Loading...
1998-10-20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK ROBERT PALING ROBERT VOLLARO TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD LARRY RINGER PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 25, 1998: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST 25, 1998 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JOHN R. SHINE & LARRY CLEVELAND OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE (FORMER APPLICANTS, SCHERMERHORN & HAYES) ZONE: SFR-1A, LI-1A LOCATION: WEST ON SHERMAN AVE., LEFT ON NORTHWAY LANE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR 9 SELF STORAGE BUILDINGS. THE MODIFICATION REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT IN THREE PHASES AND TO MODIFY THE LANDSCAPING. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 116-1-1 LOT SIZE: 3.93 ACRES SECTION: 179-20, 179-26 JOHN R. SHINE & LARRY CLEVELAND, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-95 - Modification, John Shine & Larry Cleveland, Meeting Date: October 20, 1998 “Description of Project The applicants propose to modify an approved site plan for 9 self storage buildings. Staff Comments The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to address concerns about completion of the project. The project has been modified to include a phasing of the project into three phases with the final phase being completed by the year 2013. In addition the landscaping plan will be modified with maple trees instead of eastern white pine trees. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-It probably would be advantageous to read in the letter. MRS. MOORE-I’ll read in his application. Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee has nothing, no findings. Sorry about that. Applicant’s request for modification is as follows, as a 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) letter. “Dear Board Members: As owners of the Northway Self Storage, L.L.C., located at 32 Northway Lane in the Town of Queensbury; we are requesting a modification of site plan #6-95 as previously approved on January 27, 1997. When we purchased this property the site plan had already been submitted by the previous owners and approved by the Board. The original project was to have been completed all at once. As new owners, we are asking to modify the site plan to allow for the property tot be developed over three phases, rather than all at once. We are obligated to make this request based on project financial considerations. On the attached map you will see we are approved for a total of nine (9) buildings. To date, we have constructed buildings 1 through 3 and are in the process of constructing building #4 (all highlighted in yellow). As a part of this initial construction we completed all of the site areas which relate to buildings 1-4, including proper grading for stormwater runoff; the construction of a water retention pond in front of the buildings; the construction of a fence and gate along the front property line; and gravel driveways leading into and around the four buildings. Our request is to modify the plan to define this first construction period as PHASE ONE. With landscaping completed along the front gate and fence we will have complied with the site plan as it relates to these four buildings and the property they are on, including all runoff and grade work. The only change was to delete the large light poles and use smaller 50 watt building fixtures for exterior lights. This alleviated the concern, raised in the January 1995 Planning Board minutes, that the lights shouldn’t “shine on the Northway”. PHASE TWO (green) would be to develop two additional buildings (#5 & #6) and finish the majority of the remaining site work for the entire nine building project. This would include second water retention pond at the rear of the property; putting down gravel driveways; erecting the rear fence; and ensuring proper grading runoff. We anticipate this phase to be completed in late 1999 PHASE THREE or early 2000. (blue) would be to develop the final three buildings (#7, #8, #9). The site work for these three buildings will have already been completed under Phase Two, and the only work to be completed would be the actual buildings and the east fence line. We anticipate this phase to be completed in late 2000 or early 2001. In addition to structuring this project over three phases we would also ask permission to substitute Maple trees for landscaping along the fence line. The fence line separates the light industrial portion of our land from the residential portion of our land. In effect, we are screening ourselves at the fence line. The original plan called for Eastern White Pines. We have looked at both Maple and Pine trees at a local nursery and think the Maples would look much nicer on the property line. They are significantly more expensive, but would greatly enhance the aesthetic look of the property. Thank you for your consideration of this NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE request. John R. Shine Larry J. Cleveland ” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, could you identify yourselves for us. MR. CLEVELAND-My name is Larry Cleveland. MR. SHINE-I’m John Shine. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything you wanted to add to what was read in to the minutes? MR. CLEVELAND-No. I think it corrected itself when she read it in. I don’t know where the 2013. MR. PALING-Okay. I was just going to comment on the dates. I don’t think we need any of the dates. We’ve just got to go by the phasing regulations. They’ve got two years for phase one to be activated. They’re going to have to come in separately for the following two phases. Because you’re only getting approval for phase one, right? MR. BREWER-That’s a subdivision, though, Bob. That’s not for a site plan, only for subdivisions. MR. PALING-Okay, but aren’t they here tonight for approval of Phase I? MR. BREWER-Just for a modification to the site plan because when we originally approved it, it was all of them at once. MR. PALING-Yes, right. So they’re just doing subdivision tonight? MR. BREWER-No, no. It’s not a subdivision. They just want to phase the project. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. PALING-All right. Okay, then I think we’re saying the same thing. It’s fine they phase the project. I’m just saying the Phase I will get approval, and they’ll be on a time frame to finish it. Then they’ll have to come in separately to get the second phase approved. MR. STARK-No. Only on subdivision. MR. PALING-No? MR. BREWER-That would only be required in subdivision, and this isn’t a subdivision. MRS. MOORE-He’s giving you a completion schedule, and he’s doing it in phases. He’s not required to come back for approval for each phase. MR. PALING-Well, why are we designating phases at all, then, if he doesn’t need approval? MRS. MOORE-Because you want a schedule of completion, and he’s giving you a schedule of completion. Otherwise you wouldn’t have a completion date, and it would be never ending. He could have a gravel driveway and never complete the project. This way, he’s, through Code Enforcement, this is how we came to resolve the situation. MR. PALING-All right. Maybe I misunderstood. What’s the completion date we’re looking at, then? MRS. MOORE-2001. MR. PALING-And that’s within, no, wait a minute. Now doesn’t he have to be completed within 24 months? MRS. MOORE-No. Once he gets his building permit, the first time, he has to start the process. MR. BREWER-He has to start within a year, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. PALING-So, phasing is not involved at all? MR. BREWER-Well, it is, but it isn’t. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. If it is, then he’s got 24 months. If it isn’t, then he’s got. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know where you’re coming up with the 24 months. There’s nothing in the Code that says you’re on a time frame to finish a project. MR. BREWER-He’s got it confused with subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a time frame in order to start the project MR. BREWER-He’s got it confused with subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim’s suggesting you’re confusing subdivision with site plan? MR. PALING-I may be. I may be, but this is not the subdivision book, and it says “staging”. MR. BREWER-Where are you, Bob? MR. PALING-I’m on 179-58. Okay. Lets clarify, they are not staging, right? MR. VOLLARO-Phasing and staging, to me, are pretty much the same thing. MR. PALING-Then we’ve got to get clarified, we’re looking at G, Paragraph G. “Any plan that requires more than 24 months shall be required to be staged”. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he’s doing now. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. PALING-All right. Then Laura’s date puts it over 24 months. MR MAC EWAN-It says, “Any plan which requires more than twenty-four (24) months to be completed shall be required to be staged”. That’s what he’s doing here. MR. PALING-Right. By the date she’s giving us, it’s more than 24 months. MR. MAC EWAN-“Any plan which requires more than twenty-four (24) months to be completed must be staged”, and that’s what he’s doing. MR. BREWER-I understand what you’re saying. MR. STARK-But he doesn’t have to come back in for any approval. You just give him the approval now, and he does it when he does it. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s meeting the definition of the Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Now, I’m confused. MR. PALING-Yes, I am. Mark, what do you say on this? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you’re correct that this Section applies, and Craig is correct that the applicant appears to be complying with the Section. The Section, unlike phased approvals in subdivisions, which expressly state, as I recall, that you have to return to the Planning Board for subsequent approvals of different phases, this provision pertaining to site plan review doesn’t say that. It only says that if you are intending to do a staged development in which more than, because more than 24 months will be taken to complete, then you need to do staging, and you need to come to the Planning Board and tell them that, and that’s what the applicant’s doing. MR. PALING-Okay. Then, Laura, say your date again, the one you (lost word). MRS. MOORE-2001. MR. PALING-When in 2001? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t matter, more than 24 months no matter when you are in 2001, because 24 months is two years, and you’re more than two years away. So, therefore, this is, let me see if I can break this down a step at a time. Since the applicant will not be completed within 24, since the applicant will not be complete with this project until 2001, that means that this is a plan which requires more than 24 months to be completed, right? MR. PALING-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and therefore, according to this, it’s required to be staged, right? MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And therefore, according to this, a staging plan must be developed. So far so good? Okay, and the applicant appears to be doing just that, in appearing before us with a staging, with what one could call a staging plan, and you, as a Planning Board, have the authority to approve that staging plan, when it’s presented. It’s not the same as subdivision phases that require applicants to return for phase to phase, or subsequent phases. MR. PALING-All right. Peace. I read that differently, but the way you explained it seems logical, and I really didn’t mean to throw a big block up here. It’s a pretty simple thing. MR. SCHACHNER-I think if an applicant wanted to get approval a stage at a time, I think the first sentence says that he could do that, because it says he may submit only those stages he wishes to submit for site plan approval, but notice it doesn’t say must or shall or anything like that. So I think the first part of this gives the applicant the opportunity to get approval a stage at a time if he wants, but the second part indicates that if a plan’s going to take more than 24 months, the applicant has to have a staging plan for your approval, and I think that’s what the applicant’s. MR. PALING-What he’s doing. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. PALING-No. MR. STARK-Larry, what are your hours of operation? MR. CLEVELAND-8 a.m. to 5 p.m. are the normal business hours. The gate is operated automatically and opens at 7 a.m. and closes at 7 p.m. MR. STARK-Okay. I just wondered. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. Phase I still requires the building of one building, is that correct, Building Number Four, as you have it on your site plan? MR. CLEVELAND-Yes. It should be completed in about three weeks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We were over there. All I saw there was a foundation. MR. CLEVELAND-Right. They’re supposed to pour concrete Thursday or Friday. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, in order for this thing to be phased properly in my mind, Phase I does not have a date on it. Phase I is open, right now. You’ve got a Phase II closing in the Year 2000, a Phase III closing in the Year 2001, but Phase I is blank. You haven’t finished Phase I yet. So I’d like you to think a little bit about putting a date on that. MR. CLEVELAND-Sure. We had just thought that would be assumed because we were finishing up this project with the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, being that you’ve phased it, the phasing has to include a date for each phase. MR. CLEVELAND-Sure. We would certainly say by 1999 without question. Once this is done, all we have left is the trees, and we’re finished, and we’ll put those up in the spring and we’ll be done. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the phasing on Phase I is 1999, 2000 on Phase II and 2001 on Phase III, is that how you’re setting it up? MR. CLEVELAND-That would be correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I just have one more question. You’re operational now, is that correct? MR. CLEVELAND-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-And you have a Certificate of Occupancy? MR. CLEVELAND-We have a temporary. MR. VOLLARO-You have a temporary CO. MR. CLEVELAND-They didn’t want to provide those to us until we finished up the entire site work and do all one shot. MR. VOLLARO-There’ll be temporary CO’s right out to the Year 2001, for Phase III? MR. CLEVELAND-No. That would be just each phase. MR. VOLLARO-Each phase gets its own Certificate of Occupancy? MR. CLEVELAND-Correct, that’s what we were lead to believe by David Hatin. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. VOLLARO-So you will get a final CO in the Year 1999 when you finish Phase I? Right now you’re operational on the temporary? MR. CLEVELAND-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe you should add to it that if they were to complete Phase I by December of this year they could get a CO on it. It’s not tied to the date. It’s tied to the completion of that certain Phase. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s saying that Phase I won’t be completed until 1999. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but if he gets it done earlier than that, certainly he would get a permanent CO on the Phase. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If he finished Phase I and is completed before his estimated completion date, he’d certainly be entitled to a CO at that time. MR. CLEVELAND-We’re going to apply for one just as soon as we can. Our problem was in that the previous plan was a build them all in one shot, and get them all approved in one shot, and then we were reminded of the Section you were reading about over 24 months, and we knew we weren’t going to pull that off in 24 months, so that’s when we went to the Phases, and we’d like to go one. two, three, fully complete one, start two, fully complete two, three, completely do three, so that they’re not overlapping and following each other. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. MR. BREWER-I think it was in here, but when is the landscaping going to be done? In the spring? MR. CLEVELAND-The only thing left in Phase I are the trees. We’ve actually put the fence and everything up, and all the other work, and that we’re going to do in the Spring. MR. BREWER-So the final landscaping will be done in the spring? MR. CLEVELAND-Right, and then we’re going to apply for the final sign off on everything on Phase I. MR. BREWER-Okay. It looks nice. MR. MAC EWAN-A question regarding the landscaping, Larry. With your desire to replace the white pines with the maple trees, are you replacing them tree for tree? MR. CLEVELAND-We thought we were, because it said you had to have a certain number of them. The original choice, I think, on the white pines was due to a financial consideration. We weren’t too thrilled to be having pine trees, basically. We’ve got enough pine trees there. I would tear pine trees up. MR. MAC EWAN-How many pine trees were called out, do you know, off hand, Laura, in the Beautification approval? MR. BREWER-It says on the plan 18, four to six. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I see it, okay. So you’re going to replace those 18 Eastern White Pine with 18 maple. MR. CLEVELAND-Maple. MR. MAC EWAN-Caliper size, do you know, off hand how big are they? MR. CLEVELAND-No, I don’t. We haven’t even looked to buy them yet. MR. BREWER-They’re going to be reasonable trees, and not? MR. CLEVELAND-They’re no smaller than what originally was on the plan. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Four to six foot Eastern White Pine. So you’re going to put the equivalent of four to six foot size. So we’re looking at like a two inch caliper, two and a half inch caliper tree. That’s all I have. Has anybody else got anything else? Anything you wanted to add? MR. CLEVELAND-No, sir. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that Staff wants to add? MR. STARK-I’ve got a question. What name do you go by for this? I mean, you know, suppose somebody wanted to rent a place, how do you reach anybody? MR. CLEVELAND-It’s Northway Self Storage. If you were actually in the business, you would quickly realize that most people, 80% of your business comes from yellow page ads, which forces you to buy just about the most expensive, as you know, advertising in the United States of America, automatic on your bill. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m ready for someone to entertain a motion, if someone wants to put one up. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 JOHN R. SHINE & LARRY CLEVELAND , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As submitted in the resolution by Staff, with the following addition, that Phase I carry a date of completion no later than1999. That in the modification which was read into the record, the 18 four to six foot Eastern White Pine trees will now be replaced with Maple trees, 18 Maple trees, of equivalent size. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the site plan modification, and further finds that there is not significant change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 6-95 John R. Shine & Larry Cleveland to modify an approved site plan for 9 self storage buildings. The modification is to construct the project in three phases to modify the landscaping; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 9/13/98 consists of the following: 1. Letter outlining the request for modification Whereas, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/20/98 - Staff Notes 2. 