Loading...
11-28-2017 REVISED 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2017 INDEX Site Plan No. 67-2017 Gregory Teresi 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.2 Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 2. Special Use Permit 7-2017 Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No. 62-2017 Errol Silverberg 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 Site Plan No. 31-2017 Robert Fulmer 3. FWW Permit 3-2017 Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Site Plan No. 66-2017 Mike Badera 6. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-20 Site Plan No. 69-2017 Atlantic British Associates, LLC—Timothy Barber 8. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 BOARD RESOLUTION Approval of 2018 Meeting Calendar 18. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o Vim; II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, ACTING SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE MICHAEL VALENTINE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. This is the second meeting for the month of November and the 23d meeting for 2017. Note that there are six Board members present tonight. We did have a couple of Board members that were unable to attend and both of our alternates are filling in. We're still one short, however we can proceed. We have two Administrative Items and then we have a Board business item at the end of the evening. So let us begin. I think there are not agendas on the table this evening, but we have a fairly short agenda, including one item on the agenda which is being tabled, and why don't we do that as an administrative item at the beginning. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. GREGORY TERESI. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES. OWNER(S): LAWRENCE DAVIS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN, 1,812 SQ. FT., 3 BEDROOM HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT OCCURS ON 15% SLOPE AND INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, PERMEABLE PAVERS, WITH SEPTIC SYSTEM ON ADJOINING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50' OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31, 2017, SP 33-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .215 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-27.2. SECTION: 179-6-060. MR. TRAVER-If there is anyone here to see the discussion of Site Plan 67-2017 for Gregory Teresi, know that that application is going to be tabled until January 23d. And I believe we have a motion to that effect. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the January 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting with information due by December 15, 2017. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right, and then we have two more Administrative Items. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me. He said January 23, 2017. Would that be 18? MR. TRAVER-18. 2 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o Vim; II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. DEEB-I said 18. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you? MR. TRAVER-We have to make an amendment on the draft, but thank you for pointing that out. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN NO. 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS FURTHER TABLING MR. TRAVER-The first being Site Plan 27-2017 and Special Use Permit 7-2017 for Seaton Property Holdings. Requesting a further tabling. Laura, do you have background on that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So Ethan Hall provided a letter that explained that the project is to be tabled further because they are still at the Town Board level discussing the language that's going to be brought up in the Zoning Code in reference to the project, and so they've asked for a tabling until the January meeting of 2018, and that can also be on the second meeting of January. MR. TRAVER-So January 23,d? MRS. MOORE-Please. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I think we have a draft motion. MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #27-2017 & SUP # 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS MOTION TO EXTEND TABLING OF SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the January 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford SITE PLAN NO. 62-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. ERROL SILVERBERG. AGENT(S): DALE CLOTHIER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-5. LOCATION: 230 LOCKHART MT. ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,304 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 8,400 SQ. FT. PRIVATE GARAGE. PROJECT IS IN RR-5 ZONE THAT DOES NOT LIST PRIVATE GARAGE AS AN ALLOWED USE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SIZE, SETBACKS AND GARAGE WITHOUT PRINCIPLE USE. CROSS REFERENCE: 1994 SEPTIC; 91301-1598 BLDG. ALT. 1995; 095633-4555 COMM. ALT. & ADDITION 1995; UV 3-2017; AV 59-2017. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2017. LOT SIZE: 6.55 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 252.1-38.1. SECTION: 179-5-020 MR. TRAVER-And the last Administrative Item is Site Plan 62-2017, Errol Silverberg, requesting a tabling extended to December 19. MRS. MOORE-Actually that's been changed since then. MR. TRAVER-It has? All right. MRS. MOORE-So they've asked for a tabling to the January meeting and they will also have to be tabled to the second meeting of January because they still need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 3 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o Vim; II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MRS. MOORE-And I have a letter in the file asking for that request. MR. TRAVER-Okay. January 23,d RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 62-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG MOTION TO EXTEND TABLING OF SITE PLAN 62-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; Tabled until the January 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right, and now we move to the regular agenda, the first being a tabled item. Robert Fulmer, Site Plan 31-2017 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 3-2017. TABLED ITEM SITE PLAN NO. 31-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT FULMER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: SFR- 1A/MDR. LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A REVISED TWO DOOR, REVISED 750 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 34-2007, AV 39-2007, FWW 1-2007 ALL FOR 2,050 ADDITION; AV 29- 2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2017 — NCI. SITE INFORMATION: WETLAND. LOT SIZE: 3.2 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-49. SECTION 179-5-020 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT FULMER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant had revised his application in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted that. It's revised to have two doors and a 750 square foot detached garage. The project is still work within 100 feet of the wetland, review required by the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Curt Dybas and Bob Fulmer to my right, and Mr. Fulmer's probably happy to be back here since last March. At the recommendation of the Planning Board he went to the ZBA with an approximately 900 square foot 3 car garage and was tabled and went back and re-designed it to a 925 square foot three car garage and again was tabled, and I came on board and we have now downsized it to 750 square foot two car garage, which happens to be the same size as a shed which is permitted under the zoning and the only difference is instead of a shed with six foot doors, it was approved by the ZBA to have two 10 by 10 doors. The footprint still falls within the surveyed 33 by 33 foot square. That is on the filed survey, and prior to that DEC did map the wetlands that are on the property and Mr. Fulmer had those flags surveyed and placed on the site plan. So all the information is there and concrete evidence. When he was before you the last time there was an 1800 square foot basketball court in the middle of the back lawn that has been removed and sodded and seeded, but we're before you tonight and hopefully with your approval we can proceed with the project. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you. I remember we had a number of lengthy discussions about this particular project as I recall, regarding the wetlands. So essentially it's the same project, just reduced in impact and size. MR. DYBAS-And the variance to the ZBA was basically the definition of a shed and a garage. It came down to the doors, and we exceed the setback from the wetlands from all directions, and the natural drainage on this property is to the northeast toward the pond, and we have an 4 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) opportunity, we have approximately 50 feet of lawn between the project site and an edge of a 12 to 15 foot planted area that's around the pond. So the idea is to put a silt fence right at that demarcation line between the lawn and the planting beds which is about 15 feet from the pond as a secondary backup. I mean, we have a lot of lawn area to filter any drainage from the building. MR. TRAVER-Very good. I see this is a SEQR Type 11. So we don't need to perform a SEQR review. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Planning Board before we do a public hearing on this? MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to say, Mr. Fulmer, thank you for your patience. I know it's been a long haul getting to this point, but I understand that, you know, bigger's always better, but this is a great compromise. I like the letter of support. I was looking for one that didn't support it and I didn't see that on the third page. So that's good that everybody is supporting you around your yard, but, no, I want to thank you for thinking this out and taking the time and maybe having to get rid of some of those toys, you know. MR. FULMER-Thank you very much for appreciating the trail that we've been on. MR. MAGOWAN-And taking up the basketball court and getting it seeded. I'm sure it's growing beautifully now. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Yes, that was part of your original plan anyway that you had, if I remember. MR. FULMER-Yes. It was a structure that needed to be removed. We didn't put it in. We bought it, and so we're very happy, instead of a basketball court, to have a very wonderful soccer pitch for the grandchildren. MR. TRAVER-Neat. Okay. We do have a public hearing on this project as we do, actually, this evening with all the projects that we'll be hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to discuss this application with the Planning Board this evening? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Other than what we have in our. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any follow up questions by any members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, in one of the Staff comments they wanted to raise the issue of silt fence during construction, and I know that was mentioned a few minutes ago. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-1 would like to see that as part of the resolution, that we include silt fence during construction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So add that as a condition, that appropriate silt fence. MR. SHAFER-Unless the Board doesn't feel that's necessary. MR. TRAVER-No, I think that that's part of the process and would be addressed during the construction, but it certainly doesn't hurt to condition it. Any other questions, concerns regarding a resolution on this? Any other conditions in addition to the draft and the one that we just added? MR. MAGOWAN-It also says here the site lighting plan, exterior lighting that's not proposed. I'm sure you'd like an exterior light in case you have to go back there in the dark. MR. DYBAS-I'd leave that up to you. 5 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. FULMER-Could we leave it at my option, myself? I didn't think to put it in to the original proposal. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the only reason, it kind of struck me a little odd there and if you put a light up and Bruce comes on you then, bingo, the next thing you know that garage is going to have to come down and you're going to have to start all over again. I want to make sure we get this clear tonight. MR. FULMER-1 like your thinking. MR. DYBAS-How about something as simple as a motion light? MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, like I said, a light in between if you're coming up, you know, set back there a little bit. MR. FULMER-It is quite a ways back. It is dark. It is a great idea, and if it is acceptable that would be great. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, you have as part of your plan to connect electricity to it. So the idea of a two light motion detection type of thing would be no problem. MR. FULMER-Sounds great. MR. TRAVER-Can we just add that we're adding approval, if the applicant wishes to add a. MR. MAGOWAN-One 15 watt exterior motion light with a pull chain on it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? All right, then I think as soon as you're ready with your draft motion, we're ready to go. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 31-2017 FWW 3-2017 ROBERT FULMER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct a revised two door, 750 sq. ft. detached garage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 100ft. of wetland 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 5/2/2017 & 7/25/2017 and continued the public hearing to 11/28/2017, 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 11/28/2017; 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 31-2017 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2017 ROBERT FULMER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: as noted in the Staff Notes 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; 6 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) 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) Silt fence be installed during construction. i) Approval granted for a Code compliant motion light. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. FULMER-Thank you very much. Thank you very much everybody. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. FULMER-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is under Old Business. Mike Badera, application site plan 66-2017. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 66-2017 SEAR: TYPE II. MIKE BADERA. OWNER(S): M DREAM, LLC — MICHAEL BADERA. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 55 MASON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL 85 SQ. FT. ON SOUTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING 569 SQ. FT. DECK TO AN EXISTING 6,611 SQ. FT. HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES 95 SQ. FT. OF NEW DECK AND HARD SURFACING ON THE NORTH SIDE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF EXISTING DECK WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 46-95, SP 59-96, AV 83-96, AV 55-96, AV 41-95, SP 50-2017, AV 74- 2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .45 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179- 13-010 MIKE BADERA, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the application received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As you remember the deck was being constructed too close to the shoreline because of this enclosed beach area or it's not enclosed, but it's a bump into this property called a beach area. So that caused the deck to be too close to the shoreline. The Zoning Board granted that variance at their last meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Hello again. 7 4�.. . aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. BADERA-Hello. Mike Badera here. MR. TRAVER-1 remember our discussion when you were here to us prior to going to the ZBA, and as you completed your discussions with them were there any changes in your application as a result of that? MR. BADERA-No, everything was accepted as is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did you have anything to add this evening? MR. BADERA-No. Just a note, on one of their Staff comments there was a question about grading and drainage plan. We're not doing any excavating. We're drilling, we're auguring out a couple of 12 inch holes to put in foundation posts. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BADERA-And it's on a level terraced area, and below that there's a second level terraced area, but I think if there were any problems they would end up in my landscaping not in the lake. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. BADERA-We're doing very minor work to begin with. I don't think there's going to be any issue with that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you for that. Any questions or comments by members of the Planning Board? I know we did discuss this and the reasons for it the last time. This is also a SEQR Type 11 application so we do not have to do a SEQR review, and there is a public hearing this evening. So I'll ask, is there anyone in the audience here tonight that wishes to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There was no public comment. MR. TRAVER-No public comment? All right. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I'll ask one more time if anyone on the Planning Board has anything to add before we hear a motion? Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 66-2017 MIKE BADERA The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install additional 85 sq. ft. on south side of an existing 569 sq. ft. deck to an existing 6,611 sq. ft. home. Project includes 95 sq. ft. of new deck and hard surfacing on the north side. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of existing deck within 50 ft. of shoreline and expansion of non-conforming structure 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 11/28/2017 and continued the public hearing to 11/28/2017, 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 11/28/2017; 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, 8 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 66-2017 MICHAEL BADERA; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. BADERA-Thank you all. Happy Holidays. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we did have two items under New Business. As you might recall we did table the Teresi application until January, and so that leaves us with Atlantic British Associates, LLC—Timothy Barber, Site Plan 69-2017. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 69-2017 ATLANTIC BRITISH ASSOCIATES, LLC — TIMOTHY BARBER. SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. OWNER(S): NEW GENERATION YARN ACQ. CORP. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES REUSE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR POTENTIAL SINGLE OR MULTI-TENANT OCCUPANCY FOR WAREHOUSE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION CENTER, CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, OFFICES & BUILDING SUPPLY YARD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW USES IN THE CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 47-97, SP 22- 94, BP 98-161, 94-454, SP 32-2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL. LOT SIZE: 33.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2. SECTION: 179-3-040 STEVE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TIMOTHY BARBER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for the reuse of an existing building for potential single or multi-tenant occupancy for warehouse, light manufacturing, a distribution center, construction 9 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) company, office and building supply yard. Some of the members that were familiar with this project, it did come before the Board in 2013 and has since expired. So it's back before the Board. The applicant has added additional uses, and that was the construction company and the building supply yard and an office. Office was really in reference to the construction company having an office space for their construction company, not an office facility. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BARBER-How are you? Tim Barber. MR. BORGOS-Steve Borgos for the record. Licensed Associate Real Estate Broker with Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, formerly Realty USA. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. Tell us about the new version of your project, your building. MR. BARBER-Well, we closed on the property yesterday and we're going to utilize the building for what we call a flex-based type facility, multi-tenant, hopefully larger than smaller. Currently we have Angio Dynamics has been the first tenant, and more are soon to follow. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. So there were a couple of sort of structural questions you may have noticed in the Staff comments that I wondered if you could elaborate on. One is the access around the building. There was a letter from the Fire Marshal with some questions about how that would operate. Also signage, what your plans are for freestanding and also building signage. MR. BARBER-First on the fire access road, the building has been vacant for 10 years. So there was a lot of four-wheel, ATV activity that made whip di do's and loops and all that stuff. So we've already gone ahead and graded and bulldozed all the way around the property. Mike Palmer came out late last week and met with myself, toured it and he was quite happy with it. I'm sure you heard, Laura. MRS. MOORE-1 haven't had a chance to see Mike, but that's all right. MR. BARBER-That's all right. He was very pleased with it, the fire access road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BARBER-As far as signage, as we acquire tenants, that'll be part of the building permit process. We'll have to come in for a sign permit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you feel confident that you can be compliant with your building and freestanding signs? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. I think with regards to the fire safety, there was a comment from the Fire Marshal that their support as the facility exists, at least from what we have, was withheld. So I think we would probably want a letter for the record from the Fire Marshal indicating, as a condition of hypothetical approval this evening, that that fire safety access be acceptable to the Fire Marshal. It doesn't sound like you should have a problem doing that if he was just out there. It's a formality, but it's important to put on the record, especially because the only one that's in there now is the one saying it's not acceptable. MR. BARBER-Right, right. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question on that? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-In the meeting materials there's a 2013 letter from the Fire Marshal. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-And yet there's a 2017, and they're both opposite of each other. MRS. MOORE-Right. So the applicant, when he applied in 2013, was for the building as is, and the Fire Marshal didn't see any issues at that time, and then as we evaluated this 10 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) application he said I better bring this up now so that the applicant is aware of it, that there's an issue with that access road. So that's why the letter is different from 2013. MR. TRAVER-And the road's also sustained some damage in the intervening years, which they've repaired. MR. VALENTINE-Right, but that change in use, that stuff is with the building, and I was wondering about what changed in the road itself and the access. MR. BARBER-1 can answer that. As I said, it was heavily rutted. The ATV's were going around the building and over the years they pushed up the soil so there was literally four foot berms. I mean, the police cars were going around, for security, looking at the building, but they even had to navigate around the berms, but a larger ladder truck and such would have had a problem. So we've gone through and graded. MR. VALENTINE-But that is something in the site improvement which you would have probably done anyhow? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Can I carry on with that discussion? MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. VALENTINE-With it being 2007 was the last occupancy I believe the notes say. MR. BORGOS-That's correct. MR. VALENTINE-Okay, and I don't know how this goes as far as Town Staff and stuff. Does somebody from, on behalf of the Town maybe engineer or something, is there an analysis of the condition of the force main and the sumps and the storm systems and stuff like that? MR. BARBER-We've had our site engineer Tom Andress, and I have a letter, he did the stormwater. We cleaned up, we do heavy construction for a living also. So we're quite familiar with keeping our retention ponds clean and jetting the pipes out between the basins. It's all been completed. MR. VALENTINE-Tom had a letter on the force main also? MR. BARBER-Force main for the? MR. VALENTINE-Well there's a force main that's going to be looked at as being operational that's shown coming off the back of the building? MR. BORGOS-Are you talking about the one that goes to the septic system in the back? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. BARBER-That's all been evaluated and checked. We did that in our due diligence part of the purchase. MR. VALENTINE-Well, that, I would have assumed that, but I just wanted to. MR. BORGOS-Hopefully that won't be very long before the sewer in place, early next year supposedly. MR. DEEB-You're going to hook into the sewer? MR. BARBER-It will be hooked in. MR. VALENTINE-All right. MR. DEEB-So septic is upgraded? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I was worried about the number of people you have. 11 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. BARBER-Right. It's actually in pristine condition the whole septic field. We evaluated the whole thing. We ran cameras down to the pump station, but one of the big plusses with buying this building is sewer just coming into that park down to Native Drive. MR. VALENTINE-That was more or less my question. You say you cameraed it. Okay. May I ask you another question, then? MR. BARBER-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-On the plan, this is an overall acreage it says of 33.27, showing the perimeter boundaries. Is this a deed line in here though, or how is that set up? Because there's a line with the setbacks off of here that's showing a dashed line. Is that something that's coming out of the entire parcel? MR. BORGOS-That was put there by the surveyor to show the 50 foot setback at that point. That's just a dotted line for that purpose. MR. VALENTINE-All right. MR. BORGOS-It was split. It was two parcels at one point, and it still exists, it's on one easement. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. So there is the potential at some point in the future, on that same parcel, to do an expansion? MR. BARBER-Yes, we intend to develop it down the road. Of course we'll have to come in with our engineered plans. MR. VALENTINE-The comments that were in here on parking requirements, and not knowing what those would be down the line based upon who the users would be. So in that case there's also additional room if there needs to be an expansion for parking? MR. BARBER-There is, and we'll be, we're working on that right now with our engineer, based on speculative tenants. We'll be back in in a month or so in front of the Planning Board to start getting some of that approved so that it's shovel ready for us. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. VALENTINE-I do have one which I probably should have brought up before. I'm not sure if in your partnership with this, if you're a partner with Steve. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-And I just want to bring up that I have a business relationship through my job at the County with the IDA, 10 years ago before you were involved with British American, but I don't think it has any relation with this project. MR. TRAVER-As long as it's, if it's a conflict, as long as it's disclosed. It doesn't appear to be a problem for this application. So it's noted for the application. It should be no problem. This is a SEQR Unlisted. So we do have to do a SEQR review, although we do have a pre-existing Negative Declaration on this. Does anyone feel that this change in potential occupancy will have any environmental impact that would require us to conduct a new SEQR review or do we feel comfortable in reaffirming the prior SEAR? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, are we intended to approve Site Plan tonight without knowing what is going to be in the building? Did I not have all the material? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. Can I just explain? So the applicant has targeted those specific uses that are potentially available to move into that building. So instead of making it even broader and saying all light industrial uses, the applicant evaluated that building, and he can probably speak to this, about using certain square footage in that building for these potential uses that are offered, and so the Board's only approving these uses for that building. MS. WHITE-So it's limited. MR. DEEB-There's a limited number of uses. MR. TRAVER-Right. 