Loading...
05-16-2017 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16. 2017 INDEX Site Plan PZ 140-2016 Joseph P. Gross 1. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 Site Plan No. 4-2017 Frank Perrotta, Jr. 2. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-38 Site Plan No. 38-2017 Chris Mackey 19. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.16-1-54 Subdivision Prelim. Stg. 7-2017 James Beaty 22. Subdivision Final Stg. 8-2017 Tax Map No. 290.5-1-50 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan (Modification) 32-2017 Glenn Durlacher 25. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 295.12-1-4 Subdivision Prelim. Stg. 6-2017 Paul Poirier 29. Subdivision Final Stg. 9-2017 Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46 Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2017 Site Plan No. 13-2017 Stephen, Carol &Andrew Bodette 40. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-32 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD JAMIE WHITE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We will call the 10th meeting of 2017 of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to order. There are, or should be, agendas on the back table. One item of note is that the second item on our agenda, Greg Teresi, is on the agenda for a Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA. If you are here for that application you should be advised that that application has been withdrawn. So we will not be hearing that this evening, or until further notice. So with that we will begin, and I think we have an Administrative Item. MRS. MOORE-So I'll explain. The Administrative Item is a request from Gross Electric to have an extension of their project which involved an extension of their existing building on Silver Bay Circle, and they have not, they're in the process of filing for the building permit, but their expiration comes this Friday for their Site Plan and Area Variance, so I suggested that they request their extension and we put down a one month extension. So I'm anticipating the building permit will be filed shortly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So one month. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we should give him more time. MR. MAGOWAN-Because that is his busy season. MRS. MOORE-He actually physically asked for 10 days from his letter. MR. TRAVER-So if we give him three times that he ought to be really happy. MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. MR. DEEB-He'll get it done. You know how he is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FERONE-Do we need to provide the specific date or just one month will suffice? MRS. MOORE-One month is fine. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION EXTENDING FOR ONE MONTH SP PZ 140-2016 JOSEPH P. GROSS MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. PZ 140-2016 GROSS ELECTRIC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We move on to our regular agenda. The first item we have is a Tabled item. Site Plan 4-2017 for Frank Perrotta, Jr. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN 4-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II FRANK PERROTTA, JR. AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD/KNOX RD. ACCESS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,467 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 8,625 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MAJOR STORMWATER AND PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUNSET HILL SUB 11-96, SP 38- 2004 BOATHOUSE W/SUNDECK AV 4-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA, LGPC, WETLANDS LOT SIZE 5.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-38 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us an update on that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. With the Staff Notes I have identified or highlighted a few of the items that have been updated. So under Site Layout and Utility Plan the well location is on the west side of the home and the septic is now on the northeast side. I indicated that, the next one is grading and drainage. The project is subject to a Major Stormwater permit for non-disturbance and under Revision the plans show an additional grass swale area down gradient of the house site whereas previous to that was the septic systems. That's moved to the other side of the house. Under Landscaping plan, the applicant has provided a re-vegetation plan. The applicant indicated that they would utilize some of the existing white pine on site and distribute them throughout the site to have them more dispersed, and then the Planning Board at the last meeting requested six deciduous trees planted on the site and those have been located, and those are the only updates to the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant Frank Perrotta who is here with us in the audience. Here at the table with me is Dennis MacElroy, the engineer on the project; Steve Adler, designer of the house. I think the Board is well familiar with the project. Laura summarized the changes. You asked that we make those, consider those changes at the last meeting. I'm going to let Dennis go through exactly those details with you, and if there are any other questions I'd be happy to answer them or Steve, Frank, any of us would be happy to jump right in. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Mike. At the last meeting in March there was a tabling resolution that requested five different items to be modified, added, whatever to the plan. In my submittal letter to you on April 17th, I summarized, I repeated what was requested and summarized how we had addressed those. So I'll just briefly cover them. Item Number One, revegetation plan will be submitted with the addition of six deciduous trees of three inch caliper. I would note that we were the ones that had offered the concept of the revegetation plan initially and the Board embraced that, and so we had followed up with certain information, a new plan sheet S-5 and 6, which, or did I get that wrong again, 7 and 8. In my response I said 5 and 6, but it is in fact Sheets 7 and 8. New sheets, new plan set, which identify the general area of re-vegetation and the area of say the site development, which would have its own landscape package that would be typical of a residential development. That's not really subject to your review at this point, but just to make that distinction, and within that development area, that's where we've placed and located the six deciduous trees that you had requested. So you've got two different areas, the development area immediately around the house that will have those six deciduous, and then the revegetation plan which is a generally defined area where the site had been damaged due to storm and the subsequent cleanup of that area. There's been a second growth occurring over these last five years since the storm. We just would hope to encourage that and spread out the second growth that is becoming established and try to transplant that. Now we sought an opinion from the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District on this, just to make sure we were heading in the right direction. That response and what not is in the file, my letter to Jim Liebrum and his response are all part of the record. So I think we feel we're on good ground as far as helping to re-establish growth that was lost prior to this owner's ownership of the property. Number Two, the septic system will be moved to the ridge. Laura said northeast but I think it's more to the northwest portion of the property. We've located that, or re-located that wastewater system, and still are proposing a shallow absorption field system. It will require pumping. That is a difference. Very similar soils. We went out and did additional test pits in that area, test pits and perc tests in that area. We've provided that design. It's the same sizing, a little different configuration, but we've shown that in that area that was discussed and agreed upon basically in our last meeting. I feel strongly that the original design was adequate and legal. I don't want to bog down the meeting, but Chris Navitsky's interpretation of that definition is absolutely wrong, and I've sought other opinions on that since then. I've got Department of Health design books. I've got EPA design books. I've got the Town's books and definition on that. His interpretation was for a reason, in order to say that the system wasn't proper because it was a fill system. Well that's, again, absolutely wrong. So we moved that, though. There's other reasons why it could be beneficial to the owner to do that, to have moved that. So that's why I don't object to the modification of the design, and that location did require us to move the well location a little bit, but that really doesn't, that's not a major factor. So that's been complied with. A full signoff letter will be provided addressing all Chazen Engineering issues. We've provided the revisions to Chazen for their review. They issued a letter on May 9th, which is part of the file, saying that any of their outstanding comments have been addressed to their satisfaction. So that's, and their area of review is related to stormwater. So any and all stormwater issues, soil, sediment and erosion control, they're satisfied with, as far as the information that's been provided. Number Four, the addition of the stormwater management swale from the area where the septic system is being located. Without the septic system in that location, we could simply extend that, enlarge the area of stormwater management. This gives us more than enough capacity, extra capacity to handle stormwater management in compliance with the Town's regulations. I think a little later in this discussion I can get into a little more detail, but I don't want to bog you down with technical facts, but I think there's some response that I want to make to a future comment about that. And the fifth one, very simply, was on the plans the setback of the septic system and distance should be provided. So we've indicated that, those setback distances, 15 feet from the northern boundary, 15 feet from the western boundary. So that information is on there. So those were the comments obtained from the Board that were part of the resolution. We've addressed those comments. Chazen has signed off. So I'd be glad to answer any further questions that you have. MR. TRAVER-Just one clarification to start with. The signoff letter from Chazen, does that include the revision of the stormwater, the expansion of the stormwater management in the prior area for septic and also the new septic system? MR. MAC ELROY-It involved, yes. They've received the revised stormwater control report, the SCR, and have found that to be satisfactory. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-I'll just comment. We appreciate you working with us because we try to work with everybody and I commend you for the five items that were suggested. So thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, thank you. MR. FORD-Could you address the issue of the stone bed? Because people make reference to a certain number of square footage minimum. MR. MAC ELROY-Within the stormwater basins, one of the provisions in the ordinances having the capacity, 10% capacity for winter conditions, so that that stone bed would go to a depth of four feet below frost level, so that in winter conditions there would still be access to the soil below. MR. FORD-But when you're talking about square footage. MR. MAC ELROY-That would have to do with the area that's necessary for the stormwater capacity that we provide. Square footage of that stone bed area. MR. FORD-How do you determine, we know the square footage minimum, but what's the maximum? MR. MAC ELROY-1 suppose it could all be, have a continuous stretch of four feet deep stone, but that's beyond what, and we're complying with the standard 10%. MR. FORD-1 was just interested. Just the minimum was given and not a range. j. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, it's the minimum area at four foot depth. Further on in the details there's an indication of that depth of four feet. So the surface area would be the 75 in the one area and the 95 in the other. MR. FORD-Ninety-five in the other. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. FERONE-1 know in our previous meeting, and again Mr. Deeb said we appreciate everything you've done regarding this plan. There's a lot of conversation, and you said you brought it up yourself, about re-vegetation, okay, and that lends itself to a lot of public comment about, concern about runoff, and you've done all of that with your stormwater management, but on the re-vegetation plan it says the plan is to re-plant one white pine sand plane minimum density of every 400 square foot. That sounds kind of sparse. If that's minimum, what are you really looking to achieve there in terms of the number of trees you're looking at? MR. MAC ELROY-That's about one every 400 square feet. So that allows that growth. Right now we've got clustering of white pines typically. They're growing and they're on top of each other. They won't survive. The strong will survive. It provides a certain coverage that isn't there now. Certainly. I thought that that was a reasonable density. I know that Jim had looked at it, Jim Liebrum from Warren County Soil and Water. He agreed with what we presented. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. FORD-For a white pine that makes sense. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I mean, if you think of them maturing and that's not to say that there isn't other growth that's there as well. What we're trying to do is focus on distributing the growth that's there. MR. FERONE-And then you're going to add some other trees there. MR. MAC ELROY-Well the six deciduous that you requested, yes, and those are up closer to the house, to sort of frame and filter from certain angles, but at that size, it will take a while before it gets big and growth on those. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the Planning Board that have additional questions before we open the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I just wanted to comment that I saw that you did additional perc tests. MR. HUNSINGER-Correct, in the new area of wastewater. So that's just part and parcel to the design. We changed the location. We've done the testing that's typical and required. MR. HUNSINGER-It certainly looks like the test pit data was suitable for. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it's typical for the soils, and I'd re-emphasize, we do on site the testing of the soils. We're not reading from a book that tells about generally what the soils are going to be. Charlie Maine, rest his soul, didn't go to every one of these properties in Warren County and do soils tests. That soils book, there is an overall analysis of what the soils are in various areas of the County. At the time of specific design we do specific site testing. It's not something that you gain from reading a book. That gives you a general idea of what's happening or what's there at the site. Sometimes it's spot on, sometimes it's not. So that's why we do the on-site testing. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. Well, we do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that would like to comment on this application? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road. I'll get to the material I just sent out to you. I just want to set the stage. Subsequent to the last Planning Board meeting, I went back and looked at the original Planning Board meetings that dealt with the original subdivision approval for Sunset Hill. There were 12 meetings over the period from October 1991 to June 1993. There are 180 pages of minutes, legal size, covering all the topics discussed at that time and the public delivered 24 separate comments on this. There were very key concerns, not only of the Planning Board members, but also the public and just to summarize quickly was the number of lots, given the topography and the difficulty at the site to develop. The visual impact, the goal to try and leave the property in its natural state, and those are words right out of the Planning Board minutes. Stormwater management, septic systems, fire and safety access and the use of best practices to protect adjoining properties on the lake. Now Dennis just brought up the fact that he did specific soils testing. Well, if you go back and read the minutes, the engineering firm for the developer, Rist-Frost, did all kinds of perc tests, specific soil tests, at that time, and they based their design on the soil at that time, and then lastly a big issue was enforceability of restrictions or conditions on the development. Now the approved and filed subdivision plan includes specific notes including, and I quote, the limits of clearing for the drives, houses, septic fields and wells, as shown, and shall be strictly adhered to. Separately on Page 45 of the April 29th, 1992, the motion for the Preliminary Stage approval stated clearing is to be kept to a 10 to 15 foot buffer, consistent with fire regulations, with a maximum of 15 feet, and that related to, again, the house, the drive, the septic, the stormwater, everything. Secondly there was also another specific direction. No clearing or construction is allowed in the 35 foot wetland buffer. This stipulation effects among other lots Number Six, which is Mr. Perrotta's. Now, there was discussion throughout the various Planning Board meetings about the use of best practices and development of this unique property, especially regarding stormwater management, and if you refer to Page Four of the approved and filed subdivision plan, there is great detail regarding septic, stormwater and driveway construction. Now again, I heard Dennis MacElroy today say a couple of times that the design is adequate and it's legal. Well, if you go back and read the Board minutes, throughout those 12 meetings, the standard wasn't going to be adequate and legal. It was the best practices. Everyone acknowledged that this is a fragile piece of land, a key piece of land on Assembly Point, and it had to be developed very carefully. Now, with regard to the clearing of the land, the applicant and his representatives have stated, and Dennis MacElroy implied again tonight, in the prior meetings, that the vast majority of the trees on the property were destroyed in Hurricane Irene, which occurred during late August 2011, and the remaining trees that were cut down were incidental to the damaged trees. Now members of the public, me included, stated that the property was clear cut by the prior owner to clear the property for re-sale and development. Well, what did I bring tonight? I brought Google maps from October 8, 2011, so after Hurricane Irene, which shows some blow down of trees, but there is heavy vegetation