10/20/98 - Beautification Committee resolution 3. 10/7/98 - Meeting Notice 4. 1/27/98 - All previous resolutions 5. Phase I completed by 1999 e 6. Eighteen, four to six foot Pine replaced with Maples with equivalent siz Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Determination of Nonsignificance Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Modification to Site Plan No. 6-95 for John R. Shine & Larry Cleveland. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced approved plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. CLEVELAND-Thank you very much. MR. SHINE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 38-94 TYPE I MODIFICATION HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 43 HANNAFORD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A 36’ X 24’ GARAGE WITH A DWELLING UNIT ABOVE. THE MODIFICATION IS FOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-1993/BP 96- 121 TAX MAP NO. 19-2-57.4 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 HAROLD SMITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-94 - Modification, Harold & Eleanore Smith, Meeting Date: October 20, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan for construction of a garage with a seasonal dwelling above it. Staff Comments The applicant met with staff prior to submission to discuss stormwater runoff issues. The applicant has submitted an updated plan and calculations to address stormwater. Hay bales and stones were in place at the time of the site visit to address stormwater runoff. The stormwater information was sent to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment.” MRS. MOORE-Rist Frost comments, addressed to Mr. Round. “The storm drainage modifications to the previously approved site plan that are shown and described on the information forwarded to us on October 13, 1998, are acceptable and should limit the off-site runoff to levels below the pre-development runoff rate.” th MR. MAC EWAN-Would you also read in your Note to File of October 20. MRS. MOORE-Note To File, prepared by Mr. Round. “The Town of Queensbury Site Plan Review process includes a provision under its review guidelines to examine “the adequacy of stormwater management” for individual proposals. The Town does not currently define design criteria for individual proposals/single family home construction. The Subdivision ordinance does provide design criteria for new subdivisions. In general, stormwater may not be directed off-site onto an adjoining property owner, pre-development drainage patterns should be maintained after development occurs, and post development conditions should not aggravate or increase existing runoff conditions. The attached map presents a depiction of the sub-watershed drainage area of the affected area. It appears as though a significant drainage area (approximately 214 acres) 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) contributes runoff and drains through the subject property. Stormwater runoff from this sub catchment is directed through the culvert which crosses Hannaford Road. The project applicant should be required to address and manage that stormwater generated on-site as a result of the increase in impervious area. The stormwater management measures proposed appear to be adequately sized to address runoff from a 50 year storm resulting from the increase in impervious area. According to Rist Frost Associates, the proposed modifications (and stormwater management measures) are an improvement over the previously approved site plan conditions.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SMITH-Good evening. I’m Harold Smith, and this is Sean Callahan, my contractor. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you give us a brief overview of what brings you back here, in your own words? MR. SMITH-What happened was when we went to put the foundation in, they started digging down, and we ran into water. So we had to raise the foundation height, and then as well we had an approval for a 144 cubic foot holding tank, more or less, for water, and when I started going down for that, I hit ledge rock. So in turn we took and had to re-grade the driveway to bring the water over from the garage level into a holding tank, which we developed, which we more than actually doubled the size of the holding capacity. MR. MAC EWAN-And everything they’ve done thus far has met with both Staff and Rist Frost’s approval, everything’s done the right way? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? Does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. MOORE-I do have a comment from the public, if you’d like me to read it into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please do. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Craig MacEwan, Chairman. It says “Dear Sir: I had written to your Board in July of 1993 and again in December of 1994 in reference to probable damage to my property if the above application were to be approved in violation of New York Health Department Law 75-2.10. Since it was approved I have, as expected, experienced considerable damage to my home and property. Since the property in question has been filled in the water from that lot and the road has been diverted onto my property and basement. I have taken various steps to protect my property including breaking up concrete in the basement and installing a sump pump which was never required before. I have been told by Mr. Craig Brown our Code Enforcement Officer that Mr. Smith will have to submit a report by an engineer stating how he will correct the problem. I hereby request that if this plan is approved that a Security Bond be issued insuring that the plan will correct the problem and if not that I will be compensated for damages to my property. I respectfully request the courtesy of a written reply to this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, Gavin J. Rooney” MR. MAC EWAN-Has someone replied to him, been in contact with him? MRS. MOORE-We’ve been in touch with him, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What Section of the Health Code is he supposedly quoting in there, Mark, do you know? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Will these remedies that this applicant is making alleviate the problems that he’s experiencing, that Staff is aware of? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MRS. MOORE-He’s discussing an issue that I believe addresses a holding tank, which is a different issue than the stormwater drainage, and the holding tank issue was handled by the Building Department. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about the holding tank for septic? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s saying he’s having problems with water, septic seepage in his cellar? MRS. MOORE-That’s not correct, no. MR. MAC EWAN-What is he saying? MRS. MOORE-He’s indicating. MR. STARK-He’s talking about groundwater running into his basement. MRS. MOORE-Right. His concern is groundwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I’m not quite sure why he referenced a holding tank as being his issue. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t either, that’s why I’m asking. MR. BREWER-He’s talking about a retention. MRS. MOORE-It could be the retention pond. MR. PALING-But doesn’t that contradict what we’re reading about what we’ve done to the property and the result of it. There is no water runoff. I’m looking at the Rist Frost letter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so am I. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. PALING-Aren’t the two in conflict? They “should limit the off-site runoff rate to levels below the pre-development runoff rate.” MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. PALING-But that letter, then, is contradictory to this. MR. STARK-What, that guy’s letter there? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-Well, who do you want to go with, Levandowski or this guy? MR. PALING-But you said it’s being investigated, I believe. MRS. MOORE-But the applicant has presented a plan that contains his project’s stormwater runoff on his site. MR. PALING-That’s what I understand, but the letter is different, and it’s under investigation. So, supposing it’s found out that it doesn’t protect the neighbor, then what happens? MRS. MOORE-It’s a Code Enforcement issue, then, as far as I know. MR. PALING-We’re going on the assumption that they’re. MRS. MOORE-It works. MR. PALING-The runoff has been taken care of. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. STARK-Every time Levandowski says something, we go by it. MR. PALING-That’s what it says here. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-And he’s always been very good, and quite right about it. I’ve never known him to be wrong. I’m just wondering where we stand, in the event that the objector’s letter is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess you’d have to ask, what would it take for the neighbor to verify that his water problems were a direct result of this project. MR. PALING-Well, I think the Code Enforcement or whoever is doing it is going to determine that, as I understand what Laura saying. That’s what he’s going out to accomplish. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I feel comfortable with his proposal for remedying the problem. The fact that Rist Frost has signed off on it and we’re all in accordance with the Ordinances. MR. BREWER-Craig, I had just one question. You show on this map, here you show a holding tank. Is that worded wrong? Should that be retention area? MR. SMITH-That’s a retention area, yes. It was previously a holding tank. A holding tank’s on the other side that there will be. MR. BREWER-Right. I was confused a little bit. It’s a retention area, not a holding tank. So we should correct that on the map. GAVIN ROONEY MR. ROONEY-Excuse me, sir. I’m the party that wrote the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll give you an opportunity to come up and speak in a minute. MR. PALING-What’s the name of the letter writer? MRS. MOORE-Gavin Rooney. MR. PALING-Where is his property? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll get him up here in just a second. MR. SMITH-It’s on the other side, where the culvert goes under the road, on the other side of the road, where the culvert goes through. You’ll see it’s on the west side there. MR. PALING-Okay. It’s on the other side of the stream. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Do you have anything else to add? I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for just a second. We’ll let this gentleman come up to speak. Please be advised that we don’t have a public hearing tonight, but we’re always willing to take public comment. So, come on up and identify yourself for the record. MR. ROONEY- It’s uncomfortable to be here, difficulty with a next door neighbor, but. My name is Gavin J. Rooney. I live on Hannaford Road. When I mentioned the State Law, that’s a reference to the State Law that forbids building new construction with a holding tank, that a holding tank is only good where people have a problem. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a septic holding tank, a sewage effluent holding tank. MR. ROONEY-According to the New York State Health Department, and that’s why this property was turned down a few times before, because you can’t build supposedly new construction on a holding tank only. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, meaning a sewage effluent holding tank. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. ROONEY-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That general proposition is correct. MR. ROONEY-As far as, people from the Town have been up there, but I don’t know what, how deep the investigation has been, but nobody’s actually come in my house, but you can see damage to the outside of the foundation, too. MR. VOLLARO-Are there two things you’re talking about? One is the holding tank, and the other is the? MR. ROONEY-That’s why I felt, initially, it should never have been approved. It was turned down a few times before. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s two issues that you’re talking to. You’re talking to the holding tank is Issue One, and now you’re talking to the drainage, as the second issue. MR. ROONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m sorry for interrupting you, so go ahead. MR. ROONEY-The water has come across the road. The way it’s graded now, which of course it’s dirt, hasn’t improved it. So that we’ve only had light rain since then, but the light rain hasn’t bothered it, which before, during the summer, even light rain or whatever flowed down the road and down my property. MR. PALING-Are you saying that in the past there has been some water going across that road before this was done, before this work was done? MR. ROONEY-Before anything was started, it flowed under the stream. I can’t say it flowed across the road. There was a pipe. MR. PALING-Okay. So you’re saying it’s worse now than it was before? MR. ROONEY-During the summer, it really wasn’t flowing through the pipe. It was flowing right down the road. It wasn’t coming from the pipe, and it’s hard to explain here, but think of the road being here, the pipe way down here, my property here, it would come down this way and off of the property that’s under construction this way and onto the road and then down. It wasn’t when the pipe, just even light, not really light, but medium rains or rains we’ve had during the summer which weren’t enough to really drain water through the pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Is this the existing 12 inch culvert pipe that’s on the drawing, have you seen that? MR. ROONEY-Yes, yes, and I’m saying that it was running onto my property without any water going through the property, through that pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Through the pipe at all. MR. ROONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Because that pipe is headed right for your property. MR. ROONEY-Right. At one time it ran almost all year through that pipe. MR. VOLLARO-And then after this operation it didn’t run through the pipe anymore? It took the surface route? MR. ROONEY-It’s a different type of water. It’s water from a different area. That pipe is taking the water from the mountains behind it and draining down through what’s actually Schultz’s development, and beyond that, and in through Mr. Smith’s property, and then through the pipe. The pipe runs on an angle across the road. That’s why it doesn’t run into his property, it runs into my property, just on the border. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. VOLLARO-Well, since I don’t have Mr. Rooney’s letter in front of me, I’d just like to ask Staff a question. Does Staff plan to answer Mr. Rooney’s letter? MRS. MOORE-I believe Craig Brown has discussed it with Mr. Rooney, and he can make a formal, written letter, if that’s what the Board wishes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, my problem is, I don’t know what Mr. Rooney’s letter says, since I don’t have it. MR. ROONEY-Well, it’s a request that if this licensed engineer says that it will work, it will work, then why shouldn’t it just be bonded that it’ll work? It hasn’t worked now, so far I’ve been paying the money. I certainly don’t want to sue my neighbor or the Town. I think it’s a very reasonable request. It’s been done before. I’m not sure if Queensbury’s done it, but it’s not uncommon doing it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m familiar with bonding. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an unusual request, that’s for sure. Mark, could you clarify this provision of the State Health Law he’s referring to? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, sure. If it’s the provision I think it is, it’s a provision that based on, I’m going to paraphrase it. I’m not quoting it verbatim. I don’t have it with me, but it basically says that conventional septic systems should be utilized. If conventional septic systems cannot be utilized, certain alternative septic systems can be used, but a holding tank should only be used for permanent, year round single family residences, in replacement of existing failed systems. In other words, not as new construction, and to that extent, I think the gentleman’s comment, generically, is correct. What I’m confused about, I mean, I didn’t have the letter before tonight either. I’m seeing it for the first time, the same as the Board is. The letter, as I understand it, seems to be making reference to some previous approval, I guess, for the holding tank, and indicating that since the holding tank was approved and this part I am quoting, the commenter says “Since it was approved, I have, as expected, experienced considerable damage to my home and property”, and then he goes on to describe some of that damage, and then requests that there be a report submitted by an engineer, and then requests a security bond. This all, as I’m understanding this letter, this all pertains to this holding tank that was approved some time in ’93 or ’94, and that’s not what’s in front of this Board tonight. That’s where I’m confused. MR. ROONEY-No. The letter did not pertain to that. I wrote letters before, when this first came up, and it was told by Mr. Martin that it would be put off and I would be notified to come to a meeting. I never got my opportunity to speak at that time, but I did write a letter in reference to the State Law, and that’s why I referenced it at that. MR. SCHACHNER-And I mean, if all those things are true, then it’s certainly possible that the gentleman should have had a previous opportunity to comment on the holding tank, and if you should have had that opportunity and did not have that opportunity, that’s unfortunate, but there’s not much we can do about that, in terms of going back in time. I’m still unclear, I mean, I’m still hearing, and maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I’m still hearing a complaint about something that was previously approved, previously installed and has now, in your opinion, caused damage to your property, and I’m not saying that it hasn’t. I’m just saying that that’s what I’m hearing the commenter complaining about, damage to his property that’s been caused by a holding tank that’s previously been installed. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m in agreement with that. I think what we’re getting out of your letter is that, because this holding tank in question was put in as a means to a septic woes, or to solve the septic problems, since that holding tank’s been put in, you’re experiencing water damage on your property. MR. ROONEY-The holding tank, sir, has not been put in. In fact, I asked the Building Department about it and they said they didn’t know what kind it would even be, and that they would ask, and that that’s why, in the new plan, it says 2,000 gallon, which is something different. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. MR. ROONEY-But they said that they stopped the building because it damaged my property, and that Mr. Smith would have to get a licensed engineer to show that. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. PALING-Who said that? MR. ROONEY-Craig Brown. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig Brown said that they halted construction on this project because the construction was resulting in damage to your property? MR. ROONEY-Yes, different officials from the Town were up there and saw the damage. MR. MAC EWAN-What other officials were up there? MR. ROONEY-The Supervisor. MR. BREWER-Via the water? MR. ROONEY-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Work was stopped on the project because it did not meet the site plan that was approved. Therefore, the applicant was requested to submit a modification. That’s why the project was stopped. MR. STARK-He was talking about the height, though, right? MRS. MOORE-Well, the modification wasn’t constructed, it wasn’t done per site plan approval. So he had to come in and modify. MR. PALING-Craig, we’ve got a meeting next week. Is it possible to postpone this and get some fill in, perhaps, from Rist Frost? MR. BREWER-How about from Brown? MR. PALING-Both, yes. Brown and Rist Frost? MR. STARK-You’ve got your letter from Rist Frost. MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you want? What is it that you’re looking for? MR. PALING-Well, I guess verification that the Rist Frost covers everything that we’re making a judgment on. MR. BREWER-What caused, if he hasn’t installed, and I heard the conversation from over here, but if the tank’s not in the ground, what caused the water to get to your property to cause the damage? MR. ROONEY-By building this property up. MR. BREWER-They’ve raised it up, and that created the flow to your property? MR. ROONEY-It’s flowing off of the building area to the road, and down the road where it used to come down on the road the rain would flow into this low area. MR. BREWER-Okay, a retention area. So now that he’s filled it, now it’s just changed the pattern of flow. So now what we’re saying here is this retention area is going to retain that water? MR. MAC EWAN-It will retain that water on the site. MR. BREWER-And an engineer has said that that should work? MR. ROONEY-It’s been temporarily improved, recently improved somewhat. We haven’t had a really heavy rain since then, and what I’m asking is if an engineer comes up and looks at it and certifies that a certain plan is going to work, then why couldn’t it be bonded, and I can’t see how any engineer has been there without speaking to me or looking at my property. MR. BREWER-An engineer would look at this plan and say, okay, here’s how much property he has. This is what he’s doing. This retention, because we’ve had this discussion before about 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) engineers stamping things, that this will work. Now, it’s not up to the engineer to make sure that it’s properly installed. It’s up to the person doing it, and our building inspector to, I guess, make sure that it’s done right. The engineer’s not going to guarantee it, I don’t think. MR. ROONEY-Well, the Building Department said it was done completely wrong, over three foot too high, and that was back when I came back from Florida in June, and it took until about three or four weeks until it was improved. In the mean time, all the water went into my basement, and an engineer goes down there, you can see there’s only partly paved concrete in there, maybe five feet wide. A lot of it’s on shale rock ledge, and that’s dropped a couple of inches from the water going down there, which is (lost word) over a foot deep. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, these calculations that are in here, are they what was sent to Rist Frost? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And Craig and. MR. VOLLARO-Now I see what’s happening, okay. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Rist Frost merely looked at these calculations here, and, based on his review of these calculations, he’s saying that things are acceptable and should limit the off site runoff, and I see this as two separate problems. The holding tank is off to one side and doesn’t really pertain to what we’re talking about, in terms of water flow to the other property. The septic tank is a whole different issue, and that’s a New York State Department of Health issue, I think. MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking about water flow here. So we’re talking about two separate things, and if Rist Frost, if what they did was look at these calculations, and that’s all they did to write this letter, then I’m with Bob at the other end, that I’d like a little more clarification on that, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s what Rist Frost does all the time for us. They review calculations of supporting engineering data, and confirm whether those calculations were reached and correct. That’s what they’re job is to do. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s true, Craig, but we have a gentleman in front of us that is saying, given that the Rist Frost letter is here, he still sees a problem with the runoff onto his property, and what I’m trying to get in my mind, is will. MR. MAC EWAN-Say that part again, repeat that part? MR. VOLLARO-The thing that he’s concerned with now is that, Rist Frost has looked at these calculations and said, this mathematical calculation looks okay to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Not only that, that retention basin be designed in that aspect right there. That’s what else they’re signing off on, that it be graded to those elevations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all fine, and they looked at this, they looked at the calculations, but we have somebody saying, you know, given that all of the above is true, what we just talked about, he’s got water runoff into his property. MR. MAC EWAN-He has runoff into his property because this hasn’t been done. MR. BREWER-This hasn’t been done yet. That’s why it’s running off. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why he’s here, to do this to stop the runoff going off his property, off this gentleman’s property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Because this building was built out of elevation. It was built on ledge rock which raised everything up. He then brought in fill to meet the grading plan that he desired for his 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) property, inclusive of the driveway, which probably caused sheet runoff of the site, down the road and onto this gentleman’s property. Now the Town has asked him to come back in and asked him to do a grading and stormwater management drawing that will retain all stormwater runoff on his site. This is that end result. It was sent for Rist Frost for them to review it. They said, yes, this plan is acceptable. It will work, and it has to be done in accordance with that drawing and with the calculations. That’s where we are right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was under the assumption that some of this retention pond was already dug. MR. MAC EWAN-He started doing it, but that required him to come back to this Board to get a modification of his originally approved site plan. So some of the work has gone underway, but it’s not completed. MR. BREWER-How about we do this. If we give him an approval, we make it a condition that he do the retention area first before he builds the garage. Then that way we’re assured that the water’s going to stay there while he’s under construction. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem with that. MR. ROONEY-I believe, it’s the gentleman’s property, but I believe that the retention area that’s he’s talking about has been done. MR. BREWER-Lets ask him. Is it done? MR. SMITH-We have done, to try to cut down on the runoff, since he was having problems with, they did a Stop Order, I stopped, and then when Craig said I could go back and start doing the grading to keep the water from running down the road, I have got the pond pretty well actually dug. I’ve got the levels and got the dimensions of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got hay bales up? MR. SMITH-Hay bales are up. They’re around the foundation area to keep any runoff. One thing to keep in mind is it mentions there, there is a runoff that has run through there always, and we’ve always had spring overflows, and there has been always a problem with that, and even here, as much as pond I have there, there are going to be times that the water is going to overrun that culvert, just from what’s coming down off the mountain, but that’s something that neither I could stop or he could stop. The only thing that would stop that would be put a bigger culvert in, would keep it from going over the road, but that there is, no matter how big a pond, there are times that we get some runoff coming through from the mountain. MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying that the retention pond is presently dug to these specifications now? MR. SMITH-It is pretty close to those specifications. It is there. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not something you’ve got to do next week or tomorrow or whatever. It is there. He’s saying it’s in, Craig. He’s saying that retention pond is in. MR. MAC EWAN-And most of his elevations. He still has a little bit further to go. MR. SMITH-Right. Correct. I’ve just dug that, and to stop the water running down, the sheet runoff that he was having across the road, and bringing it back into that pond. MR. MAC EWAN-And since you’ve dug this, or have started the progress on this retention basin, you have noticed that you’ve had a significant decrease in the amount of water coming across the road? MR. ROONEY-We haven’t had any amount of rain, yet. MR. SMITH-And that not only brought the runoff from there, but also from a neighbor beside me, it was coming off his driveway, running across the road. I’d even channel that back to bring that in, to actually divert that through with a culvert, where before it was running right straight down his driveway and over the side. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else anybody wants to add? Does someone want to put a motion up? I’m ready to move on it. MR. BREWER-Well, Bob and Bob thought they wanted more information, didn’t they? MR. VOLLARO-If he wants a motion, he can call for his motion. MR. MAC EWAN-What more information could we possibly get, though? That’s what I don’t understand. It’s all here in front of us, the same calculations, the same review that Rist Frost has done on many applications much larger than this in the past. The same kind of letter they send us, that we reviewed the calculations. We reviewed the stormwater management plan. We reviewed the drawings, and it’s adequate to serve the use. What more could you want him to do? MR. VOLLARO-The only difference that we have now is that we have somebody before us that says, in a sense, that’s not working. That’s what concerns me. MR. MAC EWAN-Because what he’s saying wasn’t working, wasn’t built at that time. That’s what he’s saying. MR.VOLLARO-He’s saying it’s not working now. Maybe I don’t understand what’s happening. MR. MAC EWAN-He didn’t say that. MR. PALING-I have one more question for the applicant. The grading in the front of the building, has that been changed? MR. SMITH-That has been brought down close to those specs, to channel the water from the driveway and the road into the pond, where before, before I had a chance, we’ve just finished the foundation. That grading had not been done, and there was some water, we had some heavy storms that did run out into the road and across. MR. PALING-All right. Now I think I understand fully what we’re looking at, and the way that I’m looking at this now is that with the re-grading of the front and the digging of this retention pond, the condition has definitely, then, improved over whatever it was before. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. MR. PALING-And that part I didn’t understand, but if it’s improved over what it was before, and we have a Rist Frost letter, I’m inclined to go along with it, because of the history we’ve got with Rist Frost, and we have no statement saying that the water runoff is worse, or the same, although you’re also saying there’s not enough rain to tell that. MR. ROONEY-Right now it’s sort of just dirt. In 10 minutes it could be different, if an engineer says. MR. PALING-I’m saying there hasn’t been a heavy rain to test it, but you agree also that what has been done to the property is going to make it better, from a runoff condition? MR. ROONEY-Better than it was two months ago, not better than it was last year, absolutely not. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe what we could do, if we do, someone puts up a motion here, is to tie it down to insure very clearly that Code Enforcement make sure, before I put that in, how does Enforcement ensure that these elevations are hit? We certainly don’t go out there with a transit. MRS. MOORE-No. I would have to talk to Craig and discuss it with Chris how we could evaluate the situation. MR. BREWER-How do they do it with any? MRS. MOORE-Site inspection. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but how do they, they don’t go out there with a transit at site inspection? I guess I would tie into the motion that we ensure that these elevations are hit, and are adhered to, and that if, I would see, to me, that would be ample. I have all the faith in the world in Rist Frost 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) and their ability to calculate and check these out and I’m sure that this is going to remedy the site. Does someone want to put a motion up? MR. STARK-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 38-94 HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the modification and further finds that there is not significant change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Modification to Site Plan No. 38-94 -Harold & Eleanore Smith to modify an approved site plan for a 36’ x 24’ garage with a dwelling unit above. The modification is for grading and drainage issues; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 9/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Letter outlining the request for modification, stormwater calculations and map S-1 last reviewed 3/14/95. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/20/98 - Staff Notes 2. 10/14/98 - Rist Frost comments 3. 10/13/98 - Transmittal to Rist Frost 4. 10/7/98 - Meeting Notice Letter 5. 10/4/98 - Application for Public Access to Records - G. Rooney 6. 8/31/98 - Record of Field Inspection from C. Brown, Code Compliance Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Modification to Site Plan No. 38-94 for Harold & Eleanore Smith. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. Engineering Fee due upon receipt. th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. STARK-With the following stipulation, that the Code Enforcement Officer really looks at these elevations for this retaining pond. Also that the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the modification, and further finds that there is not significant change to the original SEQRA findings. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we could just change the wording on that, that Code Enforcement verifies that the elevations for the retention pond and site grading are accurate. MR. BREWER-What happens if there’s a failure, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s a failure? A failure of what? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you should be careful here, because we’re not sure, Laura’s not sure that Code Enforcement can do that. MR. BREWER-Well, then let me ask a question then, Mark. What’s the sense of having the numbers on the plan? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in general, you mean? MR. BREWER-Well. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s an applicant’s responsibility to do those. One of the things you could think about doing is require some type of certification from a surveyor that the applicant provide that type of certification, but I’m not sure if you think that’s fair to the applicant or not, and I’m not saying that the Code Enforcement people can’t do this. I don’t know the answer, but Laura is a Staff person and she says she doesn’t, she’s not a Code Enforcement person, my concern is that we approve something with all good intentions that our Code Enforcement Staff does not have the capability to carry out. I don’t know that that’s the case, but that’s my concern. MR. PALING-If there were a failure, then the first thing that would have to be done, I would think, would be to have an engineer go in and verify the depth of the digging and the retention pond. MR. STARK-First of all, they’d have to verify that the, what do you mean if there was a failure, you mean failure of the retention pond? MR. PALING-Yes, if water flowed across the street and did damage. Then the first thing you’d have to do is check and see if the excavation was done in accordance with the print. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be willing to have a surveyor verify the elevations on your completed finished grade of your retention pond? MR. SMITH-I’d like to check the cost of it, but I’d have no problem with bringing zoning out there and I’ll shoot the transit for them and let them measure and see it. I’ve already shot all the elevations and they’re so darn close to what you see right there now, that I can show them and we can shoot it again, and if need be, like if there’s any problem like that, I mean, I can always increase that holding pond, as far as volume, but it’s now more than double what we first required. MR. MAC EWAN-What the Board’s trying to alleviate is you having to come back here again, the neighbor still being upset because he has runoff coming onto his property. What we want to do is advance you on to your modification so that you can going on your project, but also to ensure their safe being down the road and all the other neighbors with having excess runoff coming off your property. MR. SMITH-I will go ahead and I will pay to have a surveyor come in, but I’m going to right now let you know that there will be times that there is going to be runoff and overflow that’s going to go to Mr. Rooney’s yard. I mean, it happens winters. It’s happened for the last number of years in a row, long before I started the property. MR. MAC EWAN-From your property? MR. SMITH-Coming through that culvert. It’s not from my property per se, but coming through that culvert. MR. MAC EWAN-The culvert’s showing me on your drawing it’s coming from your property. MR. SMITH-It comes around through my property. There is runoff. That is correct. There’s, like he mentioned, a stream that used to run through there, and what I’ve done is increased and put a holding area to hold the water from my property, not from the neighbor’s property. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think the point that the Board has to keep in mind is not this applicant or any other applicant’s responsibility to solve the drainage problem from other sources. My understanding of the situation is, and I’m not sure I’m right, but my understanding is that it’s correct that the culvert area comes through the applicant’s property, and ends up, I guess, on the other gentleman’s property, but not all of this water is generated on the applicant’s property, and I think what Rist Frost’s responsibility is to make sure that the water that’s generated on the applicant’s property is no greater than what’s previously generated, and I think what I’m understanding Staff to be telling us is that Rist Frost’s letter says that it’s no greater, but I think Staff is telling us that Rist Frost says that in fact it’s less. MR. VOLLARO-Below pre-development runoff rate. That’s what he says. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I think what the applicant is telling us, and I suspect that he’s right, is that that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be stormwater runoff through his property onto the other gentleman’s property. MR. SMITH-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Because there has been, historically, and there will continue to be. That’s my understanding. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m in agreement with that. Okay. We have a motion up. Does somebody want to make a second to it? MR. PALING-I’ll second. MR. SCHACHNER-I can tell you that Staff and Counsel are uncomfortable with a motion that says that Code Enforcement should “really look at the elevations”. You’re just giving them enough, you know, I don’t know how they can interpret that. MR. MAC EWAN-Pull the motion. MR. STARK-I’ll pull that motion and make another one. To approve site plan no. 38-94, Modification, for Harold & Eleanore Smith, and the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the modification and further finds that there is not significant change to the original SEQRA findings. MR. SCHACHNER-So, just so I can understand it, that’s a motion just to approve as presented, no conditions about survey elevations or anything else, is that correct? MR. STARK-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what’s going to sway me is the way we just re-hashed the Rist-Frost determination of the amount of stormwater that’s on that premises. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SMITH-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLANNO. 53-98 TYPE: UNLISTED CLIFFORD & JEAN GRANT OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 1195 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) 1200 SQ. FT. COUNTRY STYLED “BED & BREAKFAST” BOARDING STRUCTURE FOR CATS WHICH WILL PROVIDE 5’ X 9’ ROOMS, GROOMING AREA, TEMPERATURE AND AIR QUALITY SYSTEM, AS WELL AS SUPERVISED SECURITY AND FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 51-1-21.2 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 CLIFFORD & JEAN GRANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-98, Clifford & Jean Grant, Meeting Date: October 20, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to build and operate a cat boarding business. The Rural Residential Three Acres zoning requires site plan review for an animal husbandry operation. Staff Comments The applicant met with staff prior to submission to discuss any concerns. The applicant has addressed all of the site plan review issues in regards to an allowed use, setbacks of a proposed structure, and neighborhood character. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-No other documentation, right? MRS. MOORE-The County had No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-The County, No Impact. Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. GRANT-Clifford Grant. MRS. GRANT-Jean Grant. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, with a straight face. MR. GRANT-What we are, I should preface this with the fact that we both love animals, have for nine years been involved with the care of animals, more often than not strays, and very often cats, and the events that have evolved over the past few years, with our care of foster animals, cats, in our home, for a humane organization, spawned our interest in perhaps doing this on a larger scale. That has evolved into the plan that you’re now familiar with our desire to erect a 1200 square foot framed country style barn like out building like structure for the care of cats, owned primarily by people who are vacationing, going in the hospital, or have other needs for a temporary lodging of their pets. MR. MAC EWAN-Year round business? MR. GRANT-Year round business, yes. This would fulfill a need, in that it would provide an alternative to feline boarding, currently available for the most part is veterinarian boarding, where cats are placed in cages. It’s a stressful situation for cats, especially if that cage happens to be in the same room where dogs are lodged, as is often the case at a veterinarian’s. We don’t desire to provide competition of that sort of boarding, but to provide an alternative to that sort of boarding. Ours would be something that would be, we think, very desirable, on the part of cat owners, in that each cat would have not a cage, but it’s own room, as you’ve seen, approximately five by nine feet, and we’ve had a lot of fun with developing this plan. The rooms would be patterned after the personalities of all the cats that we’ve owned over the years, and it’s a project with which we’ve both had a good time planning. MR. MAC EWAN-The way the building’s laid out, you would, it’s designed for no more than 10 cats at a time? MR. GRANT-We would be able to, we’ve examined how many cats we could board. There would be 10 rooms. Some cat owners would desire, if they were going away for whatever reason and wanted to board, to have the cats that are brothers and sisters, whatever, to stay together. That’s a common desire. We would be willing to accommodate up to three cats in a given room, if that was the owner’s wish. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re also going to provide grooming services and such like that? MR. GRANT-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any kind of veterinary services offered? MR. GRANT-No. We would not provide veterinary services, except that as the owners of the facility, we’d provide an avenue for that care through a local veterinarian with whom we would develop a tie, as an emergency referral type of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. GRANT-No. We would be willing to answer any questions you may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-It looks very good to me. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question, Kip. On the house itself, it’s going to have a kitchen and a laundry room and so on. How are you going to get rid of the waste water there? Do you have a spot on the drawing that shows a septic? MR. GRANT-We don’t have the location for the septic figured out yet. There will be a septic. Obviously, it’ll be designed in accordance with the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code. We will also have a well, and the separation will be what’s required by the Code. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Which you could determine at the time you submit the plot plan for construction. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. BREWER-What do you serve for breakfast? MR. GRANT-Kibbles and Bits. MR. MAC EWAN-One more question. There’s not going to be any living quarters for humans? MR. GRANT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Nothing else? MR. GRANT-We do have a rendering. I don’t know if you have any, and we just obtained this today. You already have that? Okay. Great, an exterior. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Nice drawings, nice plans. Okay. I guess we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to come up to the microphone and identify yourselves for the record, if you would. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have letters. MR. MAC EWAN-Letters. Fire away. MRS. MOORE-“Dear Members of the Town Planning Board: I am a neighbor Kip & Jean Grant. I’m in favor of their proposed cat boarding facility. They are dedicated friends of animals. Their building would be a unique alternative to customary cat boarding facilities. Our area has a need for such a place. My family has a dog boarding facility and are unable to accommodate cats. Many of our customers who own cats wish a facility such as the one envisioned by the Grants existed. I have no concerns about the facility having any impact on traffic in the neighborhood. I think the Grants have a splendid idea. I hope you give it your approval. Sincerely, Brian Arnold” Addressed to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, “My name is John Shahay, owner of Shahay’s Country Store at the corner of Ridge Rd. and Sunnyside Rd. My reason for this letter is Country Kitty Bed & Breakfast. to express my support for Kip & Jean Grant’s I have known Kip & Jean for several years and know that they are very caring people. I believe that there is a need for this type of facility in our area and given Jean’s background with animals, it is sure to succeed. Sincerely, John A. Shahay” This is addressed to Mr. MacEwan. “As residents of 1213 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) Ridge Road in Queensbury, we are writing in regard to the upcoming site plan review for the neighboring property at 1195 Ridge Road, owned by Jean and Clifford (Kip) Grant, our daughter and son-in-law. Jean and Kip are seeking permission to build a cat boarding facility adjacent to their home. We have seen their proposed plan and feel it will be a positive addition to the Town of Queensbury, providing a unique form of cat care that is not available in our area. Due to the design of the building, we feel there will be no noise pollution and waste can be transported frequently to the nearby Ridge Road Station. Since cat owners generally board their pets for longer periods of time, traffic will have a minimal effect on Ridge Road. We fully support this project to the extent that we deeded the additional 4½ acres needed for this project as a gift to Jean and Kip. Please feel free to contact us should you need further information. Thank you. Sincerely, Kenneth Sheldon Edna H. Sheldon” This is from Glens Falls Animal Hospital “Jean Grant has spoken to me about starting a boarding facility for cats. Jean has been a client here for years and has always taken excellent care of her animals. She has also had much experience with animals and kennels from her managing the Washington Co. SPCA. I think there is a need for such a facility and it should be a good addition to the community. Also, this facility would be just for cats so there will not be a problem with noise or odors. Robert O’Connor DVM” MR. PALING-I’ve got one other question. Is there any other type of, any other facility like this anywhere? This is the first of its kind ever that you know of? MRS. GRANT-Well, in our tri-county area this is the only facility. Sometimes places are featured in a Cat Fancy magazine, it might be in California or down south in Florida, but I’m not aware of something like this in the area. MR. PALING-And they have five by nine rooms, or thereabouts, in these advertisements you’re talking about? MRS. GRANT-Actually, some of them have rooms and others still have larger cages, so cats would still be in cages. MR. PALING-How high is the room, regular height, eight foot? MRS. GRANT-Regular height. MR. BREWER-Do you have chairs in the rooms? MRS. GRANT-Yes. They have cubbies and chairs. MR. BREWER-I’m serious. I know I’ll come home at lunch time and. MR. GRANT-Yes. We’ve thought about that. MR. BREWER-And the cat will be in the chair. MR. GRANT-There’ll be cubbies. There’ll be a little dust ruffle on the bottom of the cubbies, you know how they like to go under a bed and hide, that sort of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Great idea. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll need to do a SEQRA. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 53-98 , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CLIFFORD & JEAN GRANT , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-98 CLIFFORD & JEAN GRANT , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 53-98 - Clifford & Jean Grant for construction of a 1200 sq. ft. country styled “Bed & Breakfast” boarding structure for cats which will provide 5’ x 9’ rooms, grooming area, temperature and air quality system, as well as supervised security and fire detection system; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 9/30/98, consists of the following: 1. Application with sketches, photos, letters from neighbors, map S-1 dated 9/21/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/20/98 - Staff Notes 2. 10/13/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 10/13/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 4. 10/7/98 - Meeting Notice 5. 9/30/98 - Letter from Brian Arnold 6. 9/28/98 - Letter from John Shahay 7. 9/28/98 - Letter from K. & E. Sheldon 8. 9/26/98 - Letter from R. O’Connor Whereas, a public hearing was held on October 20, 1998 concerning the above project; and 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 53-98 for Clifford & Jean Grant. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-All set. Good luck. MR. GRANT-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Will you be playing music for them at all on Saturday mornings, Kip? MR. GRANT-No. We’re going to pipe music in, though. MR. VOLLARO-What I want to know is who’s going to run. MR. STARK-Ten years from now, you’ll have 100 franchises like this all over the Country. MR. MAC EWAN-Kip’s Kitty Hotel’s. I can see you doing your own ads now. MRS. GRANT-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question for Staff, basically aimed toward our legal advisor. We received, in a packet the other day, and it was a Xeroxed copy, it came from New York State, and I think the pamphlet was labeled, New York State Site Plan Review criteria, or something like that. One of the things in there listed things you should ask for in an application, and one of the things that seems to be becoming the trend with this Board is legal data that we’re asking for, specifically they ask in here for a description of all existing deed restrictions or covenants applying to the property. My question is, what can we do, as a Board, to adopt this criteria, make it a standard part of our applications for site plan review, not only this, but everything the State recommends that we have? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is, you can’t do anything as a Board, because you don’t enact the site plan review law. The site plan review law is part of the Town Code, and is adopted by the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a procedural thing then? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You can recommend, certainly, to Staff that they prepare appropriate amendments or recommend to the Town Board that these be adopted, and then they would then become part of the Town Code, and part of our criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll put that little item in the works. Next question I have for Staff. MRS. MOORE-Craig, is your question if the Board can enforce that issue? MR. MAC EWAN-No, if we can ask that that be part of the application procedure. MRS. MOORE-Right now the site plan does require deeds. It doesn’t require the covenants and restrictions, I mean, that being a deed. Is that what your issue is? MR. MAC EWAN-Because I can tell you where it’s going to become, it’s going to become an issue next Tuesday night. MR. BREWER-With what? MR. MAC EWAN-The person who wants to do the beauty salon out of her home over there in Queensbury Forest. MR. BREWER-Yes, but the Town can’t enforce. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a matter of us enforcing it, if it’s making it part of the application, or anything like that part of the application, it gives us a little bit more. MR. BREWER-I know first hand like in our subdivision there’s covenants and restrictions, and unless somebody in that neighborhood makes a complaint, the Town won’t do anything about it. MR. MAC EWAN-However, but, if someone comes in front of us for a site plan approval, and through our process of review, it’s determined that, you know, there’s deed restrictions or whatever, that could help us in making a determination whether it’s a good approval or something to deny. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s a fair statement, and I think the Chairman’s right, and I think he knows that we don’t have the right to enforce it, but I think what he’s saying is it’s just an additional piece of information that could be part of what’s weighed by the Board in deciding whether to grant something or deny it or approve it with some conditions. Is that a fair statement? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-If this hasn’t been past practice, how do we introduce it on any particular application? MR. MAC EWAN-I just asked him that, and we have to have the Town Board amend. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry for interrupting, but I think what Laura’s telling us is that the application currently requires deeds, and if in fact you’re talking about restrictions that are in deeds, then it’s going to show up already in your application materials. MR. BREWER-Okay, but we don’t necessarily ever see the deed. MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t receive the entire application or not? MR. BREWER-Yes, but, personally, when I get a deed, I don’t recall seeing a deed lately. MR. PALING-It’s rare. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. It’s something that’s on the checklist, so I guess what I’m hearing is Staff could certainly be requiring deeds as part of the application because it’s on the checklist. MRS. MOORE-We generally do that in issues of subdivisions, simply because that’s where it comes into play. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Lets start doing it with site plan, too. Can we? Only because, as I said, I’ve noticed a trend of these home businesses starting to come in, and I think as the economic times get a little tougher, you’re going to see a lot more of them start coming in. MR. BREWER-For instance, like in our subdivision, there’s businesses there that are not supposed to be there. MR. MAC EWAN-Several. You’re right. Okay. One more question for you. On my visit up here last week, I asked about finding some information on seasonal water permits on Lake George. MRS. MOORE-No, we haven’t gotten any information yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Why not? MRS. MOORE-I didn’t talk to Chris yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know, Mark, does the State issue seasonal water permits from Lake George for drinking water? MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean by “seasonal water permit”? MR. MAC EWAN-Just what I mean by that. I was told the other day, specifically, that Takundewide, that some of those, I can’t remember how they paraphrased it, it’s either some of those homeowners or the whole homeowners association has a seasonal permit for drinking water, issued from, I imagine it’s the Department of Health. When I asked specifically, what do you mean by a seasonal permit, they said, basically, from spring to fall. So I said if someone was up there in the middle of winter, they couldn’t get drinking water out of the lake because the permit wouldn’t allow them to? And he said, because when they were built, they were built as a seasonal residence, not year round. MR. SCHACHNER-It might be Department of Health. It might be DEC, because DEC is actually an entity that issues water supply permits. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you ever heard of it, though, that issues seasonal ones? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you research that for me? MR. SCHACHNER-Genetically, or? MR. MAC EWAN-I want to know about from Takundewide. I asked her. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, that’s something Staff can look at. I don’t think she’s saying they can’t do it. I think she’s just saying they haven’t done that. MR. MAC EWAN-By Tuesday, please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Right here on the table Tuesday when I come in, please. MRS. MOORE-All right. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So that I can rest my weary mind. Is that it? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/20/98) 28