Loading...
07-24-2018 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING J U LY 24, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 47-2018 Larry Steinhart 1. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-64 Site Plan No. 49-2018 Michael Chrys 4. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 4-2018 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-37 Site Plan No. 50-2018 Garner Holdings 12. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 5-2018 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-48 & 226.19-1-49 Site Plan No. 45-2018 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 18. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-2.3 Site Plan No. 52-2018 TNT Corinth Road, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-3 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 J U LY 24, 2018 �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir."/ IIII: irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, July 24th, 2018. This is our second meeting for the month of July and Meeting Number 16, believe it or not, for 2018. If any of you have electronic devices such as cell phones if you would either turn them off or turn the ringer off we would be most grateful, and in the case of an emergency please observe the exit signs and exit in a safe and orderly manner. Hopefully that will not happen. So to begin with our agenda, and I first want to mention to members of the Board at the end of the evening, at the end of our agenda, I do have an update on the letter that was sent to the Town regarding unapproved development that I had written. So I'll be able to share some updated information that's actually fairly good news with the Board. So we'll begin with our agenda. We have no administrative items. The first section is Old Business, and we begin with Larry Steinhart, Site Plan 47-2018. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. LARRY STEINHART. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 362 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 136 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING 1156 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. EXISTING HOME HAS FAR OF 2,007 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 2,143 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF SOME EXISTING HARD SURFACE AREAS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2013-547 SEPTIC ALT.; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018 SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-64. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a single story addition of 136 square feet. The existing home is 1,156 square feet. The reference to the FAR ratio 2,007 square feet and the proposed is 2,143 square feet. The Zoning Board did grant the variance approval. It did involve adding additional plantings and that is to be reviewed by the Planning Board. So the applicant provided a planting plan. I wasn't able to print a bunch, but I have the planting plan so we can see it overhead and perhaps the applicant will display that. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Hutchins and Joyce Clothier who's Larry's wife. She speaks better about plants than he does. So we were here last week for the recommendation and then as Laura said we went to the Zoning Board and they granted the variance. This is a 136 foot very small addition to just expand the bathroom. You have a shower and full bathroom downstairs and a little bit larger master bath so they don't have to walk upstairs. So Chris Navitsky appeared and asked for some additional plantings and as part of this, as we discussed last time, to make sure that there wasn't any more impermeable. Tom had taken out some paver areas, and so what we discussed with the Board, and that's how the condition arose, that Joyce was happy to say that those areas not only would be left permeable but that she would do some plantings. You guys have all been up there to see the property. It's pretty extensively landscaped. So Joyce is happy to have a few more planting beds to add to it. So what Tom has in front is, and Laura was referring to is the existing and then you've got the area shown. I'll hand it over to Tom. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I won't reiterate what we discussed last week. The Zoning Board did ask for a planting plan. We tried to clarify both existing. Our plan didn't show a lot of the plantings. We started from the base survey and it was probably engineered instead of landscaped but we've shown, I've shown a number of photos of the existing plantings. There's plantings along the road. There's plantings along this side. Plantings along this side and plantings in this area along the shoreline, and there will be new plantings in this area along with new plantings here. There will also be additional plantings in here. MR. TRAVER-So you're expanding existing planting areas or are you adding new planting areas or both? MR. HUTCHINS-We are removing some impermeable areas that are getting replaced with plantings, primarily down here and over here, and we are adding to existing plantings along this line. We're adding this little area in here and we're also adding similar on the southern side near the walkway. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And up near the road is very well covered we feel. We had a little discussion on the septic system last week and if you have any more questions on that I'm prepared to give you a little more detail. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So with the exception of the request for additional planting that the ZBA added, that we're discussing this evening, were there any changes to your plan from what we looked at last week? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything else at this stage? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-We discussed it last time. MR. TRAVER-We did. We did look at it. It's a fairly straightforward plan. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think with the addition of all the planting and that you've really made a huge difference and I think for what square footage you're putting on, it's really a nice touch. MR. TRAVER-Yes. This is a SEQR Type 11. So we don't need to do a SEQR review. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any hands. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's one written comment. "My wife Mary and I live across the street from Joyce and Larry at 361-363 Cleverdale Road. We fully support the request for a variance to permit a very nice, necessary upgrade to their home. Joyce and Larry are wonderful neighbors and have done exceptional work upgrading their property. They shared their present plans with us and we strongly feel the Town should grant their variance request. My wife grew up in Cleverdale and we have owned our present property since 1973. We have been delighted with all the improvements made by Joyce and Larry as they have been first class and very thoughtful. We feel the same way about their present plan. Please feel free to use this email in a manner you deem best to support the grant of the requested variance. Sincerely, Chris and Mary Mattson" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Then with that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I'll ask the Board one more time if there's any other questions for the applicant. 31 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir.y II::II irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) MR. SHAFER-Tom you raised the septic. I guess I had asked the question last week about that dashed line from the lake up to the leach field. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There was a variance passed by the local Board of Health in 2013 to completely replace the septic system with an enhanced system and there is plumbing within the boathouse. The boathouse has been there since 1937 plus or minus a couple of years. I've checked with the Park Commission. It's all registered. It's one of those boathouses that can have that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Interesting. MR. HUTCHINS-And everything was replaced at the time that the septic system was done. MR. TRAVER-Thanks for following up on that. Appreciate it. All right. I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #47-2018 LARRY STEINHART 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 136 sq. ft. single story addition to existing 1156 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Existing home has FAR of 2,007 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,143 sq. ft. Project includes removal of some existing hard surface areas. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a 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 07/24/2018 and continued the public hearing to 07/24/2018, 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 07/24/2018; 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 47-2018 LARRY STEINHART; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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 4 �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir."/ IIII: irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) 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) Planting plan as presented to be included in the Site Plan. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda is the area of New Business. The first application being Michael Chrys, Site Plan 49-2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 4-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-2018 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2018 SEAR TYPE TYPE II. MICHAEL CHRYS. AGENT(S): DICKINSON ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING WR. CHERRY TREE LANE (SOUTH SIDE). APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 896 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND 2112 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDE SITE WORK FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND SITE GRADING. PROJECT HAS A PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECT WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: FW 11-2008 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA, FWW. LOT SIZE: 7.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 JON LAPPER & DEVON DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Just for clarification this is the south side of Cherry Tree Lane. This project is to construct a new single family home. The footprint is 896 square feet. There is to be a covered porch of 160 square feet for a total floor area 2,112. The project is for work that occurs within 100 feet of a wetland boundary and the applicant will be working within that 100 feet for stormwater and the actual house construction, and in reference, it doesn't clear anywhere into the wetland itself. It's clearing only those areas for construction and stormwater. MR. TRAVER-And thus the reason for the wetland permit. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record again Jon Lapper with Devin Dickinson from D.L. Dickinson Associates and Mike Chrys. I just want to mention before we get started that this application and the next, which is other lots adjacent that Mike owns in an entity is essentially the same project of course they're different applications, but in both cases, these were pre- existing lots and what he's asked Devin to design are very moderate sized houses, no garages, minimizing the impact, the disturbance on the site so that not a lot of stormwater has to be treated. Onsite septic of course wells but really small homes that should be appropriate for this property. Devin designed this so that nothing required a variance. We're just before you for Site Plan and Freshwater Wetlands, we're in proximity but certainly no impact on the wetlands. So let me turn it over to Devin to give you the details. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) MR. DICKINSON-Devin Dickinson Associates as Jon said. So these are smaller lots essentially. We tried to design accordingly. We tried to minimize tree clearing, grading, those types of things. We used porous pavers in the parking, drive area to minimize runoff and impact to wetlands. The septic system is an Elgin system so you get some enhanced treatment with that system. It also helps minimize the footprint of that system. With this design there is the ability to do some additions to the home. Porches, decks, that type of thing, but it's only going to be a three bedroom home for the size of the septic system. Like Jon said we'll have a proposed drilled well. I think that pretty well covers it. We designed the stormwater criteria. MR. TRAVER-There were some engineering comments. They appeared, to my read, to be primarily clerical or technical. Have you seen that letter dated July 12tn. MR. DICKINSON-From Chazen. So I responded to that letter about a week ago. MRS. MOORE-There's no written response, but they understand that one of the final comments is requiring the test pit information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-So to clarify that comment, we have done soil testing in the area of the septic system. We kind of snuck off the road and did soil tests. The grades are pretty similar throughout the site. I would imagine the soils are the same, but if they want to see another test pit we'll find a way to get in. MR. LAPPER-Get a test pit and septic. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, absolutely. We did soil testing. I think they're looking for something for stormwater. MR. TRAVER-So you feel comfortable that you can comply with the engineering concerns which, again, are minor, but they're there and you're going to need to earn that signoff. MR. DICKINSON-Sure, absolutely. MR. VALENTINE-Groundwater? MR. DICKINSON-We had I believe on this site 42 inches, I think 42 on this one, and if you look at the stormwater devices they're all very shallow. The bottom of the device is either at grade or maybe six inches below grade. Everything was designed very conservatively. MR. VALENTINE-But you did have a test pit shown between two of those, in the septic areas there, but I didn't see any results shown on here. I mean, not on the cover page at least. MR. DICKINSON-It was Sheet Two I believe. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-Top left. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. All right. MR. TRAVER-Other comments, questions from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I'm looking at the Freshwater Wetlands. The wetland total is about 5.68 acres. The plans to be updated. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. We initially designed this for a half acre lot which is one of the original Assembly Point subdivision lots, but through some discussions with the Town and doing some research with the Town, they decided to look at it as a whole seven acres. They're multiple parcels in the deed. So it was initially proposed and submitted as. Actually everything on the site, the Floor Area Ratio, everything is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. MR. VALENTINE-The wetland flagging is 12 years old. Is there a time, anything at all? 6 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) MR. LAPPER-We did get a letter from APA saying that nothing had changed, that they were satisfied. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Does that go with the record, then? MR. LAPPER-We can provide that. We didn't submit it. MR. TRAVER-That would be good to add that to the record. Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-Well it would because the septic is right on that boundary line. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Are there members of the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Okay. I see a couple of hands. If you could give up the table and we'll open the public comment. Let me start with Mr. Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do have concerns about the potential negative impacts to the wetlands from the excavation, clearing and grading and we don't see the benefit to the disturbance that is proposed. Vital water quality protection measures such as onsite wastewater treatment system are not compliant, and I will get to that, and we believe they do require variances, and necessary information to determine whether the stormwater management will function as proposed is lacking. We feel the wetlands boundary should be verified by the APA. A letter's been submitted. Obviously it's not in the file, but we feel that that should be looked at. Regarding the Onsite Wastewater Treatment variance we feel it does need a variance from separation to wetlands and the side property line because according to 136-9 separation for systems of required fill are taken from the toe of the slope, not from where the structures are. So if you take a look at the grading, that extends downhill. That extends into the side yard setback. So clearly that needs a variance if it's not compliant with the Town Code. I've discussed my concerns with how this system should be considered as a fill system, and again it's on slopes of greater than 10%. We feel that that requires a variance. It is important to provide the soil information and percolation for the stormwater. They're putting the stormwater in close proximity to the wetland, but no information. We don't know. If that is close to the wetland it's for a reason, because the soils are saturated. We don't know what the depth to groundwater is. There needs to be separation as per your regulations to seasonal high groundwater. I don't think this should be approved, especially on a wetlands permit without getting that information. The stormwater design calculations are actually based on the building footprint area and not the actual eaves. So really you need to, it was figured I think the building footprint was 28 by 38, but there are a foot and a half to two foot eaves that surround that building. That actually increases that square footage and what is required for stormwater management. That should be adjusted, and we feel that the plans for wetland permit, that the activity is consistent with the policy of the Chapter to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefit derived from, to prevent the destruction of the wetlands and to regulate the development of such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits should be consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic and social development of the Town. These are your findings from the Code. The proposed activity is reasonable and necessary, and that there's no reasonable alternative for the proposed development activity. So clearly there's non-compliance with the septic system. I don't know how that wasn't caught. We're reducing that protective buffer. We don't know the depth to the groundwater where the stormwater is. So clearly I think that more information is needed and you can't say that this won't affect the wetlands. So at best I think this needs to be tabled for additional information. We did have a question on the acreage, whether this is a subdivision or 7.72 acres, and I think Devin had addressed that. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Chris, could 1, just to review. The one comment you made about the Elgin system being a fill system. Isn't that a bit of an ongoing sort of professional debate? I know we've talked about that over and over again. MR. NAVITSKY-That is an ongoing, and that might be to a point that we need to raise that to the Town Board of Health. The Town Code clearly states that any fill system, not a system that has all its trenches above existing grade, but any fill. So in our view that would, especially for the protection of Lake George, that that would mean any system that requires fill. MR. TRAVER-Yes. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IBciard 07/2,4/20 18) MR. NAVITSKY-It may go to another, higher Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for raising that again. That's an interesting discussion that we have. Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-Chris? Yes, I have a question of Chris. Along with that article I read, and I've heard it before, the UV systems that they're putting in to pretty much make the water, you know, they say potable water. Would that be a, to me, would that be a benefit to have, you know, especially on, in the wetland? I mean 42 inches is not much separation between the high groundwater and the septic, in my opinion. MR. NAVITSKY-My professional opinion I don't think it would be necessary on this. The reason that those were being brought in on the retrofits is that the Town was allowing an enhanced treatment tank to discharge into existing non-compliant disposal area. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-So I think to further protect those areas that may have been saturated with nutrients prior, I think to put the UV ahead of that in a retrofit was a proper call. I do not think you would need it on this system with the Elgin and the type of treatment that that provides. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I did see another hand. Was there someone else that wanted to speak? Yes, sir. DAVE WILCOX MR. WILCOX-My name is Dave Wilcox and my family and I reside on the opposite side of the street from this proposal which is at Forest Road and Cherry Tree Lane which is the paper road at that point. I'm not qualified on the merits of the development within the wetlands but I do have expertise as a first responder to comment about safety issues. As I've discussed with the owner of the subject properties, I have two concerns. One is the adequacy of off street parking and Number Two is the confusion possible regarding the location of Cherry Tree Lane for emergency response. Off street parking. Lack of off street parking is a chronic problem at a number of residences on Assembly Point. Residents tend to have numerous visitors, especially on summer weekends, with insufficient space for parking. As a result, cars line up in the streets of the neighborhood, reducing the roads to a single lane. If this were a once-a-summer party, that would be understandable, however many of these instances occur regularly and routinely. The designated parking areas in the subject properties appear to have a similar amount of off-street parking as the residence in the below photograph. And I provided a letter to the Board. MRS. MOORE-So they have that letter. That letter is going with them. MR. WILCOX-This photographic example, which in this case only shows two of the typical six cars present, demonstrates what I am concerned and we're concerned that the applicants' properties, if no remediation is required, will also occur. Emergency Response. As a first responder, I am aware of the difficulty of locating emergency destinations, especially when similar street names cause confusion. These subject properties are designated with Cherry Tree Lane locations. As described below, and you perhaps could see on the map, that Cherry Tree really is a stub on the east side of the Point coming off Honeysuckle Lane. The western portion of it, which cuts across through the wetland, also has the same name and is likely to cause delay as the driver attempts to sort out which of the two dead-end streets with the same name is the destination. I recommend below that the western dead- end portion of Cherry Tree Lane be developed, and also recommend that it be renamed, In order to remediate the two anticipated problems. Cherry Tree Lane. The street was created in 1956 as a paper road as part of the Shore Colony subdivision. It was designed as an east-west connector of Honeysuckle Lane and Forest Road, parallel to and south of North Lane. Currently,the east end of Cherry Tree Lane is a dead-end street and serves a couple of residences off Honeysuckle Lane. The remainder of the street remains a paper road that traverses through a wetland to Forest Rd. As such I presume the road will never be developed as a through street, but the west end could be developed as a dead-end street to serve the subject properties, and I show on Page Two a suggested area with that area of where to have it developed. I proposed construction of a western dead-end street be required to provide emergency access to the side and rear portions of the subject lots, and the dead end street be available for periodic overflow parking that experience tells me will be inevitable. In summary, if the Board approves the site plan, I recommend the Board require development of a dead end street at the western end of Cherry Tree Lane. I recommend they require re-naming of 8 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) that dead-end street to avoid conflict and require that on-street parking on Forest Road be prohibited. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, ma'am, in the back. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing, and I live on Assembly Point, and I'm making a statement on behalf of the Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition of which I'm a co-director. As you've already heard from Chris, wetlands perform a vital function in keeping Lake George clean and providing a habitat for Wildlife, and the benefits of the wetlands are clearly spelled out in Section D of the Town Chapter 94 on Freshwater Wetlands, and because of their critical role in maintaining water quality and habitat they have protected status both from the Town and State regulations. Unfortunately past Zoning and Planning Boards' decisions regarding residential development on Assembly Point have sometimes ignored this critical role, and I respectfully ask that the Town of Queensbury officials and the Planning Board adhere to its public policy which was repeated by Chris to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands by denying any requests for wetland permits or for the required variances for residential development within 100 feet of the wetlands. Assembly Point has one wetland left. All the others have been suppressed. Leading to severe stormwater runoff during rain events and I think you know the condition of Assembly Point Road, and I ask the Planning Board to uphold the intent of Chapter 94. Given the current deterioration of the water quality conditions of the lake and the increasing algae blooms, septic systems should never be placed near wetlands because of the high groundwater table and the increasing frequency of severe rain events which could overwhelm the traditional septic systems and leach fields, allowing excess nutrients and toxic materials to be transmitted to wetlands and into our drinking water. Drinking water is very important for the residents of Assembly Point. We have only one source of drinking water, and that is Lake George, and it is our aim and our request that you help us to protect our only source of drinking water by preserving the wetlands. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We heard written comment already. So we will close the public hearing and ask the applicant to return to the table. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-So in general Chazen has looked at this and no one is alleging that what Mike is proposing here is going to have any negative impact on the wetlands, and in fact this seven acre parcel, he owns most of that wetland that was referred to and this project has been specifically designed with stormwater facilities to avoid any impact and the septic system is the appropriate distance. Chris' characterization about whether this is a fill system, it's an Elgin system and he's said that he'd like the Town Board to change the definition. That might be different, but in terms of how Devin designed this. MR. TRAVER-Well, we need to clarify it. I don't know if that would be a change of definition, but there has been a debate. MR. LAPPER-I know the issue. I agree with you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And Brad mentioned about 42 inches, and 42 inches is actually a lot of separation distance. It's a suitable site because of that. So we think this is properly deigned, because it's a very small impact, very small house and designed the way it should, and I don't believe in Queensbury that it gets measured from the edge of the eaves. MR. TRAVER-Well, stormwater is the purview of the Town Engineer. I know that's being looked at. You'll have to get signoff on that. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. TRAVER-I did have a couple of questions and other Board members may as well. One was the flagging of the wetlands. There was a mention that the wetland, APA 9 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) should re-evaluate the wetlands. Did I understand in your prior presentation that you made contact with the APA and they indicated that in fact a review of what you have stands still and does not need to be re-flagged? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We interfaced with Mary O'Dell about the flagging, the character of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they're aware of what you're proposing. They're aware of what you're representing as what they say the flags are. They're saying it's not being changed, and you have that in writing? MR. LAPPER-We have an e-mail letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you're going to supply that to Laura for the file? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then the question regarding the setback of the Elgin system. Laura, do you have any clarification on that? There was a chapter and verse quoted I think by Mr. Navitsky that there was a difference between what the applicant had said was the way the setback was measured and. MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any clarification. Septic systems are reviewed by Dave Hatin. As part of the review process all applications are provided to Department staff. If they have any additional questions or clarifications they either go through me or communicate with the applicant and he didn't identify anything through the review process. MR. TRAVER-And you're not aware of any questions being raised regarding the setback for the septic? MRS. MOORE-Not at this time, no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DICKINSON-If I can clarify, too. One of the things we have going on here is grading for the site, not just the septic system. So if you just look at the grade lines, what we're grading, you know, a nice easy access to the front door, the floor elevation. MR. LAPPER-It's not a mound system certainly. It's going to be the toe of the slope. MR. TRAVER-Right. And then the parking issue, you know I think it's common knowledge that that's a bit of an issue out there, and it's kind of a, there's a tension between them, and you can certainly triple the size of the parking area, but then you get into the environmental impacts again. It's a difficult tradeoff. I'm not sure what the issue is. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have the square footage of the parking area. What's the actual dimensions? MR. DICKINSON-So it's set up for two cars. This is probably closer to 24 feet wide. Unfortunately I don't have the exact dimensions. MR. LAPPER-But it's suitable for two cars. MR. DICKINSON-Right. MR. TRAVER-There was a comment regarding awareness of emergency responders in the area to the existence of these new residences. My experience as a first responder is now some years ago, but my recollection is periodically they will tour the area, especially if they're aware of new developments, so they can be, they can identify such areas, but there was comment about confusion about road names and so on. Are you familiar with that? Is there any discussion about clarifying? MR. LAPPER-That would be up to the Town Board to change that. MR. TRAVER-Right, I understand. °1 0 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. LAPPER-It's not a bad suggestion, actually, to clarify that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Wouldn't they have addresses as Forest rather than Cherry? And that's how it would go through emergency services or 911 responders. It goes through, that's the address that would come up. That's my history with. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I was thinking maybe weeping Cherry Tree Lane. MR. TRAVER-Well, in any case, that is a concern, particularly early on in the dwelling's history. Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. This topographic survey was prepared, and I see over here August 30, 2008 and over there the wetland boundary, wetland flags were referenced in '06 and '07. They're located by field survey on 12/11/07. MR. LAPPER-They haven't changed. MR. MAGOWAN-So those wetlands haven't changed with all the development that's occurred over the years that have been out there on Assembly Point? MR. LAPPER-This is the interior of Assembly Point, these lots, most of. MR. MAGOWAN-And they've said that or did they actually go out and do some surveying? MR. LAPPER-They did look at the property, yes. MR. DEEB-Jon, you said you got a letter from them? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we'll provide that to Laura. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they're going to provide that for the file. MR. LAPPER-That could certainly be a condition. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board? This is a SEAR Type II. If there are no other questions, I guess we're ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 49-2018 & FWW 4-2018 MICHAEL CHRYS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home, 896 sq. ft. (footprint) and 2112 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater, and site grading. Project has a permeable driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, project work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary 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 07/24/2018 and continued the public hearing to 07/24/2018, 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 07/24/2018; 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, �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 49-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2018 MICHAEL CHRYS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) 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; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. I) Site Plan to be updated to reflect the lot size of 7.27 acres. m) APA correspondence verifying wetland delineation to be included in the Site Plan. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2018 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on that motion that's been made and seconded? MR. SHAFER-The map that I'm looking at doesn't have a scale. Laura, what is the dimension from Forest that's going to be cleared to the wetland boundary? It looks like it's almost 50 feet. Is it less? MR. VALENTINE-That's a 20 foot scale. MR. DICKINSON-I would estimate it to be somewhere between 40 to 45 feet. MR. SHAFER-All right. That answered my question. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Chairman, I have one more. Sorry about this. It was sort of after I was looking at. Both sides of, across the street on Forest there's a water shutoff at two different locations. Why is that? �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII:arnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. DICKINSON-I'm not overly familiar with this but I believe they have a community water system on Assembly Point. They use it, maybe it's seasonal. MR. LAPPER-It's seasonal. MR. DICKINSON-There's also a drilled well. MR. VALENTINE-All right. My next question was why wells if you had that there, but okay. MR. DICKINSON-It's for year round use. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there's no other discussion, then, Maria, can we have the vote, please. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. And we move to the next application associated with the same development which is Garner Holdings, Site Plan 50-2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 5-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2018 FRESH WATER WETLANDS PERMIT 5-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. GARNER HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): DICKINSON ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: CHERRY TREE LANE (NORTH SIDE). APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 896 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND 2112 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND SITE GRADING. PROJECT HAS A PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECT WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: FWW 10- 2008-35342, FWW 10-2008-35343. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA, FWW. LOT SIZE: .54 ACRE TOTAL. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-48 & 226.19-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94. JON LAPPER & DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-For clarification, this is the north side. This project is similar to the last project. It's 896 square feet with a 160 square foot covered porch, 2112 square feet floor area. Again the project work is within 100 feet of the wetland boundary and I've identified the wetland that and piece approximately 7,900 square feet. The plans show work within 50 feet of the shoreline of the wetland to include a drainage basin and the new home. MR. TRAVER-AII right. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-This is really a mirror image of what we talked about, same size. An appropriate small house to minimize the impact and minimizing impervious surfaces. MR. DICKINSON-From a design standpoint, what Jon said, these are very similar. We used the same Elgin system. The only difference on this site is on the last site I did not use porous pavement for any kind of stormwater treatment. On this site I did because the driveway was perfectly flat. So I did do some of that for storage treatment. MR. TRAVER-And the parcels are going to be merged as part of this project? MR. LAPPER-Yes. So the only difference is the permeability of the drive? MR. DICKINSON-Yes, they're both porous pavement, but I didn't take any credit on the previous application. This one I actually had some stones poured. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and other than that you're representing that these projects are essentially identical? '13, �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. DICKINSON-Very similar, same house, same footprint. Again, the last one was designed with seven acres. This is a half-acre. MR. TRAVER-There are some questions from the Town Engineering regarding stormwater and again they appear to be primarily clarifications and clerical in nature. You've seen the letter? MR. DICKINSON-I've seen the letter and actually the Site Plan I've addressed all those comments. Again, to bring up the test pit issue, these are very small lots. Probably 60, maybe 80 feet maximum test pit, probably about 60 feet. They're very small lots. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you're going to need to have the engineer signoff on these. MR. DICKINSON-And all the other items we've addressed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board before we go to public hearing on this application? MR. MAGOWAN-Why do we have to take every little bit of land that we have and stretch it to the max with a house? That's what I'm concerned about, especially around the wetland area, and I'm very familiar with Assembly Point and the issues that have been going on up there and that's why I didn't agree with the last one and I have a problem agreeing with this one. MR. LAPPER-So, Brad, this isn't a lot different than what other people have done on the block in the area. The only difference is that this is being done in 2018. This has stormwater controls that the existing sites don't have. So new development is often, because of the regulations, done better than existing developments. So these were existing lots and we're trying to do the right thing to design them properly. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand that, but I've been going to a lot of seminars and stuff like that, and, you know, when do we stop? When do we say enough? MR. LAPPER-If we were impacting the wetland then we would say stop, but these are designed. MR. MAGOWAN-Well we have a change of weather pattern coming our way in our years to come, and if we don't have room for our wetlands to grow and we take up absorption areas, all it's going to do is create larger wetlands. MR. LAPPER-Create a lake. MR. DICKINSON-One of the main, if not the most important roles of stormwater management is to re-charge the groundwater, and that's what all these infiltration devices do. The porous pavement, the basins, where they're not creating these pulses of runoff from rain events that flood into the wetlands. They're collecting that water, saturating it back into the soil where it's treated during the infiltration process, and the other thing that I find, too, with the minor stormwater is in good soils like this they tend to be over-designed. MR. MAGOWAN-You have 36 inches underneath this septic from 42 on the other side of the road. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, so the New York State Department of Health is 24 inches. That's the governing body that does all the science behind it, and Queensbury requires 36, and again the Elgin gives you additional treatment. It's been around for decades. It's a very good system. Very reliable. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you ever dig up an old one? MR. DICKINSON-No, I've never had one fail. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you ever see how gray the ground is underneath it? MR. DICKINSON-Well, you know a lot of that's the treatment process. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just letting you know, I've seen it. I don't always agree with engineers and everything looks good on paper sometimes, but, you know, sometimes reality is, you know. MR. DICKINSON-Well you've got to remember these systems get tested for decades. They have facilities and sites where they have systems we've never seen, systems that are all approved, and they continually test these systems. Manuals get updated. So it is an ongoing process, but like I said there are newer systems that I don't use because they don't, they're not Elgin. MR. TRAVER-Elgin was one of the first sort of new. Now there's a plethora of one's out there. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the way I look at wetlands, wetlands is the water level, you know, where we have it, and we've taken these stormwater devices to collect the water to put it back into the ground, which you have it right up against the wetlands, and even though it's just the runoffs from the roofs and the ground, but you still have all the nutrients and everything else, but you're collecting it and putting it back in, but you have less than a foot between that and probably the groundwater from the wetlands. MR. DICKINSON-Well, in this case you are about six feet above the wetlands for that base, about 50 feet from the wetlands. The other thing, too, with the wetlands you've got to remember not all wetlands are standing water. Sometimes wetlands are certain plant species. A lot of times the soils are damp, especially with certain plant types. Not all wetlands are standing water. Now, with that said, it doesn't mean we don't still need to be effective. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like I said, it's wet for a reason. MR. DICKINSON-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Because the water is not being able to evaporate away and then what we're doing is we're taking all the land away that could help absorb some of the water and evaporate it and we're putting it back in the ground and impacting the wetlands. That's where I come from. MR. LAPPER-And this is the same stormwater that would be there whether there's a house or not. It's got to get into the wetland. This way it gets treated first. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you're concentrating it back into one area instead of having it spread out. I can pour a bucket of water in the lowest corner and it won't go, but if I throw it all over the room it's going to go quicker. MR. DEEB-I think one of the answers would be, Brad, if you're worried about it, they're going to have to call a moratorium, if that's what it comes to someday if that's what you're alluding to. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I think someone might want to because it's getting to the point where we're just maximizing. MR. DEEB-That's not for us at this level. MR. MAGOWAN-True. MR. DEEB-Okay. So we can't deal with that right now, and I'd like to allude to the Dunham's Bay situation. I really think that's a great situation when they inspect the septic systems, and I can't see, it would be nice to see that go out to Assembly Point and Cleverdale, to the rest of the lake, and this could alleviate and mitigate a lot of the problems that are going on up there, and at least with this project we have a new system coming in which we know is going to be good, because we don't know what the other systems are or how old they are or things of that nature. So all this has to be taken into account when we look at it. MR. DICKINSON-And again I'm a third generation Lake George local. I love this area. I live in Queensbury. My kid's in elementary school here. I'm familiar with the Assembly Point area. We've designed a very modest footprint here. This was not something I did overnight. We've worked on it for a while to try and really minimize the impact. I love this area. °1 15 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,1 IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. DEEB-It is a modest house. I agree. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as there was on the other one. Are there folks that would like to comment on this application to the Planning Board? Yes, Mr. Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Thank you for recognizing our work on Dunham's Bay. Appreciate that. We're proud of that. A lot of the comments would be dittoed from my last remarks to the Board. Again, we feel that there's going to be impacts from the amount of disturbance. Again, I feel that the wastewater system is not compliant with the Town Code. I brought a little backup with me this time. Stormwater, I think some good points were made and I'd like to address that some more. So regarding the wastewater treatment system, again, I feel this requires a variance for separation to wetlands and to the side yard property line. Again, 136-9 of the Town Code says it must go to the New York State Department of Health for the definition of setbacks and New York State Department of Health, 75-A, says for all systems involving placement of fill material separation distances are measured from the toe of slope of the fill. So Dave Hatin is wrong and this really needs a variance, and I think that that needs to be addressed. No soil information on stormwater facilities. Again, they may be in close proximity, but where the septic system is, is ten feet up the hill from where the stormwater is. Do you think the soils will change when you're getting 10 feet lower to wetlands? They even said the soils will be damp. So I really think that this will not function properly. I'm going to ask you to look at, I think it's Page Two or Three of the drawings for the stormwater calculations. They are based on the footprint. 28 by 36 1 think equals 1,056 square feet. They do not take into account the two foot overhang around the entire building of the eaves. That makes that calculation go up to 1350 square feet. That stormwater facility barely meets the minimum right now and that doesn't meet the requirements in the Code. I'd tell Sean Doty and Chazen that they were wrong on that if they were here. So again, with those non-compliances I can't see how this meets the wetland permit criteria. The application states that the project area is .54 acres. If you do the mathematics for the boundary, it's 100, even if you combine the two parcels, 100 by I think it's 156. That totals 15,000 square feet. So that's about a third of an acre. So there's a big discrepancy there. And the last point is they're putting their well about 10 feet from where that wetland is. They're clearing that, you see that notch on the lower right? When they drill the well, you bring up 200, 300 feet of sediment. Where do you think that sediment's going to go? Right to that wetland. I see no room for stormwater protection for the removal of that sediment. So really this is too much for, really this is about a third of an acre. So I'm asking you to look at those dimensions, look at the Town Code, look at the Department of Health Code, before you make this decision. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir. DAVE WILCOX MR. WILCOX-Question. Do I need to repeat what I said, or can I just say ditto, from the previous one? I'll do it either way. MR. TRAVER-Well, can we note for the record that the same comments are offered by the same gentleman? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes, you can. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, you're all set, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-I'll say ditto as well, but I would like to add something. MR. TRAVER-Then if you wouldn't mind coming up and getting yourself on the record, please. '16 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MRS. RUFFING-One of the things that the Coalition. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. If you don't mind would you state your name again for the record? MRS. RUFFING-Lorraine Ruffing. I'm on Assembly Point and I'm Co-Director of the Coalition. The Coalition for the last four or five years has undertaken an annual swim around Assembly Point, and we have collected samples. We are finding more and more evidence of E coli contamination, and that is why we are so keen on preserving the wetlands. We need, again, we need drinking water, and our drinking water is in jeopardy from overdevelopment and so I really appreciated the comments that were made about the absorption capacity. If we go to, as I said, our wetlands have been suppressed and this is an example of a suppression of a wetland. Because you're developing it. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma'am. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by suppression. MRS. RUFFING-It means you build right over them. You have residential development on top of wetlands, and an example of that. MR. TRAVER-We don't allow that and they're not proposing that. MRS. RUFFING-Yes, well it has been done already and that is the lower half of Assembly Point Road. I mean you have a rain event and the road is completely flooded from one side of the road to the other, to the lake. The water just pours off the road into the lake. MR. TRAVER-It's a major problem, no question. MRS. RUFFING-Because there is no absorptive capacity left in that particular area, and that is what we are concerned about in terms of preserving the wetland and the absorptive capacity around the wetland. We continue to build and our feeling is this entire wetland which is the last one that we have is going to be suppressed because there will be continual development in it, and this is just the beginning and we're very, very concerned about it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else want to discuss this application with the Planning Board? I'm not seeing any hands. Are there any additional written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No additional written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and invite the applicant to return. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I would just say, for the record, not acknowledging this particular application but in general people can be rest assured that we will not allow any development to take place in the wetlands. We will certainly do whatever it takes. That's illegal, and we will enforce that. MR. LAPPER-Just to state the obvious that, you know, there are plenty of people on Assembly Point and Cleverdale who still have seepage pits and they're not failing. They could be 60 years old and they're not required to upgrade them. And this is a brand new Elgin system. As Devin said the stormwater facility here is six feet above the wetland limits so that's 50 feet away and six feet higher. MR. DICKINSON-Just a clarification on lot size. Chris just, you know, it's confusing because the lots will be combined and this is an 85 foot..... MR. TRAVER-One follow up question I had was regarding the soils, and I'm trying to recall without having to read through the engineering comments again, are they also requesting additional soil testing for this? MR. DICKINSON-I think they might have for this one as well. ,1.7 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So that will be followed up on and you will need signoff on that soil testing. Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-Laura, do we need to do anything to verify the lot sizes or is that something you've already done? MRS. MOORE-We've already done that. MS. WHITE-Yes, okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-This is SEAR Type II so no additional SEAR action is required. Let's see, we did have this. We already have engineering signoff. This would be for this one. MR. DEEB-I'm a little concerned about the lot sizes. MS. WHITE-Laura said she's already. MR. DEEB-No, I understand that. I know it's what it says it is. MR. LAPPER-These are two original lots that back in the day people would have had a house on one of these small lots and these are being combined, two of the original lots about a half- acre which is bigger than a lot of those Shore Colony lots that are all on that system. MR. DICKINSON-This lot actually did reduce the clearing limits to try to contain it a little bit more. The disturbance is a little bit smaller. We're taking precautions with silt fence and things like that. Most of the development clearing is again 40 to 50 feet. MR. TRAVER-AII right. Well I guess we're ready for a motion, then. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 50-2018 & FWW 5-2018 GARNER HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home, 896 sq. ft. (footprint) and 2112 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater, and site grading. Project has a permeable driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, project work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary 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 07/24/2018 and continued the public hearing to 07/24/2018, 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 07/24/2018; 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 50-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 5-2018 GARNER HOLDINGS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 18 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII:arnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) 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; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) Both parcels are to be merged into one. m) APA correspondence verifying wetland delineation to be included in the Site Plan. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2018 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Discussion? MRS. MOORE-1 would also do the APA correspondence on this one as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The same condition. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-All right. Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next item on our agenda is Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Site Plan 45-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 45-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 9 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 10' X 12' STORAGE SHED AND TO PLACE A 392 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED IN SIMILAR LOCATION — SOUTHEAST CORNER. STORAGE SHED HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 11'6". SHED WILL HAVE ELECTRIC FOR INDOOR LIGHTING, NO EXTERIOR LIGHTING °1'9 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII:arnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) ANTICIPATED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SHEDS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: CC-310-2015 NEW OFFICE, CC-490-2016 OFFICE ALT., PZ-257- 2016 FENCE; WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2018. LOT SIZE: 2.16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-2.3 SECTION: 179-3-040 & 179-5-020. RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant is proposing to remove an existing 10' x 12' storage shed and replace with a 392 square foot storage shed in a similar location in the southeast corner. The storage shed height is approximately 11 feet six inches. The shed should have potentially indoor lighting only, no exterior lighting anticipated, and sheds in non-residential zones are subject to Planning Board review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record Richard Jones. I'm the architect representing Hudson Headwaters, and what we're proposing is removal of the existing 10 by 12 shed and to place a new 392 square foot shed in its location. Basically the bigger shed is actually the one that the Board approved for Lot 161. We moved that when we did the addition. MR. TRAVER-And this is for the storage of records. Correct? MR. JONES-Yes. There is no present storage space in the Administration Building at 9 Carey Road. There's no basement in that building, and the storage space is limited at best inside. That's why we're looking to expand it almost double the size. With that, I mean, we're not, I know Laura's comment indicated that we were deleting three parking spaces. It's basically in the same footprint. It's just extending towards the bubble at that side of the building, but we're not losing any of the spaces. There's limited power inside for lighting because of the size. It's on skids so if we have to move it again we can certainly do that. MR. DEEB-I was going to ask you, because I see where you put it, right on top of the septic. Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 wouldn't think it would be very easy to move. I mean the original one was 10 by 12. MR. JONES-Gardentime does a great job. MR. TRAVER-This is 14 by 28 and you're going to be able to move it? MR. JONES-Yes, they've already moved it to the site on the other side. They've moved it off that site. Now they're going to move it back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Wow. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got to see the trailer and how they can slide it over in between. MS. WHITE-Yes, in between these. MR. TRAVER-1 see them go by my office every once in a while on Quaker Road, but. MR. JONES-It's a real art. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it must be. MR. DEEB-I was curious about that. I really was. I saw where you put it. MS. WHITE-And you don't need any temperature control for paper storage? MR. JONES-No. MS. WHITE-Nothing required. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. VALENTINE-It's just a venting on that storage building itself? Just the venting is the only thing that keeps it, regulates it? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-But you do have power running to itjust for lights. MR. JONES-Yes, just strictly for lights. MS. WHITE-And nothing outside. MR. JONES-Nothing outside. MR. TRAVER-No outdoor lighting. MR. JONES-There's actually lighting bollards along the sidewalk and there's a pole light on the opposite side of the parking lot. MS. WHITE-It's already existing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-1 noticed it's sitting on a portion of the existing septic field. MR. DEEB-I just said that. MR. SHAFER-Sorry. MR. JONES-Yes, the existing shed is on skids right now. MR. SHAFER-So it could be moved. MR. JONES-Yes, and this one will be on skids as well. MR. HUNSINGER-So I just had a question. It may not even apply to this site. Maybe it's on the other site. Porous pavement. Do you have the porous pavement on this site? MR. JONES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Just the Health Center site. MR. JONES-This site we have standard blacktop paving on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can you comment, though? MR. JONES-On the porous pavement? MR. HUNSINGER-The porous pavement, the maintenance and how it's working out. MR. JONES-The concept is great. The wearability is terrible. MR. MAGOWAN-Not for parking lots. MR. DEEB-Yes, that's been discussed before that it doesn't last. MR. JONES-No. We're going to have to do some treatment to the initial site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So what do you need to do? MR. JONES-Remove stuff and put new porous pavement down. MR. DEEB-That wasn't that long ago. MR. JONES-No. The original building was 2004, and the addition was just done in '14. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. HUNSINGER-1 just happened to be there one time during a storm event and it was just so strange to step out onto the pavement and there's no water on it. MR. JONES-Yes, what we find is when there's actually a snowstorm, the snow collects on the porous pavement and it doesn't collect on the hard surface. It's a solid surface. So it actually becomes a slipping hazard. MR. HUNSINGER-It freezes quicker. MR. JONES-Yes, it does. So they salt the heck out of. So even 9 Carey Road it's only salt. There's no sand on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Because you can't use sand. It'll plug up the porous. MR. JONES-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-That's too bad. MR. VALENTINE-Do you mind me ask, again, it's a question off this storage shed, but I was reviewing the Site Plan and stuff and I was sort of looking before I read everything because I didn't know what it was coming in for. So I'm looking at a whole Site Plan. With all the amount of pavement out there and the parking and the building, how does your snow storage areas, how do they work? MR. JONES-They basically, they have quite a bit of snow storage. The corners of the property and the back side of Building One, and at some point when they get a lot of snow on the site they actually remove it. MR. VALENTINE-They truck it off? MR. JONES-They truck it off. Yes. In fact if you noticed last year they had a small dozer parked behind Building Two out at the back of the building. The maintenance people had actually put it on site. MR. VALENTINE-Interesting. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Planning Board before we open the public hearing? I'm not hearing any so we'll go ahead and open a public hearing. Are there members of the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this storage shed? I'm not seeing any. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We actually have, this is an Unlisted Action. So we actually have a SEAR. MRS. MOORE-I'll just clarify. It's less than 4,000 square feet. So it's actually a Type Ii. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we don't need. Okay. So we'll correct the record to note that this is actually a Type 11 action for SEAR purposes, and if there are no other questions or comments, then we'll go ahead and ask for a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 45-2018 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK 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 remove a 10' x 12' storage shed and to place a 392 sq. ft. storage shed in similar location — southeast corner. Storage shed height is approximately 11'6". Shed will have electric for indoor lighting, no exterior lighting anticipated. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII:arnirnliirn,� IBOair'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, sheds in non-residential district 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 and determined the project to be a Type 11 as project is less than 4,000 sq. ft. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/24/2018 and continued the public hearing to 07/24/2018, 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 07/24/2018; 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 45-2018 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next application is TNT Corinth Road, LLC. Site Plan 52-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. TNT CORINTH ROAD, LLC. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 398 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 12 BUILDINGS — 4 BUILDINGS AT 3,000 SQ. FT., 4 BUILDINGS AT 4,500 SQ. FT., 3 BUILDINGS AT 3,750 SQ. FT. AND 1 BUILDING AT 4,750 SQ. FT. FOR 148 UNITS. SITEO AC. AND DISTURBANCE IS 5.59 AC. PROJECT INCLUDES 50 FT. BUFFER TO THE EAST SIDE RESIDENCES. PROJECT INCLUDES UPGRADE TO EXISTING PARKING AREA AND ADDING NEW PARKING AREA FOR THE STORAGE FACILITY. PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN EXISTING RESTAURANT CURRENTLY NOT OPERATING. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW STORMWATER — APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR NYSDEC WAIVER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 63-1990, SP 26-1992, AV 64-2010. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018. LOT SIZE: 8.6 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-3. SECTION: 179- 3-040. MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-At this time this application is proposed for 12 buildings. Four buildings at 3,000 square feet; four buildings at 4,500 square feet; three buildings at 3,750 and one building at 4,750 square feet for 148 units. Folks that received the public hearing were notified it was six buildings. The applicant had changed the project prior, during pre-ap, the actual final submission. So at this time the applicant will go through the �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) presentation process. You can open the public hearing and at that time we're going to table the application to an upcoming meeting in August. MR. TRAVER-So that the, what have before us is likely not going to be what the final project is going to be. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So it is still right at this time it is my understanding the applicant is proposing 12 buildings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There was confusion, though, between six and twelve. MRS. MOORE-So the advertising that went out said six, and that what happens is that the six that were proposed for a total of 46,000 square feet, 100. The application that came in was for 12 buildings, still the same square footage as the 100 foot less than 46,000. The square footage remains the same. The physical number of buildings changed. MR. TRAVER-So to clarify the procedure, then, that we'll be observing this evening, the applicant will make a presentation. We'll open a public hearing. Should we be taking public comment this evening or just close it and leave it open for when they return? MRS. MOORE-Well I think there's some comment. Your audience is full. The applicant's present and there's some written comments that I have. I would recommend that you accept public comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Unless the applicant says something different and has changed, I think the application is for 12 buildings on this site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little, O'Connor & Borie. I am the attorney for the applicant, and with me at the table is Thomas Barber who is the project manager. I think the confusion was that at the time of the pre-application discussion or meeting what was shown was six buildings and when the actual application was submitted and analyzed, if the buildings were broken down, the same square footage, or a little less square footage is because the manufacture of the building turned out to be 12 buildings as opposed to 6 buildings. That's what you should have in front of you right now, a set of plans for 12 buildings, and that's what we're presenting and what we're asking for approval for. It's a self-storage unit operation. It's located on the property which is probably commonly known as Papa's Restaurant. Papa's Restaurant is out on the Corinth Road and this was vacant land behind there that the fellow when he bought Papa's Restaurant also acquired the land behind it. Papa's Restaurant will be an operating restaurant. They're in the process of leasing it at this point. It would be operated separate from the self-storage, not part of the self-storage operation, and we don't know of any proposed changes to Papa's Restaurant, but it is on the Site Plan so I assume it's going to require review for the Papa's Restaurant itself. They have tried to design this so they will be the least intrusive that they can be in this particular setting. It is a permitted use in that zone. It's Commercial Light Industrial. Self-storage is permitted, and what they have proposed is actually on the edge of the Commercial Light Industrial. To the east is residential. I think that is Stephanie Lane, and there are a number of single family homes on Stephanie Lane that this project will be in the backyard of or in proximity to. You can see the different lots laid out on the map. There are a number of people that Mr. Barber has talked to trying to let the people know what's going on. Most of the concerns that we've heard are people that don't want things to disturb as they presently are and there's more than a couple of encroachments that have occurred over the years and we basically are telling people that if they sign a licensing agreement their encroachments will stay. We don't intend to try and clean up the property line and try and put up a big fence and keep everybody on the other side of the fence. The units are going to be 50 feet from that property line along the boundary of the houses that are along Stephanie Lane. We do not plan on doing any clearing of what's there. We plan on doing some planting toward the front, toward Corinth Road, and the actual users of the facility won't have access to that 50 feet. We're going to use the back of the walls of the buildings as a fence. In between the buildings where there is a separation we will fence that corridor so that people that are coming in and out of the facility, that use the facility, won't have access to that 50 1:,4 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) feet. So we don't, somebody wrote a letter. People that use the facility won't have access to that common property line. The traffic pattern will be two way, will be in and out on both sides of the project. The boundary line on the west side we have, again, 30 feet, which will be left as is. We propose the same type of building with fence between buildings on that side. So what will be used will be in between the 50 feet on the east and 30 feet on the west. We actually are proposing this in two phases. The first phase will be the six buildings that are toward Corinth Road and as market demands we will go to the second phase which is the six buildings that are behind them. We do propose to clear an area to the back of the property, again with the same buffers that we talked about on the front of the property, and we do propose outside storage in that area. We do not propose boats because I don't think you can do boat storage there, but we can do RV and automobiles as outdoor storage. That's permitted. There will be only downcast lighting. It'll be on the sides of the buildings. The lighting will be run at 50% of the capacity of the LED bulbs, but they will be activated to 100% by motion detectors so that people do have appropriate light for safety and what not if they come into the units. We are talking about a limitation on hours. I believe it was five a.m. to 11 p.m. for residential. We have some in another storage unit commercial customers that come in and different hours than that but very few entries are actually made. Not a lot of traffic. This facility, by customer, by what we've seen in other like facilities with like square footage is very little impact as far as traffic goes. We can provide those numbers. We did, I got involved in this a little bit late and I saw that there was no clear, no jurisdictional letter from DEC. We did get one and we submitted it. They gave us a letter of No Jurisdiction for endangered species, and that's in the file. There is a five page engineering letter from Chazen. The engineers for the project, ABD Engineering, have talked to Chazen. They've started the process and they don't see anything in that five page letter that they can't answer, and we'll be prepared to hopefully have in hand a signoff letter when we come back. MR. TRAVER-You're aware, however, that the letter from the Town Engineer is incomplete because they comment that they can't do a full analysis because they feel there's information they haven't received. MR. O'CONNOR-We've done 13 test holes and that information will be submitted to them as part of the response. Where they have said something is lacking we will have that worked on and submitted as part of the response from Chazen. MR. TRAVER-One of the initial thoughts I had in looking at the application and particularly with regard to the engineering, and I'm interested in your thoughts, you're hoping to be able to return in August for our review, and I'm wondering if you feel, based on the engineering and your discussion, if you would be able to have a signoff when you return. MR. O'CONNOR-We hope to. We hope to. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It will depend upon Chazen's response. MR. TRAVER-Right. Of course. MR. O'CONNOR-We think that we will have our response by next Tuesday. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And that would give them two weeks, three weeks to actually make a response to our response, or ask us if we need more information and go back and forth. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-I'm looking at the Fire Marshal's letter. Can you respond to that? MR. O'CONNOR-1 haven't seen it. So I can't. MRS. MOORE-It should have been in with the Staff Notes. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. DEEB-I can read it if you want. MR. O'CONNOR-Please. MR. DEEB-"Please provide detail of Fire Department turn around based on Appendix D of the IFC. As a side note, the plans indicate that customers will be directed to the office at the other Corinth Road location. The office in question has not been completed and has not received an inspection for Certificate of Occupancy from the Fire Marshal's office. Further, the permits for the original Corinth Road site have expired, and notices sent to the owner for renewal have not been responded to." MR. O'CONNOR-It's my understanding the inspections were done today and were approved by the Fire Marshal. MRS. MOORE-And I can confirm that. MR. DEEB-So you did get Fire Marshal approval after the letter? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DEEB-My other question is you said there's commercial buildings in there, storage units? MR. O'CONNOR-They can be, it can be used as either residential or commercial. MR. DEEB-Or commercial. So it's going to be one standard, but you say commercial hours will be different? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We have a separate commercial customer. MR. DEEB-So they can come in 24-hours a day? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's the same through most of the self-storage units throughout the Town. In fact, I don't think other operators limit the residential hours. MR. DEEB-But all units are uniform in square footage, I mean as far as each building? MR. O'CONNOR-They vary. The units actually vary as to size and height, but the entranceway will be the same. MR. DEEB-What determines a commercial user? MR. BARBER-A physician, medical records. Doctors, we have some hotels that keep records. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-It's still self-storage, though. MR. DEEB-That clarifies it for me. Okay. MR. VALENTINE-1 have another question, Mike. The area in the back at the north end of the site, the last third of it says that proposed tree line area to be cleared, and I'm just wondering, what is the purpose in clearing that back section? MR. O'CONNOR-So that we can use it for the outside storage, or if we have RV's. MR. VALENTINE-I'm just looking at that crusher run. I thought that was your storage area. MR. DEEB-That's what I thought, too. 1:'6 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We're talking about potential future expansion as well. It conceivably would have to come back here to you if we had expansion, but if we don't take the trees out of there now, it would be difficult to clear them after we have the front units all established. MR. TRAVER-What about security? Are you going to have cameras? MR. BARBER-Yes. My name's Tom Barber. I'm actually a partner in this operation as well. We have that storage facility just down the road, a quarter mile down the road. There's cameras everywhere. Everything's recorded. I actually get notification when somebody comes in and picks up things. It's nice. MR. SHAFER-1 see there's agate. How will that operate? MR. BARBER-It's a keypad. MR. DEEB-So you're going to have storage for RV's and what else? MR. O'CONNOR-I think RV's. We can't put boats there but we could put vehicles there. MR. DEEB-Any environmental concerns with leakage of oil and things of that nature? I do have a concern with that. I was worried about environmental concerns for the storage of RV's, leaking of oil, etc., and how would that be addressed. MR. O'CONNOR-We can take a look at that from an engineering point of view. I don't know that it's any different than any parking lot. MR. TRAVER-1 know that there are other outside storages that require that fluids be drained from vehicles and so on. I don't know if you want to make that a requirement, but I offer that because I know that that's been done in some outside storage areas that what they do is they just drain, if it's going to be a storage, they drain everything out of the vehicle so there' nothing that can be leaked. MR. DEEB-Usually an RV is for the winter. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. I guess. I'm not sure. MR. TRAVER-So that's one possibility. MR. O'CONNOR-We can take a look at that and see. We'll come back with an answer. MR. DEEB-That's a concern. MR. SHAFER-1 notice it's going to be seeded, that back part? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SHAFER-What do you envision, once it becomes operable, for RV storage and so on, grass? MR. O'CONNOR-At that point I think we'd have to put in some type of gravel, but once we take the trees out and grade it we will stabilize it. MR. VALENTINE-What about color? Have you decided on color of the units yet? MR. O'CONNOR-We have buildings just up the road. It probably would be the same color, earth tone colors on that, and we also were, something that the Board wanted, particularly on the back of the units that are along Stephanie Lane, put rows of green, because you have 50 feet of trees there, and it would have the buildings blend in behind them. We can do that. MR. TRAVER-In the Staff Notes one of the things that was talked about, too, was signage. So when you, if in your updating and revising of your plans, if you can clarify the signage so that we have a clear understanding of what you're proposing with regards to that. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. O'CONNOR-We're probably going to do a freestanding sign in the front of the property, right near where the existing Papa's sign is. There's room to meet the setback to the street, put a sign right in this area here. So we can get it designed and come back to you with the information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So would the diner and the storage be on one sign? MR. O'CONNOR-1 think that they're trying to do two signs. There's two separate businesses on the property. I think this sign is 45 feet. It's not going to be a large sign. MR. TRAVER-Well it will need to be Code compliant, but if you could just provide us details of that, that would be great. MR. O'CONNOR-We will. MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-Well, I'd just note the self-storage industry itself as a trade group, they have, and a lot of times they'll call for those elevations that front the public road to have even a false fagade. I think you said with the 50 foot buffer going all along that those sides wouldn't be visible that much, but those three buildings on the front would be visible especially with that parking area out front, you know, from Corinth Road. That may be just something to consider. I don't know if other Board members. MR. O'CONNOR-It's set back quite a ways from the property. MR. VALENTINE-No, I understand that, but it's still going to be visible from that road. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think it's 300 feet, 350 feet before you get to those buildings. MR. VALENTINE-I'm just throwing it out there to say if that comes up, but the trade group itself proposes those. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a public hearing. Is there anything else from the Board before we go to a public hearing? All right. Are there members of the audience who would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma'am. If you would give up the table for the public hearing portion. We do record and also take minutes of the meeting. So if you would state your name for the record, and for folks that were having difficulty hearing what was being said, the minutes of the meeting, the whole meeting, and this application as well, will be available through the Town website as well as the audio recording. So if you go on to the queensbury.net website, it will take some time for Maria to compile that, but it will be available, as well as all of the application paperwork that's submitted for your review. Yes, ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARIA RUGGI MS. RUGGI-My name is Maria Ruggi and I live at 7 Stephanie Lane, and I am here representing, I'm one of the people here representing the people on Stephanie Lane. We have several questions and we're hoping we get some answers. We have a few questions, first of all, starting with the restaurant. It's been in operation for over 30 years and is known as Papa's Diner. It has currently, up until now, I should say, it has had shorter operating hours. MR. TRAVER-The restaurant. MS. RUGGI-Right. Morning, seven o'clock in the morning, to early afternoon. At one point they did serve dinner, but it was closed very early. I guess one of our concerns would be will they be serving alcohol? And we hope that they don't. We would like that to not be turned into a bar. We wouldn't want it to change categories from a restaurant to a bar to something else in the future. MR. TRAVER-Do you know if, if you don't mind me asking, do you know if, when they were operating previously, they served alcohol? �:"gig �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MS. RUGGI-They have never served alcohol. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. RUGGI-Next question. Our last concern about the restaurant is the hours of operation. Not only are we worried about the alcohol usage, we would like you to remember that we are residential and all of our, the first three homes especially, are impacted the greatest by Papa's Restaurant. The parking lot backs up to two of the houses and I'm the third house, but that whole land has been cleared. So you see everything. You have lots of cars coming in and out. So the hours of operation are really concerning to us. Those are the restaurant questions. I talked to Mr. Barber. My first concern when he came to us was a fence. We are going to have a 50 foot buffer zone, according to the plan. It does say a six foot chain link fence on the plan running, I thought, the length of it, but according to what was just said, they weren't going to use it as they were going to have a building back and then the space between the buildings would be a fence, and then the building back and then another fence. We had talked about having a solid fence, privacy fence, because again this is residential. These are our homes. We don't have anything, we're going to look right into these storage sheds and it is not going to be pretty. It's certainly going to lessen our values of our homes. So we have concerns. MR. TRAVER-You're concerned about the visual impact? MS. RUGGI-Very much so. I did speak to someone from the Zoning Board. We are within our rights to ask for an eight foot solid fence because of, we're concerned about security and safety. That is something that we can ask for. The buildings should not be the block because that means we are looking at the buildings. We should have some kind of solid fence that's going to separate our property from what we're looking at. So that's a huge issue for Stephanie Lane residents. We really would like to ask for that. That's one of our big things. The other part of that, going along with privacy, is because the first three homes have been totally cleared, on the Site Plan there is a staggered line of pines and spruce trees, kind of looks like a Z, a zigzag. I guess we would really like to request a straight line of hedges, like a cedar hedge, which would have, over time, the potential to grow above that fence line above the buildings, so, again, blocking out the project. We're going to live there forever. Many of us have been here for 30 years and more. I've only been here 25, so I'm the newbie, but we care about our property and we really do not want to be staring at tan buildings with green doors. Even though the doors are on the other side, but still it's part of the project. I went to the, a few of us actually went to the other storage unit project, which is a quarter of a mile down the road on Corinth. The gate is up and at no point did I see the gate go down. I wasn't there during the middle of the night, but it was later. I understand that we were told they were going to have a keypad, but I would like to be assured that that gate will be down, and that the only way to get in is to use a keypad entry or some kind of key. The other thing was there were storage units that were not used and they were not locked. So, again, residential. We have a home on our street that takes care of children. We would like to see that those units that are not being used be locked so that you are not attracting party goers and you're not attracting people who need a place to sleep. We also noticed that the storage units a quarter mile down the street have two sized buildings. I didn't take a tape measure and I should have. I'm assuming that one of them was about 15 feet high. The other one was about 10 feet high, just a girl's estimate. We're asking that, if this proposal goes through, that the shorter ones would be the ones used, not the really tall ones, again, to minimize the look of the project. The direction of the lights we heard are facing down. I'm wondering if there are any lights in back facing at all towards the property, the homeowners. We do appreciate the motion activated lights. The hours of operation. I like the idea that there was going to be some limit the five to eleven, and then when the commercial was 24/7, 1 didn't like that. I'm sure my friends on Stephanie Lane didn't either. Again, I've said it seven, eight, ten times, it is residential. I would like us to remember that. We live here, and I would want you to imagine you living in my modest ranch. There's a really large electrical panel that is on the east side of the Corinth storage units, huge panel box. I would love to know where that's going to be placed. I can't say it has to be on one side or the other because I have friends on the other side as well, but it would be nice to know the placement of it, and I might lose some friends if I tell them it has to be on the other side. So the current plan that is proposed is 12 buildings. I heard that the first phase is six buildings. The second phase is six more. So what I'm hearing is that the picture that we all have of the twelve buildings represents all of the buildings that would be built, if I'm correct. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. TRAVER-And that's the application that's before us. That's correct. MS. RUGGI-So even though we're going to come back next month, the first six will be built, if this goes through, the twelve will be accepted all at once? They don't need to come back to do another six. Am I correct? MR. TRAVER-If they, hypothetically, if their plan is approved and they stick to their plan, they would not need to return unless either the time of the one year approval expired or if they decided to make a change in their plan that's not part of what we're looking at this evening. They do have a window to make changes because really they're going to be tabled tonight. They're going to be coming back next month. So what we approve, they can go ahead and build. So I'm not sure if that answers your question. MS. RUGGI-1 think that the 12 that we're seeing is what we can expect in the future. MR. TRAVER-That's what they're proposing. MS. RUGGI-Okay. In the proposal, we as residents thought that in that 50 foot buffer zone trees were going to be removed. What we heard a little while ago was that the trees were not going to be removed. Am I correct in that? MR. TRAVER-We can get clarification. MS. RUGGI-Okay. That would be wonderful. We were questioning the runoff. MR. TRAVER-Stormwater? MS. RUGGI-Stormwater runoff. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's going to be handled by the Town Engineer, and they are going to require a signoff. They're going to need to be able to satisfy the Town Engineer and there are some issues remaining that need to be clarified. That's one of the reasons that they're going to be coming back, but stormwater needs to be contained on site That's the regulation. MS. RUGGI-And the roads between the buildings, will they be paved or gravel? I know that the storage area. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you're actually starting to answer questions that are part of the plan that are on line. MS. RUGGI-1 looked and I didn't, we have the plan. We have done extensive research. We've talked. I'm not trying to be redundant. MR. TRAVER-1 appreciate that. Appreciate, too, that public comment normally is limited to three minutes. So you're making a very good presentation and you're representing obviously a number of the folks that are here. So as long as you're talking about points that haven't already been included in the plan, I'm glad to hear what you have to say, but I would ask that you confine your comments to clarifications of things that you're genuinely uncertain of because they're not clear in the plan and you don't expect them to be presented in August. MS. RUGGI-1 think the questions have been, what I've asked you have come up because of some of the comments that have been made. So no trees will be cut, but in the plan trees will be cut. MR. DEEB-They'll answer that when they come back. MS. RUGGI-So that's why I'm asking. So, yes, those were my questions, and I do apologize for running over. MR. TRAVER-No, that's all right. In our response, what I'm going to suggest, and the way to try to manage the public hearing, is if there are other people that want to come up in addition to yourself I would ask that this information not be repeated, the same questions, the same concerns not be repeated, just in fairness to us and to the applicant and other members of Staff, so that we don't end up essentially going on and 30 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) on about the same issues, but certainly you've been very clear in the points that you wish clarification on and rest assured we will address them with the applicant. There'll be another, this application will be tabled tonight. However the public hearing will remain open. So when they return the goal is that they will be back in August, but there will be another opportunity. There will be clarifications, addendums, perhaps even changes possibly to what they're proposing. There will be another opportunity for you to look at that information and also to address the Planning Board on those at that occasion as well. MS. RUGGI-We did a petition. Don't know if you have any interest in accepting that. MR. TRAVER-You can certainly present that to Town Staff and it will be included as part of the record. MS. RUGGI-Thank you. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. Are there other members of the audience that would like to address the Board? Yes, sir. KEITH O'HENRY MR. O'HENRY-I would like to address the Planning Board if I may. Your name is Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'HENRY-My name's Keith. I'm a resident of Stephanie Lane although I live on the other side. MR. TRAVER-Before you begin, sir, I would like to clarify that as part of the public hearing, that you not repeat what has already been offered. MR. O'HENRY-I gladly won't. My issue isn't with that. MR. DEEB-Full name? MR. O'HENRY-Keith. MR. DEEB-Keith. MR. O'HENRY-O'Henry. I wonder how many people on the Planning Board are natives of Queensbury. I knew him and I knew him. MR. TRAVER-Lake George, not Queensbury. MR. O'HENRY-So I'm a native, too, and the Planning Board's done a relatively good job over the years. This 50 foot I'd like to see turned into 75. Not impossible, is it? You've done well with, let's keep some forever green area. We're turning into Clifton Park, aren't we? Now this particular area I guess storage cubes are better than houses, but I like neighbors. Neighbors are great people, but we're going to get what we're going to get. Because us as the tax paying majority have little or no control over this, do we? The environmental issue. I'm going to give you my environmental issue. This is kind of like what Burnt Ridge was. I worked on that project. A lot of wildlife in there. The active fox den is now vacant because the female's had her kits and they've been weaned and they're off, but there is an active fox den in there. I think it's been used several years. One of the neighbors has a doe in her backyard that gave birth to a fawn that's gone through there. Same issue we had down on Country Club, etc., etc. How did we get the wildlife to leave? Is there somebody on the Board that has an employee they send over that make the wildlife leave? The tree frogs, the rabbits. There's wildlife in there. So we've got to look at this. They're going to clear cut this, all the trees, all the brush. This is supporting environment for our wildlife. Now deer can be annoying. They chew your bushes, this and that, so maybe we don't like the, but still who has the supremacy here? Do we make room for them or do they make room for us? I think they were here first. That's one of my biggest issues is that we're developing so much in this Town we're forgetting what we used to be, nice little Queensbury, leave your keys in your car and your front door open. Not anymore. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. There is a little dissatisfaction and distrust. That's all. That's to be expected, right? �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your comments, sir. I live your time is up. MR. O'HENRY-Just so you know, I did contact the DEC representative in Albany, to see if they could initiate a wildlife study, being a resident of the area. I don't know if that's appropriate and I don't know if you would consider that, but we need something. MR. TRAVER-Are there other members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this? Yes, sir. MIKE BAI RD MR. BAIRD-I'm new here. MR. TRAVER-Before you begin, did you hear my comments? MR. BAI RD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BAIRD-Mike Baird. I reside one property is in between me on the west side. I'm here on my own behalf. I have two businesses on the Corinth Road. I have neighbors around the corner who live on Stephanie Lane. I sympathize tremendously with both projects. The reason I'm here is just break the ice for myself. My property is 500 foot deep from the front of Corinth Road. Vito Cavalleri, who is in between me right now, with pine trees, which I don't have an issue with, that's the only thing that stops my visual through. I can see porch lights of some neighbors at night, just the light from his house, and I actually was here a few nights ago getting my approval for a 1,000 foot fence, six foot. So I don't have any particular issue with the project. I have a business. I would like to know, as a question to Mr. O'Connor, is just information packet, if my neighbor Vito, basically he won't ever afford to do it, it's his property, but he would sell it probably commercial someday, they'll be allowed to do something that falls within the categories of light industrial, and he'd be allowed to cut all the trees. I'd have my fence by then. Everything for me is cool. I have a safety issue only, which doesn't mirror image the questions of before, but if both the storage units eventually, first, second, third stage, are able and get approved and utilized, the entire depth being the largest acre of usage, meaning the storage units that border Stephanie. MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about beyond what they're proposing? MR. BAIRD-No. Their property is close to eight acres, and although they show on the map, which I don't have an issue. I'm asking questions just for clarification. My purpose for my own personal is clarification. Stephanie Lane, appropriately, is looking for a fence to buffer them. I'm just curious, and you can address it whenever. I just would like to know. I have kids who come through the back woods now. My house is 300 feet deep off Corinth Road. It's kind of unusual. Most houses are very close to the front, and if we put businesses, which we're allowed, and there's more activity allowed through said fence, which I don't have an issue with. They're asking the right questions, the young lady, you know, keypads, locks, is it going to be accessible. I'm just curious about the rest of the property. Honestly I didn't really hear much. I'm not demanding it. I'm just curious. If they go all three phases, what's the furthest depth they could ever be approved for, which is fine with me, business wise? MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can clarify that. MR. BAIRD-Are they intending, or not really mentioning, I'm curious, on boxing the entire business storage units with an enclosed fence? I mean they would have to, otherwise, one on one side would be benign. MR. TRAVER-What we're looking at is what we have before us this evening, not some hypothetical expansion down the road, but we can certainly address that. We can ask. MR. BAIRD-1 guess what I didn't hear, and they have time, I'm curious, and it's not a demand from me, is the rest of the story fence wise, and that's not for me visually. They have the visual, you know, this half. I'm curious about people in the woods and coming through our properties. MR. TRAVER-Yes. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. BAIRD-Thanks for your time. MR. DEEB-You're curious about fencing the whole area? MR. BAIRD-See I'm putting a fence around my property. MR. DEEB-You want to know it will be totally compliant. MR. BAIRD-My concern is not what they're doing, it's what my neighbor might sell to, and be closer to in between me. MR. TRAVER-Understood. We'll clarify that. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. ROB SIRAGUSA MR. SIRAGUSA-1 never did this before. So I'm a little nervous. Hi. My name is Rob Siragusa. I live at 21 Stephanie Lane, and I just have a couple of concerns. One I wasn't clear about, and I know you don't want me to repeat, but I wasn't clear if a traffic study was done for all the ins and outs of all the new storage units. MR. TRAVER-For this project? MR. SIRAGUSA-Yes, and also for the future of the RV and boat storage. MR. TRAVER-We can ask about that. MR. SIRAGUSA-Okay. Thank you. The hours of operation for a future boat and RV storage. So I do have some concerns. MR. TRAVER-We can ask about that as well. MR. SIRAGUSA-Okay. Thank you. And I'm not here to change a rule or anything, but 24 hours of commercial storage is a concern, I think, for residential back up. Thinking of truck back up, beep, beep, beep, at any hour. If commercial storage is 24 hours, which is a little kooky, but I'm concerned about those things backing up. MR. TRAVER-We can ask about what vehicles would have access. MR. SIRAGUSA-Awesome. All right. Thank you for that. Has the Board visited any of these other sites that this company owns and has? Have we gone to visit it to see what that site plan or how they operate or anything like that, or when it was in progress? You might have seen it drive by, but have you gone to actually visit the site to see something else that they're operating? Has that been done? Or maybe past approvals or something. Has that been done? MR. TRAVER-Yes, typically we do site visits, yes. MR. DEEB-When they're brought before us. MR. SIRAGUSA-I'm just asking if you have visited any of their sites maybe when they were in the planning stage as this or anything. Have you visited their sites? MR. TRAVER-We typically do site visits for all applications. MR. SIRAGUSA-Okay, and the storage area for the future boat and RV, is all this going in and out of Papa's? MR. TRAVER-The information that was provided was that no boats would be involved. MR. SIRAGUSA-So the future where they want to take down trees. MR. TRAVER-We can ask if they plan on taking down additional trees. MR. SIRAGUSA-All right, and so those are my concerns about that. I have one other thing. It was brought up about trees and that 50 foot buffer coming down or not. I have a concern. Two of trees on their property came down this past spring, damaged 33 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) my woodshed, just smashed it to pieces, and I couldn't get any help. It was in the process of maybe the property being sold and we called real estate, oh, well we'll relay the message. Didn't. So then three weeks later another tree came down, busted the fence up, crashed down. MR. TRAVER-Did you contact your insurance company? This is really off the subject. MR. SIRAGUSA-Yes. I get it, but my concern is that tree, and so I have a request. There is one tree that is compromised that I'm afraid, where that second one came down, that tree is compromised about 30 feet up in the air, and I have a great concern. MR. TRAVER-And this is on the applicant's property? MR. SIRAGUSA-Yes. And so I'm concerned about that particular tree causing more damage or injury. MR. TRAVER-We can ask about that. MR. SI RAG USA-That would be great. Thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. RICHARD SEELEY MR. SEELEY-My name is Richard Seeley. I live at 1 Stephanie Lane and my question is going to be, are you going to read the public comments in? MRS. MOORE-I can read your public comment in. MR. SEELEY-Yes, I do. As long as you're going to read the public comment, I won't take any more of the Board's time. The only other clarification I will tell you is a couple of days ago I did meet with Mr. Barber and that gate that was in question before that was up in the air, he told me it's been broken for a period of time. We don't need that in the backyard, either, because if a repair's got to be done, it's got to be done for security and safety. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Right. Sure. Laura, do you want to go ahead and read that public comment now. MRS. MOORE-I'm going to hand you some photos that were also included in the public comment. The notes on this are on the back of that. So as you go through just look at the notes on the back of the photo. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. And you have additional written public comment to read? MRS. MOORE-I do. This is addressed to the Planning Board members. "My name is Richard R. Seeley, and I am the owner of the property located at One Stephanie Lane, Queensbury, NY. My property is on the east side of the above referenced project, and directly borders it. A letter dated July 10th, was mailed to surrounding neighbors describing this project. A notice was also published in The Post Star on July 14th stating the same information. The notice sent to neighbors and the legal publication calls for six buildings. The drawing at the Planning Board shows twelve buildings. I would like to know what is being approved, six or twelve buildings? Specifically, can TNT later expand at will, or do they have to return to the Planning Board? In light of this information, I request if up to twelve buildings are being approved, any potential Board approval of this project be delayed until such time as the proper notifications can be sent to the area neighbors who are directly affected by this project and a correct legal notice is published. I would like to know what is being allowed for signage, where is the placement, and is it lighted? Also, if said project is allowed, I request the following: 1) That the lighting at the entrance to these buildings be a motion-detector- type, and not the ones that operate continuously. 2) That the buildings being constructed start at the vegetation line and not in the opening at the end of the parking lot for the restaurant. This is so that the sight of the buildings will be further restricted from visibility. 3) It is my understanding that a row of trees are to be planted to help shield the sight of storage units. I request that these trees be planted on a six foot high berm, again to aid with visual restriction. In addition I request that the trees be maintained and replaced when necessary, such as if trees die, etc. 4) That privacy 314 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) fencing be installed and maintained up to the vegetation line. 5) That the hours of operation be restricted so access is not 24 hours per day. 6) That a restriction be placed requiring all storage to be within the designated buildings and that storage of boats, RV's or other visible storage not be allowed. If this project is allowed, I know there will have to be some logging done to this property. I would like to know what hours that work will be allowed. With the clear cutting of trees and the additional paving, I question whether any concerns with drainage issues are perceived, and if so, what is the review process and perceived remedy. I assume this will be at the contractor's cost. If this project is allowed, I would like to know what the plan will be to supervise the business on a daily basis for customers using the storage units. There is also a wooden privacy fence between my house and the soon-to-be-opened restaurant on the front portion of the property. I request having that fence remain and be maintained as necessary by TNT. It acts as a sight barrier between my house and the restaurant parking lot and also a small portion of the area where the storage units are to be placed. On July 20th, I talked with Tom Barber, project manager. Also present was Frank DeWitt, my next door neighbor. Mr. Barber stated the fence will remain and he would maintain it. He also stated he would install a maintenance free privacy fence along the border between our houses and the project if we wanted. We indicated we did. He also stated he could plant more trees along the buffer border. I request the board to take into consideration that this project borders a well-established residential neighborhood and what the decrease in property values may be, and to not approve this project. At the very least, please consider these concerns as outlined if you choose to move forward and implement them as part of any approval process. Storage units in the area are abundant, and the necessity of adding one next to a well-established residential area may not be the best use for the lands in question, nor for the Town of Queensbury. Richard R. Seeley" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Are there any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-There's another written comment. This is to the representatives of the Zoning and Planning Boards of Queensbury. "I received notice that there will be a storage place being built on a property behind me and I would like to request (2) things. My first request is; Please have a very high fence going across the back property line. I do not want to find people's unwanted furniture and other `trash' items thrown on my property for me to dispose of. My second request is; Please have lights on the storage building and not `Street and/or Parking Lot' lights. I am not interested in having my property lit up like a prison. Thank you for allowing me to address my request in writing. Kenya Lashway 355 Luzerne Road Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Are there other members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this this evening, before it is tabled? Yes, sir. EVERTT BATCHELDER MR. BATCHELDER-My name is Evertt Batchelder. I live on Stephanie Lane. I'm going to try not to be redundant here, but I do want to emphasize. Sometimes if you emphasize a phrase it makes a difference. Mine is yes, footage, square footage, however you want to label it, square footage. What was stated earlier is possibly on these new additional storage bins is are they going to be higher than stipulated. Anything 15 feet is considerably high. The other thing is, which was brought up is on the lighting. The lighting I'm wondering about is the brightness. Yes they're going to use LED lights, but there's a consideration of brightness or luminance, whichever term you want to use. Low beam, what is the luminance or brightness of those lights. MR. TRAVER-We can ask about the lighting. MR. BATCHELDER-The other one is high. Also to help to break down the brightness to the corresponding residences, are they going to have a diffused lens? That would be one thing, and down for security, yes. The other thing I want to emphasize was hours. Possibly a 24/7 was mentioned. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we've had several people comment on that, so we understand there's a concern. MR. BATCHELDER-Yes, but isn't there a Town regulation or whatever that 10 p.m. is the cut off for noise level? 3115 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. BATCH ELDER-Really? MR. TRAVER-We'll be discussing hours with the applicant. MR. BATCH ELDER-Well, I just wanted to bring that up because some people are going to be, I'm retired but some people are still working. 24/7, you are not going to foresee the noise level that could possibly arise. MR. TRAVER-We'll discuss that with the applicant. MR. BATCHELDER-And also the sign. Now I had a couple of friends. They run a business. The Town Board gave them a hassle on their size, their size and location. I believe the proposal was 45 square foot. MR. TRAVER-We've asked for clarification on the sign and that will be forthcoming, and you'll have an opportunity to see that. MR. BATCHELDER-Now on drainage. I'm not sure about the drainage. MR. TRAVER-Stormwater will be managed according to the regulations provided by the Town Engineer and the Town Engineer will have to signoff that the stormwater management is compliant. MR. BATCH ELDER-Okay, but what I want to emphasize it's going to be down in the ground, probably cobblestones, stuff like that, but this drainage, in other words, we can't foresee the rainfall and things like that. MR. TRAVER-The engineering, stormwater plan will foresee that. MR. BATCHELDER-I'm just wondering if it may effect, people near that boundary, if it's going to affect their drainage. MR. TRAVER-By regulation stormwater cannot leave the property. MR. DEEB-It has to stay on the property. MR. BATCHELDER-We can guarantee that? Okay. That's all I have. MR. VALENTINE-What was your last name, sir? MR. BATCH ELDER-Batchelder. MR. VALENTINE-I'm just looking for your residence along here and I didn't see it. That's what I thought you said your name was. MR. BATCH ELDER-Really? Not there? I've been therefor over 30 plus years. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He's on the opposite side, the other side. MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there anyone else? All right, and we'll ask the applicant to return to the table. And for the audience, note for the record that we'll be leaving the public hearing open and there will be another opportunity to discuss and have a public hearing with the Planning Board when the applicant returns later. So you heard the public comment. There's some specific areas that I think I would like us to address. There were questions about the restaurant and some of these I don't believe that you'd be able to answer because I think that the restaurant is currently unoccupied and you're going to be leasing it or renting it or something. So the question came up about alcohol. I'm assuming that if anyone, well not assuming. My information is that if someone were to lease that restaurant and wish to operate it as a restaurant and they wanted to serve alcohol they would have to go through an application process that you don't control. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. They'd have to go through the New York State ABC Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Question for Staff, Laura. With the restaurant, since it's not a business now, would there be a subsequent review, if and when it was? 36 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MRS. MOORE-So, my understanding is that it will be operating at the same time that this storage facility will be operating. So it's during your review right now. So if there's additional questions. MR. TRAVER-So I guess if that's the case, if what we're looking at is an operating restaurant, even though it's not currently running, then I would ask, and other members may have questions as well, about whether or not the intent is to have alcohol served, what the hours would be, something about perhaps the menu that might have an impact on the clientele. Is it going to be, one of the questions was, is it going to be different or drastically different from historically how this restaurant was operated in the past, and the comment was that it was basically breakfast and lunch. So if you could provide clarification on that that would be helpful for members of the public. Concerns about visual impacts. I know that there's a, could you clarify the buffering around to talk about the visual impact and there was talk about a privacy fence and so on. MR. O'CONNOR-As I said, there is a 50 foot buffer along the east side of the property. There is a slight modification that's shown on one of the plans where it may go 47 and a half feet or 47 feet because of some trees that are already dead in that particular area. It's in the second page of the buildings, by Building Six is where it would be. We hope to address that. It still would be a 50 foot strip by coloring the building so it would be background to the existing trees that are there. These buildings, the outer eave of these buildings is like nine feet seven inches from the base, and they're not a peak building. The highest, like a shed roof, is nine feet eleven inches. MR. DEEB-It's not going to be 15 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-No. It's not something that's going to stick out. MR. TRAVER-If I could just return to the trees, discussion on the trees for a second. You're going to need to be doing some clearing obviously in this proposal. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So are you going to have an arborist come out and look at what's there? MR. O'CONNOR-If we're within the 50 feet that we talked about as a buffer area, it's not a no cut area. If we're within 50 feet we can have an arborist come and look at it. MR. TRAVER-One of the reasons I'm asking is there was some concern about a tree on a property line that potentially was of ill health or something. MR. O'CONNOR-Something specific like that, if they bring it to our attention. What my experience with the applicant is we will work with people, okay. MR. TRAVER-Understood. I just thought if you're having an arborist there to analyze what's on the property now, as you plan your clearing, if they could take note if there are any trees that are potentially threatening to someone on the property line. MR. O'CONNOR-Apparently the trees are not very strong trees and there has been a lot of blowdown. We've got different photographs of trees, and those are some of the areas we were talking about cutting. They've already got a bunch of trees that are down in it. MR. TRAVER-Well you heard the concern about that. So if you could address that we'd appreciate that. MR. DEEB-Would you consider a privacy fence, an eight foot privacy fence? MR. O'CONNOR-We have not done that because we think that the building itself is a privacy fence. We have some areas, short gaps between it that we fence that we can do it with some type of privacy fence, whether it be slats that go into a metal fence or not, but it'll be a solid appearance for the whole east and west side of the buildings. MR. TRAVER-If you can highlight that on your updated plans, that would be very helpful. 3.7 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. O'CONNOR-The other problem is I think there's some people, I know the woman spoke for, said she was speaking for everybody. You talk about doing the fence along the property line, somebody's got a garden that's in there that they don't want to have disturbed. Somebody else has a shed that's partially past the property. There's a couple of fences that they have that encroach into the property. We're going to ask those people just to sign an agreement that says they aren't making any claims of adverse possession. So we don't end up with a title problem down the road. We're going to say leave it. We're going to have this solid building wall that says, you know, what's on that side stays as it is. Other than that, I'd have to talk to everybody. We'd be jogging this fence back and forth. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well I think the general comment and it was from more than one individual was the visual impact. So if you could be prepared to kind of specifically address that again when you return I think that would be very helpful to folks, and the visual impact may very well, as you point out, may very well be different from landowner to landowner, from neighbor to neighbor, but you've heard that that's a concern of the public. So that would be good. There was a question about lighting. You indicated that it's all downcast. It's required to be downcast anyway. Do you have any information on? MR. O'CONNOR-We do. We will present you an illumination plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That sounds like that will be helpful. It doesn't sound like it's going to be a real bright site, but that would be helpful I think, again, for the neighbors to understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, the entrance all the lights will be internal. They won't be facing the neighbors. The neighbors won't be looking at doors. They'll be looking at the back of the units. MR. DEEB-There'd be no lights on the back? MR. O'CONNOR-There'd be no lights on the back. MR. DEEB-It'll just be internal. MR. O'CONNOR-The lights will be on the front. They'll be internal. They'll be facing away from the people. MR. DEEB-How about the keypad on the other door, the gate at the other? MR. BARBER-Thank you. That is a brand new gate and it's being tied in with our software, but it's not functioning right now, and we just had all the approvals today. Actually most of the gates in Queensbury no one closes. I have a gentleman behind me who owns a storage facility. I think he came here to find out who I was. The gate will be operational. It will be a keypad. It will be locked down. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned a security system as well. So if for some reason it were not functioning you would be alerted to that. MR. BARBER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BARBER-The light pollution, if you want to call it light pollution, is internal. It's only inside the buildings. MR. TRAVER-And we'll take a look at the light plan when you provide that. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing that seemed to be of importance is the hours of operation, and we will address those. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and there was a question, Jamie pointed out there was a question about the infrastructure in terms of the electrical panel. Do you have any clarification of that? I didn't notice anything on the plan. 38 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. BARBER-What they saw was the solar people, Monolith, was putting panels on the buildings. They're inverters. They're almost complete. They're their project. So that's what they saw. MS. WHITE-On the storage building? MR. BARBER-Yes. MS. WHITE-So are you going to do that at this location as well? MR. BARBER-We haven't discussed that yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well if you are, please put that on the plans so we'll be aware of that, and, Mr. Magowan, you had some questions? MR. MAGOWAN-A couple of things. I have a little concern, knowing the property, and the particular trees that are in there, when you start clear cutting those, they're like toothpicks standing up in the air, and you start taking the infrastructure of those toothpicks away and we're going to have blowdowns on either side. So it's just inevitably going to happen because they don't get the root structure that they need because it's so dense back there, and also I have a little bit of issue of clear cutting all the way to the back end of the property line for the future of, you know, the expansion, and Mike happened to mention that, you know, you can't get a truck back there to do it. I happen to disagree with that. You've got 28 feet in between the buildings. You're going to be bringing concrete trucks down in there for Phase 11. You're also going to be backing in tractor trailers for bringing in the metal buildings in Phase 11. 1 would like to see that, you know, you basically run back to the edge of your snow area and kind of leave the back for the future if you decide to go further. MR. VALENTINE-Here, here. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm listening. I'm making notes. MR. DEEB-The units are going to be locked, right? I mean you're not going to leave, the units are not going to be open. I mean that obviously is a danger. MR. O'CONNOR-They'll have an individual lock on the door. MR. BARBER-1 know what she's talking about. One unit, we put locks on all the doors. MR. DEEB-Okay. That's a major safety concern. MR. TRAVER-AII right. So are there other questions before we table? MR. SHAFER-What is the driveway material between the buildings? Is that asphalt? MR. BARBER-Yes, sir, asphalt. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We are going to need a tabling resolution. Do we have a list of specifics that we're requesting? MR. SHAFER-Question on hours of operation? MR. O'CONNOR-We're going to work on those. MR. SHAFER-Did I hear somebody say that 24/7 was in the Code for commercial? MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't think there's any restriction in the Town Zoning as to hours of operation. I think it's a case by case determination by the Boards. MR. SHAFER-I'd have a problem with 24/7 on this. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, like they said it's so close to the residential. 39 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. O'CONNOR-We will discuss it. We talked about five a.m. to eleven p.m. for the residential, and with an exception for commercial. I'm going to see if we can make it five a.m. to eleven p.m. and have it at that, except maybe for emergencies. MS. WHITE-That would always be the case for emergencies. MR. BARBER-1 had Chris Gearwar from the Department of Forestry and he went through the site. We're aware of what you're talking about. There's a lot of blowdown right now, which we're really worried about. A couple of neighbors behind, one neighbor in particular I believe he's here tonight, is concerned about the blowdown, the trees that are all leaned over. MR. MAGOWAN-Well what I was saying on that is all these trees for so long have just been like this, you know, and when the wind blows they kind of go together. Now you take this side down and then the wind blows, now you have nothing and you don't have the root structure. So, especially the way, coming over the mountain and the microbursts. There seems to be a wind shear that comes right across the valley across West Mountain right over there, comes right over. The Harvest roof has blown off, but that wind shear comes off in that direction right through Crandall Park. I'm just concerned of taking all those trees out. If we could just limit to where you need it, and in the future expansion go further back in. That's what I would like to see. MR. TRAVER-So, obviously as discussed we're going to be tabling this. We have a tabling motion. Did you have anything to offer before we do that tabling? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We appreciate your time and your comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we're ready for a tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 52-2018 TNT CORINTH ROAD, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes 12 buildings — 4 buildings at 3,000 sq. ft., 4 buildings at 4,500 sq. ft., 3 buildings at 3,750 sq. ft. and 1 building at 4,750 sq. ft. for 148 units. Site is 8.60 ac and disturbance is 5.59 ac. Project includes 50 ft. buffer to the east side residences. Project includes upgrade to existing parking area and adding new parking area for the storage facility. Project will maintain existing restaurant currently not operating. Project includes new stormwater —applicant to apply for NYSDEC waiver. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2018 TNT CORINTH ROAD, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption: Table to the August 21, 2018 Planning Board meeting to get clarification of: 1. Type and nature of restaurant. a. Whether alcohol will be served b. Hours of operation 2. Clarification of the visual impact 3. Engineering items 4. Lighting plan. 5. Signage. Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Just for the record. I had a brief conversation with somebody about the lease of the restaurant. They understand that this is mainly a breakfast/lunch operation and that's what they intend to pursue, but that's not in writing, or I don't have it yet. MR. DEEB-You're in talks with somebody now? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm in conversations with somebody. MR. DEEB-And hopefully they'll run it as it's normally been done. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/20 18) MR. TRAVER-Well, we'll talk about that in August. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. That's the impression I have. Whether they want to ask for a beer/wine license as opposed to a bar license I can't tell you. MR. TRAVER-Do your best to clarify that if you could. That would be very helpful. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you next month. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And just for, again, a reminder to the public. There will be another opportunity for public comment when they return on August 21st, and there will be public notice of that Planning Board meeting. This will be an item on that, and in the meantime updated plans, whatever they submit to the Town, should be available on the Town website at queensbury.net. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is there a timeframe that that needs to be submitted by, so that we know? MRS. MOORE-1 will work that detail out. If you call Staff, I will let you know what that timeframe is. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-About the trees. MR. TRAVER-We've concluded the public hearing for tonight, sir. It's been tabled. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 know. Just information. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we're not going to be discussing that application anymore this evening. MR. DEEB-Well, you can ask Laura if you need to. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you can call the Town office if you need. And there will be additional information. I do have additional information for the Planning Board. All right. So one last item that I have, at least. I wanted to mention to the Planning Board, you're all aware that I had written a letter, submitted it to members of the Planning Board in draft form. There were some suggestions made to clarify it, and this is regarding unapproved development and our concern about it. I received a call from the Town Supervisor the other day and he is supportive of the idea of my organizing a study group to look at the issue and in addition to that I've had several conversations with Laura about some others, including some folks on the Zoning Board that also identify with our concern and I believe would like to participate as well as at least one Town Board member. So really that's the only information I have this evening. There will be something forthcoming on that. All of you will be invited to participate. I'm going to be meeting with Laura in the coming days to flesh out how we go about structuring this committee. There'll be an initial meeting at some point. We'll need to identify, I probably will have the initial meeting be kind of a scoping session to try to identify what some of the issues are so that we can sort of categorize and get agreement on what issues we want to address and we'll go on from there. So that's really the only information I have is that something will be happening on that, which I think is good news, and I appreciate Laura's support and that of her staff and I will have more information by e-mail and phone or gunpowder rocket or whatever as it moves forward and it's, I said to Laura earlier it's not a race, but it's an important issue and we're going to try to structure it in such a way that it's going to get public support. It's going to be well researched and hopefully will generate some affirmative action. So that's where we're at, and thank you for your input thus far on the draft letter that I sent. 4°1 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ IIII irnirnliirn,� IB(.0ir'd 07/2,4/2I: 18) MR. MAGOWAN-1 just wanted to comment. What did you think of having the table up a little closer and everybody up a little closer? MR. DEEB-I like it. Well you certainly can see items in front of them. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, definitely, and I think I could hear a little bit better. Unfortunately some of the people out there can't. Dave. MR. DEEB-I'll have to raise my voice. Laura and I have to raise our voices MR. MAGOWAN-You do. You can't have your library voice in here. MRS. MOORE-Someone else had to set up the room this evening. So this arrangement may not. MR. MAGOWAN-1 kind of liked it. MR. VALENTINE-1 thought Brad was asking the question because he did it. MR. DEEB-I like it. I think it works better. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 kind of felt comfortable. I felt more robust tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-So Laura and I are on a planning committee for the Southern Adirondack Planning and Zoning Conference which will be held October 4th at Fort William Henry Conference Center, and we're looking for possible topics for presentations. So if you have anything you think would be of interest, a burning issue or, you know, maybe the unapproved development, let us know. We can usually come up with good topics. Then the next part is who's going to be a good presenter, and that's usually the more difficult piece, but if you have any thoughts, suggestions let one of us know. MR. TRAVER-That's great. MR. VALENTINE-How many sessions? MR. HUNSINGER-Well it's four hours. We're looking for a total of seven different speakers. We have plenary session to start, and then there's a Planning track and a Zoning track with three presentations for each. So a total of seven. Eight thirty until twelve thirty. Registration at eight o'clock. Start at eight thirty, and you're done. MR. DEEB-It's a good one. I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. MAGOWAN-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 241h, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 412