on that property, and then a Google maps shot from May 5th, 2015, and you can see the massive amount of clear cutting that occurred. So guess what, it didn't happen because of Irene. It happened due to the actions of the prior owner. Now, when you look at it, it struck me as well, that in addition to violating the clearing restrictions, if you go back to the filed map, you can see there's a delineation of wetlands, and there was another stated condition. You can't be within 35 feet of wetlands, and there is, if I'm looking at the property near where the spit of land goes to the lake on the east side of Assembly Point, there is a shed that's located, and in the filed map you can see there's wetlands right near there. Now look to the May 2015 shot, and you can see all the, darn near all the trees have been clear cut right to the property line. So I would submit that it is likely that he also violated the 35 foot buffer on the wetlands. The conclusion you have to come to is the prior owner clear cut the property in violation of the restrictions, both on the clearing limitations and very potentially the 35 foot buffer. Dennis referred to Jim Liebrum's opinion. You've got to read the opinion. You just can't take that as his words for it. It is some general statements about, is it better to re-plant, or is it better to allow reforestation to occur on its normal course, and he does say in that letter that you need to, he hasn't taken into account the specific goals of the Town in this, and I say the goals are very clear. When you read all of the minutes back in '91 through '93, it's proper development using best practices. So where does that leave us? It's clear that the prior owner flaunted the Town of Queensbury in violating the stated restrictions. So then I step back, is it reasonable for Mr. Perrotta to be held accountable for the violations of the prior owner? Well, one, if you don't, then you've just left a loophole for anybody out there to go clear cut a property, ignore all your restrictions, and then flip it to the next guy and the next guy gets a clean slate. So now I step back to Mr. Perrotta. Number One, Mr. Perrotta owned a house on Knox Road from August 30, 2010 to September 20, 2013. Irene hit in August 2011. Therefore he is aware of the damage that was caused by Irene on Assembly Point and specifically around Knox Road. Second, the filed plan of subdivision on its face, states the clearing limitations. Third, it is clear by walking the property that his lot was cleared far beyond the level of all adjoining properties in the subdivision, and as is shown, to be cleared on the approved and filed plan of subdivision. Four, Mr. Perrotta engaged Dennis MacElroy to represent him in this application, and lastly, Dennis spoke as a member of the public at five separate occasions between 1991 and '92 at the Planning Board meetings. He submitted, I believe, three separate letters expressing a multitude of concerns on such issues as developability of the parcel, stormwater, driveway construction, tree clearing, visual impact and enforceability in the stated restrictions and conditions and it's really interesting if you go back and read about Dennis' concern about what happens to the next owner and the owner after that when they ignore the conditions you put on. Okay. So he was a major proponent of the stated conditions and restrictions as well as detailed drawing, because he wanted to make sure every, the following owners really understood what the Planning Board put in place and have their wishes be carried out, and if you need more color as to the level of Dennis' concern, look at Page 11 on the February 25, 1992 minutes. Page 20 and 21 of the March 17th, `92 minutes and Page Two to Four of the April 1St, 1992 minutes. Based on the above, Mr. Perrotta knew or should have known, either directly or through his representatives, of the restrictions and construction details on the as built and approved filed plans, as well as the violations committed by the prior owner. It is incumbent upon a buyer to do his due diligence on a property prior to purchase. It is important that the Planning Board approach this application under the premise that the condition of the property at the outset of the application process, be that as demonstrated in the October 8, 2011 Google maps shot, not in its current state. So to do anything less allows the owners, a property owner to ignore restrictions placed on a property by the Planning Board, harms neighboring properties, and ultimately the lake. The issues raised. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, sir, can you conclude your remarks? You've gone well beyond the public hearing three minutes per speaker, if you can just take another minute or so and wrap up your comments. MR. COLLINS-Yes, okay. Well, how do we remedy this? More robust vegetation plan, use best practices, the target being what would the property have been able to handle if all those trees remained in place and you used the stormwater as designed? As a condition, the Planning Board should prohibit any further subdivision of the property. The property has been severely damaged by the acts of the prior owner. It will be a great number of years before it recovers. The concerns of the Planning Board and the public as enumerated have become a reality. Secondly very quickly the driveway. It's my understanding Mr. Perrotta is only showing developing the property to his property line, and that we're taking the assumption that there's an existing driveway in place and you don't have to do anything. There is no existing driveway. It was caused by all the logging trucks. There's depressions in the land. It should follow the plan as originally approved with the construction detail and stormwater management detail, and lastly, there should be a performance bond here. This is a very sensitive piece of property that's been damaged greatly. If the property isn't constructed in accordance to approved plans, or it's stopped mid-construction can have severe consequences to those neighbors around it, and you say well, what's the chance that's going to happen. Just go to 67 Knox Road and you'll see that exact situation in place now on the fragile piece of land. Our goal is to protect the lake. Not only the lake, but Mr. Perrotta's right for a dream house and the adjoining neighbors' right to have their dream house protected and in the mean time until all these issues are addressed, I request you reject the application. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? Yes, sir. BOB GLANDON MR. GLANDON-I'm Bob Glandon from 63 Knox Road. Two parts. One is that Chris Navitsky asked me to read part of his letter. Have you all gotten the letter in hand? Because I do have printouts of it here. MR. TRAVER-I believe we were provided comments on the application. MR. FORD-I've read it. MR. G LAN DON-You've got them? Okay because we didn't know for sure if you had them. MR. TRAVER-Sir, I'm going to ask, in view of time, and with the extensive comments of the prior speaker, if you could make sure you're not repeating what was said. Only new information if you would. MR. GLANDON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. GLANDON-I have underlined parts. So let me see, make sure I don't cover. So the main issue that Chris was asking about was the stormwater runoff, specifically the bio swale that you see down slope, and he's requested, suggested that stormwater measure be done closer to the source instead of kind of the end of the pipe, and what we have here is, I think at an earlier date someone said it's not going to rain anymore up there than it does anyhow. If you've got a half inch rain, it's on the same area, but what we've got is the house and the drive, all that now pitches off. So where that was flat and could soak in, it's going to be shoved downhill and therefore cause runoff down the hill and I'll point out that 67 Knox Road that was mentioned has installed underground infiltration tanks and Assembly Point Road back toward the new house going up, in the middle, not even in the water but on a flat area, has put in infiltration tanks on a flat piece of ground in the middle not on the lake, so it's something that the Board has required before and I would suggest that, along the lines of what Chris has brought up, is that that be done here where the downspouts go into underground tanks. Shove that water in up at the top of the hill. Don't let it run on down the hill to the swale. The other point he had is on this infiltration down on the steep slope, that the size of the grass swale, once that gets loaded, it's not going to give it necessarily a chance to soak in, but it'll soak through, and so you'll be back down along the surface down below it and running into the wetlands. So those were the major stormwater, oh, and that driveway has not been addressed, and on the Knox Road side that access way pitches down and currently it's grass and some gravel. So we don't get much runoff, and if you look there you'll see some gravel out but not too much, but everything downstream of that is pine duff. I mean, that whole area is under pine trees, and so we get runoff on the road to start with, and if his drive pitches down, as it will because it has to at the end, we'll see it on Knox Road. So I suggest that you look at the driveway the whole way through, and as the original subdivision development called for, was underground infiltration tanks on either side of the driveway, several points along the drive. So if you would look at that, I think it's necessary not just desirable, and I would suggest on top of that that we look at pervious pavement over this entire part. It's going to be paved. There's no reason to let that water runoff. You see the ditches along the side of the driveway. That's to let the water off, not just head it on down the hill to a place that we know we have flooding in the neighbors' backyards, and when those get flooded we get septic water in there. So now we're getting water into the lake that could, because the septic fields in the backs of those houses are getting flooded and they just can't help it, and add unnecessary nutrients that are getting into the lake. The final point from Chris' letter is that he's recommended a time pressure dosing of the absorption field. That's a pump in and that spreads it out throughout the entire fields so you get better absorption. Whether that's in these plans, it wasn't evident. So that's all I have. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to? Yes, ma'am. You heard my request of the prior speaker. So I trust that you also will not repeat information that's already been stated. CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-My name is Dr. Carol Collins, lifelong resident of Knox Road, lake scientist. This is an important application that tests the vision and planning of the Town as well as the strength of the Codes and the Comprehensive Management Plan. Allowing ridgeline development makes the Comprehensive Plan meaningless, and failing to mitigate this type of development weakens the Town Code. Development can occur but needs to be responsible but without impacts to the resources of the community. Below is a list of the needed improvements based on the Town's Comprehensive land management plan, the Sunset Hill Farm development plans and the stormwater management plan. Just quickly the stormwater management plan which you know that we're using today is very much outdated. Hasn't been revised in 15, 20 years. I'm not sure of the exact time, but Chazen is looking at that finally now, and we will be updating it. So what we're dealing with now are those standards that we're abiding by are far outdated and will not do anything to not even protect the lake but to do anything for water quality. Screening using mature trees to mitigate building on a ridgeline, we need to place mature trees on the back of the house, on the front of the house and not just on the sides of the house. We need to reduce the well-known off site impacts by implementing best management practices. If you look at the pictures we have from Google earth, the pre-development conditions should be forested. Right now when you calculate the curve number for the stormwater management plan, you're using a number for grass and the curbed number should be lake forest, and that will change how much will be infiltrated at peak flow values. It's really important. You see now that this area was clear cut for five acres. That five acres, I brought it to the attention of the Town at that time that it was being clear cut and nothing was actually done about it, but it was also in violation. You need a permit to clear that five acre zone. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma'am. You said you brought it to the attention of the Town at the time that this was being clear cut. Did you provide that in any kind of written? DR. COLLINS-1 don't think I did. I think I called Craig. I'm pretty sure. MR. TRAVER-So there's no record of your interaction with the Town at that point? DR. COLLINS-1 probably have extemporaneous notes. I have very detailed daily recordings of all my encounters. I've been working on lake issues since 1976. 1 did all the computer models for the lake, for National Science Foundation. So I have details. MR. TRAVER-And in your preparation for your comments this evening, do you have any notes with you that talk about perhaps the dates that you might have contacted the Town? DR. COLLINS-No, I don't. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. DR. COLLINS-1 would actually, I did see something, okay, so you talked about the 10 to 15 feet around all the structures for clear cutting. We talked about how the stormwater management plan needs to be recalculated for a forested condition. I want to talk more about the grassy swales. I talked at length with people about that, a grassy swale versus a bio swale. Grassy swales are outdated. We like bio swales where you have trees in the infiltration zones and native trees and things that are appropriate for those swales, and I too spoke about putting in proper trees for those bio swales which would greatly improve it. Now those bio swales are really critical. I know you guys have all been to planning training meetings and you know you've heard the word disconnect. By putting that storm, that swale, that grassy swale on I think it's like an 18% grade, is not advisable, and having it as one continuous thing is, goes against any principles of how we now look at hydrology and where we want to collect and treat stormwater. Those should be put to the side over here, the side over here, and down slope as well. One mature tree does the same thing as 6,000 little woody plants and whatever. So remember trees is key. I mean, in some places they're just going to mature trees rather than some raingarden. The existing driveway. This is part of a major stormwater plan. Existing surfaces, impervious surfaces, have to be calculated in the stormwater plan. This is ignored I this model, and I believe that the Town Engineer is unaware of this and if they gave an approval they were not aware of this, and they need to be aware that that existing impervious surface has to be put into the stormwater calculations. I believe that we should have no further subdivision of this, what is termed a gross build out. Gross build out is anywhere where you build on steep slopes and areas that have been clear cut on it, where infiltration is concentrated on the crest of the land, all these kinds of things, forested land has been chopped down. So I believe that that needs to be a condition of approval, and I do believe that a performance bond is going to rear its head very quickly. We know the places down below have already had damage to their septic systems, and this'll continue. I did not see that the Town Engineer approved the septic system. I see that the Town Engineer looked at the incomplete stormwater plan, but it did not seem to improve the septic which apparently also has fill on it, and if that top layer of organic matter is so important, why put fill on top of it? I don't really get that. The clear cutting issue was brought up actually by the agent here, documented in the Planning Board minutes in '92 where they actually referenced the clear cutting of Kruger's and where they did it prior to the sale and said this can't happen here. Clearly happened here. This is the most important precedent going forward for the Town of Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-We've had that comment from prior speakers. DR. COLLINS-Sorry. That's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. LISA ADAMSON MS. ADAMSON-1 just want to ask you, Mr. Traver, did Craig Brown forward? MR. TRAVER-If you don't mind, have a seat at the table and state your name for the record, please. We do record the meetings and they're transcribed. So that would be part of the record. Thank you. MS. ADAMSON-Lisa Adamson, Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. I have three sets of pictures, unless Craig forwarded them to you. I took them about six weeks ago, of what's happening on Assembly Point Road and this is relevant to this particular talk tonight because they show very much what's happening to the properties. MR. TRAVER-Are those photographs of this property? MS. ADAMSON-No, it's photographs of the properties directly below Mr. Perrotta. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, do you know if those have been submitted for the record? MRS. MOORE-They have, if they are dated from Thursday, April 6th. It's in the file. MS. ADAMSON-That sounds approximately right, yes. MRS. MOORE-They are in the file. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we do have it. MS. ADAMSON-Okay, and I wanted you to be able to see it. I'll just talk briefly. The first one is the property just north of Sunset, okay, sorry I didn't make copies for everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-We can pass it along. MS. ADAMSON-Great. Just showing how the properties along Assembly Point Road, and I walk it just about every day, are not infiltrating. They're not able to handle the water that's falling on their property and coming down from the ridgeline. So this one that I'm passing around shows a raingarden that was put in to mitigate the lakeside area, and it's just totally full, and. MR. TRAVER-Understood. With respect, we're not reviewing these properties before us tonight. So I don't have independent recollection nor do I have any documentation as to how the stormwater was managed on those properties. We do have information about how stormwater is being proposed on this application that we have before us. So we have a bit of an issue with relevancy. I mean, I understand your concern about stormwater, and that's been clear from the other speakers as well. So we're well aware of where it's at, and believe me that has been a concern of ours as well, but to point, with respect, to show us a nearby property that has stormwater issues that perhaps they were not. MS. ADAMSON-The black and white that you have there is directly below Mr. Perrotta's property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. ADAMSON-1 just wanted you to have a visual of what can be seen in almost every rain event, plus at the narrow point of Assembly Point from Charlie Crew's property up north of Knox Road. We have practically unique level, and I have been taking pictures of it many times a season and for many years and it's just, what I'm trying to say is that the land is not, the properties are not infiltrating. So please err on the side of best management practices rather than just the standard. MR. TRAVER-Certainly. That is certainly our goal. MS. ADAMSON-Okay, and I did want to mention that, and I have been doing some water testing for a variety of reasons, and I happened to take a water test off of 129 Assembly Point Road and I did get an E-coli reading. I also have gotten it in other places around the Point, but just as a point of information. So I guess I'm just going to. MR. TRAVER-Did you share that information with anyone? MS. ADAMSON-1 have not, except for. MR. TRAVER-1 know for people, just because I'm interested in such things, I know that the Darren Freshwater Institute would be interested in that. The Lake George Association would be interested in that. There are a number of studies going on with regards to algae blooms and other impacts on the lake. So if you have valid data on the lake, even though it may not be relevant to this application, that is important information to share with. MS. ADAMSON-Yes, thank you, and in the past I have talked to Larry Eichler and Chris Navitsky. This just this year that I happened to take a bottle, swipe it carefully, take it to Joe Biss and I did get an E-coli reading just because I was doing some other testing for a variety of reasons, but I'm happy to share it and people are aware that a number of us have been doing it. MR. TRAVER-That would be important. MS. ADAMSON-And lastly I just wanted to end with a question. Do you all feel that if you were to pass this site plan tonight that you can guarantee that it's not going to impact the properties below and therefore the road? Because the road is a wreck. I mean, after every rain event i, you just watch it fly right into the water, and this is our drinking water and we see algae along the edge there. MR. TRAVER-Well, I can speak for, and if you really want an elaborate explanation of the application process and the review that various applications, not only this one but others, undergo, I would suggest calling the Planning Office and discussing it with Laura or one of her staff, but I would say that, just in very general terms, we do try to review projects and there are many aspects of projects that are somewhat subjective, but we have a Planning Board that's quite experienced and somewhat a variety of expertise, including now an engineer, as an alternate. So where we are uncertain about, for example stormwater, we will request, and in fact the Town has retained the services of a professional engineer to independently do analysis of what applications are proposing to do, as opposed to what they say they will do, as opposed to what the numbers actually show they'll do, and that does include analysis based on required testing of soils and that type of thing, and there are very strict regulations for stormwater, particularly around the lake. So we, not having expertise equal to our Town Engineer, we do rely quite heavily on those calculations and scientific analysis of each application as it relates to stormwater, septic and so on. I mean, we're not, we do have to rely on other consultants and expertise, and on occasion we will ask for additional information that's not normally available if it's called for on a particular application, but in this case issues of septic and stormwater have been extensively analyzed. MS. ADAMSON-Because this piece of property is not just an isolated entity that you can analyze. You look all around it, and these picture and many other people's pictures will show you that there's a huge problem. MR. TRAVER-And many of the regulations that have impacts on issues like stormwater and septic and so on are designed to eliminate impacts on surrounding areas. Now over the years the technology, the science has gotten better and better. So we know there are, there's evidence, you've collected some of it from your sample that you said contained E-coli. We know that there are septic systems that need to be upgraded around the lake, and one of the things that we constantly are trying to be vigilante with applications that come before us for revitalization of lakeside properties and so on are things like improving stormwater and septic and so on and I think that there's been quite a bit of progress on that, but a lot of work remains to be done certainly, MS. ADAMSON-Yes, because Assembly Point Road, to me, looks the same as it has for the past 11 years. It doesn't look like it's, it looks like it's getting worse and not better, and come up some time after even a mild rain and you'll see it just all going right into the lake. MR. TRAVER-Stormwater is a critical issue as is, you know, even salting the roads in the wintertime. It's an ongoing issue that we're very concerned about and very aware of, but we appreciate your attention and your comments. Thank you. MS. ADAMSON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. All right. Can the applicant come back to the table? MR. BORGOS-Mr. Chairman, if I may address some of the comments that we heard from the public. MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. BORGOS-In a general sense, I wanted to, on behalf of the applicant, acknowledge as you did, the importance of public comment and the opinions that we get, the observations. Those are all very important to our overall process, and, yes, it does require a systemic review to deal with some of these long-term problems. You can't do it on an isolated, case by case basis, and as experienced Planning Board members, I know you understand that, but you do need to have that input. So it does get filtered through Staff to long term planning for the Town, but with regards to some of the specifics we've heard tonight, I think you'll agree that part of that process of absorbing these comments is that it results in findings of fact, conclusions, approvals, and in this case we've heard about the prior approval for the Sunset Hill Farm subdivision. I trust that the Planning Board, in the early 90's, did their due diligence and gave an approval with conditions and criteria that was as diligent as you would do today. So we look at those approvals, and those are our touchstones. Those are what guide us today, in conjunction with current evaluations, and in this case the applicant has retained a licensed professional engineer from the State of New York who, despite the skepticism of some of the commenters, still maintains his license and is beyond reproach as far as I'm understanding. The Town Engineer has signed off on this as we've provided. Town Staff has reviewed it. The last meeting we talked about the building inspector David Hatin who signed off on the adequate wastewater system. All these things that come from the public comment are vetted through the Town Staff and in this case in this particular application it's my understanding that the applicant has checked all the boxes and everything has been ratified as presented. With regards to the photographs that were presented to you, Google Earth is great. It's a wonderful resource. I do want to point out that the dates of the photograph are very material. The tropical storm Irene that came through in late August or early September, just before the deciduous trees were dropping their leaves, and I think the photo before you might be an October date. So there may still be some vegetation on the branches. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the one it says imagery date. Again, this is from Google Earth, it says imagery date 10/8/2011. MR. BORGOS-Yes, so early October 2011, and then the next photo was a May date, an early May date, before any deciduous leaf out of the trees. So we've got different timeframes during the season. There are also different times of the day. So you've got different shadow effects and what not. Ii began to question that, and I thought, wow, it would be great if we had some contemporaneous accounting of what happened, and it was interesting to hear Mrs. Collins with her comments today indicating that she contacted the Town, because that jives very well with what I found out when I checked with the Town. I spoke twice with Code Enforcement Officer Bruce Frank who many of you know has been employee of the Town for many years. He checked his files and notes and reported to me as follows. That Craig Brown received a complaint that was phoned in on November 8, 2011, and they didn't have any contemporaneous record of who that was. They didn't go back to dig out, see if they had a note to that effect, but it could very well have been Mrs. Collins complaint that she referred to. That was November 8th that the loggers performing the salvage harvest were allegedly removing more than the damaged and downed trees. So Bruce related to me that he and Craig met with the loggers, a father and son team, and that they discussed the extent of the clearing plan that was part of the Site Plan that was approved in the early 90's and discussed it and saying, well, it doesn't really fit. If you're removing the damaged trees, the topped trees, the Ieaners and the down trees, it's going to be far beyond the clearing that would be desirable. So everyone agreed that they would only remove those trees that had been topped, damaged, Ieaners or downed trees, and that was the extent of what the salvage operation was to be. Bruce went on to tell me, in his words, that he was personally on site at least if not more than a couple dozen times throughout the salvage harvest. That's at least 24 times and he thinks it was more than that. He hasn't made a full search of his log notes, but I didn't ask him to. I think that's more than sufficient to tell me that the Town official in charge of handling complaints had reviewed the situation, continued to monitor it and he said that, as of March 20, 2012, the last of the log piles and equipment were observed removed from the site. So it was just a four and a half month operation for the salvage. MR. TRAVER-So it was four and a half months and he was there visiting the site 24 times. MR. BORGOS-At least. So my personal opinion of that is that that's a rather intensive monitoring of the operation, and that he did not actually bring a traditional enforcement action he said because it was concluded appropriately per the Town's review. I don't know of any better way to evaluate what happened then, other than to say it was not a clear cutting operation, that it's the further thing from the truth because it was done under the watchful eyes of the Town Code Enforcement Officer. So with that understanding, I think it definitely colors the comments that we heard that this was a clear cut. It was not. This was an act of God. The photos may be depicting a condition where the trees that were Ieaners were still green but had to be removed for safety reasons and because over time they may have failed. It was unfortunate that the storm hit that area of the ridge the hardest, but it was an act of God. It wasn't an act of the prior owner of the property. So as much as it's easy to pick on some prior owner who's no longer there, the commenters are asking that you impugn the integrity of the new owner or at least give him the baggage of the cleanup, but it wasn't an intentional act, and I also asked Bruce if there was any recollection in his career here that the Town owner ever required a property owner to re-vegetate to an original pre-storm condition a piece of property that had been storm damaged. Certainly there have been cases where developers have made desirable cuts for view shed improvements where they have been required to re-vegetate This was not. This was a salvage operation that had to be done for the long-term health of that forest, and as Dennis MacElroy has confirmed to you with Liebrum's approval, the re-vegetation plan, the appropriate location of the native species with sufficient room to grow will result in the maximum sustainable growth of those trees without losing them. We want them to be successful. We want them to grow. So all the criteria you can possibly do I think meets the best management, the best practices standard that everybody would like to see adhered to. So we believe that all of these things have been met. The modifications that were requested and we talked about with the stormwater controls, I've asked Dennis to put a number on it and he is reluctant to do so, but my opinion is it's way beyond 100% of the requirement. It could be approaching 150%, but engineers are maybe not so keen on putting a precise number on it, but as an attorney I'm going to tell you that I think that is above and beyond. That would be the language I would use, and again that's consistent with best management practices. So the applicant is very much in concert with those who are concerned about the lake water quality, the view sheds and the rehabilitation of the site. It benefits his enjoyment of the property to the same extent he wants to see these things addressed, he's going to play his part. With regards to the performance bond, I was disappointed to hear of that request because again it is, I think it's an unfair attack or blemish upon the integrity of the applicant. He is seeking to get a building permit upon receiving approvals and he will execute upon that. There is no indication of past actions that have been detrimental. He's done everything asked and then some. He wants to see his project built correctly. There is I think an intent here to have a private right of action which would be held by Mrs. Collins as the owner of the property over which this driveway will be built to receive a benefit or the Town monitoring and trying to enforce this performance bond. I think that's above and beyond what would be necessarily required for a single lot development like this. This is not a commercial parcel. I don't think that's warranted at all, and I think it places a very unfair burden upon the Town to step into that roll of private enforcer. It's also seemingly inconsistent with the portrayal of the current site conditions. We've heard a lot of doom and gloom about current conditions not being satisfactory, yet if these improvements are made and we proceed with a plan, that construction should ameliorate the conditions and make things better, not worse. So the more work that is done, the better the situation should be. So I don't think that a bond is required. With that I'll let Dennis speak to some of the engineering details. MR. TRAVER-Yes, one question I wanted to pass along that came from the public comment was the concern with regard to the stormwater that when the analysis was done or the review of your calculations was done, that perhaps the Town Engineer did not have information about all of the, there was talk about the driveway or some existing surfaces or some runoff that may not have been included in your calculations. If you could address that I'd appreciate it. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. Let me go to Chris Navitsky's letter, which has the specific comments that were made, and let me start with the second page at the top, the stormwater management ordinance talks about increase in pollution. His point is talking about the site has been changed, due to the storm and subsequent clearing and clean up. That we should evaluate it based on what that condition was 10 years ago, forested. So we got this letter at 3:30 this afternoon. So there wasn't a lot of time, but I asked one of our engineers to take a look at that situation, and I don't want to get too much into the weeds with you because it can be confusing, but stormwater management report is an evaluation of pre-development conditions and post-development conditions, okay. So you have a baseline. Now if, when we evaluated it as it is, the conditions are maybe not as productive or not as good at infiltration and stormwater management as it was when all that tree growth was there. Okay. So that creates a higher baseline, and then the pre-development is up a little ways, or post-development, excuse me, that takes into consideration the impervious areas. So now if we went back and took a look at the pre-development conditions 10 years ago before the damage, that brings the baseline down, therefore that differential is greater. So you have to provide more stormwater management. Okay. So quickly done. MR. TRAVER-But I mean that wouldn't be a valid, I mean, you wouldn't do the stormwater analysis on some hypothetical non-existent condition. I mean, that would never be. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I'm just trying to address a comment that Chris made. MR. TRAVER-1 understand. MR. MAC ELROY-Because I think I have a good answer to that that might make you feel more comfortable. Stormwater management report, stormwater control report. This is what was submitted to the Town on to Chazen. Chazen does their review. They felt it was adequate. That it satisfied their conditions. Sorry to use the word adequate, but it was compliant. Well in fact and again, I don't want to confuse you with numbers, but the pre-development runoff volume standard that you would comply with was .124 in our evaluation. I'm going to lose you with numbers. Basically we went back and looked at it if we made the characterization of the land and the associated curb numbers as part of the calculation as if it was wooded, good condition. Not fair, not poor, but good. We used the most conservative condition. So that drives that base down. Post-development stays the same, and in fact we use the same damaged condition in the post-development calculations. So that creates the greatest differential. What does it turn out? That we're compliant with the volume and the rates, requirements, as per the regulations in that condition. MR. TRAVER-So that's interesting, because one of the concerns was that a prior owner at some point had gone in, well beyond storm damage, and did some clear cutting. So it sounds like what you did, hypothetically for this study, was to do the analysis as if you had gone in and, in other words fully forested, and for this application you had gone in and cut down all these trees, not removed them because of the damage, but had intentionally removed them without any need to and then did the analysis and the numbers still worked. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. We did that this afternoon. The report. MR. TRAVER-That seems odd, but again I suppose it's not relevant. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it's relevant in that what you can take away from that is what we've provided is way over-designed. MR. TRAVER-It's adequate. Yes, I understand. MR. BORGOS-1 still prefer above and beyond, but that's just the language. MR. TRAVER-Well, and again, you know, and you said yourself you're going to lose us with the numbers, and we do have, we are accumulating a scary level of experience in the stormwater various issues but we do, regardless of that, we do have to rely on the engineer. So really the most relevant thing that you're provided us was the signoff letter, which is one of the things that we needed to see from the engineer, because, you know, numbers being numbers, really what matters to us is the engineer who's the one who's ultimately responsible for the environmental impacts and saying that this system will work. MR. DEEB-Dennis, I have a question if I may. Your stormwater preparation. Is that going to, and somebody used the word guarantee. We can never use the word guarantee. MR. MAC ELROY-There's so many variables. MR. DEEB-There's just too many to say we could guarantee. MR. TRAVER-No, we could say compliant. MR. DEEB-Yes. I understand that's what we're saying, but we cannot say we guarantee, and I think that would be no wise to do something of that nature. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I don't think we can offer that. Part of the issue is that the science, if I can call it that, with a number of these issues with regards to septic and the lake and stormwater and everything is an ever, thank goodness, evolving and improving science. So what we would do in 1991 would be very, very different, perhaps unacceptable, to what we would do today. MR. DEEB-That's my point, is that the stormwater issues on this property should be properly taken care of. You're saying that with your planning, that the stormwater will stay within the property. MR. MAC ELROY-The design of the stormwater device, again, stormwater management is fairly simple. Capture that runoff from the impervious areas, get it into the ground, but it doesn't change the specified rate or volume as per the regulations, and that's what we've done and then some, above and beyond with that area and that volume. The shape of it, the look of it, whatever, is not satisfactory to Chris, but that's. MR. DEEB-Well, I understand. What I'm saying is what are the chances of stormwater runoff to the neighbor's property after you put the new stormwater management in, which is not there now? MR. TRAVER-Well, your calculations are based on, what, a 50 year storm? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the regulations are for a 10 year rate and a 25 year flow MR. T RAVE R-Twe nty-five year flow. MR. MAC ELROY-So we're not exceeding pre-existing conditions. I....j MR. TRAVER-Okay. So hypothetically if we had a 100 year storm or something, you could have stormwater leaving the site, but it would be leaving essentially every site. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, once we get to that stage. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. DEEB-Do you understand what I'm driving at here? So if there's stormwater that is seeping through on the neighbor's properties. MR. MAC ELROY-I'll say it again. No new house makes it rain any more than it already does. MR. DEEB-I understand. What I'm saying, though, is. MR. MAC ELROY-It's a matter of capturing and controlling, managing that stormwater. MR. DEEB-Then hopefully with the improvement in stormwater preparation, there'll be less stormwater running onto neighbor's properties, and if the neighbors still have a problem with stormwater then it will be up to them to take care of whatever else that needs to be taken care of. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and there's a multitude of things that are contributing to that condition in the backyards. Those owners themselves having made improvements on their properties. If you look at any dated USGS back through the lay of the land, you're flowing from north to south along the backs of those properties, at the toe of the hill, and what happened at some point? Well, something that was part of this original subdivision, like the infamous McCall house was placed. That was wetlands. All that, if you look at Map 23 of 29 of the Warren County Wetlands mapping, there's wetlands back through that area. That's changed. All those different owners along the way, they may have changed the conditions in the backyards and it doesn't get the flow the way it once did, out, south and out at the neck of Assembly Point. We who've been around there, remember when it used to be there. Well, that's changed, and unfortunately that horse is out of the barn, but this development of this project didn't cause that. Runoff from that slope is part of that whole cycle of runoff. It gets captured, it becomes part of the groundwater and it flows generally in that southern direction. You've got houses along there, little retaining walls. Some of that weeping that is there on Assembly Point Road in the areas that are talked about you can see it. There's a retaining wall so there's weep holes through the retaining wall. So that allows that water to sort of concentrate and come out. Maybe in the wintertime there's some trees up. So there's, again, a multitude of things that contribute to that stormwater condition. The design of the stormwater system is intended to mitigate that. MR. DEEB-Well, there was one comment made with the standards that were used, we have to use the standards we have, but they may be outdated, but that's what we have to go by. If they have to be changed they have to be changed, and that has to come in the future, but unfortunately we have to use what we have. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and what's being provided is beyond. MR. DEEB-And that was the one thing I was concerned about, that you have done more, you're creating more of a mitigating situation, you're helping it, and I think that's important, if it's going to improve the situation and not deteriorate it. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. DEEB-I'm done. MR. MAC ELROY-I'm going to move on to the issue about the driveway. There's, when this subdivision was approved in '92 originally, typical of a subdivision approval, there's not a detailed site plan in a subdivision approval. You show a house location. You show certain soils information so that you know you can put a septic system on it. It has the special relationships the setbacks and what not. It's not a detailed design plan, but what is a little different in this particular case that it's all in these little driveways that went up to serve the lots, including this one for Lots Six and Seven, which were actually four lots at the time. There was a stormwater management plan for those driveway sections. So that's in the records. That's what we're relying on for what would be built. There's a design, an approved design for that stormwater management. Now right wrong or otherwise, there are at least two other driveways 1 that were built to support houses that are there. They never did it. The Town for some reason didn't catch up with that or whatever. So those other two driveways don't have any stormwater management as per the plan back in '92. This one I feel quite confident in. We have a stormwater management plan implemented for that driveway. So that's in place. We didn't need to address that as part of this, these computations in development of this Lot Six, and I don't, I don't know whether Chazen is totally aware of that or not, but it's not really pertinent. MR. TRAVER-What about the comment about no further subdivision? MR. MAC ELROY-1 wasn't quite sure what that means, whether this lot shouldn't be developed or no further subdivision of this lot? MR. TRAVER-That there should be no further subdivision of the lot, of the application property. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, interesting that you said that. I was reminded of that when I was reviewing files for the '92. Quick history. There were originally 10 lots. That triggered Health Department jurisdiction. Paul Knox was the developer, landowner. He wanted to develop the, subdivide his property so he could sell lots. He got an approval from the Town in June of 1992, but those are conditioned, and a subdivision often is, on getting the other approvals you need, Health Department for instance. He didn't have his Health Department approvals yet. In 1993, June, he got an approval from the Town to reduce those 10 lots to 7 so that he avoided Health Department jurisdiction. Because, this is my opinion, he was trying to avoid that jurisdiction because he was having issues with the Health Department. They wanted him to do more test wells and what not. So there's a little bit of a history in there, but that 10 lot subdivision became 7. So couldn't somebody come along and want to subdivide Lot 6 or Lot 7. At one time there were four lots that were there, now two. I think it was '98 1 saw correspondence where Paul tried to re-subdivide some of the property to get another lot out of it, and that was not permitted. There was some referral back to the approvals to say that. So certain, and I don't know of any indication that this owner or any of the others are poised to re-subdivide or subdivide what they have into something more. MR. TRAVER-So a condition of no further subdivision wouldn't be a problem? MR. MAC ELROY-1 think it's already in place, actually. So, yes, I can sort of speak for. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mention that because we've had situations where lots have applied, a lot at one particular point in time has requested to be subdivided and been denied, and then later on in the future they've requested that same piece of property to be subdivided and it's approved. If you put a condition on the property of no further subdivision then that ends it and it would not be. MR. BORGOS-The applicant will stipulate to that condition. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions of the applicant by the Planning Board? MR. MAC ELROY-Can I just address a further item? MR. TRAVER-Yes, sure. MR. MAC ELROY-Because it's been brought up. This is the thing that troubles me the most out of this whole process and the comments that have been made is about this fill system for the wastewater. Chris made this comment back at an earlier, at the Zoning meeting. He was offering his interpretation of a definition. MR. TRAVER-He was questioning whether or not it actually constituted a fill system. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. He was interpreting some language that he was reading and he repeated it I think at the last meeting, and I'm sorry he's not here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-We talked about that quite a bit at the other meeting. MR. MAC ELROY-Indulge me for a second. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just saying, so that we have a background. That's all. MR. MAC ELROY-Three days after that meeting in late March we went to the Septic Summit, a nice conference that Chris had organized and had speakers coming in and what not. So there were a bunch of engineer types there. Because I was a little ticked off at the way that was I .I represented at the other meeting, I made up a, this is our detail that's on the plan. You can't see it but it's the wastewater sectional view of what we were representing. MR. TRAVER-For this application. MR. MAC ELROY-For this application. This is what Chris looked at and said, oh that's a fill system. MR. TRAVER-At the Summit? MR. MAC ELROY-He said it in front of this Board and he said it in front of the Zoning Board, and for the express purposes that if it was a fill system it couldn't be built on that slope. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-It was a gotcha thing as far as I'm concerned. That system that was designed is, you know, 95% of people around the lake would love to have had a system in those conditions, including our three neighbors that have commented against it. I just happen to have a little bit of knowledge of those systems, either through actually designing them or investigating them. So that system that was originally proposed was a very good system, perfectly legal by the definitions of the Town of Queensbury. So I went to the conference, you know, I've been doing this for only 40 years so maybe I wasn't right. Maybe I had forgotten something. Maybe, you know, I was interpreting something wrong myself. So I took that detail and I took out any reference to shallow absorption system and made it a little questionnaire and I gave it to 10 different engineers that were at that conference, was it a fill system, was it a shallow absorption system, was it a conventional system or I threw in was it a raingarden. To see if they were paying attention. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Did anybody answer it was a raingarden? MR. MAC ELROY-No. Without exception, all 10, and they were either design engineers like myself or regulators. All 10, shallow absorption system. So because Chris had said that and others latched onto that, it was wrong. That's why I was so adamant earlier. That's, he was wrong in that interpretation and he's made that information seem like that system was improperly designed and it wasn't suitable for that location. Well, we've moved it, but you know what, it's still a shallow absorption system. Because as I said at a previous meeting, the reason why I raise it up and keep it just into the soil and it's not on top of the organics and not covering the organics. You remove the organic layer. You want to get to the better soils. So that absorption system is just sitting into the native soils, and that material over it is cover material. It's not fill. You're not filling on top of the native material to have the system below it. Again, it was his interpretation to try to make a point of it wasn't, well, again, that was wrong. So I'm sorry he's not here for me to tell him that face to face. That troubled me. The last comment he's talking about time dosing of the absorption field to increase treatment. Probably easily nine out of ten, if not more systems that I design that involve pumps, pump stations, I use time dosing. It's the current technology. It's the current way that I would provide any pump system. So while it's not necessarily clear on this site plan, I would say that this site plan is not the final design for an application for a waste septic disposal system. It doesn't have all the details or specifications, but I can assure you that that pump system will be a time dosed system that will, the benefit of that is it's not demand driven it's time driven and it uses up 24 hours of the day. It spreads that flow out and that dispersal to the field over a 24 hour period, not just a lot every morning and a lot late afternoon or early evening when people use it more. So those are a couple of things I wanted just to clear up. So I'm glad to talk about any other comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I just have to comment on these photos. I mean, they're pretty telling, but one of the other things that's really telling about it is all the neighbor properties that have lost vegetation as well. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, there were a number of areas right adjacent to my family driveway. In fact the property that's owned by George Hearst adjacent to that infamous Kitchen house, that whole area was, lost a great number of trees and the cleanup I suspect had similar results. There was a great deal of tree loss in there. So it hit in certain areas, and why it hit six as much as it did and maybe not as much on seven westerly facing, there's certainly a bunch of trees down there but those were left and that remained natural. Six was hit hard and there was a cleanup, but that's the way the land was when Mr. Perrotta bought it and was going through the steps and making, I think, sincere efforts to try to re-vegetate and make this situation better than exists. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I have, in my collection on this application, I have at least three different site plans. This is a SEQR Type 11. So no further SEQR review is required. We do have, we know we have one condition of no further subdivision. You've already got that. MR. MAC ELROY-The plans of'93, is that what you said? You said '92 but you should say 93 because that's when they changed it from 10 to 7. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-Dennis, it was brought up of maybe doing a little bit more stormwater collection, especially for the gutters. How much harder would it be to grab some of the water coming off the gutters? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I didn't comment on that comment that Bob Glandon had made. The use of drywells certainly are a typical or valid device in certain conditions. A drywell is a vertical structure. Therefore it takes I think it's a three foot separation from the bottom of it to a barrier condition like groundwater or impervious soils. So that's why, one of the reasons, you know, this is kept shallow, kept up near the surface where that infiltration can take place. With the drywell work in certain areas there, a shallow drywell, maybe it's only a four foot section, but now you've got three feet so you're really down seven feet. Whereas we're in a shallow grass swale which basically is a little below grade, a foot below grade, and then you've got two feet of separation so you're only three feet down. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the question is would it improve, would it make for better stormwater. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess what we're saying is we're getting the water in the ground closer, instead of letting it come all the way down to the swale, which, you know, I want to thank you for moving the septic up there and concentrating just on that swale, for, you know, collection of the water. I guess my concern is, you know, now seeing the pictures, I really, I like how you spoke. I always do, but after looking at the pictures, you know, and kind of counting the trees and really it's, the vegetation, you can see that it has somewhat come back, you know, but boy it's devastate far beyond just this property here, but I guess my question would be, you know, if we could get some more of that water in the ground, maybe it would help prevent, you know, the seepage, you know, down lower for the lower houses. MR. MAC ELROY-Could there be a shallow dry well that captures some amount of roof area from a roof leader or downspout. MR. MAGOWAN-Because it is a large house and a lot of square footage of roof up there. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I mean, effectively it gets the groundwater, or stormwater into the ground. How do we address that at this point? I mean, do you let us go on our way and say, okay,just add some gutters and dry wells to the devices? MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, my comment on that would be you have an engineering signoff. So if you were to offer, in response to what Brad is suggesting, some additional stormwater, that would require another review that would be over and above. Unless you were to take stormwater somewhere that you've already got it, that's been approved, and move it somehow. That would be a change in your plan, but if you're doing everything that's already been approved and you're adding some additional stormwater. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, you know, that shows swales that go to the north side of the house and to the south side of the house, capturing the runoff from the westerly flow, brings it around to the north. Those are grass swales as well. So there's a certain, without putting, there's a certain infiltration that may take place there, but maybe there's a location you put a drywell in the channel line. So some of it is captured there and infiltrates out, goes into the drywell and infiltrates out, and other goes on its way, in a heavier flow. So something like that. That could be done. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm going to go on your 40 years of experience, but I mean, if it wouldn't be too much more, because I just, you know, all that water just goes downhill, and I know what you're going to do and what you're proposing is going to help that immensely. If we can give it just another little kick on the roof area I'd feel obliged. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. I guess I just don't know what the mechanism is for that? I mean, we can certainly do that. I can say that we can do that to an extent, and how do we approve the plan? The final step here is the final. MR. TRAVER-You would submit final plans to the Town and if you're proposing something over and above what has already been reviewed and approved by the engineer, I don't think it would require any additional review. It would be something that you're offering in addition to what you've submitted. Would be my feeling. What do you think? MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 would agree with that. MR. DEEB-More is better. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly, but I will say that I believe that we have achieved that already. MR. DEEB-I'm not saying you didn't. MR. MAC ELROY-But more than more is better. MR. MAGOWAN-1 believe you have achieved it. MR. DEEB-I like that, Dennis, more than more. MR. MAGOWAN-But I just, like I said, when you're not able to say 100% for sure, and I can't say that all the problems are coming from your property. MR. TRAVER-The engineer is saying 100% for sure. He's saying that no stormwater is going to leave the property. Otherwise he wouldn't sign off on it, but you are. MR. MAC ELROY-The engineer is saying that it's compliant with the regulations. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right, but what you're talking about is adding some further, like tertiary treatment I guess in a way. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm not looking for one hundred thousand more for stormwater, but something that, you know, with looking at the pictures and the different roof lines and stuff like that, you've got a lot of roof there. So say you've got four five inch downspouts on each corner coming down, what can we do to put them in the ground closer up on the flat area so it gets down further so as it trickles down it's down below the property? MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. We can make some effort to improve that or to show it differently that would add, that would make more of something more better. MR. TRAVER-What I would suggest on our side to handle that, since we have a signoff, I wouldn't make that a condition of approval. They've offered to look at it and to do it where it would be helpful, and I think that, to me, is adequate, as opposed to making something specific and put it as a condition, but they're offering to do it. I think that they have represented from our experience of the application I think they'll do it. MR. MAGOWAN-No, and I think Dennis is a good man. Whatever we can do to make it a little better. MR. TRAVER-So that works for you? Any other comments, questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. FORD-I've got a comment. I've listened, I've absorbed, and I believe that if all of the citizens of our community who live on Assembly Point approached the water issues on their property with the diligence of this team, Assembly Point would be a lot better than it is now, as far as the water conditions are concerned. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. DEEB-And in honor of Don Krebs who always commented on that road. We've got to give a shout out to Don. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and there are, and have been, actually, plans in the works. A lot of it is funding and approvals and so on. I have no doubt the stormwater is going to continue to, that issue is never going to go away, but it's always going to get better and better. Part of that is our handling this project by project. So thank you for those comments. All right. Again, a reminder we have, this is a SEQR Type 11. So we're looking at a resolution. So if you want to read that in. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #4-2017 FRANK PERROTTA, 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 a 3,467 sq. ft. (footprint), 8,625 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, major stormwater and project 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/24/2017 and continued the public hearing to 5/16/2017, 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 5/16/2017; 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 4-2017 FRANK PERROTTA, JR.; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Signage, parking and loading areas. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) And the Board re-affirms the position that there is no subdivision of this lot per the plans that were in the tenant's documents from June 1993. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Is it further subdivision or no subdivision? „ . MR. FERONE-It's no subdivision. MRS. MOORE-No subdivision of this lot. MR. TRAVER-Right. Essentially no further. It's part of the original subdivision as of 1993. MR. MAC ELROY-And I would say June of 1993 to be more specific. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You are all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Perrotta, we thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your work on the project. All right. The next application we have before us is Greg Teresi, and as reported earlier that application has been withdrawn. So we can move on to the next Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA, which is Christopher Mackey, Site Plan 38-2017 on the Corinth Road. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 38-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CHRIS MACKEY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) MARY & WILLIAM CAREY ZONING CLI LOCATION CORINTH ROAD (WEST OF # 310) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,450 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. PROJECT INCLUDES A SINGLE DRIVE AISLE AROUND BUILDING WITH ONE ACCESS TO CORINTH ROAD. THE SITE WILL BE CLEARED TO INSTALL STORMWATER, DRIVE AISLE AND PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A FOR SUBDIVISION LOT SIZE .26 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura can you give us an update? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a project, this is under Planning Board recommendations, so the project is the construction of a 2,450 square foot storage building. This project includes a single drive aisle around the building with one access to Corinth Road. The variance request is in reference to the front setback which is required as a 75 foot setback, and the side setbacks are proposed to be 20 feet where 30 foot setback is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening, again. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. For the record, Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing the applicant Chris Mackey for this project on Corinth Road in a CLI, Commercial Light Industrial district. Chris is under contract for this small lot for the purposes of building a storage building for his personal use. It's not intended to be a business. The lot is 75 by 50. MR. T RAVE R-Seve nty-five by fifty? Wow. MR. MAC ELROY-Excuse me, by 150. MR. TRAVER-One fifty. MR. MAC ELROY-Seventy-five by one fifty. MR. DEEB-That's pretty small. MR. MAC ELROY-Seventy-five along the frontage, one fifty deep. The front setback is 50 feet, but it's in the Corinth Road Travel Corridor, which pushes it back to 75, half of the depth of the lot. Side yard setbacks are 30? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC ELROY-The side yard setbacks are 30. So we've got a 75 foot wide lot. So the two setbacks leaves you 15 foot. So what is proposed is a building that is 35 by 70. So we can get back to the 50 foot depth, but not the 75 foot depth, and the 35 foot width creates a situation with 20 foot setbacks where 30 is required. So we're seeking that relief on the side and on the front. Based on the Travel Corridor setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-The configuration, there's a loop road that goes around the building. There'd be several garage doors. This is the first step, obviously, seeking referral. Tomorrow night's the variance request. MR. TRAVER-So what we're doing is reviewing this in the context of the variance for the ZBA for the setback issues on this rather unusual lot. Anything else? It seems fairly straightforward. Questions, comments by members of the Board? MR. FERONE-This lot is cleared, right? There's no trees on it? MR. MAC ELROY-No, there are trees on it. The lot adjacent to the west is the old West Side Auto. That's clear. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-The property in back is Martin Seaton's A-1 business location. Immediately to the west, east, excuse me, is a residential looking house, and a garage of some sort that he's operated as some sort of auto business. The house may be used as a residence, though, it's my understanding, but that's what's next door. This has been a vacant lot. There are few trees on that property. MR. MAGOWAN-The only question I have, that's an awfully, awfully large personal garage, but my question is, what happens if they want to put a bathroom in that and we've got to have a septic? Are you going to go with a holding tank? MR. MAC ELROY-Probably that would be an option that would be considered, if at some point in time Corinth Road doesn't have a sewer. Isn't there something in the works or thought of about the Carey Industrial Park? MR. TRAVER-Are there plans to put a bathroom in this? MR. MAC ELROY-No. No, there is not. There isn't a requirement to do so, either. MR. MAGOWAN-With a personal garage that large, I'm sure you're going to have projects in that to be working on and, you know, what happens at that time you have to go? MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. MR. MAGOWAN-That's the only thing that popped out to me. I said, holy mackerel that thing is huge, but, you know. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it's not required for that use. It may be something that is realized to be a good idea in the future, and, yes, a holding tank might be the only option, something like that, just mainly because of the amount of use. If he were to invest in a system, it would have to be, it really can't even be under the pavement. It's not proposed to be pavement. It's proposed just to be a gravel drive, but you wouldn't put a field under it. So I suspect if it came to that it would go before the Board of Health to ask for a holding tank situation. MR. FERONE-You bring up a point. This is just for storage, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, yes, it's not a garage. MR. FERONE-It's not for changing oil, any of that stuff. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a damn big shed, though. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. FORD-It's 15 pounds of potatoes in a 10 pound bag. MR. TRAVER-All right. So with regard to the request for variance for the setbacks, are there any questions or concerns that we would want to reflect in our referral to the ZBA? MR. DEEB-Did he say what he was going to store in it? Do you know what he's going to store inside? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, personal items, boats, Chris, his residence is in Queensbury on Route 9L from the lake. It would be something that he stores some winter stuff in the summer and summer stuff in the winter. It's, yes, it may seem unusual to maybe the rest of us, but it fits within his needs. MR. DEEB-It's a long ways from his house. MS. WHITE-I'm thinking I would rather see something built here than on the property on the lake for storage. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Right. Yes. MR. DEEB-It is a long way. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, well, I don't say this facetiously, but it's either there or Fort Ann where there's no zoning, and we've seen that whole corridor there that has grown because of storage, boat storage whatever in that area, but this happened to be a little orphaned lot that was available for sale, and he thought that it was a reasonable piece to try to pick up and pending, again, it's under contract and has a certain timeframe to act on this, but going through this process. MR. DEEB-I don't know what else could go there. It's such a small lot. MR. FORD-A smaller building. MR. DEEB-A smaller building. MS. WHITE-And it would require parking. It would require bathrooms. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the only concern I would have with the setback request is screening, and you show landscaping that would screen the building from the neighbors. MR. MAC ELROY-From the neighbors, you're correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready for a resolution to the ZBA? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-36-2017 CHRIS MACKEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,450 sq. ft. storage building. Project includes a single drive aisle around building with one access to Corinth Road. The site will be cleared to install stormwater, drive aisle and plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of a storage building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2017 CHRIS MACKEY: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time, and also on that previous one that was a good review and I appreciate that, and it was typical for me. That's my neighborhood. That's my friends that are arguing against me. MR. TRAVER-Well, in a lot of ways, you know, we had our homework to do, but it was your effort in listening and modifying and changing and improving that empowered us. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also a referral to the ZBA. It's for 168 Sunnyside Road, Sunnyside Par 3, James Beaty. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2017 & SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 8-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JAMES BEATY OWNER(S) HARS PARS INC. d/b/a SUNNYSIDE PAR 3 ZONING MDR LOCATION 168 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.86 PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS — ONE 0.33 ACRE AND ONE 10.53 ACRES. APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN. THE APARTMENT BUILDING WILL BE ON THE 0.33 ACRE PARCEL AND THE GOLF COURSE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS TO BE ON THE 10.53 ACRE PARCEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE, DENSITY, PERMEABILITY & SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 1991 3 CAR DETACHED GARAGE; 1995 ADDITION TO APT. BLDG.; 2004 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 42-93; SP 13-2005 ELEC. INSTALLATIONS FOR NIGHT USE; AV 35-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A FOR SUBDIVISION LOT SIZE 10.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-50 SECTION CHAPTER 183 HERB LAVERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES BEATY, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision. The lot is currently 10.86 acres. Two lots. One lot would be 0.33 acres and the other lot would be 10.53. What this application is for is to separate the existing apartment complex from the golf course, and the relief that is requested is for the requirements for a, there's four units it would be, sorry, eight acres for relief for the density. The lot size requires, in that zone, at least two acres, and for setbacks from the existing apartment building and from garages, I think on both properties. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAVERY-Good evening. My name is Herb Lavery. To my left is Jim Beaty. To my right is Greg Colburn. We're the three owners of the Sunnyside Par 3. Presently the 10.86 acres make up mostly the golf course bar and grill. In the front on the road there is a four unit apartment building that was there when we purchased the property back in 2004. So we've owned the property for a little over 13 years, and about three years ago we decided that we were going to try and sell the business in its entirety, and it's been on the market at ever decreasing price points, and apparently not a lot of people want to buy a golf course right now, and so what we were looking at doing is to break the two pieces apart and make two lots, one that would be of interest to a real estate investor potentially to run that property and the second to run the golf course bar and grill, and we feel that making that change would bring more buyers for both properties. That's our main goal. We don't see that there will be any significant changes to how the property is run/managed today, either on the apartment side or on the bar and grill/golf course, and there will be no physical modifications and no changes to the character of the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's a subdivision without any other changes basically. '.j MR. LAVERY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You're basically subdividing the business more than the land itself. MR. LAVE RY-Basically for marketing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Interesting. Okay. All right. It is quite a variance, I mean, at least on paper. You're talking .33, and the requirement is how many acres? MRS. MOORE-Eight acres. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So it is quite a variance, but it is a pre-existing, you know, in a way it's a pre-existing nonconforming structure, if you think of it that way. Any comments from members of the Planning Board on the variance? MR. DEEB-So the rental units are on the .33 acre? MR. LAVERY-Correct. MR. DEEB-And how many rental units? MR. LAVERY-Four. MR. DEEB-.33. Tight. It's been there. I remember. It's just amazing. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what you're trying to do makes sense. So the only question becomes so where do you draw the lot line? Then you look at your site plan and there's really not a whole lot of choice as to where you draw the line because of the uses. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, I think what you're doing probably makes the most sense. Unless you start knocking buildings down. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm just amazed somebody wouldn't want to buy the whole thing and either have the front as their house, who wants to live that close to the bar, but it's quite the backyard. MR. TRAVER-Yes, especially if you're a golfer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, it was kind of like a chip and putt I guess. I haven't played there. Interesting. MR. DEEB-You think it'll make it more marketable then? MR. LAVERY-We've had people that have looked at it that have come back and said I don't want the apartment. I want to run a business. So this takes that obstacle out of the way. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Have you had anybody applying to own the apartments and not the golf course? MR. LAVERY-We haven't explored that because it wasn't an option for us. MR. FORD-1 see. MR. FERONE-Apparently right now the apartments and the golf course co-exist under one ownership. Do you think it would be any problem if both the apartments and the golf course were owned by two different people? MR. LAVERY-I can't see why. MR. FERONE-Your tenants are familiar with where they are. MR. LAVERY-1 mean, that's a valid point in some respects. If there's a problem with a tenant, we can go speak to that tenant about anything that's affecting our business. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAVERY-But by the same token, if you have a neighbor, you can speak to that owner about that property and how they maintain it, take care of it. MR. FERONE-And the apartment maintains the parking in front of the building and the other kind of a lot here is for the golf course parking. MR. LAVERY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments with regard to the referral from members of the Planning Board? All right. Then we have a resolution for a referral then. MR. FERONE-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-35-2017 JAMES BEATY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.86 acre parcel into two lots — one 0.33 acre and one 10.53 acres. Applicant requests waiver from sketch plan. The apartment building will be on the 0.33 acre parcel and the golf course and associated buildings to be on the 10.53 acre parcel. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for lot size, density, permeability & setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2017 JAMES BEATY CHARS PARS, INC.: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck, you've got to go to the zoning. They're tougher than us. MR. TRAVER-All right. The last referral to the ZBA is Site Plan Modification 32-2017 for Glen Durlacher. SITE PLAN (MODIFICATION) 32-2017 OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK GLENN DURLACHER ZONING CI LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN WOOD CARING BUSINESS AND RELOCATE A 160 SQ. FT. SHED, WHICH INCLUDES A 40 SQ. FT. PORCH ON THE SHED. PROJECT INCLUDES RELOCATION OF DISPLAY AREAS AND TO ADD LANDSCAPE LIGHTING TO SHINE ON SCULPTURES/DISPLAYS. PROJECT STILL INCLUDES EXTERIOR TREE ART BUSINESS, REMOVAL OF CHAIN LINK FENCE TO INSTALL ROPE AND WOOD POST FENCING ALONG WITH USE OF BARN AREA FOR STORAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ 265-2016; AV 30-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 10.48 ACRES/1.5T" ACRE (USING ONLY 4,500 SQ. FT.) TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020 GLENN DURLACHER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have any update on that? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is back before the Board, received previous approval for starting a wood carving business on this location on The Great Escape lot, and has since had shown a shed in a particular location and now wishes to move that shed closer to the front property line. The applicant did provide a survey showing the location of the shed, and that shed is within the 75 foot setback. So it requires relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So there was an approved site plan and now by wanting to modify that site plan and move the shed it triggers the requirement of a variance. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. DURLACHER-Good evening. Yes. When I was here initially I actually made a mistake and drew the shed location wrong. MR. TRAVER-And excuse me, just if you could start over and state your name for the record. MR. DURLACHER-Glenn Durlacher. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DURLACHER-When I initially applied for the business to be moved I drew the shed wrong, at a wrong location, and realized it needed to be closer to the road, and I'm here to request permission to get a variance to move the shed. It basically moves it up with the other structures and even with the back of the planter that's there. MR. TRAVER-1 remember we had quite a lengthy discussion the first time you were here about your concept for the layout of the site and how you were going to display some of your work and that type of thing. MR. DURLACHER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And that part of it really hasn't changed. MR. DURLACHER-No. MR. TRAVER-There was a question raised, I noticed, with regard to the lighting. MR. DURLACHER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-You talked about having some lighting that would be up cast, and that's a problem for us because of the issue of light spillage. We discourage and forbid up cast lighting because it contributes to light pollution in the sky. So what can you do to make sure that that lighting is not facing upward so it's shining into the sky? MR. DURLACHER-Well, what I was planning to do is just those little small lights, those and I don't know the actual wattage. MR. FERONE-Like low voltage? MR. DURLACHER-Yes, low voltage, just small low voltage lights that point at several large sculptures and that's. MR. FERONE-Landscape lighting. MR. DURLACHER-Yes, landscape lighting. So landscape lighting, not. MR. FORD-Would any of them point towards Route 9? MR. DURLACHER-I'm sorry? MR. FORD-Would any of them point toward Route 9? MR. DURLACHER-No. Like I have a big horsehead sculpture, just big. I would have one on each side, pointing up toward the lighting, you know, just faintly lighting the sculpture. Unless I dangle it from the tree, that big tree. It's probably 300 years old. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know what you're talking about, like my father has one because I had to adjust it the other day, that, you know, that shines up behind the shrubs up onto his flag. Because he can't take it down at night like he used to. So there's the light on it, but instead of putting one on either side, because what you're going to affect then is really the north and south traffic, you know, but if you had one, you know, on the Route 9 side, facing up toward, just one, you know what I'm saying? And that would illuminate, you know, it wouldn't drown out the horsehead. What you want to do is give it a certain glow, because it is a beautiful sculpture. Because I come out of Round Pond all the time and that's the first thing I see is that big horsehead. MR. DURLACHER-Just one could even. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, I think one, what you're talking is a little low voltage lighting, an illuminator. MR. DURLACHER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Because you do get a lot of spillage from, I don't want to say spillage, but a lot of light does come over from Martha's being so bright white and that, and you've got the street lights right there, and then you've got the hotel, but like I say, it will illuminate that. MR. DURLACHER-Yes. Just so I have a little bit, because it's going to be a sculpture garden. So, you know, they're just faintly lit. Just faintly lit at night. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're just talking basically a garden, low voltage, faintly lit. MR. DURLACHER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the things that I caught, you also said a safety fence there on the back side. I think of a safety fence is that orange stuff. What were you thinking? Plastic safety fence. Well, you already got the shed wrong and you're back for that. So let's get the safety fence. MR. DURLACHER-Safety fence? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it says plastic safety fence. MR. DURLACHER-It's not a safety fence. No, basically what that is is, Great Escape, it's a chain. The Great Escape needs an access. We share that access. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. DURLACHER-And there's an actual orange safety fence that runs across. It's a safety chain, and it runs across, so in case there's ever a fire. MR. MAGOWAN-That I do see, I just didn't like the idea, because the last time you were here you talked about, you know, some sculptured posts with six inch round anchor rope from the 1800's. MR. DURLACHER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, looped in between. MR. DURLACHER-Yes, no. This is just a back orange yellow chain. MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you provide some comment on the issue of the lighting? If we use the low voltage. I guess it sounds like it's generally still more or less going to be up cast, but if it's low voltage, it's not going to be as bright as the rooster at Martha's. MR. DEEB-Well, we need some specifics. I'd rather have specifics on the lighting. MR. FERONE-Well, I mean, as long as it's not like a spotlight, a floodlight. The ones that we would be familiar with that would be on a sign. MR. TRAVER-1 think low voltage is pretty specific. MR. DEEB-I'm not sure that's going to work. MR. FORD-If I'm going up and down Route 9, 1 don't want to see that light. I don't mind seeing what it's shining on, but I don't want to see that light. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Right. MR. DURLACHER-Well, this one, I would just shoot it away from, away from the road. MR. FORD-Glenn, could I make an observation? You've been here several times before the Board. You're a lot better with a chainsaw then you are with designing lots. MR. DEEB-Nothing personal. MR. MAGOWAN-This is going to do. You're going to look for a log that's half rotted away, and you're going to set it right there in front of the lighting and give it something behind so you can't see the light, then it will shine up from behind. MR. DURLACHER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-A low wattage, low voltage light. What do you think? MR. DURLACHER-Yes. That sounds fine. My main concern is to get my shed. MR. DEEB-With that shed, do you really need that other 37 feet to move it so you have to have a variance? MR. TRAVER-Well, it's already there. MRS. MOORE-No, it has not been moved yet. MR. DEEB-It hasn't been moved. MR. DURLACHER-It hasn't been moved. I have to move it all the way back. MR. DEEB-If you keep it within the setback, is it too far back? MR. DURLACHER-If it's within the setbacks, but with my mistake, it leaves it right in the middle of Great Escape's parking and I can't use it. MR. DEEB-Okay. I was going to say, you triggered a variance, if you could have gotten by with. MR. TRAVER-Well, you have to move it to what we have before us in order to make it usable is what you're saying? MR. DURLACHER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-There's something about that shed that you really and to me, I wouldn't even call it a shed. It's almost an attraction. MR. DURLACHER-Well, it's going to be, even with that old barn, basically, and centered in the sculpture garden. So people can go in it to. MR. DEEB-I don't have a problem with it. It's just, I mean, as far as your business, your business is sculptures. MR. DURLACHER-Yes, so it keeps small sculptures for scale, but I don't have to be running in and out. I can lock up. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, tonight we're talking about the setback of the shed. Does anyone have any issues with the setback that requested for the referral? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because it's moveable. It's not a permeant structure. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion, I think, for that. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-30-2017 GLENN DURLACHER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to maintain wood carving business and relocate a 160 sq. ft. shed, which includes a 40 sq. ft. porch on the shed. Project includes relocation of display areas and to add landscape lighting to shine on sculptures/displays. Project still includes exterior tree art business, removal of chain link fence to install rope and wood post fencing along with use of barn area for storage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2017 GLENN DURLACHER: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA with your updated site plan. MR. DURLACHER-Thanks, ladies and gentlemen. MR. FORD-See you again soon. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item before us is under Old Business. Paul Poirier, Subdivision 6-2017, Preliminary, Final Stage 9-2017 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2017. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 6-2017 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 9-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION END OF ISLAND VIEW & RIVERSIDE DRIVES APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION - LOTS 1, 2 & 3 ACCESS IS FROM ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND LOT 4 ACCESS IS FROM RIVERSIDE DRIVE. LOT 1 - 4.9 ACRES, LOT 2 - 2.1 ACRES, LOT 3 - 2.1 ACRES, LOT 4 - 9.4 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES EASEMENT FOR ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE — WILL BE INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT REQUESTS STORMWATER AND SITE PLAN FOR EACH LOT AS THEY ARE SOLD. WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM SKETCH PLAN FOR 4 LOT PROPOSAL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-2010 SKETCH, AV 34-2010, A 16-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 18.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14- 1-46 SECTION CHAPTER 183, CHAPTER 94 STEFANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 0 MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us an update on that? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a four lot subdivision. Lot One is 4.9 acres. Lot Two is 2.1 acres. Lot Three is 2.1 and Lot Four is 9.4. Lots One, Two and Three are accessed by Island View Drive, and Lot Four is accessed from Riverside Drive. The applicant did receive a variance on March 29th, 2017. This is in regards to their request for relief from physical road frontage from Island View Drive and 50 foot required and road frontage dimension requirement for roads less than 150 feet where 50 feet is proposed. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I see you've requested that the project have site plan review for each parcel as they're developed. I remember discussing that when you were here before. Okay. So you received your variance approval. MS. BITTER-March 29th MR. TRAVER-In March. MS. BITTER-This subdivision has been a longtime coming. It started in 2010, and it had a few obstacles that it had to overcome, which we got to that point but it just took seven years to get there. MR. FORD-1 remember it. MS. BITTER-As Laura had described, it's a four lot subdivision, but three of the lots will be accessed from East Branch over Island View Drive which is a private road, and that will be a shared easement and maintenance agreement which we are working on which will be recorded prior to the first lot being sold. The other would come up Riverside for the access and will not share the driveway or any maintenance obligations as to the other lots of the subdivision. Lot One's 4.9 acres. Lot Two and Three are 2.1, and then Lot Four is 9.4, but as you mentioned, we're seeking a waiver from Sketch and we're also proposing a condition of approval that each of these lots have stormwater and site plan at the time in which they are purchased because our client has no intention of building these homes and has no ideas of the design and because of the unique features on these lots we feel that that would be the best way to handle it. There are more subdivision notes placed on the map based on Laura's recommendation which we did after the last time we were before this Board, but there are clearing areas shown for the well and driveway and septic, but that was the best way to handle it at the time they were ready to design the houses. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and as you commented this has been pretty extensively reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn't we do Sketch? MS. BITTER-In 2010, but as part of seven lots. MR. TRAVER-So any modifications since you received the variance, since we reviewed it last? MR. CENTER-Just the additional stormwater management notes that each lot would require stormwater management. A couple of typical details that would show what they could use, and again, requiring each one to come back for stormwater management review is much more prudent. Lot Four still needs to go through the whole process with Army Corps for the stream crossings and all that. So that will come to you at the same time it goes to that, and since our client isn't going to be constructing on these lots, there's no reason. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MS. WHITE-So is that working the same way for the clearing plan? Because I know, I'm just looking at this. MR. CENTER-I've given it what I think is the clearing limits that would be for that lot, for that house for the yard for those areas, which, the clearing plans, again, to correct Laura's, the notes she, if you will, Lot One is about a half an acre of clearing. Lot Two is plus or minus a half acre. Lot Three is about a half-acre, and Lot Four would be two acres, but again, we're crossing streams. There's some stormwater management that's going to have to occur for that driveway in particular. So that's taking all that into account, and the location of the house most likely is going to be at the rear of the parcel. So that's why clearing is a little bit larger for that. The other ones are not, if that's what you were looking at on the notes. MS. WHITE-1 was looking at the notes, and I know I'm the least experienced person, and I'm thinking the whole lots are going to be cleared, and I knew it was not. MR. CENTER-No, on the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan it shows 73,000 square feet for Lot Four and about 20,000 plus for the other three. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. FORD-Access to the property has been addressed successfully? MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. DEEB-That was a big issue. MS. BITTER-That was the hiccup. Yes, we have an easement that's been executed and stipulation. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? It's quite a project. All right. I guess we have a motion then? MR. HUNSINGER-You have a public hearing. MR. DEEB-Public hearing. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. You're right. And this is also a SEQR Unlisted. So this was also a SEQR Unlisted application so there will be a SEQR review as well. So, yes, we do have a public hearing on this application this evening. So we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and if you would like to address us on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STARLETT COOK MS. COOK-My name is Starlett Cook, and my husband, Michael Wynn, and I own the property on Number 4 and reside on Number 4 Island View Drive. So we've been part of this seven year project as well. For the record, I am not here to oppose the subdivision or to oppose access to the subdivision. I'm here because I have concerns about the land bridge that is Island View Drive once it goes across my husband's and my property. I'm not the landowner. That is on the McGuire parcel, and currently there are three people that use that lot, Mr. and Mrs. McGuire. They're senior citizens, and my stepmother, Colleen Cook, who lives alone, who is approaching senior citizen. That's all that uses it now currently. So we, let's see, we don't use the land bridge, a fire truck doesn't have to go across it to put out a fire at our house, anything like that. However, the brook that this land bridge goes across does cross over onto our property, before it enters the Hudson River, and this land bridge has been, has not been improved since it was built in 1981, and it is, it was built by one man with a chainsaw, one man with a bulldozer, and a culvert, and it has not been changed since that date. So it's in a constant state of erosion, and the debris that falls away from this land bridge is continually entering the Hudson River in front of, well, on our property. Now technically National Grid, NiMo, I don't even know, Brookfield I at this point I guess it is has their easement. So technically none of us are actually land front or waterfront owners, but at some point, you know, my property meets that, and that brook enters the River on the part of the River that I use as my waterfront property. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a scientist. I'm a lady with a shovel who is constantly trying to re-route this debris. I actually happened to grow up on both sides. My grandparents and my parents are property owners down there, and now I am a property owner between their two properties. So I actually grew up right there playing in this little brook that I'm talking about here where it enters the River. Used to come out, and actually it's a very strange thing because it came out and it made a very deliberate turn and upstream, it went into the Hudson River in an upstream direction. Over the years, and it's not just the land bridge erosion. I will admit that. We have Batease, and we have Seeley that have a constant dumping, filling into two little tributaries that enter into this one brook. So it's not just the land bridge. However, after hard rains and what have you, the holes in the sides of this land bridge would indicate to me that there is debris floating down that and entering into the River. So we have ended up with an amazing beach in front of our home where it used to be all mud that you would literally sink to your knee when you stepped on. Now it is a beach because I'm down there with my rake and my shovel all the time trying to re-route this water that now wants to flow straight out into the River and its built a huge sand bar out into the River. My husband and I built a rock wall now to try to hold the debris as it comes and route it downstream to keep the sandbar from continuing out, in and across the River. It's a lot of work and usually after the high water this time of year and everything we have to re-route it all again. Last year I built a pretty substantial rock wall. So I'm hoping it's not too bad. So back to this land bridge. It has not changed since it was built, other than eroding and maybe some stone getting dumped on the top and what have you. So I would like to submit for public record some pictures, and I apologize for not having copies for everybody. This has been a learning experience for me. All the very professional people that have come before me today make this look a little lame, but I have copies of these pictures and I have labeled them One through Six. However, picture number five I had duplicates of this picture. So I actually submitted the picture. There wasn't anywhere to indicate its number. So it's written on the back, and I've also indicated the direction that you would be looking, you know, if you were standing in the picture, the direction that you would be looking. So the pictures I'll show here and then I'll pass them quickly. This picture is just past my driveway. It's about where the land bridge is going to start, okay. This is looking in a southwest direction. This next picture is standing in that same spot just doing a 180 and looking at the direction of the steep ravine, steep uphill on the other side from that same spot. This is in 1981. 1 was 18 years old. I was not a property owner. My grandparents were property owners and my parents were property owners. MR. TRAVER-The photographs date from 1981? MS. COOK-Yes. So I was the photographer, myself and my grandmother were the photographers. So this photograph is just, there's snow on the ground here. This one the snow is gone. There's a tree down, one of the first trees that was cut down. Again, facing the ravine, okay. Big tree that was just down with a piece of culvert that was laid in this brook. MR. TRAVER-So this is as the land bridge is being constructed? MS. COOK-Yes, in 1981. MR. TRAVER-All right. MS. COOK-Okay. There's a man down in there and this big culvert being laid down in there. This picture, this is an actual photograph. The culvert is located here. Dirt is being pushed towards the culvert with a bulldozer. One man with a bulldozer just started pushing dirt, pushing dirt, pushing dirt, okay. MR. TRAVER-To make a land bridge. MS. COOK-To make a land bridge. That is now connecting over, this is all the McGuire property. So this is the part of the property where the shared driveway, I'm going to have to get my bearings here, would be in here. This is the brook that I'm referring to. This is the land bridge. That bulldozer picture is showing pushing land this direction, pushing dirt this direction. All of the dirt had to be pushed from this direction, because when the man with the bulldozer arrived, he looked at the deep ravine and said, I can't go down in there and up the other side. So he had to go out and around back up to Big Boom Road and there was an old road that came down to an old sand pit on Big Boom Road. He came down in and was all in this area, and he came this direction, so that he could start pushing dirt this direction because he couldn't go up that hill. Okay. So that's what you're seeing here in this photograph. This photograph here which, I'll send it along, this is from 2015. This is the land bridge in 2015. You can see that all that it's lined with are just logs on the side. It's had no improvements whatsoever during that time. This tree right here that I'm denoting, the same tree, you will see that tree, this is 2015, you will see that same tree noted from 1981. It's got a ribbon on it here. If you look closely at the pictures you can see it's the same tree, to see that we are talking about the same piece of property. MR. TRAVER-1 hate to interrupt you, but if you could just clarify for us. I appreciate the historical perspective of the land bridge, but I'm not certain that I understand exactly what it is that you are asking of us. MS. COOK-Well, I'm asking that, I'm trying to create awareness of what this subdivision is going to be crossing. MR. TRAVER-You're concerned about additional sort of wear and tear on this land bridge. MS. COOK-Absolutely. I'm just concerned about, not only three lots with the homes using the, I'm concerned about the construction equipment that has to get in and out, but again, I don't have to cross this land bridge. It doesn't really affect me, but what does affect me, and what I am very concerned about, is the erosion of the bridge where it enters the brook and into the River. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think we have enough information to discuss that with the applicant. MS. COOK-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you show us up on the map where your property is? MS. COOK-Yes. It's off the map, well, we're right here, we're over in here. We would be here. So where this brook comes down, it comes down, it crosses on to our property here. Our property goes at an angle like this, and it crosses onto, it doesn't show the brook, but obviously goes into the Hudson River. It goes through that culvert and it crosses over our property and enters the River, you know, on our property. I obviously can't be specific without seeing it. MR. TRAVER-Well, we can discuss that with the applicant. Thank you very much. MS. COOK-Sure. So that's really my purpose for being here, and, you know, yes, that's really, I just wanted to create awareness before this, you know,just make sure everybody knows. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well you've certainly done that. Thank you for that information. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MS. COOK-That's all. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you heard the concern. I'm assuming you're aware of the land bridge. MS. BITTER-I'm very aware of that land bridge. The surveyors had taken a look at when we were in litigation to assess the arguments that were being made. Ms. Cook is well aware of the easement agreement that we also signed at the conclusion of the three day trial and the stipulation that we entered into and there is a maintenance obligation shared with the parties that cross over that land bridge. So the McGuire's, the Poirier's obviously are going to have to make sure that that access is not impeded. I can tell you that that land bridge was never mentioned, at least in my appearance. I was not there when the stipulation was entered into. So I support the fact that maintenance of that land bridge will be supported by the individuals that cross it, but I was somewhat surprised that it was brought up because during the extensive review of this that was not brought up before during my appearances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the concern about the land bridge being the primary access to these properties is the maintenance that you've stipulated to on the part of the property owners, is that documented somewhere? Is that part of the? MS. BITTER-Well, it will be documented relative to the McGuire and Cook who are the two other individuals that she was speaking of that are adjacent to hers. The other folks are going to be in the easement declaration that I spoke of that will be finalized before one of the lots is actually sold. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that will be part of, that will be required to be part of any sale or use of this proposed subdivision? MS. BITTER-Obviously, since they don't want to impede access to their own as well as the McGuires. MR. TRAVER-All right. I think that that takes care of that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like, though, there's a maintenance issue with the land bridge. MS. BITTER-Is there a maintenance issue or is there? Well, this is the first time that it's been brought up in the seven years that I've been talking about it. So I was a bit surprised by the extensive discussion since there's been a lot of discussions relative to this, and that was not one that I've ever heard before, but obviously the sustainability of the land bridge is important to all of the people that cross it. So that's definitely something that's going to be assessed. MR. FORD-How is it going to be addressed? ,.j MS. BITTER-Well, I would assume that the surveyors, we looked at it when we were trying to argue the easement that that land bridge was there for a very long time and we had Matt Steves actually look at it during the surveying of the work. So if there's issues relative to the sustainability, McGuire and Cook are already crossing it now. McGuire and Cook built their residences. So that part of it was taken into consideration. MR. TRAVER-So there'll be some, obviously, monitoring and ongoing repairs as needed should it be endangered by whatever forces might, erosion or whatever. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. FORD-I'm concerned about the erosion issue that has been raised. MS. BITTER-Right, and like I said it was the first time I'd ever heard of it. MRS. MOORE-In the information that was submitted, it does point out in Number two, the shared driveway shall be maintained, so, I mean, it's on this subdivision map that's going to be filed. So it is something that we can evaluate and Code Compliance. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and it sounds as though the sandbar that's being created is not because of the erosion of the land bridge, because the land bridge has survived since 1981, so it must be debris that's coming down from upstream. MS. BITTER-And there's a lot of activity upstream as she had mentioned. MR. TRAVER-Even in Lake George we see that happening. MR. CENTER-And our disturbance is away from that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-We're not proposing anything there. MR. TRAVER-Right, and as we look at stormwater for each lot, that's obviously going to be a requirement. They will have to meet the engineering requirement. So that will be, okay. MR. FORD-Help clarify this in my mind. Who's property is that land bridge on? MS. BITTER-1 believe it's actually on McGuire's. McGuire's is the first lot that's referenced all the way to the left there. I know that she's got it covered, but see the first square? And that property Ms. Poirier has an easement across already. That property was carved out of the original land that makes up the unique shape. MR. CENTER-So the land bridge is actually on lands of McGuire. MS. BITTER-McGuire. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or comments by members of the Planning Board? Then we will close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We do have a SEQR Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-1 notice, Laura, on the draft resolution you list SEQR Short Form but the applicant has submitted a Long Form which is required for subdivisions. MRS. MOORE-It's the Long Form. I can point out one of the condition, I know we were talking about stormwater management, but I also included, as part of the conditions, to include lot grading and wetland, the stream crossing as part of the site plan requirement as well. I don't want someone getting caught saying I just need to do stormwater when I need the entire site. MR. CENTER-And part of that with the wetland is the stream crossing on that first lot. MR. FORD-I'm concerned about access, still, after all these years, and I don't see a successful resolution of that. I don't have that in anything I'm looking at or hearing. That's going to be an ongoing issue. It's not going to get better. MS. BITTER-What's your concern exactly, if it's legally existing as to the access? Is that your concern? MR. FORD-1 beg your pardon? MS. BITTER-What was your concern in particular as to access, Tom? Because I have an easement right here that documents the access. MR. FORD-Maintenance. MS. BITTER-Maintenance, that's identified in here relative to Cook and McGuire, and Poirier is being the other owner at this point in time. MR. TRAVER-So they're using the land bridge as well. MS. BITTER-And they're currently using the land bridge. MR. FORD-And it's not being successfully addressed as far as the delta being formed and so forth, and greater traffic is only going to worsen that situation. MR. CENTER-There's no proof that the land bridge is eroding, causing it, as opposed to upstream sediment going through the culvert and depositing down below. I mean, which one are we talking about? MR. TRAVER-It appears to me that since the land bridge has existed since 1981 essentially unmaintained, if it were now out in the River making this delta it basically wouldn't exist anymore. MR. FORD-But it's upstream soil that's coming down through. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, off of these properties apparently, and it's definitely an environmental impact that's an issue. MR. FERONE-Isn't that a DEC issue? MR. TRAVER-Well, it's, you know, it's not a manmade, it's a pre-existing stream. So you have to, you know, you have to wonder is this natural erosion? I mean, there's a certain amount of life cycle with regard to waterways and deltas and if you look at rivers and streams and so on over even sometimes 10 decades or certainly hundreds of years they actually change shape, re-locate based on deltas being formed and then eroding and new deltas and water is an incredibly powerful thing, but I think in my mind, for this review, for this application, if the delta were being caused by an action related to this, which in this case would be the bridge, that would be one thing, but I would submit that if it's existed without needing to be, there's clearly some visual erosion, appears to be some erosion. MS. COOK-Yes, and they fill in, you know, somebody will bring something and they just put, the Egglestons used to own it before McGuire's owned it and they'd get somebody to come and dump something into the holes and they'd lay some more logs. Sometimes the logs that they had kind of lining it would fall off the side as it kind of washed out. So they'd put new logs, and it's an ongoing thing, but it's all done with somebody with a dump truck with a little bit of sand and stuff and a man with a shovel. MR. TRAVER-So it doesn't constitute the volume of material that this delta. MS. BITTER-1 actually have a solution, which we had already suggested, which is that each of these lots need site plan and stormwater before construction occurs. So each of these, before any construction occurs on any one of these three lots that are going to cross over this land bridge, it will be before you folks. So if Starlett says it has anything to say about that land bridge hopefully within the next year, if any changes are to occur, if you need any additional evidence, then it can be produced at that time. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, one of the things I'm looking at with the pictures there is it looks like the culvert is really not accurately sized. Tom, you've probably seen it more. MR. CENTER-1 haven't seen the land bridge over on that end. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, well, if you look at the pictures it doesn't look that large. I mean, you get a large volume of water coming down and it hits that land bridge and it starts swirling to get into that little pipe to go to the other side, that's where you're going to start getting your erosion. MS. COOK-It does back up on the upstream side of. MR. MAGOWAN-And the upper business doing a lot of filling over the years that are, you know, also created some runoff. So that's where a lot of the sediment, I think, is coming from, but, I mean, the main concern that I would have is that I really think that culvert ought to be addressed, or at least engineered looked at so it's sized appropriate for the, you know, because that's all we need is a major storm and a catastrophe and the emergency vehicles can't get back in there because that land bridge got washed out. MR. CENTER-Well, that seems to happen with several recent tropical storms we've had in this area that have had a huge issue. MR. TRAVER-Although that would be part of the maintenance. MR. CENTER-That would be part of the maintenance agreement. Certainly anything, and when we come back for site plan review if it's a stipulation that we look at the land bridge, it's very difficult to go in and construct on someone else's property. It's not like it's on our property to construct. If it was a bank that's on our property, certainly that could be looked at and a bank could be shored up, but the land bridge is not on the parcel. MR. FORD-That's one of the reasons we need to take a very close look at it because access to this subdivision is over that. MR. CENTER-Correct, and we have a maintenance agreement that's there, and that holds all parties to maintenance. MR. FORD-Has that been utilized, that maintenance agreement? MS. BITTER-There wasn't a maintenance agreement until the litigation went in. MR. FORD-Right. MR. CENTER-Right. MR. FORD-And who is stipulated as having responsibility for that? MS. BITTER-Well, by law they all have to share pro-ratedly in that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what happens if you sell one lot and it takes four years to sell another one? MS. BITTER-Poirier owns the others. MR. DEEB-So he'd be responsible. MR. MAGOWAN-So then we make him responsible for sharing a percentage of the other lots that aren't sold? MS. BITTER-They're all pro-rated shares, including McGuire and the other party. Maybe I can get the Poirers to sign in on it, too. MR. FORD-But four of the lots. MS. BITTER-Three. MR. FORD-Three out of five? MS. BITTER-Correct. MR. FORD-So they're absorbing 60% of the maintenance, as soon as this is approved. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. FORD-Is that accurate? MS. BITTER-That is accurate. MS. COOK-Isn't it four lots? MS. BITTER-No, the fourth lot is accessed from Riverside. The last one, it's all dependent, too, the bridge flows out now, the Poiriers aren't even using it. So obviously that wouldn't come into consideration, but the idea is to keep the land bridge in place. That's beneficial for everyone that's there. MR. DEEB-It's 30 something years old. That's metal pipe if I'm not mistaken. What do you think? MR. CENTER-It's corrugated metal. MR. DEEB-It's corrugated metal. So it's 30 something years old. What size do you think it is? Just by guess? MR. CENTER-Twenty-four maybe. MR. DEEB-That's pretty big. MR. CENTER-It looks like maybe a 24. MR. DEEB-And, you know, what kind of condition is it in? MR. MAGOWAN-Starlett, you've seen it. What size is it? MS. COOK-If I were standing near it, I mean, it's not over my head. It's, you know, it's, I don't know, I haven't played down there since I was a little girl. It looked big from the top. MR. CENTER-Any work that would be done in there would have to go through Army Corps, similar to what we're going to do on that other stream, for Lot Four. Certainly anything would have to be looked at. MR. TRAVER-So it would be well engineered. MR. DEEB-But it is old, it's old. MR. CENTER-And certainly when we have Army Corps out to do the stream crossings that would probably be good for them to take a look at the land bridge and just get a feel for, get their opinion, but again, it's been there for many years. There's some erosion on the side, but. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Always looking to make things better. MR. TRAVER-That's right. Any other questions or comments on the application on the part of the Planning Board? There is resolution to review. And Chris pointed out this is a Long Form, not a Short Form for the resolution. Okay. That's been corrected. Do you want to go ahead and proceed with that? I think we're ready. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 6-2017 PRELIM STG. POIRIER The applicant proposes a four lot subdivision — lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside Drive. Lot 1 —4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 —2.1 acres, Lot 4 — 9.4 acres. Project includes easement for access and maintenance — will be included as conditions of subdivision. Applicant requests stormwater and site plan for each lot as they are sold. Waiver is requested from sketch plan for 4 lot proposal. 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 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2017 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2017 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by George Ferone 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 David Deeb. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'll make a comment. It's Preliminary Stage. I didn't catch that when she provided the draft. MR. TRAVER-For the SEAR? Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-My comment was we review Part II. The applicant completes Part I. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right. So the next resolution would then be for the Preliminary Stage for the actual Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 6-2017 PAUL POIRIER A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a four lot subdivision — lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside Drive. Lot 1 —4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 —2.1 acres, Lot 4 — 9.4 acres. Project includes easement for access and maintenance — will be included as conditions of subdivision. Applicant requests stormwater and site plan for each lot as they are sold. Waiver is requested from sketch plan for 4 lot proposal. 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 May 16, 2017; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 6-2017 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right, and then next we have the Final Stage resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just had a question. The applicant asked for a waiver from further Sketch Review. Would that be on the Final approval? MRS. MOORE-Typically we would have taken that into account and waived that as our first resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and actually I thought we did have to do Sketch on this back. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and that's why I didn't focus on it, only because we saw the application and other applications where we've seen a subdivision of 10 lots and then by the time it comes to us for Preliminary and Final it's down to five lots. So I wasn't focused on having grant Sketch because you've already seen Sketch. MR. TRAVER-So really it's an exemption of an updated Sketch, not exemption from Sketch, because we did Sketch, just that it wasn't updated to reflect the final number. Does that answer your question? MR. HUNSINGER-Sort of. MRS. MOORE-If you would like to propose a formal resolution, that's what I would say is that the applicant has requested a waiver from the Sketch as presented. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you want to do that as a separate resolution, or I guess we can add that to the Final Stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would just add it to the Final Stage. I mean, it was in Staff Notes. So if the applicant requested it, if we do it at Final I think that's fine. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Prior to, can you just clarify what conditions you may be placing on it because I had the one in reference to contingent site plan for stormwater, and I was hoping that you would include the grading and other details for stream crossings and things like that. MS. WHITE-Will we need to note Army Corps of Engineers looking at the land bridge as a part of that? MR. TRAVER-That would be part of the regulation I would think. That would be out of our, that's in their jurisdiction already. We can't add to that. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Good question. MRS. MOORE-If you include it in your condition it would be lot grading, wetland details, stream crossing details as part of site plan for each lot, including stormwater. So I believe that stream crossing issue would apply for both accesses. MR. TRAVER-So we can add a condition for Final. MR. FERONE-Okay. Motion to approve Subdivision Final Stage 9-2017 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2017 for Paul Poirier, per the draft provided by Staff. One, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and Planning Board has adopted a SEQR Negative Declaration. The waivers that were requested are granted for stormwater management and grading. Waiver from updated Sketch review, lot grading, wetlands details, stream crossing details as per the site plan for each lot. Each lot site plan will require approval as they are developed. MR. MAGOWAN-Second. j.i? MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Okay. Sorry, I'm not quite sure that's the intent. So you granted waivers, and then I think we missed the word conditions. So you granted waivers from what? MR. FERONE-So we didn't want to grant the waivers. You wanted those to be conditions of? MRS. MOORE-1 guess you granted waivers from an updated Sketch and you granted waivers from grading and then a condition would be. MR. TRAVER-For each lot it would require, site plan review. So that is included. MRS. MOORE-As a condition versus a waiver. MR. TRAVER-That's right. MR. FERONE-Do I need to repeat that? MR. TRAVER-Maria, do you want him to repeat the motion? MS. GAGLIARDI-It might be clearer I think. MR. FERONE-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 9-2017 & FWW 2-2017 PAUL POIRIER A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a four lot subdivision — lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside Drive. Lot 1 —4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 —2.1 acres, Lot 4 — 9.4 acres. Project includes easement for access and maintenance — will be included as conditions of subdivision. Applicant requests stormwater and site plan for each lot as they are sold. Waiver is requested from sketch plan for 4 lot proposal. 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 05/16/2017; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 9-2017 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2017 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by George Ferone 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; 2. Waiver requestsrg anted: stormwater mgmt. & grading; and updated Sketch review 3. 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; 4. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 5. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 6. If clearing limits are proposed then this will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 7. If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 8. If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 9. If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; ,d I 10. 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; 11. The applicant must maintain on their project site if SPDES or SWPPP are required, for review by staff: a. The approved final plans. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b. 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. 12. This resolution is to be placed, in its entirety, on the final plans. 13. As part of this approval, each lot will require Site Plan approval including stormwater management, lot grading, wetland details, and stream crossing details. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'm just concerned with the wording, I apologize. You're requiring site plan for each lot that's being developed. MR. FERONE-That includes lot grading, wetland details, and stream crossing details. MR. FORD-And each of those lots are going to require a visit to that culvert. MR. TRAVER-And that's certainly documented as part of our lengthy discussion that we had on this. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. That wasn't bad. All right, and then next on our agenda we have, also under Old Business, is Site Plan 13-2017 for Stephen, Carol & Andrew Bodette. This is a SEQR Type II. There is a public hearing on this. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II STEPHEN, CAROL & ANDREW BODETTE AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR LOCATION 10 HEMLOCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND FLOOR RENOVATION REMOVING EXISTING 572 SQ. FT. AND CONSTRUCTING PROPOSED 570 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR WITH OFFICE AREA AND MASTER BEDROOM. NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT MEET SHORELINE SETBACK AND EXPANSION NONCONFORMING. PROJECT INCLUDES AN EXISTING PORCH RENOVATION 98 +/- SQ. FT. FOR NEW ENTRYWAY AND OPEN PORCH. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13- 010 & 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 1991, 1992 BATH ALT.; AV 13-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE .24 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-32 SECTION 170-13-010, 179-3-040 CURT DYBAS & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Mr. Chairman, Board and Staff, Curt Dybas, accompanied by Tom Hutchins this evening. I was here last month for the recommendation to the ZBA, went before the ZBA and received approval for the variances for the setback and the FAR ratios. So we're back here for the Site Plan, and some of the issues we've talked about last month, one was brought up, well, first of all, there is a slight improvement in permeability on the site, and things that were brought up last month was the hedgerow of arborvitae along the one property line, and I noted that to get a well rig down there we'd have to remove those. Someone asked what we were going to do. We're going to re-plant them. They're in the winter of their years anyway. I talked to Dan Sperry and we'll take them out after, as they break down we'll replace them. I also mentioned that because of a remediation expense that I received three days before at the Planning Board that we were not going to use eaves trenches because there's no sense introducing more water around this foundation, and I contacted Tom and he's going to give you an update on how we're going to handle roof water. So we're basically taking this site and making it substantially better .d ' than what it is and improving it beyond, I think, what we were required to do, but the basis for the building is take the second floor out, re-build the second floor, a lot will be inside, and take an open porch off the back and make it a new entry and a covered deck and we're still within the existing FAR ratios and going to create a year round residence on Glen Lake. People are moving from Massachusetts to join us here. So it's good, and Tom will answer your questions on roof water. MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't have anything really specifically to add. So I'd answer any questions. I did do the wastewater design and we did go to the down, just a property line setback for that, and also I modified the stormwater from the eaves trench concept to an infiltration bed, but I'll answer any questions you have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? All right. So they did get the Area Variance. We got a copy of the variance, too. All right. Well, if there aren't any more questions or concerns, then I believe we have a motion, a draft motion in our packet. MR. HUNSINGER-Public hearing? Even though no one's here. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. So we will open the public hearing. There's no one in the audience, but, Laura, do we have any written comments on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is SEQR Type 11. So there's no SEQR process. So we can go right to our Site Plan motion I assume. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 13-2017 STEPHEN, CAROL &ANDREW BODETTE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a second floor renovation removing existing 572 sq. ft. and constructing proposed 570 sq. ft. second floor with office area and master bedroom. New construction does not meet shoreline setback and expansion nonconforming. Project includes an existing porch renovation 98 +/- sq. ft. for new entryway and open porch. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion in a CEA 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 05/16/2017 and continued the public hearing to 05/16/2017, 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 05/16/2017; 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 13-2017 STEPHEN, CAROL & ANDREW BODETTE; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: Signage, stormwater, topography, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, construction demolition disposal 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, after the conclusion of the meeting this evening, if I could have a word with the Board. MR. DEEB-It's too late. Do it next meeting. MR. TRAVER-He's requested a word, and you want that off the record? MR. MAGOWAN-Please. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then is there any other business before the Board adjourns? Hearing none, can I have a motion to adjourn? MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. FERONE-Second. MR. TRAVER-All right. We stand adjourned. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 16 2017, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman .j.j