12 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. SHAFER-Yes, because as you know we typically talk about signage and lighting and traffic and stormwater and wastewater and all of the aspects, silt fence, all of the aspects. MRS. MOORE-But there's no additional construction on this site. I mean, the applicant has already had their engineer provide a letter. If there's other information that the Board feels is necessary that the engineer can provide supporting information, such as the force main. We already have information from their engineer that they've evaluated the stormwater system. If we think we need a subsequent letter about the force main also that, I'm sure their engineer can provide that as well. MR. TRAVER-We can also condition it. MR. BARBER-Can I add something? These are all approved uses for that zone. There's several uses that are approved. We're just, as Laura was saying, we're coming in just to, as she's stated, we've evaluated the building, what its best use is going to be, what class of tenant that we want involved in that facility, and these are best fit for us. MR. SHAFER-You had mentioned about coming back to the Planning Board. MR. BARBER-That is for, and that's for speculative development. That's if we do anything on the exterior of the building, if we expand parking or impervious areas, that could be down the road. MR. TRAVER-But that would be a change to the Site Plan. MR. BARBER-Right. MR. SHAFER-This is a big building. This is a big building, and it would seem to me that many of the things that this Board has discussed in evaluating an application is a function of the use within the building which we don't know yet. The impact on stormwater, the impact on water usage, the impact on septic systems. I agree the building ought to be used. There's no question about it, and that's just a great idea. I'm just wondering if we can do a Site Plan without knowing what's going to be in the building. MRS. MOORE-Well, I mean the original use was Native Textiles and there's other elements of that, so that it was fully functioning industrial building. So that's what it was designed for. These uses are no different than that use that was originally in that building. MR. SHAFER-How do we know that, Laura? MR. VALENTINE-Well you're going to approve certain uses that are in the list of approved uses. MR. TRAVER-Well, there's a requirement to follow the hypothetically approved plan. So if there's a use that's not listed, they can't do it without coming back. MR. SHAFER-Well the letter says the most probable uses will be light manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and the estimated square footage, so on and so forth. MR. DEEB-Which is all approved. That's an approved usage of the building. MR. BARBER-1 think that the uses that we're proposing would actually mitigate any of the stormwater or the septic system usage. The original facility that was in there they had 75 employees full time, two shifts. So everything that this facility is designed for is above and beyond what we'll ever need. For example, Angio Dynamics, with their space, they'll have two people there in and out for warehousing. MR. TRAVER-And if it does go beyond what the original, essentially the original plan was, then you'll come back and discuss it with us. MR. BARBER-Absolutely. MR. BORGOS-You should know that the current size of the electricity is a 5,000 amp service in there. That's going to be taken out. MR. TRAVER-That would be good for a physics lab or something. MR. BORGOS-It's a big, big, big operation. 13 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. MAGOWAN-What are you trying to get rid of the demand meter? They should have taken that out already. There hasn't been a use in it in years. They take those demands out and put you back on regular meters, don't they? MR. BARBER-Not when they have that substation in there they don't. MR. VALENTINE-The stormwater management area was operational for 2007. Tom's looked at it. I mean he didn't give you an analysis. He looked at and said. MR. BARBER-We actually, the previous owner allowed us to get in there two months ago and clean the facility up. We had our crews in there, mowed the grass, cut the shrubs. The retention pond, I don't know if anybody's been back in it and looked at the property in a while. The retention pond was all grown over. It's all cleaned up. MR. VALENTINE-But that thing has been sized for the size of the building, sized for the size of the parcel. The soils have been investigated in the prior approval. MR. TRAVER-And you did the environmental review. MR. DEEB-And they have, the number of people using that building is going to be far less than what was in there prior to this. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-So, I mean, if anything I think it's overqualified for what it's going to be used for. MR. BORGOS-That was the big problem with trying to sell it, it's too large. MR. BARBER-As time moves on and we acquire tenants and we get ourselves in the black with this project we'll be looking for other opportunities for other companies there. MR. DEEB-It's just nice for it to get used again. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I'm not sure if that answers your question or satisfies your concern. MR. SHAFER-Not completely. MR. TRAVER-The original plan was approved. Laura, can you discuss the approval history on this parcel? MRS. MOORE-Let's see. 1994 the original Native Textiles moved into this building, constructed this building, evaluated the site. There was an entire, I read through the entire SEAR. The meeting minutes, I have those in the file only because that was confirming that there was an analysis done on the site for environmental conditions and what impact this project would have on it, and so they mitigated those concerns so obviously SEQR's addressed, but that's in '94. So that's for this size building for the activity that was Native Textile at that time. MR. SHAFER-2013 was mentioned here earlier. What happened in 2013? MRS. MOORE-So in 2013 the application was for warehouse, light manufacturing and distribution center. It was for only three uses at that time. MR. SHAFER-And that was approved? MRS. MOORE-And that was approved, yes. Under the same premise that this was already designed for an industrial usage and the site was evaluated for those potential uses. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MS. WHITE-So even if the entire building was used for one of those uses, it would still come in at less impact than it was under Native Textiles. MRS. MOORE-The probability is yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. Because that would be heavy industrial use. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 14 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MS. WHITE-And the approved uses are at a much lower. MR. DEEB-And Native Textiles ran two shifts MR. BORGOS-Two or three. MR. BARBER-In their heyday. MR. DEEB-They probably had three. MR. BARBER-They were around the clock, yes. MR. BORGOS-They had big locker rooms there, 75 full time people. MR. TRAVER-Wow. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm more comfortable. If it was approved in 2013 for those three uses, and if there are any major changes in those then they would have to come back to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. That would be required by Code. MR. SHAFER-I'm more comfortable. MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. Very good. Any other questions regarding this application or any, I don't know if we have any additional conditions beyond the draft at this point? MR. DEEB-I'm going to read them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone, everyone has a copy of the draft resolution. Is there anyone who feels that there are some conditions that need to be added, if any? I know, Mike, you had a concern. MR. VALENTINE-1 had questions, but my questions obviously, the new owners will take care of the conditions. I mean, that's going to be part of their purchase price, to make sure it's operational. I think my question was just to fill us in on what's going on there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wishes to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We still need also to address the issue of SEAR. We have a pre-existing Negative Declaration on this from 2013. Do people feel there are environmental impacts with this revised project that would require us to re-visit SEQR or are we comfortable reaffirming the prior SEQR resolution? MS. WHITE-It appears that there's no changes. MR. DEEB-I'm comfortable. 15 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. TRAVER-It's a reduced use, and it's a fresher, update of all the services, stormwater and so on. Okay. Well then why don't we start with that resolution. MR. DEEB-Okay. Motion to Grant a Negative Declaration for Site Plan 69-2017 for Atlantic British Associates, LLC—Timothy Barber, as per the resolution prepared by Staff. MS. WHITE-I'll second it. MR. DEEB-Part Two of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. MS. WHITE-I'll second. MR. TRAVER-All right. Jamie seconds. MRS. MOORE-Can I add something or possibly clarify? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-You're actually re-affirming the resolution or the SEQR resolution from 1994. MR. TRAVER-Isn't that part of the resolution? MRS. MOORE-No, it's not. MR. DEEB-I don't see it. MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-So you've read information about the SEQR being completed in certain sections, and you're actually re-affirming it. The motion should be clarified so that it reads reaffirm the previous SEAR. MR. DEEB-What was the date? MRS. MOORE-7/19/1994. MR. DEEB-I'm going to re-do the motion. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 69-2017 ATLANTIC BRITISH ASSOC. The applicant proposes reuse of an existing building for potential single or multi-tenant occupancy for warehouse, light manufacturing, distribution center, construction company, offices & building supply yard. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new uses in the CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM THE PREVIOUS SEAR RESOLUTION FROM 7/19/1994 FOR SITE PLAN 69-2017 ATLANTIC BRITISH ASSOCIATES, LLC — TIMOTHY BARBER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 16 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-Laura, was there Site Plan approval for this project in 2013? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-And there was not a comparable SEQR resolution at that time? MRS. MOORE-So it's the same SEQR at that time, but this is a new application. It was the same reaffirmation of the previous SEQR in 1994. So this is a new application. So you're going to re-refer back to the 1994. MR. SHAFER-Even though the Site Plan in 2013 was different than '94? MRS. MOORE-Yes, all done. It's considered a new application. MR. TRAVER-For environmental purposes it's considered the same impacts. So it's site plan versus SEQR are two different evaluations. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended motion made and seconded. Are there any other comments regarding the SEQR issue? Hearing none. Maria, can we have the vote please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have the Site Plan resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 69-2017 ATLANTIC BRITISH ASSOCIATES, LLC. 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 reuse of an existing building for potential single or multi-tenant occupancy for warehouse, light manufacturing, distribution center, construction company, offices & building supply yard. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new uses in the CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 11/28/2017 and continued the public hearing to 11/28/2017, 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 11/28/2017; 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 69-2017 ATLANTIC BRITISH ASSOCIATES, LLC — TIMOTHY BARBER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 17 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) 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. 3) Additional conditions: a) Fire safety access road meets requirements of Fire Marshall; b) Wall and free standing signage to be compliant; c) Parking to be evaluated for each tenant as tenant leases occur — provided to Planning Office for Site Plan file; d) Any exterior building or site lighting to be code compliant and to be evaluated by staff prior to light changes. e) Stormwater, infrastructure to be evaluated to be operational. Confirmation to be provided to Planning Office for Site Plan file. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Good luck. MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. TRAVER-That concludes the regular agenda items for this evening. There actually are two items left for us this evening. I think they will be fairly quick. The first is a Board business item. You can recall that earlier this year we approved some changes to our By-laws and Policies and Procedures and referring to one of those new Policies and Procedures, under Section One, Subsection A, Annual Meeting, I'll read the relevant part, "As the presiding officer of the Planning Board the Board Chairperson shall endeavor to ensure that there is continuity in the leadership of the Board in the form of its officers. By the final meeting of the month of November, the Chairperson shall poll the current Vice-Chair and Secretary to ascertain whether they wish to be nominated to serve for another term. At the final meeting of the month of November, the Chairperson shall announce their own intentions as to whether or not they wish to serve another term as Chairperson. Any officer willing to serve another term will be placed in nomination by the Secretary at the Annual Meeting prior to the vote. Note that at the Annual Meeting prior to any voting the floor will also be open to any additional nominations for any office to be voted upon." So we had a couple of items come up, one being primarily that our Secretary left the Planning Board to join the Town Board and I asked him to form a nominating committee. He ended up leaving the Planning Board service a little quicker than either he or I expected, but for good reasons, and I asked Mr. Ford to take over the Chair of the 18 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) nominating committee. They did their due diligence and have recommended Mr. Deeb to be the candidate for Secretary for the 2018 term, and in the interim I actually asked him in replacing Mr. Ferone to act as acting secretary for the remainder of this calendar year. So he is a candidate, and he has agreed to stand for election as Secretary for next year. I've also spoken with Chris, and he has indicated, and this is not because he is not here tonight, but he said he's willing to serve another term as Vice Chair. So we don't need a nominating committee for that, and he's willing to stand for office there. I'm interested in serving another term as Chair. So we have our draft, if you will, slate of officers, and recall that we also moved our last meeting, for election purposes, from the 21St of December to the 19th primarily because we would not have everyone present on the 21St. So the election will be taking place on the 19th, and that's about it I guess as far as the business items are concerned. Does anyone have any questions about that? MS. WHITE-Sounds good. MR. TRAVER-All right. So that will take care of that, and Mr. Salvador has asked to address the Planning Board for a few minutes at the end of our agenda this meeting. So, John, I'll welcome you up to the table. MRS. MOORE-You also need to do your. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, we can do that. Go ahead and sit down, Mr. Salvador. Before you speak, we do have one item that I missed on our agenda, and that is to approve, you remember at our last meeting we looked at a draft of the Planning Board meeting dates for 2018, and there was a question, I think, about May, which Laura has resolved for us. Everybody received an updated draft agenda for the Year 2018. It looks good to me. Does anyone have any questions about that? I think there was only that one date that we were really concerned about. MS. WHITE-There's just one, in February, the second meeting date looks at 2/27/17. It should be 18 I'm guessing. MRS. MOORE-In February? MR. VALENTINE-The second meeting. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That's just a typo. MS. WHITE-Yes. I'm sure that can be resolved. MR. TRAVER-So we have a draft resolution for the approval of, and actually the resolution says 2017. MRS. MOORE-It does, doesn't it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Too much turkey, I guess. In any case, we have a draft resolution to approve the 2018 meeting dates. Mr. Secretary, if you want to read that. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2018 MEETING DATES FOR THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2018 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-Thank you, everyone. I apologize, Mr. Salvador, for that. MR. SALVADOR-That's fine. Thank you. I don't know if you follow any of these projects that you have approved in the past, but there's been a lot of traffic in the media concerning the Harold Halliday project in North Queensbury. Basically the Park Commission had notified them in May that they were not prepared to issue a Class A Marina permit for that project. 19 4�.. . aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-Which the Commission determined was necessary. The applicant chose to request an adjudicatory hearing which is their privilege under the regulations. They did that. The hearing was held on the 21St of August. The Administrative Law Judge rendered their recommendation some time just before the 15th of November. I appeared at the adjudicatory hearing. I'd just like to read to you my comments at that hearing which would frame why I'm here tonight. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-According to a notice published on July 26th by the DEC's Administrative Law Judge Miss Molly McBride, this public hearing has been convened at the request of the applicant, Harold Halliday Capital, LLC because the Commission has refused to approve the applicant's application for a permit to operate a so called Class A Marina. The grounds for the said refusal are said to be that the applicant has not furnished all necessary to comply with the requirements for a Class A Marina as the same are defined in the Commission's promulgated regulations 6NYCRR Part 646 promulgated on July 3,d, 1988. Parallel to the Commission's review and denial of the subject application this project was reviewed by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury as the applicant's project is required to comply with local zoning. Because the project site is located in one of the Town's APA approved Waterfront Residential zoning districts, the Town has classified the project as that of a commercial boat storage facility, not a marina, not a Class A Marina, not even an existing marina because the applicant plans to use the proposed 3600 square foot building to store up to five boats where no boat service or sales are intended to occur. Commercial boat storage is an allowed land use in the Town's residential zoning district providing a Special Use Permit is granted by the Planning Board. Special Use Permit 1-2017 was approved on the 20th of January 2017. Queensbury's allowed land use of commercial storage in a residential zone is somewhat in harmony with that of the oft forgotten authority vested in the Department of Environmental Conservation to promulgate the Commission's predecessor regulations called the Lake George Recreation Zone Regulations 6NYCRR 646 which came into effect on July 3, 1981. Therein a marina within the bounds of the Lake George Recreation Zone was defined by the DEC as any waterfront facility providing accommodations as well as the sale and/or services for vessels of any type. Between July 1981 and the effective date of DEC's Part 646 and May 12, 1988, the date of the Commission's unauthorized repeal of 6NYCRR 646, it was commonly accepted and understood that a commercial undertaking dealing with vessels of any type was not a marina unless it was a waterfront facility. It's logical. However, the Commission, in an effort to cast an ever greater marina regulatory net after the passage of Chapter 617 of the laws of 87, instituted the term Class A Marina, with absolutely no legislative grant of authority. Thus enveloping all commercial activity related to accommodations, the sale and/or service of vessels, not only of those commercial facilities providing accommodations for vessels in a waterfront facility, but now even those commercial entities providing accommodations and services for vessels using the waters of Lake George. Does this include a facility down in Clifton Park that sells a boat and services a boat that plies the waters of Lake George? In this regard the Commission has trampled on the affairs of the Town of Queensbury and all other jurisdictions having land use zoning powers in violation of Article 9 of the State Constitution. The Commission has no authority to require the applicant to obtain a Class A Marina permit because the applicant's commercial boat storage is not on the waters of Lake George. Now in this regard we have something in this State called the Preemption Doctrine. You should familiarize yourself with it. The Preemption Doctrine holds that if the State defines a marina back in 1981, the Lake George Park Commission has no authority to change that definition. MR. TRAVER-Didn't they go through a process when the Park Commission was formed where they, I'm trying to remember what the process was, but they basically sought to do that. They said, look, if you've got a marina when the Park Commission is empowered, it will be considered pre-existing or some such thing. MR. SALVADOR-What the Park Commission did in 1988 was the subject of a legislative enactment called Chapter 617 of the Laws of '87. There is absolutely no mention word whatsoever of a Class A Marina. They did this on their own motion which they had absolutely no authority to do. MR. TRAVER-Has that ever been challenged? MR. SALVADOR-I'm doing it right now. MR. TRAVER-Well, and also what you're saying, it sounds as though his friend Mr. Munoff might have a cause of action as well, right, if the Commission approves this on grounds? 