Loading...
05-21-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 1. REQUEST FOR 6 MO. EXT. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 Site Plan No. 26-2019 The Adirondack Trust Company 4. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47 Site Plan PZ 223-2016 The Fort Miller Company, Inc. 14. Special Use Permit PZ 224-2016 Tax Map No. 279.-1-59.2, -72, -73, -48 Site Plan No. 23-2019 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings 50. Tax Map No. 288.-1-64 Site Plan No. 29-2019 Reece Rudolph 54. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.6-1-34 Site Plan No. 31-2019 Gary Hillert 56. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-53 Subdivision No. 2-2019 Kevin Hajos 63. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.20-2-48 Subdivision No. 3-2019 FINAL STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury st Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, May 21. This is our first meeting for the month of May and our tenth meeting so far this year. Please take note of the illuminated exit signs. In case of emergency that is your way out. If you have an electronic device, if you would either turn the ringer off or turn the device off so we wouldn’t be interrupted by it we would appreciate that very much, and I want to mention to the members of the Board a couple of scheduling things for tonight’s agenda. We anticipate that the Rudolph application as a Planning Board recommendation is going to be tabled until next month because they have some additional information. Laura will explain it to us at the time. Just so you’re aware. There’s no public hearing on the application so it shouldn’t impact members of the audience, and due to a scheduling issue we’ve had a request to move the Adirondack Trust Company application to the first item, which would also be under New Business. Do Board members have any issues with that? Okay. All right. All right. Well the first item is administrative. thth We have approval of minutes from March, March 19 and March 26. We’re ready for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th March 19, 2019 th March 26, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH MARCH 19, 2019 & MARCH 26, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Next we have an Administrative Item. We’ve had a request for a six month extension to November of 2019 for Site Plan 57-2015. Laura, can you give us some background on that? ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS – REQUEST FOR SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER 2019. MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has requested a six month extension. They explained that they’re still working on putting together a plan. They do have some interest but they believe that by November 2019 they’ll be ready to start that. Mr. O’Connor is here to explain any further detail. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Basically Laura has said what I would say. We do have interest at this point. We have learned one thing over the last, five, six years, and maybe the approval as given is not something that really is workable. I talked to John Strough about that. This is a PUD and we may come back within the six month period with a request to modify that. Right now it’s got too much commercial, retail square footage for anybody to take it on. Besides the two units that are going to go commercial aren’t justified and are very hard to sell. We don’t have walk in traffic for retail like downtown Saratoga or even nowadays Downtown Glens Falls. Everything is you drive up here and it’s just outside of reach apparently of people, people for office space. So we’re talking about doing a modification. We’re talking with somebody who is very interested if we can get the modification through, the PUD modification and probably will come back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How likely would you say that it is that your Site Plan will be modified, from the original one four years ago I guess? MR. O'CONNOR-The Site Plan itself as to location of building and structures won’t be modified. What would be modified is the first floor of the second commercial space away from the corner may be converted to residential. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And the commercial space that’s on the very south end of the project will be a freestanding commercial lot. Right now it’s within the PUD, but in order to get the developer to take on the project we probably will take and separate that lot and we will develop that as a commercial space ourselves, in the same way that it was going to be developed in the PUD. Everybody we’ve gone to, they’re very sophisticated. They’ve done this in other towns. Look at the amount of square footage we have for commercial office space and say that the project just won’t support that, and the project or the community won’t support that on the market. MR. VALENTINE-Does the PUD permit residential uses? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It was a mixed use PUD. MR. VALENTINE-We’ve experienced the same thing in three different communities within the County where there’s now a moratorium being considered in the Town of Wilton mainly because the commercial users that are there are not what are anticipated and that we find 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) out later banking does not really want to finance the commercial in a mixed use building. They love the residential aspect but not the commercial. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve heard that from that side, too. MR. TRAVER-One of the concerns that I’m aware of, and you might recall from the original discussions four years ago, is the capacity of the septic system to service that area and particularly to go from commercial now to residential. Obviously that’s going to have an impact on that. MR. O'CONNOR-It might at most be talking an additional six units of residential, and also you might not be talking additional units. They may make the existing units just larger. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So there’s going to be some type of adjustment. I don’t think there’s going to be any significant impact. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well you’ll need to be prepared to discuss that, because there’s no question there’ll be an impact. The question is what is the impact and is it problematic. So just be prepared for that when you come back. Do members of the Board have any other concerns or questions? Okay. Then we’ll entertain that draft resolution. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SIX MONTH EXTENSION SP 57-2015 QSBY PARTNERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town Zoning Ordinance for: a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of office, business retail and multi-family uses. The proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units and 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial space. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of a parking areas, parking garage, sidewalks and drive areas along with associated infrastructure and utilities for the project. Pursuant to Chapter 179.12 PUD of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Developments are subject to Planning Board review and approval. Request is made by the applicant for an additional 6 month extension to November 30, 2019. MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER 30, 2019 FOR SITE PLAN NO. 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Do you want to put the date in? MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s going to be to November. th MR. DEEB-What’s the date in November? November 30, 2019. th MR. HUNSINGER-The Board meeting date is November 19. MR. TRAVER-Well we’re not tabling it to a meeting. th MR. DEEB-We’ll just table it to November 30, 2019. th MR. TRAVER-Is that clear enough for you, Laura, the extension to November 30, 2019? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we’re going to move, for now, into New Business, and we’re going to look at the Adirondack Trust Company, Site Plan 26-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. THE ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: CORNER OF MAIN & PINE STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,400 SQ. FT. (FOOT PRINT) WITH A 3,800 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA TWO STORY BUILDING TO BE A BANK WITH DRIVE THRU. THE PROJECT IS MODIFICATION OF SP PZ 73-2016, WHERE THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-PHASED BUILDING PROJECT AND A FUTURE BANK. THE APPROVED FOOTPRINT WAS 2,700 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,400 SQ. FT. ALSO TWO STORY. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE THREE DRIVE THRU LANES VERSUS TWO. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF TH4E ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ 73-2016. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2019. LOT SIZE: .88 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-120. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a 2,400 square foot building with a 3,800 square foot floor area. This is a two story building. Previously it was approved under Site Plan 73-2016, part of a two phase project. You already approved the retail space, Subway and I believe there’s a nail store there now. So this is a portion of that phased project. The footprint has changed slightly and that information is available in Staff Notes, and again the major change is it goes from two lanes of drive thru to three lanes of drive thru. It’s a smaller footprint. There’s a bit of lighting change because it adds some new lights. They did modify the project since it first got submitted to the Board. You did get revisions of that. Originally the ATM machine was on the building. It is now a separate entity in that third drive lane. So we did take another look at the site lighting. The applicant indicated that it would be the same site lighting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper. I’ll try to be quick. With me tonight is Dean Culligan, Vice President of Adirondack Trust. Trevor Flynn, project architect from Balzar & Tuck and Matt Brobston, engineer from the LA Group. So as Laura said, this project was previously approved sort of generically when the Subway project was approved that they had this footprint, and since then the Adirondack Trust negotiated and purchased it and hired this team to design. The Town Board re-zoned it 15 years ago in hopes of encouraging two story buildings. Not much has actually been done that’s two stories, but this will be the design what you consider a modern Adirondack building. It’s something that will really stand out but also as Laura said it’s a slightly smaller footprint 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) than what was approved. So in terms of impacts it’s less and not more than what the Board saw when it was approved for the other neighbors. So a lot of the surfaces are shared in terms of parking lot and access. This will have its own landscaping, signage on the building, but it functions like it was intended. The stormwater system is connected. So with that I’ll turn it over first to Trevor Flynn to talk about the architecture. TREVOR FLYNN MR. FLYNN-The first slide you’ll see it just a reminder of what was previously approved, and then this was originally presented by Lansing. The next slide is the most current survey of the lot. You’ll note in your notes that the lot size didn’t change because of a lot line adjustment. So this is the most current survey to go with that lot line adjustment when the property was acquired. The next sheet, this is LA Group’s current site plan. Right now I’m just showing you this for an idea. As you’ll note north is up and currently Main Street, Pine Street with a sidewalk leading to an entrance on the eastern side of the building, and then also you’ll note the three drive thru lanes to the north, and then the next sheet. This is the first floor plan. Now currently north is to your right and as you’ll notice right away this is Main Street to the left and Pine Street up on the top of the page. The main entrance is focused towards the parking lot, but there was a design intent that we’ll show you on the elevation to create a sense of entry from Main Street. So currently the entrance from Main Street you travel along the sidewalk under a canopy and then slip into a recessed vestibule. Also on the first floor you’ll notice a conference room, a lobby that’s open to above large vaulted space, and then the teller spaces and then drive thru all the way to your right with mechanical and other bank uses to the north. The second floor plan as noted it’s primarily office space with another small conference room and an employee break room. So as you’ll note the original design intent is a pavilion, Adirondack pavilion style aesthetic. There was through great lengths though studying the exterior envelope and through shape and form to steer away from a typical style bank, but more towards Adirondack Trust Company’s aesthetic that they go for and their buildings. The current elevation that you’re looking at right now is the east elevation viewed from the parking lot. Some of the materials to note are earth tones, composite siding, usually in a cream or in a tan. The windows and metal fascia are dark bronze. You’ll note that there’s dark stained heavy timber posts that hold up large heavy timbered beams and rafters that support the roof structure. At the base the whole building is anchored with American Granite and a large stone chimney as well. On the right hand side, it might be tough to see right now, but the glass wraps three sides of the front of the building. The rear of the building is more opaque for security reasons and the lower portion three feet above grade is all the stone veneer and stone base and this was the front entry that we were creating. So we purposely left off some stone veneer at the front conference room to create this sense of entry. We studied having a vestibule in this area and due to the overall shape and needs that the Bank needed it was tough to get an entry there. There’s also, there was a though, working with the LA Group, of maximizing the plantings and also there’s some right of way complications in the front site as well. Next sheet, please. The other two elevations, this is the west elevation viewed from Pine Street. Again just some of the similar materials, the earth tones, metal siding, stone veneer, large heavy timbers, and from this view you actually get a glimpse of a standing seam metal roof, and then the north elevation, this is the most recent addition is the ATM machine moved to that third lane. MR. TRAVER-And the ATM machine is the primary reason for going to three lanes, right, on the drive thru? MR. FLYNN-Correct. This is the view from Main Street. There’s your approach from Glens Falls. Again we wanted to note the pavilion style massing, the clear glass all around the three front to invite the user and then also this front entry canopy. Again, the view from Main Street with the idea of pulling people in from Main Street and traveling along that sidewalk, and this is the perspective looking east from Main Street, the view from 87 and 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) you would approach the building. Some things to note, with the ATM lighting requirements, I’ll show you on the next plan, the certain radiuses and foot candles required for that. We have at great lengths this most recent round of hiding fixtures up within the soffit with diffusers to reduce the visibility from passers-by, people driving through, yet still allowing enough adequate light for the ATM at the foot candles and at the grade, and this is that sharp, the fixtures proposed on the left hand side. We did want to point out that this cut sheet does show the light shining up, but it does shine down on the signage that’s in this recessed. If you recall the signage on the east façade from the parking lot. Other fixtures, these are facing up as well, are tucked up underneath the soffit, and again graze the sides of the fireplace to graze the stone veneer and also graze the signage from the front façade. MRS. MOORE-And they also point down. MR. FLYNN-And they all point down, correct. All lighting points down as dark sky compliant. At great lengths we went to using diffusers to limit the visibility as well. Some of the existing fixtures on site, an existing lamppost in the three locations and other existing lighting on the Phase One I believe building. We did have to, due to the lighting calculations, we had to add another lamppost. This first radius is a 60 foot radius that requires one foot candle at grade, and the next radius is a 30 foot radius that requires two foot candles. So that was the requirement for additional light. Although overall on this site I believe Code is one foot candle for the overall average and we’re at 1.6. So we’re not blasting the site with light but in the focused concentrated areas we’re getting the foot candles needed for the ATM requirements, and our previous submission, before we amended and moved the ATM out to the third lane, we did have another lamppost closer to Main Street between the building and Main Street, and again we were able to remove that and tuck some of the lighting up underneath the eave to again help with that visual connection to the building and reducing the light fixtures on the site, and I’ll think I’ll hand it over to Matt Brobston from the LA Group. MATT BROBSTON MR. BROBSTON-All right. Thank you very much. I’m just going to briefly go over the site and some of the constraints. Reading through the Staff Notes we did note some questions on the landscaping and some different options we would have there, and some questions about our choices and if we could improve by putting in some street trees. I’ll talk to those now so we can kind of understand where we came from on that. As the project was approved originally in the different phases approached during the PUD or during the original approval, there were street trees shown in that plan and have been installed as part of Phase One in front of the existing building that’s there now. During that approval no trees were shown at the corner. There was another tree shown more towards the northern border as well as a hedge that was installed. For our project we tried to keep it low around that corner. Site visibility through there is important. Also in this area you’re going to see along Main Street this shaded area is the utility easement that creates an issue of putting in larger trees within that right of way since we’re so close to that area. So we have chosen trees that were similar in variety and would be native species. The only other area where we did add some different vegetation is around to hide the generator and some other mechanical equipment outside the building to kind of screen that. You would see that in some of the perspectives that the architect did show. So we did include a lot of vegetation along the bottom of that, the building, to try to wrap as much as we could along that sidewalk with some daylilies on that side as well. You do, there was a question about the third lane, and we’re showing here in this view here the three lanes that would drive through the drive thru. All of the site parking that’s required for the site and for the office use for the Bank is wholly contained on our parcel. So all of the requirements for the parking are on our site. There’s not a shared parking agreement with the current owner as well. So that’s not 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) something that would be a concern. If there are questions about the site plan and the layout I can answer those now or at the end, however you guys want to handle that. MR. TRAVER-Just quickly if we could go back to the question about the trees. You were planning that there were some areas, because as you point out in the Staff Notes they would like to suggest that we look at some trees on the site, and you were indicated that in the corner where the utilities are located you were concerned about the trees. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, it really wraps this whole area. We have this transformer that’s out here now. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BROBSTON-That’s not going anywhere, but then there’s this shaded area all through this portion that has a utility easement within it. So the utility’s underground. MR. TRAVER-I guess my question was going to be is there nowhere else on the site that you can put a tree? For example you mentioned at the other corner you have low vegetation. MR. BROBSTON-In here, yes. MR. TRAVER-And then you had an area where you were concerned about visibility. MR. BROBSTON-That would be through this area. So that’s another reason for this parcel to be kind of chopped in this corner, to keep that visibility high for turning out for turning radiuses. So it kind of limits what we can put here, that turning triangle pulling out of these entrances. We want to keep these lower vegetation through there. If we were to look at putting in a tree it would have to be in the right of way. The only spot I would see that would be available would be some place on Pine Street. There’s a couple of spots near that bank of parking where a tree could go that would be in the right of way of the Town. So that would be on our site per se. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-Matt, don’t go away. You’re the site plan man, and I want to go back if I can to the original plan and then to the Chairman and ask. The very first thing when I pulled the plan out and looked at this, my first question was why is there in and out allowed on this site? Why is there both ingress and egress to the site off of Main Street? Now is that something that came up when this came through with the application? Is there any signage there that says no left turns out of this site? MRS. MOORE-There’s no left turns in. MR. VALENTINE-No left turns in. MRS. MOORE-And I believe on the site there should be no left turns out also. MR. VALENTINE-Is there? If there isn’t, that would be my recommendation at this point, no left turns out. It’s so close to the intersection with Pine and crossing two lanes there, three lanes, getting into it. MRS. MOORE-I’m pretty sure it is. I would be surprised if there isn’t. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. BROBSTON-Again, Jon’s telling me that that would be off our site. