideration that we qualified and received the Special Use Permit Number 60 to allow for the expansion of a marina in 1976. Because of the Town's adoption of Local Law No. 1 of 2002, on April 1St, 2002, with no respect to Special Use Permit No. 60, we were made to apply for Special Use Permit Number 5 of 2003, and that on November 23, 2004 the Planning Board voted four to two, with Chairman MacEwan abstaining, to deny our application without prejudice. That application, having been very similar, if not practically the same, as the application having been, which is before you tonight. That same 2003 application for an administrative special use permit was first denied by the Warren County Planning Board, without prejudice, based on the fact that we had not yet been granted a Lake George Park Commission Class A Marina Permit, completely overlooking the fact that at that time we were operating pursuant to the same DEC permit, Number 50-81-0071 MA, dated March 22, 1982. Pending obtaining a Town Special Use Permit as we are today. I might add I received the County report and they find no impact, No County Impact, but the last time the County was the first to deny without prejudice. Now I ask, what rights, privileges and immunities were bestowed upon us as a result of both the Planning Boards voting to deny without prejudice? And the Town Chairman's closing comment, there you go, John, you can come back when you have your ducks in a row. Now I have been trying to come back repeatedly because I have my ducks in a row, and I can't get recognized as being before you as an extension of that first application. The Town won't recognize, and I'm here tonight a new application. Again, appearing here tonight with a new application. We must conclude that none of our 2003 rights have been preserved. Now we're required to register to come before the Town to apply for this Special Use Permit and we did that. We conformed. We did it timely, everything, and we danced around, you wouldn't believe what we went through. I have here a list of all the permits that we had operated under for that application, all the permits, building permits, DEC permits, easements, and it still wasn't sufficient and they denied without prejudice. Now this was very advantageous to the Town, and it didn't occur to me right away, but, you know, when you deny without prejudice it's not a final determination, and I was precluded from going to court in an Article 78 because of that. So there I was hung out there without a permit, and not an ability to go to court to get it resolved. So that was very beneficial to the Town because at that time I was the only one beating the drum that the Town had no jurisdiction on the navigable waters. I don't know if any of you folks remember the PORC committee meetings I attended, repeatedly, repeatedly presenting the Town has no jurisdiction on the navigable waters, and I could have brought an action on that basis much sooner than the Hoffman's did. See I was at 2003. The Hoffman's didn't come along until 2005 or '06, something like that, and bring that, and that didn't get resolved until just a few years ago. So we've been all this time with the Town operating, usurping power, to grant or deny, deny permits on the navigable waters where they had absolutely no jurisdiction. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think there was jurisdiction until it was removed by a decision of the judge. MR. SALVADOR-Nothing happened to change the circumstances around that denial, that decision. That decision was based on a 1957 court of appeals decision, the high court. MR. TRAVER-But until it's adjudicated and a decision is made by the court, it has no impact. MR. SALVADOR-That issue was adjudicated by the court in 1957. It said, I don't have the exact wording, but in any case the court of appeals rule, in matters of the State's paramount authority on the navigable waterways, it is not limited to matters of navigation alone, but extends to every form of regulation in the public interest. A form of regulation is planning and zoning. A form of regulation is assessments. And these things have got to be settled, but we didn't want to pay any attention to that. This was, the courts were making decisions on that issue, Lake Placid, other lakes around, Hudson River, and we weren't willing to address that. So until it 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) came here and the two cases on Lake George, did we begin to finally understand that there's no jurisdiction, and the added strengthen of that whole idea, we have a Park Commission. We have a State agency on the lake. We pay fees to a State agency. We are regulated by a State agency, and it's State property, and the Town has no jurisdiction, never did. So that has complicated our issue, but in any case, I've completed the application. Craig Brown gave me a letter that said that I had to furnish two things to complete this application. One was a site plan, and the other was a permit by an agency that was issued before April 1 st, 2002. Now I can tell you, I had those things back in 2003. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But, John, that's history. MR. SALVADOR-What's that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's history. We don't need a history lesson. MR. SALVADOR-1 know. Everybody keeps saying that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've applied for your Special Use Permit and your Site Plan. MR. SALVADOR-1 got it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you got it. So move on. MR. SALVADOR-Now that site plan is exactly the same site plan I submitted in 2003, except I have eradicated the facilities on the navigable waters. Otherwise it's the same identical plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the way it goes. That's the State. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. TRAVER-1 was interested, John, to see you on the list as an applicant. I was wondering how you would handle this role that I don't recall ever seeing you in, and I think I imagined a ghostly john Salvador stand up in the audience and point an empty sleeve at us and remind us about all the regulations about marinas. So you melded the two roles very effectively I thought. So thank you for that information. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. DEEB-So you vented tonight. You did a good job. MR. SALVADOR-This is a very complicated subject. MR. TRAVER-Sure it is, well, and the history makes it more complicated. MR. SALVADOR-Because of conflicting, you know the philosophy way back in the late 70's and the early 80's was we need one agency on the lake that, you know, one stop shopping where you could go and get a permit and that sort of thing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not going to happen. MR. TRAVER-Well, in those days there were fewer regulations. Things were much simpler, as you know, than they are today. Which, you know, but as Paul said, you know, that's history. We are where we are. You have put together a fine application and unless you have something else to add, I would ask the Board to see if there are any questions or concerns about this renewal application. MR. SHAFER-This is a renewal? You're operating now under an existing Special Use Permit by the Town of Queensbury? MRS. MOORE-No. It's not a renewal. It's not a renewal. MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. TRAVER-It's not a renewal. MRS. MOORE-No. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2016) MR. SALVADOR-1 have a Special Use Permit Number 60, going back to 1976. This is in the record. MR. TRAVER-1 see. You're proposing to maintain. MR. SALVADOR-But that doesn't seem to count, and by the way, that Special Use Permit was subject to a Use Variance. I had to get a variance first. It was a nonconforming use in a residential zone. So I had to get a Use Variance first and then get the Special Use Permit. Today you don't require that. MR. TRAVER-So basically by this application, should it be approved, you're sort of codifying and creating a record that establishes your marina, even though it's already in existence. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. Does anyone have any questions about that issue? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So there was language in the Code back in 2003, and it's not when I was here. It was at a different location, that the Town of Queensbury had added Special Use Permits, and along came marinas. So they added that to the Special Use Permit items and at that time the application that he had was denied without prejudice and from then until now John has put together pieces of information and now at this time, in 2016, that information supplements what a Special Use Permit is for his existing marina. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-1 might add that the Staff Notes recognize the fact that that one building we have there, it also is the central point for all of our utilities on site, power, telephone, water, wastewater. We have toilets and showers in that building, 24 hour, open at all times. They're keyed. We have done extensive work, meeting the Code for handicap access, done a lot of stormwater improvements, just everything from the highway drains right down to the lake. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you've still got china and silverware left from the hotel, too. MR. SALVADOR-What's that, I still have what? MR. SCHONEWOLF-China and silverware left from the hotel. We went through that once, remember? MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, John. So, we have a public hearing also on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? All right. Not seeing anyone, Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And the next order of business is to do, this is a SEQR Unlisted application. Are there members of the Board who have environmental concerns about this application? MS. WHITE-There's no change in use. MR. TRAVER-There is no change. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have a SEQR resolution. MR. SALVADOR-By the way, we are included in the Dunham's Bay responsible management district, wastewater district. We've had our wastewater facilities inspected by the District, and meet all the requirements. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. SALVADOR-Basically we're on holding tanks. So everything, the pump outs, everything goes to the holding tank. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, go ahead. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP PZ 194-2016 & SUP PZ 195-2016 The applicant proposes to maintain already in-use Class A Marina and existing building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A Marinas 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 194-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 195-2016 JOHN SALVADOR JR., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we can move on to the application motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 194-2016 & SUP PZ 195-2016 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. 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 maintain already in-use Class A Marina and existing building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A Marinas shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8/23/2016, and continued the public hearing to 8/23/2016 when it was closed, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2016) 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 8/23/2016; 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 194-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 195-2016 JOHN SALVADOR JR., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23d day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set, John. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Last on the agenda was a discussion item which has been withdrawn. So that concludes the agenda items for this evening. Before we wrap up, I just want to acknowledge Staff. We had a discussion with Craig, I wasn't here last week, but last month, regarding the formation of the draft motions, and I see that that's been changed, so the seconded portion of that has been moved to the end. That makes it a much more logic progression. MRS. MOORE-Smoother. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much for doing that. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I do have, for September, you were made aware last month that there will be one meeting, and it's September 20th. I do have an opportunity to schedule your stormwater training for the MS-4. If we can do that the same night. I would like to start the meeting at six. MR. TRAVER-At six. MRS. MOORE-If that's all right for the workshop. MR. TRAVER-So that is September 20th. So the meeting on September 27th is cancelled. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And the meeting on the 20th will start at six p.m. instead of seven p.m. MRS. MOORE-Correct, and it's specific to the workshop. MR. MAGOWAN-The 27th is cancelled. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the meeting on the 20th will begin at six p.m., for purposes of conducting a workshop. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2016) MR. TRAVER-How many applications do we have for the 20th, approximately? MRS. MOORE-I'll read them to you so you know. So I have the Great Meadow Federal Credit Union is going to be tabled. The Joe Leuci project is up. MR. TRAVER-That's the Clendon Brook project? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Under New Business right now I have Dunham's Bay Fish and Game is proposing an open sided pole barn over the outdoor shooting range, just a small portion of that. MR. TRAVER-I'll have to recuse myself. MRS. MOORE-And then I have Nick Daigle who's utilizing an existing building on the Boulevard. It was previously a church of some sort. Now he's proposing a new retail commercial use in that building, and so that's before the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's it? MR. TRAVER-All right. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman 22