20 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::��,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. SALVADOR-Well, let me tell you what happened. After the Administrative Law Judge issued the recommendation for approval. MR. DEEB-Approval for a Class A Marina? MR. SALVADOR-No. The Administrative Law Judge makes a determination of the facts and issues a Finding of Fact. The finding that the Administrative Law Judge made was that the Commission did not furnish enough evidence to show that he should be denied the permit. It's up to the Commission to take that and do what they will with it, either grant or deny. Now what the Commission did, before the Commission met to either grant or deny, this article appeared in The Post Star, and The Post Star questioned, before, they got a copy of the Findings and before they published this they checked with the Commission and it's quoted in here, technically the Commission does not have jurisdiction in Halliday's backyard, which does not overlook the lake. Now what does that have to do with the matter? Okay. What's so special about Mr. Halliday's backyard that the Commission doesn't have jurisdiction over? It's in the Lake George Park. So anyway I went to the Commission's, the Commission held a hearing and I went to the Commission. I went there to testify, and because none of the Commissioners were present at the adjudicatory meeting, staff was there, their attorney was there, but the Commissioners themselves were not present at the adjudicatory meeting. So I read this statement. This is just what I read to the judge. I read this. Now the judge in her findings said this. John Salvador, Jr., 37 Alexy Lane North Queensbury, stated that he does not believe a permit is necessary for the project, but not why. Okay. That's a fact what's written there, okay, I said it wasn't necessary, but the reason why is not there. So that's why I read this statement to the Commission. Now at this meeting, at the November meeting, the Commission was there with a bare quorum, a bare quorum, six members. The Chairman advised the applicant that they had an opportunity, if they wanted to, to table the hearing until the next meeting when the Commission might have a quorum or more than a bare quorum, more of the Commissioner's voting. Because all they needed was one person to not approve and it would be denied. The applicant chose not to delay the process and that's why we had the hearing. After everyone spoke again, Mr. Munoff, myself, others, after we spoke, the Chairman polled the Commission, the six members, or himself and five members, polled them. There was one Commissioner there that was obvious was not going to support the granting of the permit. It was clear, and so the Chairman gave the applicant another chance to table the application, which he chose to do. So in December we're going to get another bit the apple. Pretty soon there'll be no apple left. But that's where we are now, and it's, something has got to be done to sort this mess out. The whole purpose of the legislative enactment in '88 was to have one agency grant permits, and it just hasn't happened. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there's a lot of overlap. MR. SHAFER-Well, John, and worse yet the Chairman of the Lake George Park Commission in that article was critical of the Queensbury Planning Board. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, he was at the hearing also, and I went to your defense. He offered to, he had to poll the Board on this and have them agree that I could speak after he had closed the hearing for the day, but I pointed out that after a number of court decisions determining that towns, local governments have no jurisdiction on the navigable waters, okay, that's been determined, this Town changed its Zoning Ordinance, changed its Zoning Ordinance. However, they still retain authority on the land and that's why, storage is something that occurs on the land, and that's why the Town had to allow storage in residential zones with a Special Use Permit because many of them already existed. If they didn't allow this, all of these would be nonconforming uses. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-That wouldn't make any sense. And that's why, I tried to explain that to the Commission because he said, well until Queensbury changes their regulations. Queensbury can't change their regulations. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-But that's where we are. The hearing is coming up again in December, and I will be there again in December. MR. TRAVER-And I heard somewhere, I don't recall where, that the general feeling is that it's going to be approved. 21 4�.. r aa. -aa. .. I�:II�.,�r n�o li�o�:� II:::�t,.uM.,�it�.,i 11/28/20 1 7) MR. SALVADOR-It could be, maybe that's the general feeling, but there was enough there at that last meeting that it wouldn't have been approved, and I know the Chairman doesn't want to face that. Now my concern is if it's going to be approved it's got to be approved for the right reason. MR. TRAVER-Well, sure. MR. SALVADOR-But they'll approve it because the Administrative Law Judge said you haven't provided enough evidence. MR. VALENTINE-May I ask you a question going back to what you said a minute ago about navigable waters. Did you say that there's no jurisdiction? MR. SALVADOR-Local government. It's a State. MR. VALENTINE-But, under General Municipal Law 239, the County Planning Board can review projects that come before, that abut navigable waters of New York State. MR. SALVADOR-I'm not familiar with that, but they don't grant permits. Counties don't grant permits. MR. VALENTINE-Well the County has a review power. MR. SALVADOR-I'm not sure. MR. VALENTINE-Well check General Municipal Law 239. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but we don't have. MR. VALENTINE-1 don't want to argue. I'm just throwing it out that there is that ability to review. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I mean, the courts have determined over and over again, I mean from Lake Placid to Saranac Lake to Lake George, they have unequivocally that local government does not have jurisdiction. It's a State issue. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-The Navigation Law makes no reference to local government. Okay. I don't want to take any more time. MR. MAGOWAN-1 see Hal brought all the dirt over there from Fort Ann. Did I see him dumping truckloads of the fill? MR. SALVADOR-That's all been mitigated. MR. TRAVER-If I could ask members of the Board, before we go on, Jamie needs to leave, so could we just have a quick motion to adjourn? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll make a motion. MS. WHITE-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER, 28, 2017, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you all. On motion meeting was adjourned. 22 I'llanning Bcoircl 11/28/20 1 7) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23