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. VALENTINE-I saw that comment in some letters. My point, Mike, I don’t care. I don’t care about that difference between that site and this site. All right. They came in a package before. MR. BROBSTON-I can tell you here shortly what the signage was proposed to be. There’s a monument sign out there. MR. TRAVER-We’re talking about traffic. MR. BROBSTON-No, I do understand what their comment is. I’m just trying to get it so that possibly I could answer that question for you. MR. VALENTINE-That’s just something that if it’s not, I’d put in the recommendation. The other thing, this is a minor one, is Creighton Manning’s letter. There’s just, I was looking through, there’s a Table One on the second page of the letter and it references the updated proposal and says that you’re using general office Land Use Code 710. The first page of the letter says you’re using Land Use Code 712. Okay. The table should reflect what you’re using. None of the plans that I have, Matt, whether it’s two from LA or a survey from Van Dusen, and I wouldn’t expect a survey from Van Dusen, but as a site plan I see water going along Pine Street and I see water going along Main Street. I don’t see where the connection is coming up. Where is the water connection at? There’s nothing showing, and the same thing holds for sanitary. There’s no sanitary connection shown anywhere. MR. BROBSTON-I believe they were spelled out during the construction and that was how it was. MR. VALENTINE-Well they should be shown too. All right. The other thing is a question on storm in the back and I’ll note it again stormwater came up in the letter saying the difference between the two sites and who’s responsible but there’s a catch basin in the back of this parking lot that’s picked up on both of your plans and it shows the catch basin in the parking lot with parking behind the Bank, but I don’t know which end, just looking at it. There’s no invert shown and there’s not a discharge structure. So I don’t know if that discharge, if this travels from the parking lot in the Bank and heads out, you know, the uses, and does it discharge into a field back there or does it discharge into a structure and a pipe? MR. BROBSTON-I can answer that for you. So it does go towards the rear of the property. It is an underground system. In fact it was installed and designed to accommodate this development as well. So that was a question asked before and the same patterns of development previously approved are going to be held during this approval, and we’re at the same amount of impervious area as well from the previous approval. So what was designed then will still function with our design now. We’re not modifying the existing design. MR. VALENTINE-But to look at this I’m saying okay it’s collected somewhere. Where does it go? MR. BROBSTON-It goes per the approved plan to the north. You see the three structures there? That third structure is an underground detention basin and an infiltration basin that’s up there. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Thank you. On Pine Street, it doesn’t show on your plan, it doesn’t look like with thickness that there’s any curbing. MR. BROBSTON-That’s right. MR. VALENTINE-Once you get past the back of the building. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. BROBSTON-That’s correct. MR. VALENTINE-All right, and there’s no grading on here. So I’m not sure what happens with the water on Pine Street as far as coming on to this property. MR. BROBSTON-Yes. That’s a site plan amendment to the site plan. So all the same patterns of development are going to be there. So the grading is not going to be changed drastically or changed from its current state on Pine Street or on the parcel much other than putting in a building, and it’s going to go back to the existing grade that’s there now. MR. VALENTINE-Do we know whether water flows off the site to Pine Street or from Pine Street. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, it does slope off the street. So there is a catch basin on the corner of Pine and Main that does show up on the survey and that’s where the collection point is for any of the, a portion of the water that does flow in that direction. MR. VALENTINE-So you’re talking this one up front? MR. BROBSTON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-From the corner. MR. BROBSTON-It’s right on the corner of Main and Pine, yes. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Pine Street has no, there’s no stormwater there, whether it’s the municipality’s, whether it’s the applicant’s, but there’s nothing there. MR. BROBSTON-That’s right. MR. VALENTINE-The reason I ask, in this area we had a church come in a number of months ago and they were looking to take water off of their property and drop it onto another’s property and then there was a problem with that same thing on, their property met the right of way, and I’m looking ahead to say, okay, who’s going to come back first of all and tell us they’ve got a problem. MR. BROBSTON-Everything does grade from Pine down to Main. It’s a very slight grade. It’s not much, not much pitch, but it does get there, to that structure. That was one of our concerns as well. We looked at it. MR. VALENTINE-I guess that’s it then. Thank you. DEAN KOLLIGIAN MR. KOLLIGIAN-Dean Kolligian, Vice President Security and Facilities for the Adirondack Trust Company and, Mike, while Matt was finishing his presentation to you I was able to pull up some street views that we have in some of our material and there’s a no left turn sign that’s already on the property. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the design questions that I had, and it kind of just jumped out at me because you overlaid the new one on the old one. Why didn’t you bring the proposed building up to the build to line, the 24 foot build to line? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. FLYNN-We had a couple of different versions of this. One of them had it coming up to the build to line and it has to do with the setback off of Pine Street. Because of the way everything reads it has to be an equal amount of setback from Pine Street to Main Street. So in balancing those two setbacks, this is where the building had landed. Also there’s a lot of that easement and utilities that run through that corridor. It’s also preventing us from bringing that building up much closer to Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean you’re only off by about a foot. MR. FLYNN-It’s not much, but you’re right, it’s not fully up there. MR. LAPPER-Chris, this was that downside of the Town, for good reason, wanting to eliminate the power pole in this corridor, so there’s more stuff underground than there would be somewhere else. MR. DIXON-Can I ask you a question on the third bay that you have for the drive thru teller windows there. How much clearance do you have from that last bay to the, we’ll call it the middle island on Pine Street, with the overhang if we had fire trucks? MR. FLYNN-Sure. So from the curbing for the ATM to the actual space that’s marked out is 21 feet to that space, and the intent is to use those spaces for employee use only because they are, would be limited in backing out of that space if someone was at that location during exit. So it would be signed and employees of the Bank would be parking there, and they could wait until someone would be away from the ATM to back out and exit safely. MR. DIXON-And that middle island on Pine Street there, there’s a utility pole. Will the utilities be staying there or is it something that could be moved off farther to the northern corner of your property? MR. FLYNN-No, that’s where it comes up and goes back overhead to Pine. MR. DIXON-And the last question that I had, being that it’s coming off of Main Street and entering into a residential area, whenever I look at residential I look at sidewalks, and a lot of Pine Street, that doesn’t appear to be a sidewalk, just, I don’t know what that is. Are you open for consideration for a sidewalk there? I’d like to see foot traffic either coming from the gas station across the street, people staying on sidewalks instead of walking in the roads as we continue developing the street. MR. FLYNN-That wasn’t something that was considered. I don’t know where that stands. I’d have to check with the applicant and see how that goes. I mean the sidewalk would be the right way. There’s a pole, utility pole there. There’s no room really on site. We’re 11 feet from the property line to the building. MR. DIXON-Well at least to the west side of the proposed Bank there, on my plans I’m not showing that as a sidewalk. MR. FLYNN-That’s right. There’s no sidewalk here. The Bank runs from, you know it’s 11 feet from the building to the property line. There’s another portion of the right of way, if that’s what you’re getting to. I believe that’s what you’re talking about. MR. DIXON-Yes. So I guess I would be looking for some sort of sidewalk on that side of the building, if there’s a way to accommodate that. MR. LAPPER-In the right of way or on the property? MR. DIXON-However it can be handled. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. LAPPER-The landscaping’s really important on the small amount of property because there’s only that much setback because as Matt said we had to match the setback on both sides. It won’t look nearly as nice without all that landscaping. It would be possible to put a sidewalk in the right of way, but that would require Town approval. MR. FLYNN-Sorry to interrupt, but there is planned to be curbed on that island, on that side of Pine down to that. MR. LAPPER-But there is mechanical equipment on the property. MR. FLYNN-Yes, the distance to this mechanical equipment would become an issue, how close the sidewalk could be. MR. LAPPER-But what about on the right of way, the Town right of way? MR. FLYNN-That’s what I’m saying, even in the right of way. So we’d have to take a look at that. And once you get up here, you’re going to have a pole in the middle of the sidewalk, unless we hug one side. Then we’d be coming in to deal with crossings and other things as well. I’m not sure if there’s other places in the Town where this goes from Main Street back, if sidewalks are starting to come into it. MR. DIXON-I’m just thinking there’s going to be a population that’s going to come from that neighborhood. If you want them to use the Bank, they’re in the road. Wintertime can be a problem. It’s not that I’m a big fan of sidewalks, but when we’re in more of a rural areas in this kind of transition, I’d like to keep people out off of the roads if possible. That’s something that I would recommend, somehow come to resolution on that. MR. LAPPER-So we could agree to talk to the Highway Department. That would be, ultimately, their call. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Okay. Laura, at least on my agenda, it’s not listed as a public hearing, but I believe it is. MRS. MOORE-It is. They’ve been noticed. It’s a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. We’ll open a public hearing, then, on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan Modification? I don’t see any takers. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So today I had Jeff Kelley from 82 Main Street drop off some photos, and then I talked to him on the phone, and he provided these photos. His concern was that everything was able to fit on the site. He took these photos just to show as of today that the parking lot is filled a majority of the time and he just was concerned that, having the Bank there, that everything fit on the site and that traffic circulation would occur appropriately, and I explained that there were two studies completed and that this had already been through the Site Plan review where the parking spaces are designed for what the square footage that each of those spaces are. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for that. All right. Well then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Are there other questions or comments from members of the Planning Board for the applicant? MR. VALENTINE-Just a comment. I, for myself, looking at this all together, although I had questions just to throw out, details and things, but I remember going to meetings in the very beginning when Main Street was being considered for zoning change and stuff, I looked at this as very favorable, as an added aspect to Main Street and that area, and I think the concern that Mike mentioned, the way I look at it, would be these streets that come off of Main Street now and people start to look at either how they can upgrade pre-existing residences or how residences may be converted. I think we’ll see that as we go along. I think the stormwater issue is something that’s going to have to be addressed with others when you get to those side streets, but all in all I think it’s a nice added thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. To that point, I love the building design. I think it’s going to look nice. MR. TRAVER-This is listed as a SEQR Unlisted. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, it’s a Type II. It’s less than 4,000 square feet. So it doesn’t require SEQR. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it’s a Type II, then. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. MR. DIXON-I will comment that on Sunday I was doing my site review and the sky opened up. It was raining like the dickens. It was fairly dry on that lot. So it was nice to see. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well it appears that we’ve looked at the modifications and they’re relatively few. The design seems to be an improvement. So I guess we’re ready to consider a resolution. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, do you have any conditions that you’re considering? MR. TRAVER-Well that’s what we’re working on. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-Ingress/egress signage as to one way in, one way out. MR. TRAVER-Well those are not on the property I believe. Right? MRS. MOORE-And the applicant did explain that that exiting there’s no left hand turn. There’s a sign there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean as part of the narrative it was discussed. Let’s see, there was a question about signage. So we need to clarify signage which needs to be Code compliant. MRS. MOORE-Right. At this time they’ve updated information about their signage and have included the dimensions as well as the materials. So they’re compliant with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’re all set with that. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. DIXON-Did you want to do anything with the sidewalk at all on DPW approval or perhaps the Highway Department approval or are you guys comfortable with how it is? MR. DEEB-I think that’s up to the Highway Department. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t think they’re likely to want to put a sidewalk because it’s going to be, if you imagine what it would look like, it would be like a bump out. I mean I’m not sure who would want to. MRS. MOORE-All right. So with sidewalks that are not, that are on Town roads, it would be the applicant’s responsibility, similar to what we did with Stewart’s, it’s the applicant’s responsibility to maintain them. So again, if the applicant and the Highway Department work something out to develop a sidewalk, it would still be the applicant’s responsibility to maintain that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t see any way this particular site’s going to be able to accommodate a sidewalk. I don’t know how other members feel about that. MR. VALENTINE-I just think it’s something to keep in the back of our minds later on. If it’s on the side streets off of Main Street. That might be something we want to consider, as something you’d implement into site plan as we go. MR. TRAVER-And we generally do. MR. VALENTINE-But you get in a situation now on this one where you don’t have that much of the private property to utilize and you wind up with the municipal. Then you’ve got an agreement that you would think would have been worked out beforehand before you guys got here. It didn’t come up. I don’t think Dean wants to go out and shovel snow by himself. MR. TRAVER-Good point. All right. We’re ready for the resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 26-2019 ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY The applicant proposes construction of a 2,400 sq. ft. (foot print) with a 3,800 sq. ft. floor area two story building to be a bank with drive thru. The project is a modification of SP PZ73-2016, where the previous applicant received approval for the construction of a two- phased building project and a future bank. The approved footprint was 2,700 sq. ft. with a floor area of 5,400 sq. ft. also two story. In addition, there are three drive thru lanes versus two. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial construction and modification to an existing site plan 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 05/21/2019 and continued the public hearing to 05/21/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 05/21/2019; 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) 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 26-2019 THE ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of building permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Water & Sewer connection should be shown on final plan. i) Land use code on Traffic Study to be corrected on Table 1 to 712. st Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-Can I throw one thing on? Just to add that correction to the traffic study with the table. I know you had it. Table One to be corrected to show Land Use Code 712, as per the letter. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. And we move back to our agenda under Tabled Item, and this application is the Fort Miller Company, Inc., Site Plan PZ 223-2016 and Special Use Permit PZ 224-2016. TABLED ITEM SITE PLAN PZ 223-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. THE FORT MILLER COMPANY, INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): H. JOHN MARCELLE; JOHN KUBRICKY & SONS. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 39 DREAM LAKE ROAD & STATE RT. 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESS ROAD FROM THE EXISTING SAND & GRAVEL OPERATIONS TO STATE ROUTE 9L. THE PROJECT INCLUDES FUTURE SAND & GRAVEL OPERATIONS. THE SAND & GRAVEL OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY NYSDEC 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) – DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF SUBMISSION. APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVER FROM 1,000 FT. TO A RESIDENCE FOR OPERATIONS OF THE SAND & GRAVEL REMOVAL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-060 & 179-1-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL SAND, GRAVEL AND TOPSOIL EXTRACTION IN AN RR-5 ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-2015 & SUP 7-2015 FOR CONTINUED USE; (-48) SP 55-2015, UV 57-2015 CELL TOWER, LOCAL LAW 1, OF 2019 RE: ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2016/MAY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA & NWI WETLANDS, CEA. LOT SIZE: 102.77, 73.86, 52.26 & 9.18 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.- 1-59.2, -72, -73, -48. SECTION: 179-10-060, 179-3-040. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application has been tabled. It’s been now back before the Planning Board and it was completed in 2016 as the first application. It’s now back on this st Board as a public hearing for May 21, 2019. This applicant proposes to construct an access road from the existing sand and gravel operations to State Route 9L. The project includes future sand and gravel operations. The current sand and gravel operations have been reviewed by the DEC and documentation has been included. The applicant at this time requests a waiver from the 1,000 feet to a residence for the operation of the sand and gravel and information, the applicant has provided additional drawings for the Board to review, specifically in reference to that distance and there’s no new additional information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Butch Marcelle on behalf of the applicant, Fort Miller, and Rich Hisert, project engineer. This project has been before you for many years. I know most of you have been here through the various iterations. As Laura said we had to go to the Town Board to re-zone the Kubricky property so that the road that would take the traffic, the truck traffic off of Dream Lake Road, off of the Town road would put it on to the private driveway to take it onto State Route 9L, Ridge Road. So the goal was always to get the traffic off of Dream Lake Road, but there were some procedural milestones that had to do with the Town Board before we could get back. You guys recommended re-zoning to the Town Board and part and parcel of that that’s now been done so we’re here to come before you for the Special Use Permit and the Site Plan so that after all this time they can actually close off Dream Lake Road. The neighbors on Dream Lake Road, and this pit has been there for approximately 70 years, before these houses, but nevertheless they’re experiencing heavy truck traffic every day close to their homes. That’s just the nature of the homes close to the road that’s been there. So this plan is to take all the truck traffic away from Dream Lake Road, take it through lands that Fort Miller either owns or has leased through Kubricky, their closed pit, and bring it out near the Town transfer station on Ridge Road. So rather than having trucks in front of people’s homes they’ll go right out Ridge Road. It’s been a long time coming and I know we’ve been here. You’ve asked us a lot of questions, and made changes to the plan, but this is the one that the Town Board has approved and now we’re here before you. Let me pass it first to Butch to give you a little more information. BUTCH MARCELLE MR. MARCELLE-Thank you. I’d like to turn it over to Rich Hisert. You’ve probably heard enough from me, but Rich Hisert is a Ph.D. and a professional geologist and he’s been working with us, the DEC and the APA to put the plan together. I’d like him to just walk you through it, take a look at what we’re proposing, for you and for the audience, and he’ll be available to answer any questions. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. RICH HISERT MR. HISERT-So we’ve been involved with the permitting and planning process with the DEC and the APA for more or less five years now. A couple of things. The New York State DEC regulates mining under the Mine Land Reclamation Law for the State of New York. So this entire site has gone through an environmental review through the New York State DEC. What they’ve determined is that there’s no potentially significant environmental impact associated with the plan as drawn, and that’s significant. The DEC has really two mandates within the State of New York. One is two permit things in an environmentally sensitive manner, and the other is to really foster and encourage the mineral development of New York State, and the reason they do that is because mining sites are very difficult to find. It may not look like it in this part of the world, but in order to mine a piece of property you’ve got to have the geologic setting. You’ve got to have the permeability. You’ve got to have access. It’s got to be close to market and it’s got to have approval at a local level. So whenever we get to a mine site, it’s our job, my job as a geologist to work with my engineers and optimize the life of this operation. So they’ve been mining in this part of the property, like Jon said, for about 70 years. The additional reserves, as they move across the property, would probably add 30, 40 50 years to this operation, depending on the extraction rate. So it’s a significant continuation of a mining operation. The mining, if you could just scroll up just a little bit for me. The way it was originally permitted, and let me just get you oriented on the site here, I apologize for that. The green lines represent property lines. The red line represents the mining boundary. These black lines represent the cross sections I’ll get to in a little bit, and the blue represents the blue line, the Adirondack Park boundary. So on the scale, this is 200 feet and that’s 400 feet, to give you some idea, and the drawings are all oriented to the north. So Dream Lake Road comes in here. This is the current access and again the purpose of this application is to get traffic off of Dream Lake Road, and then to allow Fort Miller to continue to mine for as long as they need to, as long as this reserve can, is suitable for mining. The other part about this property is not just the quantity of reserves that are there but also the quality of reserves. Sand and gravel is not the same everywhere. This is unique in that it’s suitable for construction aggregate. Most of this material goes into public works projects. It goes into concrete. It goes into asphalt for pavement, roads, bridges, sidewalks and so on. So it’s a public use. In terms of the orientation of the property, the lower part of the property is actually here where the stockpile area is. These lines that are represented here are topographic lines. They kind of step up in benches. This goes up a little higher, but there’s actually a natural ridge that kind of runs northeast, southwest through the property. This is the highest part of the property, and as a result that has the greatest line of reserves underneath it. So as they mine from south to north, they keep mine faces in front of them, and as they come around the corner, they’ll be mining into the highest part of the property. Like I said, in terms of setbacks the original permit allows them to mine up to within 25 feet of the property as proposed and as permitted essentially by the DEC, we have a draft permit from the DEC, we’ve given an additional 25 feet. So we’re staying 50 feet off the property line on that part of the property, and then we’re a long ways away here. In terms of a site constraint, there was original consideration to go out in this direction, and in doing so we’d have to cross the stream and go through wetlands. So we decided against that, to go back out to 9L. So that’s kind of the lay of the land. That’s what’s really permitted by the DEC. We’ve got a draft permit as is in those conditions. In addition to oversight from the DEC, there’s also DOT oversight. So the DOT has to approve the quality of the sand and gravel on an annual basis. So they have that jurisdiction on top of the property, and then in terms of safety, the Mine Safety Health Administration, MSHA, oversees the safety on the property, and that’s important because when we go to our road design MSHA actually regulates the size of the road, width of the road, and the shape of it, and I’ll get to that in a little bit. Do you want to go to the next slide. Let’s see. So in terms of what the mining 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) process looks like, there’s really only five or six components to mining sand and gravel. The first thing they do is they strip off the top layer of trees so the trees are removed, and then they take off the subsoil or the topsoil before they get to the sand and gravel, and they do that because the DOT does not allow topsoil to be mixed with the sand and gravel, and any subsoil or topsoil on the site has to stay on site and used in the reclamation process. So that won’t leave the property. The next thing that happens is that they actually extract the sand and gravel with a front end loader and they’ll bring it to their processing plant which mechanically separates the sand and gravel, it crushes it down and then it creates stockpiles of different sized aggregate. Then it’s shipped off site. So that’s really the process that is sand and gravel extraction. There’s no blasting. There’s no drilling. None of that happens on this piece of property. The last thing that happens is the reclamation of the property, and this is what this would look like upon reclamation. So this is a snapshot, if you will, at the end of this property, at the end of this length of this operation, and I would say, you know, if this was 50 years or 70 years to mine in this area, approximately 45 or 50 acres, figure something like that to mine the rest of the property. We really don’t know. There’s not an expiration, but in round numbers that’s what it’s going to be. At a minimum probably up to this corner anyway it’s going to be 20 years or so. So they’re going to be there a long time one way or the other, whether this road is approved or not, the ability to mine there for 25, 30 years anyway. The processing area itself is where they mechanically screen and crush the aggregate. That processing area is located in these little steps, and these represent little benches at different elevations, 330, 345 and 360. The reason they’re stepped up like that is because the DEC does not want us to mine to the top of the water table. So we had to install a series of monitoring wells. We monitor those on a monthly basis, report it on an annual basis and that’s why those things are stepped from the lower elevation up to the higher elevation based on our initial projections, but the processing plant itself, it will be no closer than 1,000 feet to any residence pretty much as it is now and they need to stay away from the active mining face when they aren’t mining. So that will be part of the process going forward is the plant actually processing stays 1,000 feet from any home. The other thing you should know is that the DEC also requires a bond. So if you could go back one figure. In this mining site here where they’ve affected about 45 acres plus or minus for the mining area, what the DEC requires under their law, and the mine law is really the Mine Land Reclamation laws. They don’t tell them how to mine. What the DEC really does is ensures that once you’ve affected something as part of mining you’ve put up a bond to ensure that it’s going to be reclaimed. So whether these guys go out of business tomorrow or 15 years from now, the DEC has their money to reclaim the site if need be. So there’s really no risk to the State of New York of this Fort Miller going out of business and this site remaining as a vacant piece of property. So they hold their bond, but the other thing that’s important to note is that there’s no advantage to Fort Miller to go up and just strip trees across the entire property because once they do that they’ve affected the entire property and then they have to pay a much more substantial bond rate to do that. So the way mining operations work is they’ll only affect an area that they need to mine within their permit terms, and the DEC issues a permit every five years. So like you see here we’ve asked for an additional permit term acreage of 11 acres and that allows them to mine in that 11 acres anywhere they need to, but they also have to post a bond to do that. Okay. Could you go to the next slide for me. So again as proposed the site’s going to slowly move over years and years and years from south to north. So the processing plant, I think if you were go to back and look at it historically or photographs was at this point and now 50 years later it’s at this point. So that’s the kind of movement that these things take. The other thing to note is that as they’ve reached their final lateral limits, the DEC will require to reclaim behind themselves. So at no point in this operation would they ever be all the way to that end of the property over 100 acres there and not have to reclaim behind them. So typically these mine operations will reclaim as they go. As they reach their final lateral limits, they’ll spend money to actually plant seed, grade the site, and reclaim it and then they’ll move on, and the only reason they do that comes off their bond. So their bond rate stays down, and that’s a recurring cost they have to pay for every year to maintain that bond amount. If you go to the next slide, well let me just go back. These cross sections I’m 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) going to refer to and what they are line of sight sections. So if you’re looking, we’re going to look at C, C Prime and B, B Prime which show the topographic profile through here, the reclamation grade and the proximity to the closest residence. So let’s look at B, B Prime please. I’m not sure if you can see that or not. MS. WHITE-Has any reclaiming been started by Fort Miller at this point? MR. HISERT-No, they haven’t reached their lateral limits. I can show you why if you want, but they’re not at their lateral limits. MS. WHITE-I just wanted to know because you’re saying it could be done. MR. HISERT-It could be done, but right now where they’re affecting things, and they’ve actually stayed well within their permit limit. So, and if you can go to the first picture, the first picture again. If you just look at this tree line, that’s the tree line. So they really haven’t affected anything. So they’re probably, this is again the scale’s about 400 feet. They’re probably 200 feet from the property here anyway, but they have the ability to mine right up to that, but because they haven’t recaptured that, they’ve left this as an additional buffer if you will all the way around the property. This is one area where they’re getting close to it here. They’re not quite there yet. Okay. So looking at these cross sections, if you look at the B, B Prime from the west to the east, this is what the existing topographic grade looks like. So the western part of the property is lower. It goes up, there’s kind of a plateau, and then it goes up to this ridge that I talked about in this northeast corner of the property and goes down as a little saddle and then another ridge and then back down to Ridge Road over here, and the way it’s shown here is this is existing grade. These are trees drawn to scale. This is the proposed reclamation grade and this is the water table, and then this mine face moves basically from south to north or from west to east in this location, and that’s basically what the shape of the face is going to look like. So if you can imagine, you know, operating down at this level here at Elevation 350, 360 say, this is about 100 foot face, 150 foot face and they’ll be mining at this area for 5, 10, 15, 20 years at least and as this mine face if you will starts here, as it moves back towards Ridge Road, they’ll take out this one little ridge, there’s always going to be a ridge maintained here and then the time they spend actually at the highest point of the property is very low because the Mine Land reclamation grade doesn’t allow them to mine right up to that. So at the toe of this thing, I can’t read that from there, that’s like 18 right there. They’re well over 1,000 feet where the toe of the operation is and the processing area is 1200 to 1500 feet from the house there. So that’s kind of what I’ll call the worst case scenario on the property. If you go back one slide for me. That’s looking through here. The processing area, as it stands right now, this house is about 230 feet from the property line. When you look at these reclamation grades here, because there’s that little saddle on the back side, they really can’t even mine that because of the reclamation standards that DEC imposes. So they can’t even mind an additional 75 or 100 feet. So at closest they’ll be at 300 feet from the existing homes that are out there now. As it stands in this part where they can mine now, they’re within 150 feet, 200 feet already. So they’re going to be, and that’s only 40 or 50 feet below grade. Here they’re going to be at Elevation 360 that goes up to Elevation 500. So there’ll be a 100 foot face of sand gravel in front of them almost the entire time. MR. TRAVER-And the current buffer is 1,000 feet. Correct? MR. HISERT-I think that’s the standard now. MR. TRAVER-And can you show us on the map, you showed us where the closest point was to the residence. Can you show us where the 1,000 foot line would be? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. HISERT-I think it’s in one of the drawings in here. Here we are. So there it is. So that is that corner that I’ve been talking about and this is the closest resident here at 230 and the 1,000 feet pushes it out past that ridge. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you don’t mind, could you show us, I don’t know if it would be approximate, but on that last map that you were just referring to, if you could show us approximately where that line would be on that larger map. MR. HISERT-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That one, yes. MR. HISERT-I’m guessing it would probably be out here, out in this corner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HISERT-And that’s where the top of the face starts. That’s where the top of the face. So what happens is if you go to that cross section, if this gets pushed out to 1,000 feet, then this whole face has to slide this way, too. MR. TRAVER-And approximately, at the anticipated rate of mining, how long before they reach that point, the 1,000 foot, approximately? MR. HISERT-We haven’t done the volumetrics on it. We haven’t given them that number because we don’t have any drilling data to establish what’s really there, and the sand and gravel deposits are lenses of good and bad material. So it’s very difficult to estimate whether that’s going to be 40% good material or 20% and may double or half the life of the operation going forward. Like I said, if the southern area is any indication, it’s maybe 30, 40 years, but it could be 75. It could be 25. It’s in tens of years, but I don’t have the data to really give you a solid number. MR. TRAVER-So you’re not sure how consistent this, is this glacial moraine? MR. HISERT-It’s glacial cane deposit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HISERT-Similar. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. MR. HISERT-Okay. So the DEC standard is 25 feet from the property line. As it stands now we’re going to be 50 feet and probably 300 feet from any excavation activity to the closest home from the property. MR. DEEB-If the quality of the sand and gravel isn’t that good, is there a possibility you wouldn’t get to that point? MR. HISERT-I never said it’s not good. I just said I don’t know. Because it’s good right now. I just don’t know that it’s consistent through the whole parcel. Because it’s two, three thousand feet away. I don’t know. MR. DEEB-But if it wasn’t you wouldn’t get to that point. MR. HISERT-No, there’s economic benefit and I’m not sure what they have for excavation activity to justify that. But it’s an expense. It’s a huge expense. They’ve obviously spent 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) a lot of money getting to this point. To install those test borings and wells is tens of thousands of dollars to do that exploration work in advance. MR. VALENTINE-Your mining, is it by blasting or excavation? MR. HISERT-No, there’s no blasting. No drilling, no blasting. It’s just digging with a front end loader. MR. VALENTINE-So that extraction, depend on the quality of what you’re digging, too, could either increase the time speed of using up that. MR. HISERT-Exactly right. Yes. So if you go back again, I’m sorry, jump back and forth, but for example, you know, as they’re mining through here they’ve got a 50 foot face, but as they get to this point when they get into that ridge it’s going to go a lot slower, assuming the extraction is the same and the quality is the same. So this may take, let’s say, five years to go from there to there, but when they get to this steep ridge, it may take five years just to go that far and then ten years, because they’ve got so much material in front of them. They’ll have three lifts of 150 feet versus the one at 50 feet in front of them. So they’ll take a long time once they start turning the corner and start heading in towards the east because there’s so much more material in that hill in front of them. Okay. So that’s really the mining process, that’s the mining, that’s the reclamation process. That’s what’s been approved by the DEC in terms of their standards relative to the environmental impacts associated with the property. They’ve improved, essentially, those boundaries as is. If we go to the road itself, the access road, just the cross section of it, yes, we’ll start at the end of it. So this is the, what was asked I think by the Planning Board was to put in a DOT approved access so this is going to meet the stabilized construction entrance standards to come out onto Ridge Road. In terms of the road itself, I think if you go to the next drawing, we have some details, if you’re interested in what the details look like, that’s the standard detail associated with the construction entrance. That’s the profile of the road. So we have to meet grade four, our excavation equipment, and it’s nothing greater than 10% as a rule, which is better than anything that goes on the road around here for example, but in terms of the standards of the road itself internal to the property, they have to meet MSHA standards, and that is basically what a cross section of the road would look like interior to the site. The MSHA, the Mine Safety Health Administration requires travel lanes a certain distance between trucks and then rollover berms so that if there’s any potential for a truck to go off the road, you have to build a berm equal to one half the height of the tire that normally travels the road, and that’s what that’s basically designed for. MR. VALENTINE-Does DOT review for curb cuts out on the road also? MR. HISERT-No. So that’s just why MSHA was mentioned because of the standard relative to the road which was a question. I’m not sure if there’s anything else in there. So that’s the setback. We discussed that already, and that just shows existing zoning that’s been approved already. So that’s, I think, all I have in terms of. MR. VALENTINE-Would you mind sticking on this one for a minute? Because you just said existing zoning. Could you show me where zone district lines are there? MR. HISERT-Yes, it’s just a slight color change. This is one zone color here and this is the other one. This is a little darker than that one. MR. VALENTINE-So you’re surrounded by what district? MRS. MOORE-MDR. MR. LAPPER-MDR and RR-5. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-There were some comments regarding how the changeover in traffic would take place if the new road is constructed, and I think if I remember right you agreed, hypothetically, to complete this new road in 16 months. Is that right? MR. MARCELLE-That’s correct. From a Planning Board approval. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. So, and then elsewhere it talked about that the employees would use the Dream Lake Road while the new road is being constructed. So that could be up to 16 months. Okay. Although it only mentions employees, but should we assume that the trucks will also use that road? MR. MARCELLE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Also for up to 16 months. MR. MARCELLE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Because that’s how long it’s going to take to build that road. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? Unless you want to add some more at this point. MR. DIXON-I just want to say from everything that you’ve presented, I mean it’s looking very promising. The one question that I have, and I think it may have come up at one of the other meetings, was when the road is fully installed, where is the truck traffic going? I know it’s not really this, but I’d like to know where the truck are going once they exit out onto Ridge Road. MR. MARCELLE-Right. Well first of all we don’t have any of our own trucks. So we’re historically using rent a trucks, contractors would come in. Fane is doing the hauling for us. So we’ve been told by the drivers at Fane that they’re going to come out of Ridge Road, hang a left, go to 149 and get down and hit Route 4 and come down to us, we’re Fort Miller which is just north of Schuylerville. MR. DEEB-We said that before, most of the traffic would go to 149. MR. MARCELLE-Right. We think they’re going to go that way. Duke Concrete is another customer. They may come down Ridge, but again, you know, we talked to everybody and said there was a concern about Jenkinsville Road. I think Councilwoman Atherden’s concern was about that. We’re not going that way. None of our guys go that way. We’ve told everybody we don’t want them to use that road. It doesn’t make any sense for where we’re going. We’re going to Duke. We’re going to Latham Clemente. We’re going to Fort Miller. That represents about 95% of our volume. We don’t sell to homeowners. We don’t sell to landscapers. If we have a project, right now we’re actually working on a project in Schuylerville. We’re donating the materials for a bikeway for the Village of Schuylerville and the County of Saratoga. They’re building a bikeway along the Hudson River. So we’re donating materials. So they’re taking material out of there now, but historically we’ve got three, four customers in our customer base. MR. SHAFER-The driveway coming out onto Route 9L, do you know the site distance to the left, if it goes down? MR. MARCELLE-I do not, but it’s been used there with Kubricky for a number of years. Cell towers in there. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Anecdotally I can say there’s good. MR. MARCELLE-And you’ve also got the landfill right across the street, the transfer station. MR. SHAFER-The pavement condition is terrible right there, but that’s not your problem. MR. MARCELLE-It’s been a tough winter. MR. VALENTINE-That’s on a DOT schedule for paving, from Cronin north. MR. TRAVER-So the, it appears that the main issue that we’re looking at this evening is the issue of the 1,000 foot setback. MR. VALENTINE-Do you mind if I throw another question out? MR. TRAVER-Go ahead. MR. VALENTINE-And I forgot your first name. MR. HISERT-Rich. MR. VALENTINE-When you were talking about, and my concern would really be to John. When we were talking about the area of working away, working up to that northeast corner and stuff, and I’m thinking of the zoning that is there currently versus, I’m trying to think of what operations will be ongoing, and you’re saying it could be 25, 30, 50 years from now before that area, depending on the material, is done up there. MR. HISERT-That’s correct. MR. VALENTINE-When you start getting a vested interest. MR. LAPPER-The Town Board re-zoned, the Kubricky piece was MDR. Now it’s RR-5 which allows mining. So the Town took care of that. So it’s all permitted. MR. VALENTINE-So the zoning is, your property is all within that one zone, RR-5? MR. LAPPER-RR-5 which allows mining. MR. VALENTINE-All right. I was just thinking if something happens and you get a zone change later or something and you don’t have any operations going on there, you get into a situation where somebody comes out and says we’ve changed the zoning. You’ve got to stop the operations. MR. LAPPER-We expect that would be grandfathered at that point. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Mining, no blasting at all. You had also referenced a draft permit. What moves it on to, are we the last step? MR. HISERT-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-The reclamation plan you had mentioned. So as far as, when I’ve looked at mining operations before, not as detailed as we are but just cursory, local control really comes down to the hours of operation, dust control, site access, so it does. That’s really at that point what we have right here. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. LAPPER-So the Chairman asked about the buffer issue, and I think Rich didn’t go into a lot of detail about that, but because of the grade, the houses on Ridge Road where he’s shown that 230 is the limit with the buffer to the nearest resident, but it’s really about 100 feet beyond that because in the DEC plan there’s an area where they can’t mine. So it’s really at 330, but that goes up a hill, and if you think about 1,000 feet generally on a flat plane you’d see 1,000 feet. Here you can’t see it because you’ve got a wooded forested hill behind all these residences. So we think that 330 feet is going to provide plenty of protection, but, Rich, could you just show that with the grade issue? MR. HISERT-Yes. Could you go back to the cross sections one more time. This is probably the most critical cross section here, either B or C, but it shows the same thing, is that, you know, the houses along Ridge Road are at a lower elevation than the peak, and then either one of these peaks. So, yes, the houses are at a lower elevation than the two peaks there, and the operation is approaching it from the west towards the east. So there’s always a mine face in front of you. This area never really gets stripped until the very end until they need it. MR. LAPPER-But the last one never gets stripped. MR. HISERT-And this area here is never really touched at all anyway. If you can go up to the second drawing that shows the reclamation plan. Right there, I’m sorry. There’s two areas where that takes place, actually. In this corner you’ll see that there’s no red lines here, in this entire area, and the reason is that that slope itself is already at the DEC limits for reclamation grade. So they can’t even mine in this corner anyway because they’d be over mining, and in this corner here the same thing. So that’s 50 feet. That’s additional 75 feet anyway just to the very tippy top of where that is, and then this is a little flat and then it drops down behind there, and that’s what Jon was referring to, that corner. MR. DEEB-And that’s the only spot that would be affected by the 1,000 feet. MR. HISERT-This whole corner would be. Again, the important point on that is it’s not just that the limit’s there, but if you go back to that cross section again, is that when you affect this point you have to maintain that angle of repose. So it pushes that point back to there, and then this whole thing goes back this way. So it’s not just the fact that you’ve, because it’s not a vertical line. This whole thing has to come back at a slope. Does that make sense? MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, regarding the issue of the 1,000 foot buffer, my understanding on the history of this as far as the Town is concerned and how it impacts on this Board this evening at least is that the Zoning Administrator took a look at this issue back in I believe it was June of 2016. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And made a determination that this was a buffer. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And therefore it’s something that the Planning Board could discuss with the applicant and make some decision on. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So do Board members understand that aspect of it as far as where we sit this evening? Okay. All right. So the reason that you’re asking for the buffer is not, and I realize I’m oversimplifying here, but you’re not asking for it because you need it in order to be able to mine. You’re asking for it because you need it to be able to mine all the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) way up, to mine as completely as possible, or at least what you think would be as completely as possible. MR. HISERT-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HISERT-And that’s a significant, you can just look at the volume of that, if this gets pushed out. MR. TRAVER-That’s the greater volume of the property. MR. HISERT-That’s the greater volume of the property because it’s the highest part of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and could you, I’m sorry to keep asking you this, but could you put your hand on the bottom drawing there approximately where that 1,000 foot line would be again. I know you’re doing your best effort to guess. MR. HISERT-So that’s 29 to 19. MR. TRAVER-So it would be there. MR. HISERT-And that’s where that starts. So then you basically push that slope out to here so you’re removing all that hill. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Other questions, comments at this point, from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-How long do you think it’ll take to get to that 1,000 foot line? MR. HISERT-Fifteen, twenty years. MR. VALENTINE-He wants to see if he’s going to be on the Planning Board. MR. DEEB-I don’t think that’s going to happen. th MR. TRAVER-All right. Well also back in 2016, in apparently October 18 we had a public hearing on this, the original application, and that was left open because we knew we’d be having this discussion at some point again. So the public hearing, we will open the public hearing for this evening, which actually was left open from 2016. Are there folks in the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JANICE HOLDING MRS. HOLDING-For the record I’m Janice Holding. I’m at 48 Dream Lake Road. So I’m one of the existing homeowners. A couple of points, and then I have a statement. I read this is just to fit on the paper, but this scale on the horizontal access is very, very different from the scale on the vertical. This looks very nice because you have, oh, I’ve got this big hill, it’s blocking, it’s blocking, the view, the sound, okay, so you look at these two hills and tell me which is different. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I’m not sure I understand the question. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MRS. HOLDING-This is the exact same hill, just changing the scale. So on that it looks very nice. There’s this big hill blocking sound. MR. TRAVER-We can certainly ask them if the scale changes on that drawing from one end to the other. MRS. HOLDING-No, it doesn’t change one end to the other. What I’m saying is that because the vertical scale is a different scale than the horizontal scale, it makes it look like it’s a very tall mountain. It’s really not. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s been intentionally drawn on two different scales on the vertical and horizontal. So optically it changes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you’re saying they’re using two different scales. MRS. HOLDING-Two different scales. MR. TRAVER-All right. We can ask them that. MRS. HOLDING-Which makes it look more protected than it will actually be than it is now. Okay. The other thing that I had a question about, I saw three processing areas. All right. So I live here, okay. The processing area is actually a little more, I think, down here. They’re tapping into our water table. The depth at the mine at the point where their water is is lower than Dream Lake. So many of us have had our wells impacted already. So I’m wondering, does this mean that this moves to here, or is this now going to be multiple? MR. TRAVER-We’ll certainly ask and clarify that. MRS. HOLDING-Thank you. Okay, and then this, in the last five years they have come closer and closer and closer. If you just drive down Dream Lake Road you can see almost like notches out. So they’re not doing a good job of protecting the buffer area that’s there now. Okay. And we’re back after several years of debate in front of the Queensbury Town Board. During that time the Town Board changed the zoning code for this project, allowing mining in the RR zone. They put conditions in place for this planned expansion of an existing non-conforming mining operation. Fort Miller finally put their intentions in writing and agreed to the conditions in order to get a parcel re-zone for mining that isn’t even the 25 acres that was supposed to be there. It’s only nine, but now here we are now. During those years the Town Board made it clear that they would not be allowing any change to their required 1,000 foot setback. Now I know Craig Brown in his letter said that it could be called a buffer, but Supervisor Strough and the Town Board said no, we’re going to keep the 1,000 foot setback. So why are they asking you for this? My guess is they didn’t like the answer they got from the Town Board so they’re going to come and ask you. MR. TRAVER-WE can certainly ask them to clarify that. MRS. HOLDING-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-If I may ask you if you could, we normally have a three minute limit on this. I appreciate you have a lot of information you want to share, but we’re re-stating history that we’re already aware of. MRS. HOLDING-I’ll make it quick. Okay. I’m concerned that if the Town Board said no, the 1,000 foot has to say, what else are they going to try to wriggle out of? I thought that the zoning, if you wanted a waiver you would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That means they have to prove hardship. They’re saying in their application that their hardship is because they spent so much money trying to get the project approved. I can 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) provide the case law citation that indicates that the expenses incurred in trying to get something approved that isn’t currently allowed does not qualify as a reason for hardship. So they’re afraid to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now I heard Mr. Lapper will say, he said it over and over, that we bought a house knowing that there was a pit nearby, but when we bought it was a five acre mom and pop sand and gravel pit that maybe half a dozen pickup trucks or utility trailers would come to on a Saturday morning. Over the years the thing has grown dramatically and is now the limits of the current property. They expanded the pit depth wise without Planning Board review and approval and now they want to double the size. We didn’t buy a home near a 100 acre mining operation with a grinding setup that has tapped into our water table and utilizes graders, giant front end loaders and 50 foot tandem axel trucks to haul their product. Now I know the truck are getting off the road and I’m very happy about that, but somebody mentioned, good, there’s no explosions, but have you ever listened to a grinder? It is loud and it’s long and they could start at seven o’clock in the morning. So when they expanded five or so years ago without your approval, the citizens of the Town of Queensbury were denied the opportunity to have conditions, parameters and stipulations put in place. Since they’ve expanded they should have to give up their rights as a non-conforming operation, and be required to follow the current Code. That means a 1,000 foot setback in all directions, even towards Dream Lake Road. Now that might require some of that reclamation they’ve been talking about because there are 10 homes within 415 feet of the mine. It is not, the rule is not 1,000 feet to the operation where they grind. The rule is 1,000 feet to any part of the mining operation. That’s the rule in Queensbury. So we request that Fort Miller be required to expand the existing separation, even on their existing parcel, so that their operation’s no closer than 1,000 feet from the neighbors’ home. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a public statement? Yes, sir. Good evening. ANDREW HOLDING MR. HOLDING-Good evening. My name is Andrew Holding. I’m lucky enough to be the husband of Janice Holding, and I live on Dream Lake. There’s a lot of history that you don’t want repeated. MR. TRAVER-I say I don’t think we need it repeated. MR. HOLDING-Okay. Fine. Contrary to my impression that at a public meeting as new information was presented there was no comment limit. Now I may wrong in that, but I could not possibly do justice to this situation and this Board in three minutes. So I’ll do the best I can. MR. TRAVER-And please, if you can keep that to new information, that would be very helpful to us. MR. HOLDING-Well my wife has already told you that when we bought our house none of this was allowed. It’s all been allowed. This gentleman here, I’m sorry, sir, I don’t remember your name, said what happens if there’s a zoning change, and Fort Miller’s attorney was right there, there isn’t going to be a zoning change, but from our side there was a zoning change. I’m a retired contractor. I bought next to an existing non-conforming use property. Now what happens with that is when the use is finished, I own a bar in a neighborhood that doesn’t allow it. Once that bar stops, that permission goes away. An existing non-conforming use is usable until it stops and then it can’t be renewed. So this is not now going away. It’s expanding to a much larger operation. The last revised permit from the DEC required Planning Board approval. Anyway, I don’t want to overburden you with that. Okay. Because that three feet, figure this out. Three feet deeper over 40 acres, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of cubic yards that permit allowed them to expand. So our problem 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) is still how to get this expansion done and to get it done properly and legally. To accomplish that we now have to rely on this Board because you’re now in control. It’s not just the fact that it’s taking the traffic right out of one neighborhood and putting traffic right into another neighborhood, but if this new road is to be built to Ridge Road, it must be built from Ridge Road in to prevent Dream Lake Road from undergoing all the duress and traffic necessitated by the construction of a road this size. It also falls on the Planning Board to make whatever other restrictions and conditions as they can under the Code to make sure that the process does not allow mining of new product on the new land under the guise of construction. I’m sorry. There are many other things that need to be addressed and probably the most inappropriate part of their application is that after the Town Board has twice kept the 1,000 foot setback requirement from being called a buffer by having that language surreptitiously inserted into two local laws, they’re now bringing it to you. This was specifically discussed on two previous Town Board laws where that language was attempted to be inserted and the Town Board rejected it. From the presentation here, somebody said something about they didn’t know whether Duke drivers would go south. Well Duke is a wholly owned company of the Fort Miller Corporation. So they should be able to control that. And the statement that the shape you’re looking at is basically the shape of the contour has already been explained to you. There are only two reasons to draw an elevation with separate vertical and horizontal scales. One is to mislead the eye and the other is because you can’t afford the paper. MR. TRAVER-Can you wrap up your comments? MR. HOLDING-Yes, I can. The problem is, the basic problem is everything keeps changing. Over the years everything has changed. In the last Town Board meeting, I was not present, but it’s in the recording and the notes, Fort Miller’s attorney said the people that bought their homes on Dream Lake Road bought on the only access road for a sand and gravel pit that had been there way before most of us. The applicant came to you and said we have a better plan to go out to Ridge Road. We will take the traffic away from the residential neighbors. Still there were people that were concerned, which is hard to understand. We’ve been saying the same thing all along. The problem is that in 2014, during the process to get the Town Board to allow mining in an RR zone, Mr. Marcelle said quote, we will build a new road completely on our own property out to 149 and discontinue the use of Dream Lake Road. MR. TRAVER-Sir, excuse me, again, you’re not giving us new information now. You’re going back into reading minutes and talking about something that happened back in 2014. I appreciate your concern, but if you could give us new information that we don’t have access to. We have access to all of that. MR. HOLDING-Okay. You also have access to a book, and in that book there’s so many misrepresentations, and in my ethical estimation if you put three true statements together in an attempt to mislead your audience, that’s not a true statement. We have examples that I could not possibly explain to you in this time. Let’s take the table on truckloads. We had said their estimation of truck traffic was way below. So they finally put in, and I hope it’s at least the one they submitted to the agencies, a table of truckloads. Well now if you wanted to find out how much traffic went in front of your house, would you take the hoses and lay them just in the east bound corridor, or would you take the hoses and lay them just in the westbound corridor? No. You’d lay them across the road, so that every figure on that table need to be doubled because every load requires a truck to come in and go out, and it’s just items like that that give us no confidence that they will not, unless they’re put in right the way the Town Board has tried to do, unless the Planning Board makes these provisions part of the Special Use Permit grant, it’s not going to happen. So what we’re asking is that you table this tonight until all that information can be at least brought to your attention for your consideration. Thank you. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. DEEB-May I ask you a question? MR. HOLDING-Certainly. MR. DEEB-Now when the Town Board came up with the resolutions to change all the zoning, was it you that insisted they put it in writing on the resolutions? MR. HOLDING-I’m sorry, sir, I’m not understanding you. You’re talking about in 2014? MR. DEEB-The recent Town Board changes, and your wife is agreeing with me. MR. HOLDING-Yes. MR. DEEB-You did have a say in what was going on at that point. Right? MR. HOLDING-Well we submitted a list that they said they would submit to Fort Miller for approval. MR. DEEB-And they did go ahead and put some of the things that you wanted in writing? MR. HOLDING-Absolutely, yes. MR. DEEB-So you did have a say in what happened. MRS. HOLDING-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Now you’re asking this Board. MR. HOLDING-No, no. One of the things, and I should be clear. It would be unrealistic for us to say Fort Miller needs to cease operation within 1,000 feet of the existing homes. All we’re asking is that in return to do something good for the community. If they’re allowed to expand to the north and do hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of new material from the north they can at least where their westerly and southerly buffers and borders are now, hold to that point if it’s under 1,000 feet. That’s all we’re asking, don’t take any more trees down. MR. TRAVER-And you’re talking about the area around the Dream Lake Road? MR. HOLDING-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. ED LOCKHART MR. LOCKHART-My name’s Ed Lockhart. I live on Dream Lake Road at the end, and the road that they are presently coming in on was a road that was designed for the subdivision of the people that live on Dream Lake. The subdivision was done in the mid 1920’s. So those lots that are built on on Dream Lake, it doesn’t show a lake on there at all. All it does is show black and white, but there’s a sensitive piece of water that is in that information in there and it’s a little bit deceiving on that, but anyway that road was created for the subdivision, not for the pit. The pit came up with a deed that was unrecorded and then they recorded it and claimed ownership of the road, but the road from the creation of the subdivision of Dream Lake properties, so anyway, all I’m saying that road presently that they use was created for our subdivision. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-So you’re in favor of changing the road to the Ridge Road. MR. LOCKHART-I am in favor of that, and I’m not here to say anything other than, you know, what’s going to become of the road that we use now on our properties? They say they’re going to close that. We have legal right of ways that enter our properties. I own a dam. MR. TRAVER-They’re not going to close it. They’re not going to use it for, they’re proposing to construct a new entrance and exit and cease using Dream Lake Road for anything other than access to the site. Dream Lake Road is not going to close. They’re only talking about closing the entrance to their property at the end of Dream Lake Road. It can only be used in the case of emergency. MR. LOCKHART-I appreciate that, and, you know, a couple of points. When they say there’s some big bond, I believe there’s only a $10,000 bond for their entire property. Correct me if I’m wrong, but DEC created those laws in the mid 50’s to protect mining operations. These are not laws that, you know, so these have not been revised since the 1950’s. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, sir. They actually have. The State Environmental Quality Review Act was just revised starting in January. MR. LOCKHART-Okay. So all I’m saying is a 25 foot property setback from a mining operation is not enough to give a person any sort of life. If you’ve ever listened to a screened operation, they’re allowed to do three different things within a mining operation. To screen, to wash and to grind. MR. TRAVER-We understand. MR. LOCKHART-So it’s loud, but all I’m saying is I’m concerned about the road we’re coming in on now and I think that I came here to check about the right of way. I had no idea about the hugeness. It seems like we’re killing three birds with one stone in one meeting here, and I appreciate the aspect of the scope of operations but where’s DEC? Where’s other people? We’re only hearing from one side of this, and I think there’s a lot more to hear from. I thank you for your time, and I’d like to hear more information before somebody just passes something we didn’t get a chance to have only in the 90’s and they said that DEC was running, that they can’t overrule DEC. That’s why Queensbury stepped down from being any kind of agency that could have stopped that permit from going from a three and a half acre pit to a 50 acre pit. MR. TRAVER-You may not have been here earlier when they discussed that but this has been subject to DEC review and there are Federal agencies that also have to review mining operations, but I appreciate your concern. MR. LOCKHART-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. Yes, ma’am. CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Claudia Braymer. I’m the attorney for the Holdings and I’ll try to be brief. I know that you’ve heard a lot of comments tonight and concerns. I’m going to try to stick to the new information. You earlier said that you were relying on a 2016 letter from Craig Brown. I want to argue to you that that letter is now completely irrelevant. The Town Board last summer looked at changing the Zoning Code. There was a proposal to change that, to allow the Planning Board to consider a buffer of 1,000 feet which you could leave. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, I don’t mean to interrupt, but you’re saying that the Zoning Administrator’s determination regarding the buffer is null and void? MS. BRAYMER-Yes. I am. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does he agree with that? MS. BRAYMER-I don’t know. I doubt it. MR. TRAVER-You haven’t discussed it with him. MS. BRAYMER-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MS. BRAYMER-No that’s okay. In essence the Town Board did not change the zoning law to allow the Planning Board to consider this a buffer that could be waived. So I am arguing to you that it is not within your authority to waive the 1,000 feet. It’s actually not a setback and it’s not a buffer. The 1,000 feet is a mandatory separation distance between any mining activities, not processing, any mining extraction, and an existing residence. They did that because they knew in recognition of DEC having authority over setbacks and having said that setbacks only have to be 25 feet. The Town Board recognized 25 feet as not enough to protect residences. So they left the mandatory 1,000 feet in the law. MR. TRAVER-I can actually respond, I think, on behalf of the Town Staff. I looked into that issue this afternoon after I received your public comment, which was actually not public at the time, but it is now by giving that letter to the file, and discussed the issue with the Zoning Administrator late this afternoon, and the Town position, and as I discussed at the opening of this item with Laura earlier, the position that the Board is acting under this evening is that the Zoning Administrator’s decision and letter does stand. Now understand that that may be subject to some further review or whatever, but for our purposes this evening, our purposes this evening, the Zoning Administrator had determined that this is a buffer issue that can be discussed between the Zoning Board and the applicant. MRS. MOORE-Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay, so just so you understand our sort of working position this evening. MR. LAPPER-Planning Board. MS. BRAYMER-Between the Planning Board and the applicant. Sure. I understand that letter is in the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. BRAYMER-Yes, I do think it has been overruled, if you want to say, by the Town Board’s discussion last summer when Supervisor Strough said that that was not the case. If anything came to the Planning Board asking for a waiver of the 1,000 feet, he would defer it to the Planning Board. That isn’t really how it works, Supervisor Strough. That was his understanding of the situation. Okay, but I’m asking you to defer to the ZBA. You should not be getting waivers of the 1,000 feet mandatory distance that’s in the current law now. If anything you should deny the application as contrary to the Queensbury Comprehensive zoning code as it stands right now. MR. TRAVER-Again, I appreciate that’s your position and I did consult with the Town late this afternoon and was assured that for our purposes this evening, our position that we may 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) interpret this as being a buffer and the Zoning Administrator’s decision stands and that we can act on it as a buffer. MS. BRAYMER-I just want to point out one factual issue. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS. BRAYMER-In their application they’re asking for the 1,000 feet waiver for the entire length of mine, and earlier tonight the engineer got up and said we can go to within 25 feet all around except for in that one spot where it’s 50 feet. Okay. They do not care about the 1,000 feet and they’re talking about for the entire length, not just for that one small spot where he was talking about the ridge, okay, I think it was in this area where you see the distance to the houses is about 300 to 400, 200 feet. The other place it’s happening on this map is all of these residences that are already, this one is 105 feet. This one is 104 feet and like was said by my client earlier they keep creeping this way. They’re going to keep coming closer and closer to their 25 foot DEC setback. What we would like you to do is if you were to approve this, at least condition them on coming no further within the 1,000 foot separation distance. As you pointed out, Ms. White, they should be reclaiming that area. They should be done here and moving north. Again at this point DEC has their draft permit. They have their 25 feet DEC setback, but you’re in charge now. This is under your review and we ask that you continue to take a thorough look, keep the public hearing open and I do ask for consideration of that 2016 letter that it’s my position that it’s now been overruled. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I ask, do you wish that letter to be read into the record? MS. BRAYMER-Tonight? No, I don’t. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MS. BRAYMER-I have a copy of it. That doesn’t need to be read into the record. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this? WALTER MEINECKE MR. MEINECKE-Hi, my name is Walter Meinecke and I own the property here on, well actually Bear Brook Road. I moved there in 2000 and it was an active mine when I moved there. I believe the Fanes were running it at that time. I guess it became dormant or it slowed down for a few years, but there was a grinder and backhoes and dump trucks in there. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, could you indicate that area again that you’re referring to? MR. MEINECKE-It’s right here. This is the property I own here. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s off the mine. MR. MEINECKE-No, it’s actually surrounded entirely by the mine. Actually this is where the access road starts. It’s in my backyard. MR. TRAVER-They weren’t mining where you first pointed. They weren’t mining in that area. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. MEINECKE-They were mining here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Right. I misunderstood. MR. MEINECKE-It’s my understanding they already have a permit to mine there. Is that correct? So this Board is really just discussing approval. MR. TRAVER-What we’re discussing is the application that we have before us this evening, which is an expansion to the north and to the east. MR. MEINECKE-All right. MR. TRAVER-And have you gotten access to the application materials? MR. MEINECKE-Yes, briefly. MR. TRAVER-So then you understand what we’re looking at. MR. MEINECKE-I don’t have any issues with the road. I welcome it. Where they’re mining I’ve never had an issue. They’ve been great neighbors. Yes, it’s going to get loud once in a while, but that’s where I moved and I knew it when I moved there. I have a 60 foot deep well. I’ve never had an issue with it. I’m sorry if you guys do, but I’m literally at the base of the mine. MR. TRAVER-When you say they get loud sometimes, are you talking, I assume, about the? MR. MEINECKE-Generally the truck traffic, but I’m not nearly as exposed to the truck traffic as they are. I’m off to the side a little bit. MR. TRAVER-And the truck traffic that you’re hearing is the Dream Lake Road traffic. MR. MEINECKE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That they’re proposing to handle. MR. MEINECKE-I actually don’t currently live there, but I did live there and I’m probably moving back there, but I haven’t had any issues with noise. MR. TRAVER-And if Laura could pull up the map again, could you show us, you mentioned that you had a well, although you say you don’t live there now. How long has it been since you lived there? MR. MEINECKE-About eight, nine years. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MEINECKE-I’m currently renting it out, but I may come back. MR. TRAVER-So someone is living there. MR. MEINECKE-Yes, there’s a family of five that live there. MR. TRAVER-And they have not reported problems with the water? MR. MEINECKE-None. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MEINECKE-They have a pool. MR. TRAVER-What I was wondering is if you could indicate where the well is. MR. MEINECKE-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-I understand it’s approximate, but I’m just wondering from the boundary. MR. MEINECKE-All right. Can you see where the house is? The house is right here. The well is right here behind the house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MEINECKE-And that’s actually a low spot. There’s a hill that goes up and then it drops off back down into the mine. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you. Anything else? MR. MEINECKE-I don’t think so. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Did you want to comment? JOHN STARK MR. STARK-I’m John Stark, and I live on Bear Brook Road, and I’ve been there since ’95 and I’m an old retired trucker. So I used to haul for different companies, but never for this company. They’re good neighbors. The mine was there when I got there. They help clear out the snow at the end of the year because it’s a dead end road and stuff like that, but that’s irrelevant, but they’ve been good neighbors. That’s all I have to say. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board this evening? Yes, ma’am. JEAN GRANT MRS. GRANT-I’m Jean Grant. I live at 1195 Ridge Road. You just mentioned with a new access road coming on to Ridge Road all traffic would go to the left north to 149. Is that guaranteed in writing? Because we live right at factory hill and the traffic on Ridge Road is terrible. We have blind spots. People can’t get in and out of their driveways. We’re in the process of requesting, working with the State to reduce it from 55 to 45 because it’s dangerous on Ridge Road and so they mentioned, you know, heading left, but that won’t help us if they’re going to continue to do that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they explained it, that they sell to other companies that will come in with a truck and pickup material and then leave and go wherever the material is needed, and obviously with Ridge Road that’s going to be north or south and that depends on who their customers are and who’s picking up on a particular day. MR. GRANT-I’m not sure where to start with the Town. We’ve already spoken with the office, and the Town has to work with us to work with the County and then the State to have the speed limit reduced from 55 to 45, but that has nothing to do with this right now, but we’ll do that. I’m not happy about any of this mining. The land’s being destroyed. We have a 38 acre farm, and the brook from Dream Lake goes behind our property and on our 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) property. I don’t know about the 1,000 foot setback because I don’t want to see our property or the brook damaged by this. So I’m not happy but you’re going to do whatever you want to do. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. I thought I saw another person. Yes, sir. MIKE LEMERY MR. LEMERY-My name’s Mike Lemery. I own a house on Bay Road and I own one 230 feet away from the pit if they approve this. MR. TRAVER-And where would that be, on what road? MR. LEMERY-On Ridge Road. MR. TRAVER-On Ridge Road. MR. LEMERY-1311 Ridge. See the point, see Lemery? That’s me. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. LEMERY-When I built my house I knew of all the pits that were around it. The pit across the street is a lot closer, 30 feet from my yard across the street. That was closed down. They let Ruben Ellsworth take it over. I don’t like it because it’s right there. It mounds across my driveway. Fort Miller, they have been a good neighbor to me and like you said the 230 feet, if the buffer is approved to come in, is all uphill. I never hear anything from that pit. Never, and we have four wheelers. We have all that stuff. MR. TRAVER-Although you do understand if this is approved they’re talking about mining closer and closer to your location. MR. LEMERY-They can only come to 230 feet. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LEMERY-From that point that you see right there. MR. TRAVER-No, I’m just clarifying, what you’re experiencing now may be different, 20, 30 years or whatever in the future because they’re talking about. MR. LEMERY-In won’t be in my lifetime. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure you understood what the application was. MR. LEMERY-I do. I have no issue whatsoever. Fort Miller is a good company. It employs close to 500 employees. It has an excellent reputation, and my house is closest to the pit. Route 9L is a State highway, which it went up to 55 miles an hour. I don’t like that, but it doesn’t matter we have a few more trucks going down a State road. No different than 149. I don’t understand why a resident on Dream Lake Road has anything to say about trucks coming out on Ridge Road. I have no understanding why they would care about something like that. John Hedring, Butch Marcelle are very approachable and understanding men. Anybody could come up to them and they would talk like you knew them your whole life. They donate to schools. They’re very generous. I ask you to vote to approve this. I stand behind them. Thank you. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. KATHY MONROE MRS. MONROE-Kathy Monroe. I live on Red House Lane which is off Dream Lake Road, and I’ve been to all the Town Board meetings on the subject, and I don’t know as our concern is the traffic on Ridge Road. That wasn’t the concern of the residents on Dream Lake Road. Our concern is the trucks on our road, Dream Lake Road, and the noise. It’s loud. A mining operation is loud, and as someone who’s been to all the Town Board meetings, I was just made to see, you know, their application, the variance from the 1,000 foot. Because I was under the impression, as several people mentioned, that that was not a buffer. So that was pretty dismaying to see that, because it’s noisy. You can see, I have on occasion heard mining equipment. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know anything about mining, but I’ve heard equipment from the pit when I’ve been standing in front of the firehouse on Bay Road. So that’s how far that noise can travel. So that’s, okay so I’ll just speak for me, but from somebody that’s been to all the meetings with the residents, we’re not fighting traffic on Ridge Road. We’re concerned about the traffic on Dream Lake Road and we’re concerned about the noise coming from mining operations, and especially with such a large expansion. And I would like further to say I would like to see the 1,000 foot setback, buffer, whatever you want to call it, to stay in place. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, do we have written comment? MRS. MOORE-I do have a written letter. This is from Clifford Grant, 1195 Ridge Road. “I have spoken previously in person and my concerns about the Fort Miller project remain unchanged. The original Ellsworth operation is located across Halfway Brook behind family property adjacent to ours. I remember when the mining operation was smaller and run by Ellsworth, an operation that has since been expanded by Fort Miller and with some obstacles removed, is expanding again. I have previously expressed our ability to hear the Fort Miller operation including what sounds to be a heavy loader moving about, back-up alarms, and the rhythmic noise of the rock crusher. We’re not looking forward to hearing more of that. We are happy for our friends on Dream Lake Road that truck traffic will be relocated but of course, now it is being shifted onto our road which already has a steady parade of dump trucks and dump-body tractor trailers going to and from the other quarries/mines in our neighborhood. A Google view of the Ridge Road – Route 149 locale resembles what a dentist sees when eyeing a rotten tooth. Another concern is Fort Miller’s “expansion of their expansion”; a plan to seek relief from the long-time town restriction of having to keep 1000 feet from residential properties. Fort Miller went into this fully aware of existing barriers to overcome and knowing what they would need to accomplish; acquiring more property, achieving permission to mine in a zone where previously prohibited, and now seeking to carve out a pit much closer than 1000 feet to adjacent residential boundaries. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the decisions before the Board. I don’t know about you but I strongly suspect that if this was happening on the other side of your back yards, you would share my concerns and hope that the Town would look out for you.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Is there anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well then we will close the public hearing and ask the applicant to return to the table. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Obviously quite a bit of public comment there. Let me start with some of my notes and give you an opportunity to respond and then of course we’ll open it up to other members of the Board. There was a comment that the mine was pre-existing and non- conforming. Could you clarify that? I don’t remember hearing that before. It’s got a mining permit. The mining permit continues. There’s no non-conforming use. MR. TRAVER-So was there ever a time when it was in operation as a mine or in some other capacity that was not conforming in some way? MR. LAPPER-It was a mine before there was zoning in Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but that was not non-compliance. It was in compliance because there was an absence of regulations. Okay. All right. So it was never non-conforming. A lot of discussion about the scale that was presented to us and to members of the audience with regards to the, you heard the comment, the vertical versus horizontal and how that would impact on the effect of the presentation. Could you clarify that? MR. HISERT-Yes. The vertical and horizontal scales are different as they depicted, but they’re clearly labeled as to what they are. There’s nothing to hide that they’re different. MR. TRAVER-However, they’re clearly labeled, but the effect on the observer, which you agree, could cause the image to be different than what it would be if you literally took the earth and cut that slice and looked at it and pasted it on the wall. MR. HISERT-It is different, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and can you describe for us how different it is and how, what a more appropriate representation would be so we have a more accurate representation of the slope? MR. HISERT-There’s nothing inaccurate that’s depicted on there. It’s all drawn to scale. MR. TRAVER-There are different scales. MR. HISERT-There are different scales, correct, but 150 feet is still 150 feet. MR. TRAVER-That’s not the concern. The concern is the visual impact. Two different scales. So if you would, could you go to the display and give us a rough idea of what a more, not apples and oranges, but a more consistent. MR. HISERT-So they were drawn to the same scale. One to one. So what this would do is it would flatten. So it’s difficult to draw it at scale, but basically the whole thing would flatten, and the distance between that point and that point would still be the same in terms of its distance, but the scale, I mean it would certainly look flatter, but that height would be the same. MR. TRAVER-All right. I think that’s what I was looking for. So you agree that the scale that we’re looking at doesn’t depict the reality of, relative to the length of the scale because it’s been drawn according to two different scales. MR. HISERT-I’m not sure I understand your question. It’s drawn in two different scales. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well, you just indicated, I think you answered my question for me. You just indicated that if it were drawn to the same scale that the height, for example, of the ridge behind where the residences are located would be flatter. MR. HISERT-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HISERT-The distance would be the same but the shape of that would be flat. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. MR. HISERT-It’s for accommodating the scale on the drawing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand. I’m just trying to get through some of these initially and then we can have further discussion. There was a question about the water table and we had a little bit of conflicting information about that. There was some indication, anecdotally, that people were experiencing problems with what they thought might be contamination from the mine. Other people said no, and there was also a comment that the water level in the pit of the mine was actually below the water level of the local lake. MR. HISERT-So in the initial expiration and through the permitting process for the DEC, the DEC reviews the groundwater and surface water impacts, potential significant groundwater and surface water impacts associated with the mining activity, and in fact it is lower than Dream Lake which is surprising to us but I believe Dream Lake is down, and there are other features that are lower than this. The sand and gravel operations on the other side of the road that are effectively draining, they are lowering the water table regionally to the operation, but as part of the groundwater investigation that was done with the DEC, they require us to put in two monitoring wells. They were installed. They’re consistent, and the regional water table is really represented by this wetland over here on the west side of this property. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Those monitoring wells, are those checked by DEC periodically? MR. HISERT-Fort Miller is required to monitor them monthly which they have been and report it annually. So there’s a big data base of monitoring well information. MR. TRAVER-Provided by Fort Miller. MR. HISERT-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Is there any independent testing done? MR. HISERT-No. That’s just one example of one of the wells up there on top. MR. SHAFER-You said monitored for both quantity as well as quality? MR. HISERT-Just elevation. There’s no perimeters. It’s a closed loop system. So they’re taking water in and out. MR. TRAVER-And are there any chemicals used in the mining process or is it basically just excavation? MR. HISERT-There are no chemicals, just washing it with water. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hours of operation? There was a brief question on that I believe that’s in the application. No operation on Sundays. Weekends are different than weekdays, but that’s in the application. The plan of construction of the proposed new road, would that be. How would that proceed? Would that be from Ridge Road in or be for the mine out? MR. MARCELLE-We’re proposing to start from the mine out. And the reason for that, if we go the other way, all of the materials are coming from the existing pit, so they don’t have to come down here and up around into Ridge Road, which makes no sense. So it’s just not practical to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I was just looking for some clarification on that. Let’s see, there was also a question about the existing buffer in an area where the current Dream Lake Road enters the property, down that sort of south, if I could call it sort of southwest, that southwest area. See on the map where the Dream Lake comes in. There was some comment or concern that there was additional mining going on in that area. If this proposal is approved, would that, would there be any additional mining there, or would the focus then move to the new area to the north and east? MR. HISERT-The dashed line here represents what’s currently permitted and approved. So they have the ability to mine right up to this line right now, by the DEC and I believe the Town. So that’s where they have the legal right to mine right now, up to 25 feet. There is a tree line here and there’s an existing tree line here, but they can mine all the way up to that 25 foot setback. MR. TRAVER-So are there plans to mine beyond where the tree line is now, closer to those residential properties on that sort of southwest corner where the existing road comes in? MR. HISERT-I think Fort Miller would try to extract as much as they could out of that property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to comment on that, too. We heard a lot of comments about the 1,000 feet and a couple of references to 25 feet, but the Town Code says that excavation shall not be closer than 100 feet to the boundary line of any adjoining property not in the same ownership. So I didn’t know if anyone had any comment on that. MR. TRAVER-That’s not under mining, is it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It is? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s under 179-10-70 G(2). MR. LAPPER-That would be a grandfathered situation because the mine existed before Town zoning. MR. HUNSINGER-But certainly if we were to approve any, that’s under Special Use Permit approval. So if we were to approve that on the addition, it would apply to the addition. MR. LAPPER-We’re not asking for anything on the existing mine, just the addition. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. And I realize that’s some of the confusion, too, that we’ve heard from the public. We’re not here to review the existing permit or the existing mines. We’re 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) here to review the expansion and the roadway out to Ridge Road. So it would certainly impact that corner of your Ridge Road talked about during the presentation, the 100 foot setback. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Could we clarify if there is a current Special Use Permit? MR. TRAVER-Ma’am, the public hearing is closed this evening. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I think that would be very helpful for the public. MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-There was a question about the bond amount. MR. MARCELLE-Yes, I can clarify that for you. It’s in your packet. The bond right now is $250,000, not $10,000, and the additional bond for the new property will be $330,000. In addition to the $250,000. So that’s what we have to post as a reclamation bond, and we have done that. That was part of the DEC permit. MR. SHAFER-So are you considering reclamation to reduce those combined? MR. MARCELLE-Yes, we actually are going to be starting that. Actually we started a little bit of that over here. Because we’re kind of close here. So we’re starting to put some of the silt material from the ponds that we excavate, eventually get into this slope to help us reclaim this slope, the one on two slope that we are going to do. So we’ve actually done some of that already in the existing pit. We haven’t seeded it yet. We haven’t put topsoil on it yet, but we’re starting that process and we’ve talked to DEC about that, and they encourage concurrent reclamation as you’ve done. So we’ve said that we would work with them on that before we start that process so you can see. MS. WHITE-Is there a time frame> I mean you say you’re starting but when might that seeding start? MR. MARCELLE-We’ve got to get it to grade first. So it’s a 70 foot embankment so we’re about 25 feet up there. So as we continue to clean out the ponds, called mucking out the ponds, we have silt, fine sand that we can’t do anything with. We use that as part of the bank to help the reclamation so they get a one on two slope because the DEC regulates we can’t take any of that material off the site. Only the processed material can, all the topsoil has to stay on site. MS. WHITE-All stuff that was originally from the site. MR. MARCELLE-Yes. There was another question or comment about we should know which way the Duke trucks are going. We sold Duke three years ago so we don’t own Duke Concrete so that would answer that question, and going out to 149, we had a meeting and I think the Planning Board was there. I think Chris might have been there also and we had DEC, the APA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Town and ourselves and we were standing there looking at what had happened before when the prior owner had gone through the wetland and created a mess. The APA and DEC said to us, why don’t you go this way, and we said okay it was originally proposed to go out 149 and when the agency started issuing all the approvals, the proposal was to go through Ridge Road. That’s when we started the whole process, so it wasn’t that we abandoned that or it was more expensive or less expensive. That’s the reason. We also had to sign a stipulation with the APA that’s in your packet. So we signed an easement that we wouldn’t build a road there. So that explains that MR. DEEB-If I remember correctly the sight line on Ridge Road wasn’t good either. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. MARCELLE-Yes. Out 149. We did a traffic study there. That was a little pricy to start with. MR. VALENTINE-Is there any, would there be any benefit to, knowing where the top of slope is, and the distance that that would be off of the houses, would there be any benefit to providing vegetative buffer at the top of slope before excavation and stuff begins in the area? MR. MARCELLE-There’s already one there. MR. VALENTINE-You’ve got tree line in there. I’m thinking around the whole perimeter. I’m just thinking anything that may come up. MR. HISERT-The entire perimeter of that excavation area is lined with trees. It’s entirely surrounded in that area. MR. TRAVER-That was what I had on my list. Did you have anything that you wanted to add in response to the public comment or the written comment that we received, before we go on? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know we still have to discuss the 1,000 foot buffer, but I wanted to just ask the Board if anyone has, aside from the 1,000 foot buffer, does anyone have any additional follow up questions for the applicant? Laura, I wanted, if I could, a clarification. The 1,000 foot buffer, in term of our role this evening, are we in a situation where you have to approve it or deny it, or could we modify it? MRS. MOORE-You can modify that. MR. TRAVER-So we can make that whatever number we want. MRS. MOORE-You can, and I’ve seen the Board in the past request additional plantings in certain areas or a specific type, whether that be more, in some distance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Just to start that discussion, what we’re putting on the table is 330 feet from the nearest residence because that’s what we’re allowed. So it’s not really 250 as the application stated. The DEC permit is really 330 feet to the closest house. MR. TRAVER-So basically you’re asking to go from 1,000 to 350. MR. LAPPER-For the residence, yes, because the Town buffer is from the residence, from the house itself. MR. SHAFER-The basis for the 330 is? MR. MARCELLE-That’s the effective setback from where the affected area would be right now as permitted, in the draft permit. So you scale that from the house. Because of the way that slope comes down they’re actually unable to mine that portion already. MR. TRAVER-One other thing before we go on I wanted to clarify and maybe poll the Board. With regard to the drawing and you heard my discussion with the applicant about the scale and the visual impact of the scale that was chosen to be used in their presentation. Do 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) Board members feel comfortable in continuing to discuss the 1,000 foot buffer, or do members feel that they need an updated graphic representation? MS. WHITE-How big would the piece of paper be? MR. LAPPER-Good question. MR. HISERT-It would be twice that size, that length. MR. TRAVER-Well the question wasn’t how big the paper would be. The question was, I appreciate what you’re saying, but that’s really not our issue. That’s the applicant’s. MR. SHAFER-What is the vertical and horizontal scales? MR. HISERT-Two to one. MR. SHAFER-In feet. MR. DIXON-But it looked like from the example that you gave up there it’s 20 to 30 feet rise. MR. HISERT-Yes, (unable to understand) equals 200 foot vertical, one inch equals 100. MR. TRAVER-So my question to the Board is, thus far this evening, other than public comment and what’s been offered on the record by the applicant, the visual record that we have before us we know to be visually distorting, because of the scale that was used. So my question do members feel comfortable moving forward, understanding that as explained by the applicant. MR. DEEB-First of all, this is still the same. It doesn’t change. So I really don’t have a problem with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-If it was the same scale it would be flatter. MR. TRAVER-Right, and they’ve explained that. MR. DEEB-Yes, just look flat. MR. TRAVER-I’m just trying to go through a process here. I want to make sure that people are comfortable going forward. That’s all. The difference is for one thing we now understand that the reality is flatter than what we have before us. Now whether that impacts on the 1,000 foot buffer is what I’m asking the Board members to consider. MR. DIXON-I’m fine with this. MR. SHAFER-What would be the definition of a 1,000 foot buffer? MR. TRAVER-It would be 1,000 linear feet. Correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-From the residents. MR. TRAVER-From the residents. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MRS. MOORE-From the residents for the activity of the mining. So it’s not just processing, it’s the activity of mining. MR. TRAVER-Correct, and you might recall earlier this evening, although we couldn’t ask the applicant definitively, but he did point on the diagram at roughly where that point would be and it is to the left of, further to the left of where that large slope is. MR. DEEB-It’s going to take a lot of years to get there. MR. TRAVER-Maybe. MR. DEEB-The other thing I question, it’s 350 feet from the residents and you want to go 1,000 feet, so you’re talking about another 650 feet. Right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So why don’t we begin by just getting an initial impression from members of the Board. Can I sort of poll people on how they feel about changing the buffer from the current 1,000 feet to 350 feet? MR. DIXON-Steve, is that just for the new proposed area? MR. TRAVER-Right. For the application that we have before us this evening. MR. DIXON-Looking at the topography, I would be fine with that. MR. TRAVER-With the 350 that they’re requesting. MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. DEEB-You may recall across the street, they’re a little closer to some of those across the street than with this one. MR. TRAVER-But that’s not the application. MR. DEEB-I understand that, but I just wanted to get it out. MR. DIXON-I just notice they look down in that one. This one they’ve got a ridge that will obscure that view. MR. SHAFER-I’m fine with what they are proposing. MR. TRAVER-The 350. MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-I’m okay. MR. TRAVER-What about down here? How do you feel? MR. VALENTINE-I’m okay. MR. TRAVER-You’re okay with 350. Chris? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And Mr. Secretary? MR. DEEB-I’m fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Does the Board wish to include additional plantings within? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-One comment. To the access road it’s 250. So there’ll have to be an exception because otherwise we couldn’t build the road under that definition of mining operation. It’s not mining, but it’s the roads. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Just to clarify that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you for that. All right. So the mining operations, what you’re proposing would be 350, but the road would be 250. MR. LAPPER-It’s 295. MR. TRAVER-295. MR. LAPPER-At the closest point. MR. DEEB-One other thing, there was something in Staff Notes about no excavation taking place until the road was completed. MR. LAPPER-We already agreed to that. MR. TRAVER-The road would be the first activity on that parcel. MRS. MOORE-So can I provide a little bit of information? So I included the language that the Town Board adopted in their resolution. So I included that as part of your information to be knowledgeable about. You can include that in your conditions as well. You have done that in the past. You don’t have to. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-What about additional plantings? MR. TRAVER-Additional plantings. MR. VALENTINE-I had a question about that. I’m thinking in those areas that may not be as densely treed, they’re sparsely treed, or if the vegetation does not provide any visual buffering, just to say in those areas, as a way to provide some kind of mitigation, to provide, from the tree source that we have on our approved list, to provide some in there. And then again it’s going to be subjective as far as what’s out there. It may wind up taking time to go out there and walk around and look at it. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-So if we’re going to condition any additional plantings or buffer, we’re to need to be specific. MR. VALENTINE-Well I can’t tell you by looking up there because I can’t tell whether what’s treed or what’s not. MRS. MOORE-So here’s something to think about is that they could potentially do a tree survey and you give them a definition if it’s within the 50 feet. They could do a tree survey, determine if there’s, what trees are there now. We can work with our Code Compliance Officer with an agreement to come up with a tree planting plan, is one, but you may pick a different distance. I can’t, that is up to you. MS. WHITE-But that is something that potentially is available. MR. TRAVER-And that would be within that 350 foot. MRS. MOORE-Your distance, that distance is up to you. If you would like to add additional information, that would be helpful. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR HISERT-If you go back to the drawing, really the only place where they control anything is just that setback on their property. So there’s a large part that’s treed that they don’t own. So I’m not sure how we would even. MR. LAPPER-Well we could agree to the condition on their property a planting plan, we’ll provide a survey and work with the Code Enforcement Officer if it needs to be augmented. That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-That sounds like that might be helpful. MR. DIXON-I know even though we’re talking about the northern component here, do you have any concessions you can make in that southern area? I mean obviously you want to get as much sand and gravel out of that area, but with the residents that have concerns and right now it looks like you’re permitted to go right up to within 25 feet of Dream Lake Road. Could we get a commitment from you that wherever it’s a treed zone currently that that is left a treed zone? MR. MARCELLE-We haven’t done any mining in there. We put a scale in there. The trees are there currently. MR. DIXON-But the way it’s permitted. MR. MARCELLE-Permitted we could go right up to the boundary. That’s correct. MR. DIXON-That’s what I’m looking for maybe a concession. I think that would be a little bit more palatable to everybody if we were to leave that treed zone intact. MR. MARCELLE-We could, I don’t know the depth of that, but that sounds reasonable. We wouldn’t be opposed to that. MR. TRAVER-So no additional excavation of the mine in that Dream Lake Road area. MR. LAPPER-Where the trees are. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. MARCELLE-Where the trees are. Yes. We need to get the reserves out to offset everything else we’re spending. MR. LAPPER-That’s a pretty good concession. Are you okay with that? MR. MARCELLE-Yes, I think we can live with that. MRS. MOORE-I guess just to confirm that. That’s that tree line that’s there now? MR. MARCELLE-The existing tree line. MR. LAPPER-The existing tree line on the Dream Lake Road side of the pit. MR. DIXON-With that I don’t think there’s any worse visual impact. There’s no worse noise issues going, and eventually, the farther north you migrate towards, I think it would a little bit better. Not perfect, because I mean perfect I think everybody in the audience would like nothing there, but that’s not being realistic either. MR. DEEB-Butch, you’re okay with that? MR. MARCELLE-Yes. We’d have to define the limits. We don’t need to know what’s in there because we haven’t gone over there. We’re going to get the existing material in the existing pit and then move. So we can leave that tree buffer there. We would stipulate to that. Yes. MRS. MOORE-And would that be also just on the corner of Bear Brook Road? MR. LAPPER-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Bear Pond. MRS. MOORE-This says Bear Brook. MR. MARCELLE-There’s a fairly steep embankment there, and we would stipulate to that, too, if that helps. MR. DEEB-Bear Pond Road. MRS. MOORE-It says Bear Brook Road on this drawing. I guess just for clarification it was noted that all the parcels were listed that are under that Fort Miller and the reason was that because when this processing moves forward there’s reclamation required. So that’s why that information is included as all the parcels are part of this project. So it’s a requirement of reclamation as soon as they move into the next portion. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. DIXON-Can I just ask a question out of curiosity? When you do the reclamation, is it just grass seed that you throw down or is it like native? MR. MARCELLE-It’s topsoil and grassy area. MR. HISERT-It’s a specification provided by the DEC. MR. DIXON-Okay. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. That’s everything I had on my list. What am I forgetting? Have we covered all the items that the Board wanted to discuss? Are we ready to consider a resolution and conditions? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to read through your conditions first prior to you making the resolution? MR. TRAVER-That might save some time. MR. DEEB-Yes, so we make sure we get this properly written down. Do you want to include the Town Board resolution? MRS. MOORE-That doesn’t, it’s up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-You could at least reference it. MR. DEEB-Okay. The conditions of the resolution. Construction to Ridge Road to be completed before any excavation occurs on the new activity area. MR. MARCELLE-Yes. Just understand that we’re going to be excavating. MR. TRAVER-Just road construction activity. Thank you for that. MRS. MOORE-You can just reference the resolution of 104 of 2019 from the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, he’s going to. MR. DEEB-I’ve got it. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. MR. DEEB-And tree survey to be completed and applicant to work with the Compliance Officer to plant trees as needed on applicant’s property. MR. LAPPER-At the 330 foot line. MR. TRAVER-In that buffer, yes. MR. LAPPER-On the applicant’s property. In the proximity. MR. DEEB-Tree survey to be completed and the applicant to work with the Compliance Officer to plant additional trees as needed on the applicant’s property at the approximate 350 foot buffer. No additional mining operations to infringe on the tree line on Dream Lake Road and Bear Brook Road side of the pit. Adherence to the Town Board resolution 104, 2019 adopted 4/1/2019. MR. TRAVER-How are we doing, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Can you go over Number One again, please. MR. TRAVER-In fact I think you can cross that one out because it’s covered when you mentioned Resolution 104, 2019. MR. DEEB-It is? Okay. MR. TRAVER-Do you want the new Number One, Laura? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MRS. MOORE-I believe the new Number One is the tree survey. Is that correct? MR. DEEB-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. Motion to Approve Site Plan PZ223-2016 and Special Use Permit PZ224-2016 The Fort Miller Company. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff, with the following. Number One, waivers requested are granted. Two, adherence to the items outlined in the follow up letter sent with this resolution including Items A through K and L, a tree survey to be completed and applicant to work with the Compliance Officer to plant additional trees as needed on the applicant’s property at the approximate 350 buffer. M. No additional mining operations can infringe upon the tree line on Dream Lake Road side and Bear Brook Road side of the pit, and N. Adherence to the Town Board st resolution 104, 2019 adopted April 1, 2019. MR. TRAVER-We have a resolution. Do we have a second? MR. SHAFER-I’ll second. MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the resolution? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify or understand the tree survey. The tree survey is to occur from the 350 foot buffer to the applicant’s property line and it’s a tree survey that Code Compliance will review with the applicant to come up with a planting plan for additional plantings. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-I just want to catch it. MR. LAPPER-When should that occur? MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HISERT-If I could recommend something. When that area enters into the affected area of the mining. So once they have to, usually at five years they recommend that they expand that life, as I showed there they have 11 acres proposed. Once the area goes into the affected area. MR. LAPPER-You mean once it’s applied to DEC for permission to mine there. MR. HUNSINGER-Because if that’s 20 years from now, there’s no reason to do a tree survey now. MR. DEEB-All right. Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-And I guess I’ll just say this. The concern is, don’t edit anything yet, please. The concern is that if it’s going to happen, I don’t know when that time period’s going to happen, and it needs to be tracked all the way through and so every year. The process of tracking that, it will be difficult. MR. TRAVER-Well, will it be triggered in some way when the DEC identifies activity to now occur in that new area? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MRS. MOORE-The Town may not necessarily get notified. I don’t know a method to ensure. MR. TRAVER-So as an alternative are you suggesting that they do it now? MRS. MOORE-I would do it sooner. I don’t know whether that’s within. MR. DEEB-Why can’t we just say within five years. MRS. MOORE-Even that’s hard to track. I would assume within the year of their, they have 16 months to. MR. TRAVER-Within the 16 months? MRS. MOORE-Yes. And that tree survey may come back to this Board. So I would just, not always, but just in case there’s some issue. MR. LAPPER-You may decide then that you want us to come back in five years. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I was going to say is maybe make it a trigger date or something that ties in with the Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-Well the problem is when that date arrives, what’s the trigger? That’s the problem. So we should settle it, in my opinion we should settle it now and give it a window. We’ve already got a window working which is the 16 months when they’re going to be doing this new road in this general area. So why don’t we just give it then, and be done with it. I mean the survey may come back and it might say that you don’t need any. I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that you, since there’s a draft permit in front of DEC right now that you add that condition to the draft DEC mining permit. So that as the mine permit approaches that, you get that DEC would enforce it. You could make a comment to the DEC right now that says you want have this Special Use Permit as part of your mining permit. They’ll oversee that as part of, once it gets into the affected area that would trigger that. MR. TRAVER-Is that something that Staff? MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-How do a word it. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know that we need to. Isn’t DEC an administrative action? MRS. MOORE-But you the Board are giving comment to the DEC draft permit. So you would amend your resolution potentially to include this resolution to be copied to the DEC as a comment that a tree survey needs to be completed. MR. HISERT-Once that area comes within the affected area of the life. MR. LAPPER-Meaning that mining’s permitted. MR. TRAVER-So we’re adding this. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MRS. MOORE-And I understand that drafting this language is difficult at this time. So if you would like to move to table it to draft this resolution and have that reviewed and looked at in our follow week’s meeting, you could also do that. MR. TRAVER-Next week. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then you would write up a proposed draft resolution. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve done that before. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I know. I just didn’t think of it. MR. DEEB-Table it to when? MR. TRAVER-Until next week. MRS. MOORE-Next Wednesday. MR. TRAVER-For the draft approval. MRS. MOORE-Just so that the resolution is accurate, on behalf of the applicant and the Board. MR. DEEB-Okay. So now we’ve got a motion to table this. MR. SHAFER-Are we approving everything but that one item? MR. TRAVER-Yes, but we’re going to let Staff draft an approval resolution for us to process thth next week. So that would be the 29. So we’ll table until May 29. For the Staff to draft an approval resolution. We need to make a resolution for the tabling. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. MARCELLE-I have a question. We’ve asked for the permitted Special Use Permit. Right? You read through three categories. So everybody’s on board. Not a temporary. MR. TRAVER-Right. I haven’t heard any concerns. I mean that’s going to be reviewed by DEC anyway. MR. MARCELLE-There’s no public hearing. We just come back. MR. TRAVER-No, the public hearing’s closed. MR. HUNSINGER-So just for a point of information, since you made that comment. DEC only issues permits in five year increments. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why they’re triggered. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’re ready for a tabling motion. MR. DEEB-Well I hope so. Let’s try it. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) RESOLUTION TABLING PZ 223-2016 & PZ 224-2016 THE FORT MILLER COMPANY The applicant proposes to construct an access road from the existing sand & gravel operations to State Route 9L. The project includes future sand & gravel operations. The sand & gravel operations have been reviewed by NYSDEC – documentation has been included as part of submission. Applicant requests waiver from 1,000 ft. to a residence for operations of the sand & gravel removal. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-060 & 179-1-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial sand, gravel and topsoil extraction in an RR5 zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 224-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 THE FORT MILLER COMPANY, INC. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled until the May 29, 2019 Planning Board meeting pending revised resolution with conditions clarified. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-So Staff can draft a proper resolution with the Town Counsel. MR. TRAVER-Well, if this requires Town Counsel input, because they’ll make that determination. MR. DEEB-So Staff can draft a proper resolution. MR. TRAVER-Right. That works. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. And just to confirm that amends your original resolution that John Shafer seconded. MRS. MOORE-Who seconded the amendment? MR. TRAVER-Chris. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MARCELLE-We’ll work with Laura on that. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we’re going to return to Old Business, and our application is Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, Site Plan 23-2019. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 23-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF LAW FIRM. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: O. LOCATION: 1260-1264 WEST MT. ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE FOR 35 UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING MULTI- UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CEA AREA. THIS IS PHASE 3 OF WESTBROOK AND COMPLETES THE PHASED 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) CONSTRUCTION. SITE WORK INCLUDING LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER WITH PROJECT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ6-2003 ZONING CHANGE; SP 48-2007 OFFICE BLDG.; SP11-2010 60 UNITS; SP69-2014 35 UNITS PHASE 2; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: 16.53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-64. SECTION: 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes construction of a three-story multi-unit structure for 35 units with the existing multi-unit buildings on the existing site. The new building will be constructed in a CEA. This is considered Phase Three of Westbrook and completes the phased construction. The site work includes landscaping, lighting and stormwater for the project. The previous one we did received Zoning Board of Appeals approval for height variance and it was not moved forward in the previous month because the applicant had to complete stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Rich Schermerhorn and project engineer Tom Nace. And what Laura said, we were here last month. We had to go to the Zoning Board just because the site was not even. So it clearly doesn’t exceed the height, but just because of the length of the building, the prior grade to the finished grade. It was granted by the Zoning Board. So this is the third building, the final phase of Westbrook which has been a very successful, very quiet senior project. Most interesting about this is that it’s on the edge of the CEA, but it’s 1500 feet from the wetland and everything drains out of the CEA towards the existing facility, the existing drainage basin outside of the CEA. The rest of the project using the same parking lot with a little bit of an addition. So Rich has donated an easement to the Town for the walking trails for Rush Pond, also donated materials, sand and gravel for that as well. That’s an amenity that the residents here get to take advantage of. Rich, do you want to say anything at this point? RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, not at this moment. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Tom, did you want to go through the design? MR. NACE-Okay. As Jon said the stormwater design is all using the existing facilities. We infiltrated everything around the building. The parking lot drains off into the existing retention pond, infiltration basin that was the old gravel pit out there originally. Sewer, we’re connecting to the existing municipal sewer that is Glens Falls, and that’s it. We have a letter from Chazen with stormwater comments. They’re all technical and I’ve responded to those today. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I didn’t see anything in there, and the prior building got a height variance as well. Did it not? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-This one just was different because of the grade. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then in your discussions with the ZBA, did they, as a result of those discussions were there any changes to what we saw before? MR. LAPPER-No, nothing at all. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-So when they were here for the recommendation I said I had two concerns that I’d wait until Site Plan Review. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you did. MR. HUNSINGER-And the two concerns I think were very well addressed, and the first one was the visual impacts as you go down the on ramp to the Northway, and the location of the building. I don’t know if you’ll even see it because of the way it’s situated, and then the other is the visual impacts from the walking trail, which, I mean, you helped create, but I did see you have plantings in that corner of the building. I think you more than adequately addressed it, but since you brought up the walking trail, I wanted to make a comment about how many people have made compliments on that walking trail and what a great asset it is to the community. I mean it gets used quite a lot, but when people tell me about it, it’s like they just discovered it. I discovered the Rush Pond walking trail and it’s really cool. MR. TRAVER-It is very cool. Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-That was it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I’m not seeing any hands. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well that’s easy. So we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-A little shorter than the last one. No changes since our last look at the application, Variance 4/17/19. This is SEQR Unlisted. Does anyone have, and this is Phase Three of a planned project. Does anyone have any environmental concerns that would have a SEQR impact? Okay. All right. Then we’re ready for our SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 23-2019 SCHERMERHORN 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 construction of a three story multi-unit residential structure for 35 units associated with existing multi- unit residential buildings. The new building will be constructed in the CEA are. This is Phase 3 of Westbrook and completes the phased construction. Site work including landscaping, lighting and stormwater with project. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial constructions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 23-2019 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. st Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we can move to the Site Plan resolution. I think we’re looking at an approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 23-2019 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS 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 construction of a three story multi-unit residential structure for 35 units associated with existing multi- unit residential buildings. The new building will be constructed in the CEA are. This is Phase 3 of Westbrook and completes the phased construction. Site work including landscaping, lighting and stormwater with project. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial constructions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/21/2019 and continued the public hearing to 05/21/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 05/21/2019; 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 23-2019 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS; Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted/denied: n/a 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. st Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you, again, I really appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to Planning Board Recommendations, and as I mentioned earlier, the first Planning Board Recommendation, Reece Rudolph, Site Plan 29-2019 was here for Planning Board Recommendation but it’s going to be tabled to June.. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 29-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REECE RUDOLPH. AGENT(S): DAVID HUTCHINSON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 24 NACY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE HALF STORY ROOF AREA OF 392 SQ. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) FT. TO REPLACE WITH A SECOND STORY OF 715 SQ. FT. THE ADDITION IS TO HAVE TWO BEDROOMS AND BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS TO BE CONVERTED TO OTHER LIVING SPACE. THE HOUSE IS A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY AND HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 91653-2495 SEPTIC ALT. 1991. WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-34. SECTION: 179-3-040. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have a preference for which? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So you’re going to table the Planning Board Recommendation to 6/18 and the Site Plan application to 6/20. MR. TRAVER-6/20? MRS. MOORE-Because the primary elections messes up our regular meeting date. It’s a Tuesday/Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but I’m going to be geographically undesirable that day, the second day. I’m going to be out on the lake. So will you be available to cover for me that night? MR. HUNSINGER-On Thursday or Tuesday? th MR. TRAVER-The 20. th MR. HUNSINGER-I won’t be here on the 18, though. th MR. DEEB-All right. So we’ve got June 18. MRS. MOORE-Correct, for the Planning Board Recommendation. th MR. DEEB-June 18. th MR. TRAVER-And June 20 for Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-And you’re going to re-issue that same comment or that statement next week in regards to the Site Plan because you have to open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Go ahead. MR. DEEB-What are we going to do? MRS. MOORE-You’re going to have to re-state that the Site Plan is being tabled to 6/20 because you have to open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-And leave it open. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION TABLING PBR SP 23-2019 REECE RUDOLPH 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove half story roof area of 392 sq. ft. to replace with a second story of 715 sq. ft. The addition is to have two bedrooms and bedroom downstairs to be converted to other living space. The house is a pre-existing non-conforming structure. No other changes to the site are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability and height. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION AREA VARIANCE 20-2019 REECE RUDOLPH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Planning Board recommendation tabled to the June 18, 2019 Planning Board meeting. Site Plan review tabled to the June 20, 2019 meeting. Applicant to provide septic certification. st Duly adopted on this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have, under unapproved development, we have Gary Hillert, application Site Plan 31-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GARY HILLERT. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 366 GLEN LAKE ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A DECK ADDITION NEXT TO THE SHORELINE. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES MAINTAINING A 60 FT. SECTION OF FENCE TO THE SHORELINE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-2019; AV 18-1999; AV-21435; SP 15-1999; AST- 0732-2018 DOCK; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .69 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-53. SECTION: 179-6-050. MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Hillert proposes to maintain an existing deck addition to the shoreline and to maintain sections of fencing along the shoreline of the west side of the home as well as the east side of the home, and he’ll explain that. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves representing Mr. Hillert on this application. Again this is property on the south side of Glen Lake Road in the St. Mary’s Bay area. Mr. Hillert has constructed a fence and a deck on the front of the camp or the original house for the stone retaining wall, and he would like to be able to maintain those. We’re here for the recommendation from the Planning Board and we’ll be back to the Zoning Board and we’ll be back in front of the Planning Board again next week if everything goes well. Again, the fence he has put up, he can answer a lot more of these 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) questions when or if you have those questions, but it was mainly to stop people that were parked across the street from walking across the property and using the lakefront when he wasn’t there, and the deck that is out in front that we’re asking to maintain there’s existing trees that are through the deck. The deck was built around it. It’s a free floating deck, and if you’ve ever been out there with those large pines with large roots and it was very unstable for people to walk on, especially elderly people to walk on. So they built this free floating deck and he’s asking for the ability to retain that. So we’d open it up to any questions the Board may have. You can ask Mr. Hillert, he is here as well, as is his neighbor. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. I must say when I saw this, you know we’ve been trying to deal with the issue of unapproved development and a lot of times they’ve pertained to things like setbacks, but this is actually, I was trying to come up with the word. It’s actually over the water. So it’s actually a fore back. It’s the opposite of a setback. It’s unbelievable. So, you know, I mean I don’t particularly have a problem with the fence, but the deck to me is just so extreme. It’s totally off the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-I share your opinion. I can’t imagine how we would ever, personally how I would ever approve a deck that went out over the water. That’s what docks are for. MR. TRAVER-Yes. GARY HILLERT MR. HILLERT-May I answer that? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HILLERT-I had a choice. It’s very dangerous, okay. I didn’t plant the trees. I think she may have planted them 100 years ago. We grew up there. You can’t walk there. I called in tree guys and I said what can I do here. I got prices over $5,000 to cut the trees down which are so beautiful, after I planted some trees on the property, I told you about cutting down the roots. I called people. It’s a very narrow area. I have pictures. They’re out of the ground quite a bit. If you cut the roots, this tree will die. So it’s really for safety. Like he says, it’s not attached. There’s no concrete. There’s nothing. They’re lying on top of the water. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if your concern is access across that section, you could work with Staff to come up with a different proposal that would be, again, this is a proposal. It wouldn’t necessarily be something that would be approved, but it would be certainly less than something that’s actually out over the water, but I wanted to ask about, I see you have a deck and a patio there. How old are those? How long ago did you apply for those? MR. HILLERT-They were there. They were concrete. MR. TRAVER-The dock is concrete? MR. HILLERT-No, there was a dock there before and I got a permit and put a dock in. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and when did you do that? MR. HILLERT-This past year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you applied for a permit to put in the dock. MR. HILLERT-Yes. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-But you didn’t apply for a permit to put in the deck. How come? MR. HILLERT-Because there’s no footings. They’re just sitting there. Okay, and it’s cut all the way around the roots and I was even told this is very common on State and Federal land that they put pass through so people can walk on it and there’s not one board lying on top of the roots. It’s actually, they worked around it. So, I mean, there’s five gigantic, from a very short distance from there to the wall, and there’s absolutely no way they want to ruin the wall and cut down the trees. It’s hard enough to get them to grow. So the biggest reason was it’s a safety act. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Well in my opinion, I’m not going to speak for everybody, but in my opinion you’re going to have to come up with another option. MR. HUNSINGER-And if it depends, if it’s a free floating deck you don’t need a permit, if it’s not attached to your house, or footings. I understand what he’s saying. I don’t agree with it. MR. HILLERT-That’s only part of it. The reason being so all the lumber was the same. That was the reason. The north end of it is not sticking over. MR. TRAVER-But it’s still not within. MR. HILLERT-The whole thing, if you look at it as a deck, it’s not, and if you go around the lot, the whole lake, you see a lot of new ones there, and I don’t think they have the same issue. They’re doing it for the purpose of, I’m using it to get. MR. TRAVER-You’re doing it in an unapproved way, and again, unapproved development is a growing issue in the Town and it’s something that we’ve been trying to address. We have a whole committee working on it. MR. HILLERT-If it weren’t for the roots, I wouldn’t have done it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HILLERT-It’s really a safety issue. MR. SHAFER-What is the deck supported by? Are there posts? MR. HILLERT-No, it’s just sitting by itself. The ground is so hard, okay, and what we did, we laid two by twelves down and I might add, too, we separated the wood much more than you would do to have all, you know, drainage. I mean one of the things was to put concrete there. I mean we didn’t want the concrete. That would kill the trees, but no wood, there’s no pilings, nothing’s resting on the existing wall and there’s no footings at all. There’s no concrete anyplace. MR. VALENTINE-So the construction around the trees is what’s holding it in place and then it floats with the water? MR. HILLERT-No, no. It’s on land. It’s on land. Just one little part is over, it’s over the wall. And there’s a wall existing even. It goes out about two feet. So depending on how high the water is. That’s another factor, there’s all stones right in front of there. Okay. It isn’t totally all over it. MR. TRAVER-I guess I’ll ask members of the Board how they feel. They’re asking for a recommendation to the ZBA. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. HILLERT-Can I give you a picture so they can look? MR. TRAVER-Sure, you can pass those out. MR. HILLERT-I appreciate it very, very much. You can see the existing wall. This was taken before the deck. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, just to make sure. You need one person to talk so that it can be heard on the record. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you, Laura. Yes, just a reminder we’re doing minutes. MR. HILLERT-You can see this was taken before, and this is what it’s lying on. MRS. MOORE-I would also just like to clarify that the fence, there’s two fence sections. There’s the fence section that’s on the, what I would call the west side. That’s the one towards the road, and then there’s a fence section that goes towards the shoreline. So they’re asking for relief for both fence sections. So just so it’s clear. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HILLERT-The one next to my neighbor is an open fence that goes back quite a bit. It’s finished on both sides and it has no effect from anybody, any house not being able to see from the lake. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Well, again, this is a recommendation. All right. So we need to make a recommendation to the ZBA. I mean my comment really just pertains to the deck, dock whatever, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but I find that that deck is too extreme and unapproved development and a new plan is to be submitted if there’s to be any building on that encroachment, further encroachment on it. MR. VALENTINE-Like we said when we started off in the very beginning. It’s not something that we would provide a recommendation to the ZBA the first time if it came through. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, yes, it would probably be the same recommendation. MS. WHITE-But it’s the same with the fences in non-compliance. I understand the purpose for them but they are not in compliance. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and maybe we would suggest an option to the applicant, or I will offer to the applicant now that the applicant work with Staff to try to come up with an alternative to the application and design that might possibly work. MRS. MOORE-I guess are you recommending to table the application for a new design, or are you recommending to the Zoning Board of Appeals a negative recommendation? MR. TRAVER-I personally am making a negative recommendation, yes. MS. WHITE-And I’m in agreement. If you’re polling. MRS. MOORE-I’m not polling. I just want to make sure that the way the resolution, you have a resolution in front of you, a draft one, that you can amend. It has two options on it. MR. DEEB-Right. Well we can still table the whole thing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I speak? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MRS. MOORE-There’s no public hearing for the recommendation. MR. TRAVER-My concern with tabling it, Laura, would be then we have the same recommendation before us again. I mean we’re tabling this without acting on it. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct, but you’re also giving direction that you wouldn’t accept it. MR. TRAVER-Doesn’t it have the same effect by just saying we’re not accepting it and let the ZBA? I guess I’m not sure what the advantage of tabling it is. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know either. I just wanted to know what you were deciding. MR. TRAVER-Again, I think if we table this it’s a disadvantage to the applicant because they’ve just got to go through another process when the end result is they submit a new proposal. MR. STEVES-Unless the applicant wants to table it, I agree. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HILLERT-I agree with what everybody’s saying, but one thing, if the roots weren’t up, I spent two years trying to find, call people in, did things, and they tell me this is how it was done in some of the Federal. MR. TRAVER-Sir, this is not our application. We’re looking at what we’re looking at and having a problem with it. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have a difficult situation to deal with. There others that do as well, and I don’t know. I’m not a designer. I don’t know what the solution is, but this isn’t it. MR. HILLERT-If you see some of the pictures, the trees are very close to the wall. Very unique. I don’t think there’s a thing on the whole lake. MR. TRAVER-Actually there are and we’re trying to create more trees in a buffer. MR. HILLERT-No, I’m saying that I’m the only one around that has a stone wall like that around. I don’t think if the wall wasn’t there it would be quite as much of a problem, but there is a stone wall that was built in 1948. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re dealing with what we’re dealing with. All right. So how do people feel about the resolution? Do we want to table the application? I’ll ask the applicant, do you want us to not act on this other than to table it and give you opportunity to do a re- design or do you want us to continue to make what is going to be a negative recommendation to the ZBA and then you can talk to them? MR. HILLERT-Well, again, I worked on this for two years. It’s dangerous the way it is now. MR. TRAVER-So my question is do you want to, at this stage you basically have a couple of options, and you can, if you want to table it. MR. STEVES-Yes. What he’s trying to say, if you table it you’re not going to the Zoning Board tomorrow night. We come back with a different design. Maybe we come back to this Board with a re-design then go to the Zoning Board because you’re still going to need a variance for in front of that building. MR. TRAVER-And this is going to have to be removed. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. STEVES-And this is going to have to be removed. And then also the fact then if they continue on with their motion to say they do not recommend the Zoning Board doing this, then you’re going in front of the Zoning Board with a variance that they’re not going to have support from their own Planning Board and that’s going to be a very hard lift with your Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Although I mean you can certainly choose to present to the Zoning Board and make your argument, but, you know, you can see the way this Board is feeling about it. It would have been a better process for you had you come up with a design and brought it in and said what do you think about me building a deck over the water over there, before you did it, which is what we’re trying to make the normal process in the Town, and we’d be able to perhaps comment, give you some suggestions and you could come back with perhaps a design. MR. HILLERT-Is there someone in the Town that could help me? MR. STEVES-You can come to us as a design professional, come to the Town. There’s a lot of options. MR. TRAVER-Town Staff, Laura. MR. HILLERT-So we will come back tomorrow night and we’ll try to work on a plan that may be more suitable for both. I’m worried about safety, okay, that’s my main concern. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I’m hearing then that you want to go to the ZBA tomorrow night? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HILLERT-No. MR. TRAVER-Do you want us to table? Okay. How long would you like to? MR. STEVES-I’ll talk to the Staff. I would say at least until. MRS. MOORE-So June’s booked. It would be July. MR. STEVES-It would have to be July, and I appreciate all the Board’s comments, and I would also want to check with Staff to see what this means by tabling this motion now with you and not moving forward with the Zoning Board. What does that mean? MRS. MOORE-So you’re still in the process. So you’re trying to meet the requirements. You’ve just been given some direction. MR. STEVES-The existing deck, obviously that’s not going to happen in this current capacity. Does that have to be removed before we come in with a different? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-No, I think that’s a discussion with the Zoning Administrator. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Right, and I’m just letting the Board know that I will go in and have the discussion and I figured that was going to have to be with Staff and if Mr. Hillert wants me 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) to do that, I can do that. Other than that I would ask Mr. Hillert to go in and meet directly with Staff as well. MR. TRAVER-And I would just add one more comment that the nature of this, I guess in my mind extreme situation that exists, unapproved development, the sooner you’re able to undo what was done there, regardless of how long it takes you to come up with an appropriate design, will be looked upon favorably by us because our concern is the lake. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Rightfully so. What I’ll do I’ll make it a point tomorrow morning before I leave for Texas to get a hold of Laura and see if I can get a meeting with Craig sometime next week, as long as it’s okay with Mr. Hillert, and we’ll get the ball rolling. MR. TRAVER-And we were looking at July you said, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-July what? th MR. TRAVER-All right. How about the first meeting, that would be the 16. MRS. MOORE-Correct. th MR. TRAVER-All right. July 16. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 31-2019 GARY HILLERT The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant requests to maintain a deck addition next to the shoreline. Project also includes maintaining a 60 ft. section of fence to the shoreline on the west side of the home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE (RECOMMENDATION FOR AV # 9-2019) SITE PLAN 31-2019 GARY HILLERT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: th Site Plan recommendation tabled to the July 16 Planning Board meeting with revised plans due by June 15, 2019. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. HILLERT-Thank you very much. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right, and now we move back into New Business and we have Kevin Hajos, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 2-2019 and Final Stage 3-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2-2019 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. KEVIN HAJOS. OWNER(S): WARREN COUNTY DPW. ZONING: HI. LOCATION: 161-201 RIVER STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 14.76 ACRE PARCEL TO TWO LOTS OF 10.5 ACRES (RECYCLE CENTER AREA) AND 4.26 ACRES (MAINTENANCE BUILDING). THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO ANY BUILDING OR SITE ARRANGEMENTS. THE EXISTING DRIVE ACCESS IS TO REMAIN AS IS WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY. IN ADDITION, BUILDINGS ON EACH PARCEL TO REMAIN WITH CURRENT USES – RECYCLE CENTER AND WARREN COUNTY MAINTENANCE BUILDING. WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM SKETCH PLAN STAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 14.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-48. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. KEVIN HAJOS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MR. HUNSINGER-Before Laura starts, I just wanted to say that I will be recusing myself from this application since I’m an employee of Warren County. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 14.76 acres into two lots of 10.51 acres which contains an area called a recycle center area and 4.26 acres which is the current maintenance building for Warren County. There are no changes to any building or site arrangements. The existing drive access is to remain as with a shared driveway. In addition the buildings on each parcel at this time would remain in the current uses, the recycle center and Warren County Maintenance Building, and they have requested a waiver from Sketch Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HAJOS-Good evening. My name’s Kevin Hajos. Laura’s correct. I am representing the County to propose a two lot subdivision for the tax map parcel 303.20-2-48. This is a 14.76 acre parcel. We want to subdivide the two lots, the 10 and a half acre lot which is the recycling center and then the 4.26 acres which would continue to be the maintenance building for our southern shop. As Laura said, we’re not proposing any changes for the northern site. The existing driveway is going to be shared access. MR. TRAVER-So this basically is a line on a map. MR. HAJOS-That’s exactly what it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-No questions. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a public hearing on this believe it or not. Would you like to make any public comment? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I don’t know, this is pretty concerning. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. Do we have any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we’re going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We have a SEQR review on this. MRS. MOORE-Yes, because it’s a subdivision requirement. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’re drawing a line on a map. Do members of the Board feel there are any environmental impacts by this? MS. WHITE-No changes. Right? MR. TRAVER-No changes. MR. DEEB-They’re just drawing a line. MR. HAJOS-Drawing a line. MR. TRAVER-Worst case scenario would be some kind of segmentation, but we’re not seeing that and there’s not going to be any changes. So I’m not hearing any concerns. I think we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUBDIVISION FOR HAJOS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 14.76 acre parcel to two lots of 10.5 acres (recycle center area) and 4.26 acres (maintenance building). There are no changes to any building or site arrangements. The existing drive access is to remain as is with a shared driveway. In addition, buildings on each parcel to remain with current uses – recycle center and Warren County maintenance building. Waiver is requested from sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2019 KEVIN HAJOS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE RECUSED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have the Preliminary Stage resolution. We have the draft. I don’t think we need to add any conditions to the draft. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you doing your Preliminary, are you granting the waiver from Sketch? MR. DEEB-Is that the Preliminary or the Final. MRS. MOORE-Before Preliminary. MR. DEEB-I didn’t know there were any waivers. MR. TRAVER-The waiver requests are, I have them down in the Final Stage. MRS. MOORE-So I’m sorry you will need to do a resolution that says you have granted him a waiver from Sketch. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’ll do a resolution granting a waiver from Sketch. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR HAJOS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 14.76 acre parcel to two lots of 10.5 acres (recycle center area) and 4.26 acres (maintenance building). There are no changes to any building or site arrangements. The existing drive access is to remain as is with a shared driveway. In addition, buildings on each parcel to remain with current uses – recycle center and Warren County maintenance building. Waiver is requested from sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 05/21/2019; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN STAGE SUBDIVISION FOR KEVIN HAJOS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. st Motion seconded by Mike Valentine. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White NOES: NONE RECUSED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now we have Preliminary Stage approval. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM STG. SUB # 2-2019 KEVIN HAJOS MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE 2-2019 KEVIN HAJOS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. st Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE RECUSED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-And now we move to a resolution for Final Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 3-2019 KEVIN HAJOS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 14.76 acre parcel to two lots of 10.5 acres (recycle center area) and 4.26 acres (maintenance building). There are no changes to any building or site arrangements. The existing drive access is to remain as is with a shared driveway. In addition, buildings on each parcel to remain with current uses – recycle center and Warren County maintenance building. Waiver is requested from sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) A public hearing was scheduled and held on 05/21/2019; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2019 KEVIN HAJOS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; st Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019 by the following vote: 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2019) AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE RECUSED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. HAJOS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That concludes our agenda. Do we have any other business before the Board this evening? I’m not hearing any. Does someone have a motion to adjourn? MR. SHAFER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 21, 2019, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 69