Loading...
2003-07-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI EXTENSION REQUEST: SP 24-2001 OMNI: APPROVED 7/24/01, EXTENSION TO 7/31/2003 MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 24-2001 OMNI TO JULY 31, 2004, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-This is extending it just to the end of the month, is it? MR. VOLLARO-No, to 2004. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Mine says 2003. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a typo on the agenda. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Grant an extension to 7/31/2004. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just wanted to get that clarified. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 20, 2003: NONE May 22, 2003: NONE June 3, 2003: NONE 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 20, MAY 22, AND JUNE 3, 2003, THND Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1987 PREVIOUS SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED STACIE HOPKINS AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES LOCATION: LOT 2, BROOKFIELD ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION BY ADJUSTING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT LINE 54 +/- FEET TO THE WEST. MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: 52-96 TAX MAP NO. 54-1-35.24 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing because it’s not required. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to do this as expedited review. There’s no really big issues with it that I can see. Has anybody got any comments? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1987 STACIE HOPKINS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 11-1987 Applicant/Property Owner: Stacie Hopkins Previous SEQR Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Type: Unlisted Location: Lot 2, Brookfield Estates Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision by adjusting a previously approved lot line 54 +/- feet to the west. Modifications of previously approved subdivisions require approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SP 52-96 Tax Map No. 54-1-35.24 Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: Not required for modification WHEREAS, the application was received 6/16/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/11/03 and 7/15 Memo to PB from G. Hilton 6/27 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for a modification; and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 5-1999 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION STEVE & DONNA SUTTON ZONE: HC-MOD. LOCATION: 1066 ROUTE 9 APPILCANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FURNITURE STORE COMPLEX. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10 LOT SIZE: 5.96 ACRES STEVE SUTTON, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a public hearing, again, is not necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff notes? MR. HILTON-It’s just as simple as you described it. It’s a simple modification, addition of 1,000 square feet. Staff has no real concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions, comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make an assumption that the new toilet facilities are part of the new addition, I assume they are. Is that correct? MR. SUTTON-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. SUTTON-Steve Sutton. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We knew, but the tape doesn’t know. Any other questions, comments? Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-1999 STEVE & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 5-1999 Applicant/Property Owner: Steve & Donna Sutton Previous SEQR Zone: HC-Mod. MODIFICATION Location: 1066 Route 9 Applicant proposes to construct a 1000 sq. ft. addition to an existing furniture store complex. Modifications to previously approved site plans require approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: Many Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10 Lot size: 5.96 acres Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/16/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/11/03, and 7/15 Memo to PB from G. Hilton 6/27 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Steve. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: FRANCIS PENO AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE CORINTH RD., JUST EAST OF WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 24.71 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 315.00-1-10 LOT SIZE: 24.71 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on June 3 was left open. rd MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The last time we met on this application, the applicant has filed a subdivision plat as well as including a 30 foot wide strip of land be, I guess, joined to the parcel to the east. It’s part of the Hudson Pointe PUD. Staff would just recommend that, prior to the acceptance of a street in this subdivision, that that 30 foot wide strip be accepted into the Hudson Pointe PUD. That would probably, I think it would require a modification to the PUD before the Town Board because this land’s going from an area of SR-1A into PUD. So again, just before the acceptance of the road, and before that’s all taken care of, we’d just suggest that the PUD be modified. Other than that, the plat’s been revised to show landscaping in the boulevard entrance, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing The Michaels Group. As previously discussed at this subdivision, there was the property on the east side bordering Hudson Pointe Homeowners, and three of the, or four of the residential lots in Hudson Pointe. We did provide 30 foot that we’re going to convey to that Homeowner’s Association. We have no problem with the Staff comments on the acceptance of that. The attorney, Jon Lapper, will be working on that, once we know we have approval, and we’ll convey that to the homeowners, modify that PUD, and be done with it. As far as the C.T. Male comments, Tom Nace has been in contact with Jim Houston from C.T. Male, and they’ve all been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I honestly have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything new to add. I did have a question on the C.T. Male comments from July 8. Are the sight distances in conformance with DOT? th MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was really the only question I had. I still have a problem, though, with the length of the dead end street, and the inability to connect this to other streets within the immediate area of the project, and I just don’t feel as though that the applicant has really shown us any effort to try to tie this development into any existing streets or future development. So I do have a problem with the overall scheme. MR. STEVES-In response to that one comment, we had looked at, to the north you can’t tie in to the existing subdivision. The property to the south is too narrow to make the required road radius to connect back out onto Corinth Road, and I don’t think anybody at the Homeowners Association would want a road connecting back to there. So that wasn’t even an option. So we 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) looked at all three avenues of connectors, and we understand your concern, but we did look into that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just thought the way that was deeded over, the buffer area, it was just a great idea. It works great. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The sight distance has been addressed. I had a couple of questions. Has the deed transfer of the property been completed yet? MR. STEVES-As far as which property, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Deeding over to the Homeowners Association. MR. STEVES-Once we have the approval, we will deed that over immediately. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess that leads into my next question. Does the Town Board need to accept the PUD mod before we approve this? MR. HILTON-I would say no. I think before the road is accepted and before there is a final, I don’t know, build out of this site, or before any construction, major construction begins at this site, we’d like to get it modified, since it is becoming part of the PUD, but as far as approval, I think you can condition it, and you don’t have to worry about the Town Board moving at this time. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Fine. That’s my only question. MR. STEVES-Yes. In talking to counsel about it, there’s no problems with that, and one has to come before the other, and once we know we have the approval, then we have that portion to be able to convey off. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. I understand. MS. RADNER-I’m sorry, which counsel were you referring to, your counsel? MR. STEVES-Yes, Jon Lapper. MS. RADNER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, who currently owns the property? MR. STEVES-The Michaels Group. MR. STROUGH-They own it? MR. STEVES-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. The owner is listed as Francis Peno. MR. STEVES-At the time we first applied, I believe since then, they have closed on the property. MR. STROUGH-Okay. It was just confusion, because the owner was listed as Francis Peno and Carol Norton signed the signature page. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. She is the Estate, or POA for the parents. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Most of my concerns have been addressed, and it looks like a good plan. Who’s going to maintain the landscaping on the boulevard median strip? MR. STEVES-The landscaping? The Michaels Group. Just like they have at the other entrances. MR. STROUGH-Well, is that, I didn’t see that, should we condition that the Michaels Group is going to take care of that median strip? MR. NACE-Well, they’ll take care of it until the Homeowners Association takes over the. MR. STROUGH-Because we talked at one time that they may not have a homeowners association. MR. NACE-The last we talked to Dave, they were talking about one of the simple homeowners associations that allows them to do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So a homeowners association is eventually going to take over maintenance of that median strip? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-Once the lots are all sold. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, do we need to condition it that? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so. MR. STROUGH-You don’t think so? MR. MAC EWAN-Surrey Fields, I mean, we did the same thing at Surrey Fields a few years back, and they took care of that, that median and all the landscaping there until all the lots were sold out, and they established the Homeowners Association in there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a copy of 183 with me, but if my memory serves me correct, in the check offs for subdivisions, when a homeowners association is being proposed, one of the check offs is that the Planning Board gets some kind of information on that. I don’t have 183 with me. Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval. If there’s a homeowners association being proposed and that association, information has to be provided in the check off. MR. NACE-I think, Bob, if I may jump in, that was written when homeowners associations were fairly complicated, and they were associated with having to take care of, you know, a substantial chunk of utilities or property or something. Now with these real simple ones, it’s a whole different. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s still in, it probably ought to be removed from our 183 regs, unless my memory serves me incorrectly. There’s a check off in there. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. NACE-It is in there. MR. STEVES-The new CPS 7’s, which. MR. MAC EWAN-Without getting bogged down in all of this, it’s relatively easy, if we so desire to want to approve this project, we can condition approval prior to the plat being signed, that the homeowners association proposal be submitted to Staff for review and acceptance. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that was my only concern. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, we didn’t have a SEQRA submitted. Was it the Short or the Long Form? Do you know? MR. RINGER-Didn’t we do a SEQRA at Preliminary? This is Final. MR. VOLLARO-I think we did. MR. NACE-You didn’t approve Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-We didn’t get through Preliminary. MR. RINGER-It says on the agenda that it’s Final. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got Preliminary and Final on my agenda. MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got different agendas, then. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Do we need to do one or two? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re doing one SEQRA for Preliminary. MR. HILTON-Yes. That was a typo on the original agenda. It just said, I believe, Preliminary, but you are looking at Preliminary and Final, and there is one SEQRA. There’s a Long Form that’s been attached to the application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE MICHAELS GROUP, 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, 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. Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2003 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by: Subdivision No. 5-2003 Applicant: The Michaels Group FINAL STAGE Property Owner: Francis Peno SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: SR-1A Location: South side Corinth Rd., just east of West Mt. Rd. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 24.71 +/- acre lot into 18 residential lots Tax Map No. 315.00-1-10 Lot size: 24.71 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: June 3, 2003 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) WHEREAS, the application was received 6/16/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/11/03 and 7/15 Staff Notes 7/8 C. T. Male Associates engineering comment 6/27 Meeting Notice 6/4 J. Kessler (66 Kettles Way) from J. Michaels: Deed to HOA WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the notation that because it’s in the resolution prepared by Staff that the waiver requests are granted, and 1. No Waiver request(s) were asked for. 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2003 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by: Subdivision No. 5-2003 Applicant: The Michaels Group FINAL STAGE Property Owner: Francis Peno SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: SR-1A Location: South side Corinth Rd., just east of West Mt. Rd. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 24.71 +/- acre lot into 18 residential lots 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) Tax Map No. 315.00-1-10 Lot size: 24.71 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: June 3, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 6/16/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/11/03 and 7/15 Staff Notes 7/8 C. T. Male Associates engineering comment 6/27 Meeting Notice 6/4 J. Kessler (66 Kettles Way) from J. Michaels: Deed to HOA WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following notations: 1. Recreation Fees in the amount of $ 9,000.00 for 18 lots are applicable to this subdivision. 2. No Waiver request(s) were asked for. 3. As a condition of approval, that prior to the acceptance of the proposed Quincy Lane by the Highway Department, that proof that the Hudson Pointe PUD has been modified to include the 30 foot wide strip that is part of this subdivision and that the modification has been accepted by the Town Board. 4. Prior to receiving the final plat signature, a Homeowners Association proposal will be submitted. 5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 3-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED J & D MARINA, LLC ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: WARNER BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD A 96’ X 40’ SHOP AND PARTS BUILDING TO EXISTING SHOWROOM, AND CONVERT EXISTING BUILDING INTO RESTROOMS AND RECREATION ROOM. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING RESTROOMS, SHOWER ROOM, TENT STORAGE AND BLOCK STORAGE BUILDING. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 12-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-25 THRU 29, 227-17-2-1 LOT SIZES: 0.36, 1.01, 0.88, 0.58, 126 X 207, 0.77 ACRES JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing from April 24 was left open, and it will continue th tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-To summarize here. As a follow up to the tabling of April 24, the applicant has th supplied an APA jurisdictional determination indicating a wetlands permit is not required. The applicant’s updated the site plan to include numbers and species of plants to be used, and a C.T. Male sign off has been provided, and just to clarify some comments made previously, as to whether this SUP looks at the entire site or just a portion, it’s intended to recognize the entire site, and bring it in to compliance and have it recognized as a Special Use Permit for the entire marina, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add or update us on, Mr. Matthews, before we start asking questions? MR. MATTHEWS-Not at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions. I also wasn’t at the April meeting when we first reviewed this, but I did review the minutes and everything, but I might reserve some questions later. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-C.T. Male has signed off on this now? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RINGER-I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wasn’t at the April meeting either, but I’ve reviewed the project, and as long as C.T. Male is fine with it, it looks nice to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-I only picked up one thing, and that’s on the drawing of July 7, 2003. Am I looking at the correct stamp on that? I guess that’s the latest one? MR. MATTHEWS-That’s the latest copy, yes. MR. VOLLARO-You have the proposed well sitting there at about 40 feet from a pressurized line coming off the grinder pump, which I guess feeds the D Box going to the septic tank. 136 Code talks about that dimension as being 50 feet. That’s the Chapter 136 of Sewers and Sewer Disposal. That well should be moved back to the 50 foot mark. MR. MATTHEWS-I have no problem with that. I never even scaled that. I just put a location there that would be convenient. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. There’s room to move it back. I just wanted to make sure that it was in conformance with 136. MR. MATTHEWS-No problem. MR. VOLLARO-My next question is, will you be discharging more than 1,000 gallons per day, do you think? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. VOLLARO-So you won’t need a SPDES Permit for this? MR. MATTHEWS-No, way less than that. MR. VOLLARO-Way less than that? That’s an estimate on your, how much have you discharged before, in your sewage disposal, roughly? MR. MATTHEWS-Maybe 600 gallons. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-On a busy day. MR. VOLLARO-On a busy day. Yes, all right. I’m going to reserve some questions after everybody goes through, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about the comments on the resolution for this J & D Marina for the Special Use Permit. So when we’re all done, I’d like to make a comment, if I may. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. As a matter of fact, I was happy with your stormwater management plan, as compared to what it was. I think this works really well, it appears to, and you’re going to be removing that black garage on the east side, right? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And the Quonset hut down by the lake. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the shed is going to be removed, and we’re cleaning the place up a little bit to your parts and showroom, for a shop and parts building. I don’t think that’s going to increase the use. I’ll just make it more convenient for you to, when you have the larger, well, make it more convenient for you to run your operation there. No, everything appears to be pretty much in order, as far as I’m concerned. The only thing I had a question about, and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) maybe this is more to George, is that, in the prepared resolution, they refer to the rental conditions one through six. I just, I didn’t know what those were. If they were here, I missed them. MR. MATTHEWS-I didn’t understand that either. I was going to ask that question. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I saw that, too. George, do you know anything about that? MR. HILTON-Just give me a second here. I’ll run through the resolution. MR. STROUGH-Well, anyhow, that’s all I had, Mr. Chairman, while George is looking that up. That isn’t, you know, going to be a matter that I think, yes or no. It looks like a fine project. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. I, too, was not at the meeting in April. However, I was able to hear the project during the ZBA meeting. So I’m actually up to speed as well, plus the minutes. I have no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comment? MR. HILTON-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-Since the first hearing on this, I addressed to Chairman MacEwan, and it’s listed in the menu of comments. I would like to read into your record of tonight’s meeting the last three paragraphs of that letter. “J & D Marina operations involve the collection and conveyance of raw sewage and wastewater from various sources other than “domestic” use as well as the onsite treatment of and disposal (discharge to groundwater) of various wastewaters. Some of these wastewaters may in fact be generated off-site.” I don’t know to what extent this Marina has entered into agreements with other operators to pump out their holding tanks. “Consideration should be given to having the applicant obtain a permit from the DEC which allows for regulated discharge of wastewater to the ground waters of the State while insuring elimination of pollutants for sources other than “domestic waste water”… “ The 1,000 gallon per day threshold that was talked about previously tonight applies to, as I say, domestic wastewater. It’s the threshold that the public Board of Health is limited to, that is after that threshold, the DEC takes over with the SPDES Permit, but that doesn’t preclude any generator of a potential pollutant, if it’s four gallons a day, from obtaining a SPDES Permit to regulate that discharge. So, we have here a commercial operation that is generating wastewater. They have solvents on the site. They have maintenance work, and these discharges have to be regulated. “This recommendation is based on the fact that the Queensbury Town Code is based on flow rates, concentrations and pollutants which can be expected from a purely residential type use, usually less than 1000 gallons per day. It is not realistic to apply these standards to a commercial facility selling fuel product, servicing internal combustion engines, repairing fiberglass products, etc. which can have a very high, virtually uncontrolled, incidence of short term use. Finally, if the J & D Marina is not already participating in the U.S. Department of Labor’s (OSHA) local emphasis program designed to reduce and eliminate serious safety and health hazards occurring at marinas, they should at least show evidence that the NY State Department of Labor has conducted an on-site consultation visit. Attached is a copy of the OSHA advisory we received in December of last year. We presume all marinas – Class A, Class 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) B or otherwise received this advisory notice. For the record, I want to add that as a commercial facility licensed to do business in the State of New York, all site plans and engineering reports and designs are required to be certified by a professional engineer. Also, the showroom, work shop and toilet facilities must be barrier free and handicap accessible for all of J & D’s employees, tenants, guests, trespassers, as well as owners. Hopefully, the procedural questions involving special use permits for marinas can be resolved such that a uniform and equitable approach will be taken as all marinas are made to comply with the Town Code, Chapter 179.” The wastewater discharge, I can’t tell you how important this becomes. We have, if I may be so crass as to suggested that we have clipped the corners in our designs, wastewater discharge in the Lake George basin. We’ve clipped every corner in the book, and it’s starting to hurt. Now here’s a golden opportunity to identify these discharges and get them under control, as part of your SEQRA review. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just a note that we have received Mr. Salvador’s letter of April 30, in which he just brought up many of the points, and I’ll read it into the record if you’d like. th If not, we can just make reference to it, that it’s in the record. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any additional questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Before I said I was going to make a comment on the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do it when we get to it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other comments, except recognizing what Mr. Salvador had to say about the OSHA situation. I think that’s something that I have never seen as a requirement that this Board observed under OSHA. So, until it becomes something we have to deal with, I don’t know how we’d resolve everything on that. MR. MAC EWAN-We wouldn’t. Nor would we with the Department of Labor either. MR. STROUGH-In addition to that, isn’t that a new septic system? MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And they, you don’t regularly pour solvents and things like that down? MR. MATTHEWS-The solvents are collected by a subcontractor on a regular basis. There’s no discharge of anything other than bathroom waste into the toilet facility. No other commercial facility dumps anything in our facility. MR. STROUGH-It’s a considerable distance from the lake, too. More so than many others that we’ve seen, and the bathrooms are going to, of course, be handicap accessible? MR. MATTHEWS-All the bathrooms that we, that’s the reason for doing this, is everything. MR. STROUGH-Okay, just getting it out on the table. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-I think what Mr. Salvador was alluding to here is not just the J & D Marina. I believe he was alluding to the general application on Lake George itself, and something that this Board probably ought to stick it’s nose into. MR. MATTHEWS-One of my reasons for doing what I’m doing now, before (lost words) I mean, I want to be in compliance. I want to move this up away from the water’s edge. MR. VOLLARO-Everything your doing seems pretty good to me, with the exception of moving that well back 10 feet, I’m happy. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s just a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. SUP 3-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: J & D MARINA, LLC, 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, 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. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, you wanted to talk about conditions? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, on the draft resolution for this Special Use permit, when you get into the Whereas’, starting with, for example, I happened to check two off, but there’s a lot of others. The Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on the environmental and natural resources. MR. MAC EWAN-Which Whereas are you at, the seventh one down? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Seven down, three from the bottom. MR. VOLLARO-Seven, yes. Including the environmental and physical suitability for the site for development, the risk of fire, flood, erosion impacts on such emission of electrical charges, etc., etc. The next one was the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long term economic stability and community character of the Town. All of these Whereas that are in here, and that starts off with, I guess, the second Whereas, all the way down, I’ve only considered, on this application, the validity of the site plan against its previous submission, and then taken a look at whether or not this marina classifies itself or can be classified as a Special Use Permit based on longevity of the Marina’s existence. Those are the two things I looked at, and so I don’t know if I can make an approval of this resolution based on the number of Whereas’s that are in here that I haven’t looked at, or haven’t paid attention to, or don’t understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why were they put in? MR. HILTON-Good question. Having not prepared this resolution, I can’t speak to why they’re in there. To answer the question about the rental conditions, in the final paragraph of the resolution, and this isn’t something that we’ve ever touched on with this application, so I don’t know where that’s coming from. My guess is that maybe it’s either a typo or something left in from another template, but I don’t know. I can’t speak to why these items are in there, other than that maybe possibly it’s a typo or something from a template. I can’t see where we’ve discussed these items at all, previously, you know, during this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Suppose we strike out Whereas paragraph seven and paragraph eight. MR. HILTON-That would be my suggestion is that wherever you feel you want to amend it, feel free. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean the seventh Whereas? MR. MAC EWAN-Paragraph Seven Whereas, yes, and Paragraph Eight Whereas. MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we scratch that last part that deals with rental conditions. I have no idea what it’s talking about. I don’t want to approve something that I don’t know what it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I agree with Mr. Strough on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with him, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t that the document that you developed for another applicant, though, John? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the one we saw on the telephone pole, John. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, Chris, if that’s it or not. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m guessing. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-If that was it, I’d be happy with it, but I don’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Does someone want to move it, then? You’re going to take out Paragraph Seven, Eight, and conditions one and two. Correct? MR. VOLLARO-I think that sounds about right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s fine with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2003 J & D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Special Use Permit SUP 3-2003 Applicant / Owner: J & D Marina, LLC SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: WR-1A Location: Warner Bay Applicant proposes to add a 96’ x 40’ Shop and Parts building to existing showroom, and convert existing building into restrooms and recreation room. Applicant proposes to remove existing restrooms, shower room, tent storage and block storage building APA, CEA Cross Reference: AV 12-2003 Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No.: 240.5-1-25 thru 29, 227.17-2-1 Lot sizes: 0.36, 1.01, 0.88, 0.58, 126 x 207, 0.77 acres Public Hearing: April 24, 2003 July 15, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on March 17, 2003; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/11/03, and 7/15 Memo to PB from GH 7/9 New Maps: 3 of 3 7/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/27 Meeting Notice 6/2 Map (Plan No. 101501, pg. 1 of 3) dated 5/2/03 5/20 J. Matthews from R. Quinn, Determination Project Administrator, APA: Jurisdictional Determination 5/14 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments – Sign-off 4/30 C. MacEwan from J. Salvador 4/24 Planning Board resolution: Tabled 4/24 Staff Notes w/4/17 C. T. Male Associates eng. comments, 4/9 letter from J. Connolly of APA, 4/9/03 Warren Co. PB recommendation, 3/24/03 LGPC: previous documentation, and draft resolution 4/21 Fax to J. Matthews, Staff Notes 4/17 Notice of Public Hearing 4/17 Returned 500’ notice: K. Hausler 4/17 PB from S. & C. Schonwetter 4/14 FOIL request: C. Navitsky 4/9 Warren Co. PB resolution: NCI 4/9 C. MacEwan from J. Connolly of APA 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) 3/24 LGPC: previous documentation WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/24/03 and 7/15/03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Special Use Permit requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the CLUP and this chapter and its effects on the health, welfare and safety of the Town and its residents, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on infrastructure and services, including utilities, public facilities and services, including the extent to which the project extends or provides infrastructure and services to areas in need of such infrastructure and services, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the environmental and physical suitability of the site for development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and impacts such as emissions of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long term economic stability and community character of the Town and surrounding properties, districts and uses, and, WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following corrections to that resolution: 1. That I guess it’s the seventh and eighth Whereas’ be struck and deleted from this resolution. 2. In the conditions, there is a condition that the applicant will prepare a document hereafter referred to as rental conditions, have that stricken as well, and the applicant will maintain a record of signed copies of the agreement with each renter should also be stricken from this resolution. 3. On drawing dated July 7, 2003, there is a notation of a proposed well. That well should be moved to be separated from the pressurized line to a distance of 50 feet. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Matthews. Good luck. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 4-2003 RECOMMENDATION SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED OREST & MARICA BOYCHUK AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT ZONE: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, LAND CONSERVATION-10 PROPOSED ZONE: HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE [HC-INC.] LOCATION: 63 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE AN 18 +/- ACRE PROPERTY FROM LI TO HC-INT. THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE TOWN BOARD FOR COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE TB REFERRAL: 6/16/03, RES. 294, 2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-18, 303.6-1-4 LOT SIZE: 1.31 AC., 21.31 AC. SECTION: 179-15-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; AL BOYCHUK, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there isn’t a public hearing for a recommendation only. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone, PZ 4-2003, Orest & Marica Boychuk, Meeting Date: July 15, 2003 “APPLICATION: PZ 4-2003 – Orest & Marica Boychuk LOCATION: North side of Quaker Road, east of Ridge Road CURRENT ZONE: LI, Light Industry; LC-10A, Land Conservation 10 Acre PROPOSED ZONE: HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive PROJECT AREA: The project area is approximately 20.3 acres in size AFFECTED TAX PARCELS: 303.5-1-18, 303.6-1-4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 20.3 acres of land to HC-Int. It is unclear whether the applicant proposes to rezone only those areas of the property currently zoned LI, or the entire parcel including the areas surrounding NYSDEC wetlands zoned LC-10A. RESPONSE TO APPLICATION CRITERIA: 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant has stated that the property will be able to be used in a manner consistent with neighboring properties. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The applicant has stated that the HC-Int zone will meet the stated need. Other zones such as HC-Mod or NC-1A would also allow for commercial development of this property and could act as a transition or buffer from the residential uses and environmentally sensitive areas (NYSDEC wetlands) to the north and east, to the lands zoned for higher intensity commercial activity to the south and east of this site. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Staff has attached an area zoning map, which shows adjacent zones. Areas immediately to the south are zoned LI, Light Industry; areas immediately to the north and east of this site have a mix of SFR-1A, Single Family Residential One Acre and LC-10A, Land Conservation Ten Acre zoning. Properties immediately to the west are a mix of NC-1A, Neighborhood Commercial One Acre and HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. Areas zoned HC-Int exist along Quaker Rd. to the west and southeast of this property along Quaker Rd. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The subject property is fairly level and is contains areas of mature trees throughout the property. A stream flows through the center of the property from the south to the north into adjacent properties to the north. A review of the most recent NYSDEC wetlands map, as well as a review of the Town’s GIS, indicate two areas of mapped NYSDEC wetlands in the center and eastern portions of the property. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The subject property is currently within a municipal sanitary sewer and water district. Adequate fire protection and emergency response facilities exist to serve this property 6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? The areas of the property that are currently zoned LC-10A appear to have been designated as LC-10A in order to correspond with the areas of NYSDEC wetlands in the center and eastern portions of the property. Areas currently zoned LI have similar zoning as the properties to the south of Quaker Rd. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Any discussion concerning potential environmental impacts should consider any impacts from all of the uses in the zone the applicant is requesting (HC-Int). The applicant has submitted a Long EAF with the petition for zone change application. Although no formal development proposal has been submitted, the applicant’s EAF contains data indicating number of vehicle trips, proposed water usage, estimated solid waste to be generated, as well as economic impacts (number of jobs to be created). Is there a use that the applicant is currently considering that provided the basis for the detailed figures contained in the EAF? 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? Development of this property as a shopping area would promote economic growth as cited in S3.1 of Section 2 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. However, any rezoning or future development of this property should seek to preserve and protect the areas of NYSDEC wetlands at this location (which are a larger part of the Big Cedar Swamp) as discussed in other areas of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? Development of this property could have a positive economic impact by creating additional jobs and add to the economic base of the community. However, the loss of undeveloped Light Industrial land should also be taken into account while considering the applicant’s request. Notes/Concerns: 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) The applicant should clarify if the areas of this property currently zoned LC-10A are also part of the rezoning to HC-Int. The rezoning as proposed would result in “islands” of LI zoned land on the properties to the north and east of this site. A review of the hard copy Town of Queensbury Zoning Maps indicate that areas of this site zoned LC-10A were designated as such in order to correspond and most likely protect the environmentally sensitive wetland areas of this site including the wetland area in the center of the property shown on the applicant’s Surrounding Land Use Map (S-1), as well as the NYSDEC wetlands located on the eastern portion of the property that are not currently shown on the applicant’s plans. Staff has concerns over the development potential of this property considering the amount of land that contains NYSDEC wetlands or is within the 100 ft. adjacent NYSDEC regulatory area of these wetlands. The applicant has stated that HC-Int zoning will satisfy their stated need of developing the property. As previously mentioned, rezoning to HC-Mod or NC-1A would allow for commercial development for this property and could act as more of a transition from the residential land uses to the north as well as the wetlands to the north and east of this property. A less intense commercial zone would allow most of the commercial development allowed in the HC-Int zone, however uses such as auto body repair and automotive service, which could have more of a negative impact on the adjacent wetlands, would not be permitted. Any consideration of the applicant’s request should also take into account the proposed loss of industrially zoned lands that this proposal would have on the Town’s goals of economic development and industrial job creation.” MR. MAC EWAN-George, it’s noted in our agenda we’re supposed to do a SEQRA for this? Not on a recommendation, right? MR. HILTON-It’s a recommendation. It’s an Unlisted Action. MR. MAC EWAN-We wouldn’t do the SEQRA. The Town Board would do the SEQRA. MR. HILTON-The Town Board, I believe, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Al Boychuk. To start with, the reason why this Board isn’t doing the SEQRA review is because there’s no project proposed. Al and Marica have been trying to market this property for most of the ten years that they’ve owned it. Bob Sears has had it listed for over five years, unsuccessfully zoned Light Industrial. The property is in the main commercial corridor of the Town on Quaker Road. Rick’s Bike Shop is on one side and Garvey Volkswagen on the other side. So it seems to us that just making it the same zone as those zoned Highway Commercial Intensive as most of that corridor is zoned is appropriate. We do, of course, note that there’s the wetland to the north and the wetland in the center, and that would be protected under the wetland laws in the Town, both 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) State, Federal, and the Town Freshwater Wetland Regulations. So that can’t be developed, and there would have to be 100 foot buffer around that, but what we see here is the potential to do a development that would be appropriate for the corridor, and they’ve been completely unsuccessful in doing anything under the present zone. We had first approached the Town Board with the suggestion two years ago, right before the Town wide re-zoning was done, and we came in too late, because the subcommittee had already made the recommendations, had their last meetings. The Town Board was very supportive at that time, but procedurally we missed the opportunity. So we came in now, and the Town Board was equally supportive when we were there at a workshop about a month ago when we presented it. Obviously, any conditions that this Board thought would be appropriate would be acceptable, but we just see this as sort of an island of Light Industrial in the Commercial corridor, and they’d like to do something with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-You have no prospects for this now? You just decided, you’d tried to sell it and had no success in Light Industrial, and no one’s approached you, no? I just want to be sure, and I wanted to hear it from you. MR. BOYCHUK-No, no one has approached us as far as industrial, light industrial usage. MR. LAPPER-And no one’s approached you commercially. MR. BOYCHUK-Commercially, no. MR. LAPPER-You wish somebody had. MR. BOYCHUK-Well, I wish. MR. RINGER-Well, I just wanted to hear it from you. I agree that the property should be Highway Commercial and it does fit into the Comprehensive Land Use that. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-We’ve had a number of people approach us for commercial use. MR. LAPPER-Over the years. MR. SEARS-Over the years. MR. BOYCHUK-Over the years, yes. MR. SEARS-Nothing recently. MR. BOYCHUK-Nothing recently, no. MR. SEARS-Just for the record, my name’s Bob Sears. I’m the realtor representing the property. We’ve had a number of people approach us for a Highway Commercial use. I’ve had nobody approach us for a Light Industrial use for the property. MR. LAPPER-That’s not even in the last two years. Right? MR. SEARS-In the last year we have, but, you know, it happens every once in a while, someone calls on a sign. MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob, what I was trying to get at, and Jon, was to make sure that you don’t have a tenant in mind right now. I just wanted to hear it from you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. SEARS-No. MR. RINGER-Like I said, I agree that Highway Commercial is what this should be on Quaker Road. MR. SEARS-Right. There is no one out there right now. MR. BOYCHUK-There are no users at present. MR. LAPPER-You’ve had a sign up for about five years. MR. BOYCHUK-More. MR. SEARS-At least five. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything other than that, Craig. MR. HILTON-That was one of our comments, too. I mean, in looking at the SEQRA form, I saw some pretty detailed information about discharge and site specific, or project specific items, and I just wanted to, had to clarify whether or not there was a user. MR. LAPPER-That’s procedural as well, because under the Town regulations now, a Long Form is required for any re-zoning application. So we had to hire Tom Nace to do a SEQRA Long Form, and estimate, just based upon Highway Commercial what the use would be. So there is specific use, but it’s only a guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree that the zoning should be changed. Did I read correctly, it wasn’t done when we did the overall because it was almost ready to go to print or something and everything had been decided upon, and then they kind of overlooked this? MR. HILTON-I think that, you know, that’s somewhere along the trail. I don’t know. I wasn’t there at the time, but I think that there was some consideration, and then they were too far into it. MR. STROUGH-Well, one of the things that was thought about at the time was Albany Engineering is right, where it used to be called Albany Engineering. I think it’s called AES now, we thought that maybe they might expand across the road. So this might, you know, lend them some expansion room if it was zoned Light Industrial. I know that’s one of the ideas that was being developed. Maybe it may be one of the reasons why it was zoned Light Industrial. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I had some notes. I think Mr. Lapper’s addressed one of them. I had the plot, the 100 foot setbacks from the known DEC flagged wetlands on the 3.8 and the 14.6 acres, so that we know that that was out of the picture, but that would automatically be done, I had explained the fact, appearing in the Long Form EAF, see my red circles, I guess these were all worst case scenarios. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The last question I had was on the drawing itself. On Note Number Three, on that drawing, it says that other wetlands may exist on the property that were not flagged. Does anybody know about that? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. LAPPER-I can explain that. What’s on here are DEC wetlands, and this note just means that there could be Army Corps wetlands in addition, but before there’s a project, you know, there’s no disturbance. We haven’t gone out yet and flagged the Army Corps wetlands. MR. HILTON-If you look, Bob, at the GIS map we attached, it shows the center portion of the property, DEC wetlands, and then on the eastern portion as well, there are some mapped DEC wetlands. So that’s what we have on file. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you don’t have any Army Corps on file. MR. HILTON-None that we are aware of. MR. LAPPER-That’s just a disclaimer for VanDusen and Steves. MR. VOLLARO-When I looked at the differences between Light Industrial and the Intensive zone for Highway Commercial, a couple of things caught my eye, in the differences of those two zones, and I guess most of those are in the automotive area, and being that you’ve got a fairly sensitive area here, in the middle anyway, I’m just wondering about the application of automotive repair business, and suppose somebody approached us for, approached Mr. Boychuk for that kind of activity. That’s something that would concern me a little in that environmentally sensitive center. MR. LAPPER-Well, he’s hoping, frankly, for a more exciting use than an automotive use. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. LAPPER-Which is a sort of a, you know, 3,000 square foot use. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I did the same thing. I looked at the worst case scenario in that whole block of uses, and the automotive use jumped out at me. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but even in terms of that, recently we had the application for Warren Tire on Lafayette, and then they came back with their second one, and the way everything’s done these days, as one of the last applicants said where you have the service come and collect the waste oil and everything, I mean, they’re so heavily regulated by DEC, it’s not like it used to be where people would change their oil and dump the stuff out back. So I would argue that even that can be done the right way, if it, you know, not right next to a wetland buffer, but in reasonable proximity, as long as it was planned right, and I know this Board would make sure that it was planned right, but that’s certainly not his intention that this would be some small automotive repair. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there really isn’t anything in sight, in terms of a potential for this buyer. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. After considering the various types of zonings, etc., neighborhood commercial, highway moderate, I think Highway Commercial Intensive would be more consistent with what we do see along the Quaker Road in that area. Should AES or somebody else want to come and expand over there, I’m sure we wouldn’t have any problem changing it back to Light Industrial. MR. LAPPER-Al would love it. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-But the thing that does concern me it its adjacency to the Big Cedar Swamp, which is, you know, a natural preserve area. Now, let me see if this is clear. Are you requesting that even the Land Conservation 10 acre be changed to Highway Commercial Intensive? MR. LAPPER-I thought about it, after reading the Staff notes, and on one level we could go either way, but I guess it would be better for the applicant to have the whole thing re-zoned so that if there was some edge of a driveway or we had to cut the edge of a wetland and move it somewhere else, which you can do with a Freshwater Wetland permit to do it, you know, a two to one mitigation of an impact, it would be better, because we don’t have a use. So we don’t really know what’s going to be here, that if the whole thing was Light Industrial, excuse me, was Highway Commercial, anything with Freshwater Wetlands would now come before this Board as well as DEC and Army Corps. So it would just be better for planning, rather than to say, if we leave the wetland area Land Conservation, and then had to come back for a re-zoning of a tenth of an acre or something just to make some project fit, we’re not going to be able to impact the wetlands. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we don’t have a site plan. If we had a site plan, I might be more inclined to do so, but, you know, our directions are any re-zoning must preserve and protect New York State DEC wetlands. Okay. MR. LAPPER-We agree. MR. STROUGH-So I would not be in favor of re-zoning the LC-10, but I would be in favor of re- zoning what’s labeled as Light Industrial to Highway Commercial Intensive. Just those parts. I would not be in favor of re-zoning what is Land Conservation 10 Acres to Highway Commercial Intensive. MR. LAPPER-The applicant is fine with that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The applicant is fine with that suggestion if that’s what the Board wants to do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t think that was in the offering anyways. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I just wanted to make it clear. It seems like everyone’s on the same page here. MR. LAPPER-No problem. MR. STROUGH-The only other question I think it probably more for George. Did you do this map, George? I didn’t quite understand what you meant by the 500 foot buffer. MR. HILTON-Just a standard buffer when we deal with any kind of notification for site plans and. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. MR. HILTON-Just to give you a sense of 500 feet. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay. Like I said, I would be in favor of re-zoning only the Light Industrial portions to Highway Commercial Intensive. For consistency and for protection. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-How does that affect the overall drawing? I’m trying to understand. There’s 14.6 acres and there’s 3.8. The rest is wetlands, and those 3.8 and those 14.6 will be reduced by the 100 foot buffer around each side? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Six acres of that is wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Bob, this map pretty well depicts the two Light Industrial pieces on the side with the Land Conservation in the middle. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that conservation easement is basically the wetlands in the center. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. So we’re staying away from them anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’re going to put 100 foot around that. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had when I first looked at this is the cuts that come through your lot, the Niagara Mohawk right of way, are actually owned by Niagara Mohawk, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So in order to develop the western piece. MR. LAPPER-We would need some rights from NiMo. MR. HUNSINGER-You would need some rights from NiMo. MR. LAPPER-But I would point to like the Lowe’s project, a lot of the stuff on Quaker Road has the NiMo, it’s not an easement, but the right of way in front, and they’re fairly flexible, it takes a while, but with negotiating rights. We did that with for the Staples. We had to get a license to have the pavement out along the side of the Staples building, was under the NiMo or next to the NiMo poles, so that they would get a fire access. So that’s usually something you can negotiate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. My experience has been if they have an easement, they’re more likely to grant you permission to travel or put things underneath the lines, but if they actually own the property, as they do in this case, it’s a little more difficult. MR. LAPPER-I agree, it’s a lot simpler, but we did, for Staples, it was a major transmission line, and they did own it, but their, what we needed wasn’t directly under the lines. They’ll let you cross the lines, but they won’t give you any other rights under the lines. Here we would probably just need a crossing. MR. HUNSINGER-You just need a crossing. MR. LAPPER-And maybe grading and maybe landscaping, just to clean it up. MR. HUNSINGER-The main reason why I brought it up is if we don’t re-zone, well, let me just back up a second. I also think it would be consistent with the existing uses on Quaker Road to zone this Highway Commercial Intensive. If we don’t consider the Land Conservation area, then you’re essentially land locking your western part of the property, unless you can get an easement from Niagara Mohawk to travel their property and access it. MR. LAPPER-I’m comfortable we will be able to get that easement. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question here. I have been trying to superimpose the two maps here, Jon, and Mr. Boychuk, and I guess the part that I’m a little bit confused about is this part here. I mean, if this is Garvey’s, which was the Highway Commercial Intensive right here, what is this part? And I’m trying to match it up with the. MR. LAPPER-That’s not Garvey’s. That’s just the zone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, this is Garvey’s down here, right? Or is this Garvey’s? MR. LAPPER-That’s Garvey’s right there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Okay. Because that kind of confused me right there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is confusing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. BOYCHUK-It’s in the lighter pink. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I see it on the big map, but I was a little confused. MR. BOYCHUK-Right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s Garvey’s. MR. BOYCHUK-That’s Garvey’s. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. Gotcha you. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-John, you had something? MR. STROUGH-Just that, you know, it’s entirely possible you could access that other piece through Rick’s bicycles, too, if you could work out an agreement with them. MR. BOYCHUK-There is. MR. LAPPER-There’s an easement? MR. BOYCHUK-There is an easement. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BOYCHUK-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Just as another possibility. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HILTON-The only thing I would add is that whether you’re considering re-zoning the entire piece or your recommendation would be to just re-zone the Light Industrial area and leave the two Land Conservation areas as is, some kind of recommendation as to how the Town Board should deal with the two islands of Light Industrial that are going to be created as a result of this should be addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lapper said he’s pretty comfortable that he can work out some sort of easement arrangement with Niagara Mohawk to access the property. MR. HILTON-No, no, no. The property to the north and the property to the east, if you look at those, they have small portions of Light Industrially zoned land on there. If you take this land that’s Light Industrial on this property and turn it to Highway Commercial, or if the Town Board were to do that, those two pieces to the east and north, off of this site, off this property, would just be islands of Light Industrial, and I know that doesn’t concern this application, but you might want to consider somehow having the Town Board address that, I mean, because you’re going to have just two islands of Light Industrial sitting out there. MR. STROUGH-There’s nothing labeled on here. MR. LAPPER-John, see at the very top of that, the very interesting looking line. MR. HILTON-Yes, off the site, to the north and to the east. MR. LAPPER-So George is right. MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, you’re just going to have these two Light Industrial areas sitting in a wetland, basically, just sitting there. MR. STROUGH-Well, wouldn’t that go to LC-10A, because that’s what it’s surrounded by? MR. HILTON-I don’t think that’s part of this application, unless the Town Board chooses to. MR. STROUGH-That’s somebody else’s property, too. MR. HILTON-No, absolutely, but I’m just saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how do we address it, then. MR. HILTON-You may want to consider some kind of recommendation to the Town Board as to what they should do or what you think they should do. MR. LAPPER-I assume that’s part of the Earl Town property, whatever that’s in now. MR. HUNSINGER-If the balance of those parcels are Land Conservation 10 Acres, it would only logically make sense to me that we would recommend to the Town Board that they be changed to Land Conservation as well. MR. HILTON-Well, you don’t have to make a recommendation. I’m just bringing it to your attention. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think it’s a point well taken. Really, I do. MR. STROUGH-I don’t have enough information, as a Planning Board member, before me right now, with the maps I’ve got before me, and I even looked up the maps on line, and they’re about the same as this, I don’t know what that property is. I don’t know what the soil type is. I don’t know if it’s better than the Big Cedar Swamp. I don’t know anything about it. I’ll let the Town Board worry about that. Personally, that’s the way I feel. Because I don’t think we have enough information to assess. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. STROUGH-I mean, I respect George. I think it’s a great recommendation. It’s something that we should think about, but I don’t think we have the information in front of us to think about that right now. MR. RINGER-We had this come up once before with a re-zoning request on Everts Avenue, and when the Town sent out the notices within 500 feet, the owners of the property on Everts Avenue came out and requested that they be included in that, and so this may be the case, too, when they send out a notice, the owners of that property may be interested in it at that time, and make application. MR. STROUGH-It depends a lot on, you know, what are the geographic characteristics of those properties. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, let‘s move on what we’ve got here. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you want me to make a recommendation? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MOTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR REQUEST BY O & M BOYCHUK FOR RE-ZONING OF THEIR PROPERTIES, 305.5-1-18, 303.6-1-4 FROM LI-1A TO HC-INT. AS A PROPER THING TO DO, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: However, I think that we want to note, as a Planning Board, and we’ve discussed this with the applicant, that those parts of the owner’s parcel which are currently listed as Land Conservation 10 Acre remain Land Conservation 10 Acre, and, just as a further note to the Town Board, the Town Board should try and consider what type of zoning is most appropriate for the properties north and east of Mr. Boychuk’s that are currently in the Light Industrial zone. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and it’s always nice to be done at eight o’clock. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES AGENT: SCHODER RIVER ASSOCIATES ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 51 BIRCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH RECONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 44-89, AV 6-03, BOH 6-03 TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-29 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-060 CARL SCHODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-2003, Kenneth & Leigh Searles, Meeting Date: July 15, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 35-2003 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) APPLICANT: Kenneth & Leigh Searles are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new single family home, reconstruct a retaining wall along Glen Lake, and remove vegetation within 35 ft. of a shoreline. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 51 Birch Rd. on Glen Lake. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: Recent approvals include AV 6-2003 (resolved on 1/22/03) for side yard and shoreline setback relief and Town of Queensbury Board of Health resolution 6-2003 (resolved 1/27/03) allowing a sewage pump pit and septic tank to be located 34 ft. from the shoreline of Glen Lake. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and construct a new 2099 sq. ft. home. The plans also call for the reconstruction of a stone patio within 50 ft. of the shoreline, reconstruction of a stone retaining wall within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and the removal of a single pine tree within 35 ft. of the shoreline. The Glen Lake CEA, which extends 100 ft. horizontally from the shoreline of Glen Lake, covers a portion of this property. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan appears to indicate that the new home construction is planned for the same footprint as the existing home. As part of the site plan, a stormwater infiltrator will be constructed on the western side of the property. As the applicant proposes to remove and reconstruct an existing patio within 50 ft. of the shoreline, consideration should be given to including a stormwater management infiltrator on the east side of the property (possibly in front of or under the flagstone patio) to handle stormwater flowing off of the home and from the reconstructed patio.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant, the plans submitted propose the construction of a 2,099 square foot home essentially on the same footprint as an existing home. As part of the plan, a stormwater infiltrator is located on the west side of the property and Staff would recommend something similar on the east side, possibly in front or under the flagstone patio to handle stormwater, and that’s all we really have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SCHODER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. SCHODER-I am Carl Schoder from Schoder Rivers Associates, as agents for the applicant. I might also like to add that it’s nice to be able to get on by eight o’clock in the evening. MR. MAC EWAN-We aim to please. The floor is yours. MR. SCHODER-Thank you. I have with me Curt Dybas, who’s the project architect, in case there are any questions that come up relative to the building. Basically, I’d like to review this project quickly. It’s been through several stages of review with the Town. Generally the project purpose is threefold. Firstly, the existing residence is a rather dated structure, dated both in appearance and also in its structural condition. It has some difficulties as far as foundations heaving and foundations settling, frost action below them. The footings are not below frost currently. There’s a fairly extensive amount of deterioration on the first floor of the structure. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) The sills are rotted out, that sort of thing. This has prompted the owner to want to consider replacing the house, and putting it back in as a structure that’s very similar to what it is now, on its existing footprint. The second general purpose on this project is to stabilize the site. There are existing retaining walls relatively steep contouring behind the building that are stone walls that have been failing over the years, and what is intended there is to replace that with a new set of masonry retaining walls that would be able to adequately resist those lateral loads. A third purpose of the job is to construct a new septic system and to remove the existing disposal system or treatment system, which is very near the lake, and again, very dated. We are not sure exactly what’s in there, but probably the usual 55 gallon drum with holes in it, and bring it away from the lake to a point where we have 100 foot separation, by way of pumping up to a new disposal field that’s located on top of the hill behind the retaining walls. An Area Variance was necessary for this project for two purposes. The first being a shoreline setback. The existing project, or, I’m sorry, the existing structure, was a non-compliant, non-conforming structure. The proposed structure, from the point of view of shoreline setback, will be at approximately the same location, no closer. If anything a tenth of a foot or more further away from the lake, but nominally the same location. Similarly, the side line setback was not in conformance for the existing structure, and that required a variance. Said variances were granted. It’s Number 6-2003. Second set of variances was required with regard to sewage system disposal system. The reason for that was that the septic tank needed to be located adjacent to the site, obviously, by way of gravity, near the site, or near the building, which put it approximately 34 feet from the lake, as opposed to the 50 feet which would normally be required. That variance was also granted by the Board of Health as Variance No. 6-2003. The reason we’re in front of you folks this evening is site plan review, as we understand it from discussing this with Mr. Brown, is triggered due to some work that will have to be accomplished within 50 feet of the shoreline of Glen Lake. Specifically, that work would include the reconstruction of a piece of retaining wall, masonry retaining wall which is currently failing along the western half of that frontage on the lake, and the reconstruction of the remaining piece of retaining wall on the eastern portion of the site by way of removing the cap of the wall, replacing that cap, and then reconstructing a patio which is badly heaved and settling immediately behind it. Again, it’s not new structures, it’s replacement structures, if you will, that will go back in in exactly the same location to the same height, to the same appearance as what’s there currently. The other purpose for review, as we understand it, is the removal of some vegetation, specifically one 36 inch diameter pine tree on the western side of the site, which is the proximate cause for the failure of that wall. The roots from that pine tree have pushed that wall over. It’s currently leaning about six to eight inches, and it is not what I would consider a stable wall. So, okay, the project includes the replacement of that western wall with the construction of a new one. It also includes the reconstruction of that patio, as I noted. We would anticipate, by way of a review comment received from C.T. Male, that we would take the runoff on the existing patio, which again would be no larger than before, and direct that to some new stormwater infiltration, which we’re also proposing. I might note that the impermeable area on this site pre and post development is the same. There is no increase, no net increase in permeable area, no net increase in runoff. However, we had considered it advisable to be able to collect runoff from the site to the extent that we could, it’s a very space limited site, and to direct the (lost words) infiltrators which will be located immediately behind that western portion of wall. We feel that this project is beneficial both to the applicant and to the community on several fronts. First off, it enhances the site appearance. Currently it’s a quite old and rundown looking building. The walls, as I noted before, the retaining walls that are behind the building are in the process of failing, and the process of tipping over and are not very attractive and of course all of that would be mitigated. Secondly, as I noted, the disposal system, as part of this project, we’re getting a new disposal system that’s going to get 100 feet away from the lake as opposed to right up to the lake, and thirdly the stability that both the walls along the shoreline, in replacing those structures with new and adequate structure, and the new walls behind the building, which are away from the shoreline, both would tend to prevent any potential erosion, any potential damage to the lake if said walls would fail in the future. So that, in a nutshell, is what the project is. The house, again, is a structure that complies with the FAR. As a matter of fact, Curt, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the existing house did not quite comply with the FAR. The new structure we’ve shrunk down somewhat such that the Floor Area Ratio is in compliance. The height of the existing structure 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) and the final structure will be the same. The general characteristics of the building, the general appearance of the building, will be very much like the existing building, with a porch in the front and two story building again within the footprint. That’s about all I can say about it. I’d appreciate any questions or comments. MR. RINGER-Did you talk to C.T. Male yet, on their comments? MR. SCHODER-What I did was I sent a letter in response, which I trust is in your packet, to Craig Brown. I spoke with Craig this morning. He said that he had sent that information on to C.T. Male. I do not know if C.T. Male has or has not responded. However, I could, and I’d be glad to go over that letter and our responses to both Staff and C.T. Male’s comments if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you had any comment back from C.T. Male as far as correspondence? MR. SCHODER-After that fact? No. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. We won’t move on this thing tonight with any kind of determination until we get some comment back from C.T. Male on this project. MR. HILTON-We received a letter today, July 15, from Schoder Rivers Associates. We have th not seen anything from C.T. Male. We did not distribute the letter to the Board, as it’s the policy to not have items put on your desk the night of the meeting. However, the letter from Schoder Rivers is in the file if you or any other Board member would like to see it. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, basically at this point his correspondence should be with C.T. Male and address those issues and let them work out their differences that they may or may not have on this application. Once we get a signoff or additional comments from C.T. Male, we can move forward with it at that point. With that, we’ll start with Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d rather, right now I’d like to just listen to everybody. I, unfortunately, didn’t get a chance to visit the site, and that’s not like me. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just go down my notes. I have a comment on the C.T. Male letter as well. Now, in the Town Board of Health resolution of 6-2003, dated January 27, 2003, they talked about the fourth alarm flow switch. That was to shut off potable water in the event that the septic pump failed or overflowed. MR. SCHODER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I didn’t see that in the drawings, or referenced anywhere in the design. If you want, I can tell you what the Town Board resolution said. I took it with me. MR. SCHODER-I actually have it right here. MR. VOLLARO-And I was looking for that in the final design of this. I’ll just read it over to you. This is resolution from the Town Board, now, Board of Health dated, resolution 6-2003. It was introduced by Theodore Turner, and seconded by Roger Boor. At the end it has “RESOLVED, this resolution is contingent upon the addition to the plans of a fourth alarm flow switch which will shut off potable water if the effluent reaches a level that would discharge from the pit”, and I was looking for that in the design, and I didn’t see it. MR. SCHODER-I believe, may I respond to that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. SCHODER-I believe that that may be an omission on my part. I would stipulate that that alarm switch will be absolutely be added to the drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the first question I had. The other question, kind of interesting, looking at the Floor Area Ratio, it’s incredible that you’re under the Floor Area Ratio by only four feet. I don’t know if you can build to those kind of tolerances these days. Maybe you can, but it’s pretty close, and the permeability is exactly at the limit. So, you know, I started off reviewing this, and I made a comment in my notes, right up front, and I’ll read it to you. It says, this is a classic two pounds in a one pound bag. This is .235 acres in a one acre zoning. Really tough to put a building and structures and improvements on a lot of that size. You’ve got the permeability is exactly 65%, right on the money. Let me ask just one other question. How is the well used? I know you’re using lake water, I assume. MR. SCHODER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-But there’s a well on this site, according to the drawing, the approximate location of the well is 60 feet separation. MR. SCHODER-That is the adjoiner’s well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHODER-That’s not on this site. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not on the site. MR. SCHODER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHODER-That approximate location of wells on an adjoining lot owned by Sanborn, it’s actually within the house, below the house. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s nothing on that, you know, there’s cases in these areas where people tend to use or share wells or whatever and I’m just making sure that that well is isolated from here, because it’s not shown on the drawing. MR. SCHODER-No, the purpose of the location of that well, to show that well on this drawing, was the separation to the septic systems, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I guess in the resolution from the ZBA, there’s an interesting note, that they said that there is a right of way dispute mentioned in the ZBA motion. Is that still on the table? MR. SCHODER-No, that has been settled. As a matter of fact, in your package is the updated description that, well, it’s one copy in the deed. It may not very well have been copied to the Board. I’m not sure if you received the deed copy. MR. VOLLARO-I have not received that. MR. SCHODER-But we had submitted that. That has been resolved, and the deed has been amended appropriately. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHODER-So that’s no longer an issue. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Does the Staff have that letter, or the deed showing that that right of way has been cleared? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HILTON-We have the deed. I’ll have to look through it, the language a little bit here. Give me just a minute. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SCHODER-You were copied with the deed. You were also copied, I have a copy in front of me, that was recorded on April 28, 2003, at 9:02 a.m., that is the right of way exchange agreement which basically swaps out what was the right of way that would have gone through the septic system to the location immediately to the north, which would be adjacent to the north property line. MR. VOLLARO-Had I had a copy of the deed, I would have seen that, I wouldn’t have asked the question, but obviously it’s not in the packet. MR. SCHODER-Yes, sure. It is in the packet, though, and it has been addressed. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in. MR. STROUGH-So what’s the book and page? MR. SCHODER-I can find that. 1317, Page 80. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything else. I think the site is tight. MR. MAC EWAN-At best. John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SCHODER-Excuse me. May I? Let me correct that. It’s Page 79 and 80 on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s in the record. Book Number, what, was that? MR. SCHODER-It was 1317. MR. VOLLARO-1317. Okay. So long as it’s in the record, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Comment from Staff? MS. RADNER-It appears to be there. It appears to indicate the exchange of right of ways. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. I agree with Bob in that this is a lot for this lot, but, you know, you’re not proposing to make it any bigger. As a matter of fact, it’s ending up a little bit smaller than the original, but the same footprint, and the permeability’s a little bit better. It’s 35% as opposed to 37%, but looking at the terrain and the geography of the area, I mean, if I was to ask you to move the house back, then we’d move the septic field up front, and I’d rather have the septic field out in the back. So, given all that, I can see why you have it where it is. Now, are you putting gutters on the roofs? MR. SCHODER-There will be no gutters on the roofs at this point, no. MR. STROUGH-Because I know that the roof slopes towards the lake by the elevations. MR. SCHODER-Correct. That roof slope would drain on to that patio, which would in turn go into that infiltration area. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-But you are going to put some kind of water infiltration system? MR. SCHODER-There is one shown on the drawings currently, which is taking overland flow. MR. STROUGH-Right, on the western side. MR. SCHODER-On the western side from the pavement areas, the concrete walks, and a portion of the house, of course, that would drain on to the site and be tributary to the side. The stuff coming off the porch in the front part of the house would then be directed also by way of something that is not shown on yours, but in response to C.T. Male’s comments that I have added, actually, on a drawing that I have in front of me here which would be a scupper, installed in the patio surface, and that would direct, by way of a pipe, that flow over to that infiltration area. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well that sounds good. MR. VOLLARO-Just one question, John, are we looking at the same drawing he’s looking at? He says he sees something on his drawing that we don’t have on ours. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, he has updated his. MR. SCHODER-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STROUGH-He’s referred to that. MR. VOLLARO-A hand updated? MR. SCHODER-It is actually a computer update, but nonetheless, yes, it was updated in response to Staff and C.T. Male comments. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not really looking at, we’re not looking at the current drawing, that I have. MR. SCHODER-Well, you’re looking at the current drawing that went in with the application. There were no changes other than modifications made to respond to those comments. MR. VOLLARO-So, I’m looking at a drawing dated 6/16. You’ve got something that’s updated to another date. MR. SCHODER-To 7/14, which notes in my revision triangle changes per site plan review comments. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to make just one comment. I spend an awful lot of time reviewing these drawings at home, prior to these meetings, and I always think I’m looking at the current drawing. When I get here I find out that a lot of time was wasted on my part by not having the current drawing, and sometimes it gets a little bit concerning. MR. RINGER-He couldn’t have done it in this case, though, Bob, because he did it with C.T. Male’s comments. So we’re going to table that and you will have the correct drawing. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. RINGER-There’s some things we can’t control. MR. SCHODER-That’s correct. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HILTON-Staff has the same drawings that the Planning Board members do. The only one that has the updated one is the applicant. MR. SCHODER-Is me. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-This is what happens during the evolution of a review, that’s all. Anything else, John? MR. VOLLARO-Sorry to interrupt. MR. STROUGH-That’s okay. I have another question. This line right here, is this two separate parcels, actually? MR. SCHODER-Yes, that’s correct. The adjoiner is McGowan, and the adjoiner of McGowan to the east is actually the recipient of that right of way, if you will. MR. STROUGH-This piece of property? MR. SCHODER-That is McGowan. That is the adjoiner. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s not part of this (lost words)? MR. SCHODER-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-Other than to show the relationship to your neighbor? Okay. MR. SCHODER-That is correct, sir. MR. STROUGH-The sidewalk, I assume that’s going to be pitched so the stormwater doesn’t go directly into the lake, that it will go into one side or the other into your stormwater receptors? MR. SCHODER-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SCHODER-Again, I would note, we’re trying our best, with a very small site here, as far as stormwater infiltration, stormwater management, and we really have no net increase, but we’re still trying to do our best to be able to catch whatever we can. MR. STROUGH-And I’m happy with that, too. Yes, okay. The roof drainage, the water source is answered. You get your water from the lake. I did have one other question. The owner is not here? MR. SCHODER-The owner is not here, no. MR. STROUGH-I always ask everyone that lives lakeside if they use fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and I like the no answer. MR. SCHODER-The owner is not here, but I can certainly recommend to them that that would be the case. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, everyone wants a green lawn, but no one, you know, thinks that the long term impact to the adjacent lake is. MR. SCHODER-The lawn, currently, does not exhibit any evidence of sustained use of fertilizers or other agents that would make it grow well. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-To add to that, I don’t think there’s a whole heck of a lawn on this property anyway. MR. SCHODER-There’s about a postage stamp worth of lawn. MR. STROUGH-It’s my standard question. MR. MAC EWAN-A boilerplate question, yes. MR. SCHODER-I appreciate your question. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That seems to be about it for now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything to add. When I was reviewing the package, I really saw C.T. Male’s comments, primarily, as being engineering, per se, but we do require that we get a signoff, usually, before we approve a project, and I just want to say that I thought your presentation was really good. Because certainly any question I had you addressed right up front. It made it a lot easier, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing to add. Again, my only concern was getting the sign off from C.T. Male. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I did have something I had forgotten until I looked at the plans again. George, maybe you can refresh my memory because we haven’t talked about this in a while. There are five bedrooms in this dwelling, six, excuse me, five upstairs and one downstairs. MR. SCHODER-I’m deferring to our architect. One second, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have five bedrooms upstairs, and did I notice that? MR. SCHODER-There are six in the existing house. The new house would be reduced by one bedroom. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s it. MR. SCHODER-I think that might be confusing you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So the bedrooms will just be upstairs, and we have two baths for the five bedrooms. Now, what was the, refresh my memory, I haven’t talked about it in a while, the number of bedrooms is directly related to the? MR. SCHODER-Sizing of the wastewater system. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, the septic system, and all that, C.T. Male will look into all that. MR. HILTON-Also the Building and Codes Department at the time of building permit will certainly check the sewage system. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t the time to address it now? MR. HILTON-Sure, if you feel there’s an issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t know if there’s an issue. I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-At this stage of the game, does Building and Codes get involved in this? Can you get an opinion from them? I mean, if the septic system has to be sized accordingly for the amount of bedrooms in the residence, and for some reason it needs to be sized larger than what’s indicated on this plan, it now becomes an issue as to whether the site can handle such a thing. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Now’s the time to look at it, not at building permit time. MR. HILTON-No, I agree. I guess my point is that they have to sign off at the time of building permit, and certainly they’ll have input. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask them when we table this thing to take a look at it, because if it becomes an issue, we approve this thing, they go to the Building and Codes, to go get their building permit, and now there’s a problem with the septic, that means they bounce back here to try to get a modification. Let’s take care of it before we get there. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. SCHODER-May I? MR. HILTON-We do involve them along the entire plan review process. Can I say that Mr. Hatin’s looked at this plan? I don’t know for certain. MR. MAC EWAN-Just by personal request, I’d ask him to take a look at this particular application, just because there’s so many site constraints with it. MR. SCHODER-May I clarify? We went for a septic variance, at the time we coordinated with David Hatin relative to this, I sat down and discussed the entire project with him. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. If it’s not an issue with him he will issue us a memo to that effect. MR. SCHODER-I would think that that wouldn’t be a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s right. We had talked about the variance earlier. MR. SCHODER-We have that variance in place. So that has been reviewed, actually. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that had to do with how much leaching field you needed and the size of the septic tank. MR. SCHODER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The septic tank’s going to be how large again? MR. SCHODER-The specific variance request was for a setback variance from 34 feet, or 34 feet from lakeshore from the 50 foot normal requirement. As part of that process, the septic system 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) was reviewed, and discussed by the Town Board of Health at length in the preparation of that, I might note, even to the extent of the omitted alarm switch within the tank. So this system has been reviewed by the Board of Health via that variance process already. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it a differently engineered type of system than we normally do? MR. SCHODER-Well, what it is, it’s utilized something called an Elgin In-Drain, which is an engineered system that allows you to reduce the area that you need for normal septic disposal, and those points were brought up and were reviewed at the time of the Town Board meeting for the Board of Health variance. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they just feel that the water, when it goes back through the ground, eventually goes back to the lake, it will be filtered enough? MR. SCHODER-Yes, they do. The system complies with the standards. Professionally, I’ll tell you, there’s no problems with the system. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Great. MR. SCHODER-Whatsoever. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I just wanted, the way I look at it is any new construction and new septic systems, it’s just, it’s such an enhancement along the shore of that lake. MR. SCHODER-Well, this is getting it away from the lake, this is very important. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you jump back to, Mr. Strough asked you a question relative to the stormwater and how you were going to handle it coming off the roof onto the patio surface, and how you were going to discharge it. MR. SCHODER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you elaborate on that a little bit? MR. SCHODER-Sure. As it comes off the roof and comes off the porch roof, it would fall onto the patio surface, and again, I apologize that you do not have that modification that was response to that question from C.T. Male. However, what we are installing, and I’ll read the note, a new 6 by 30 inch trench drain cast into the concrete slab of the patio. Remembering that is actually a stone patio with a sub slab. Slope the patio a minimum of an eighth inch per foot to the new drain, field locate drain as required. Drain shall be a zern model, etc., pipe drain to new stormwater infiltrators with four inch PVC pipe installed a minimum quarter inch per foot slope. You see on your drawings the locations of those infiltrators. The patio is immediately to the east of that. The pipe in question runs under the concrete walk that is a stippled hatch pattern if you will, and discharges directly into the infiltrators. It’s fairly direct. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically you’re doing a piping system underneath the patio which will direct the stormwater into those two infiltrators. MR. SCHODER-Correct. Under the patio and under that walk that’s behind the stairs there. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’ll provide some details of that? MR. SCHODER-By way of a note on the drawing, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-No construction details? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. SCHODER-Well, that is, essentially, a construction detail, I think, it’s a zern model Z6667. MR. MAC EWAN-That’ll be specifically spelled out in your note? MR. SCHODER-It is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just another couple of comments. I see where you’ve taken a cross section, C-1 there on your drawing? MR. SCHODER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s referred to on the following page. MR. SCHODER-No, it’s actually referred to on the same page. MR. MAC EWAN-The details that you’ve got on the following page, on Sheet Two. MR. SCHODER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nowhere I see on the first sheet where it’s pulling those details from. Should there be a note on there or? MR. SCHODER-The absorption bed detail is noted as an absorption bed on the first drawing for this wastewater treatment system. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHODER-Okay, then the section that’s cut, Section One, C-2, is cut through that absorption bed on Drawing C-2, directly above. Section One, C-1, which was your initial question, is cut through the retaining wall, and is shown on Drawing C-1 in the lower right hand corner. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where are you pulling Detail A and Detail B from? MR. SCHODER-On Page Two? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHODER-Detail A is referenced on the note, I would direct you to the bottom of the site plan, on Drawing C-1. You see the word “site plan”, look immediately to the right, stone masonry retaining wall to be re as required. Concrete cap to be removed and replaced. See Detail A, C-2. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHODER-Okay. You wanted to know where Detail B comes from? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m fine now. Thanks. A question for Staff. I noticed in the variances that were granted, the Area Variance didn’t make any reference to the docks on the site. Are they grandfathered? And if so, how come they weren’t spelled out in the variance? MR. HILTON-I don’t think there was any reconstruction of the docks. Therefore I think they would be grandfathered, you know, any new construction would have to meet the setbacks and receive a variance, and any boathouse would, just as any new boathouse would require a site plan review. I don’t think there’s any proposal to reconstruct the boathouse. Correct me if I’m wrong. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. SCHODER-There is no boathouse on this thing. MR. HILTON-Or the docks. MR. SCHODER-Nor are we proposing on touching the docks. There’s a piece of silt fence that crosses the docks that you note in the C.T. Male letter was addressed. That is a timber dock, at that point, that’s on shore. We are going to propose that that portion, that short portion of dock, be temporarily removed and replaced, just in time to be able to put the silt fence through, but that’s the only time the docks would be touched. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Keep in mind that we will be tabling it tonight, and I will leave the public hearing left open for a future meeting date. Discussion for a tabling motion? MR. VOLLARO-The tabling motion is ready. MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got? MR. VOLLARO-One, to add the fourth alarm flow switch to shut off the potable water if effluent reaches the level that could discharge from the pit. That should be shown. You’ll see Number Five on this is updated set of drawings of the latest revision, and that should be shown on that revision. Building and Codes should look at the septic system design, re: the number of bedrooms shown. A copy of the deed, which was altered on 4/2/03, show the right of way exchange agreement. C.T. Male’s signoff on their letter dated July 8, 2003. Again, an updated set of drawings to the latest revision, and to include a stormwater management infiltrator on the east side of the property, possibly in front or under the flagstone patio to handle the stormwater flowing off the home and from the reconstructed patio. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we need to amend that to clarify to say that the detail be shown on the drawing or a note shown on the drawing as to how it works. That’s what we’re looking for on it. He’s got it covered already on his revised drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So your updated drawing is dated, what? MR. SCHODER-My updated drawing is dated 7/14/03, currently. However, if C.T. Male, in the process of this discussion, has any other changes, obviously my date would change. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then the motion would say the latest revision. MR. SCHODER-Okay. May I ask a question on two points that you’ve made? First of all, the copy of the deed, as noted, has been submitted already. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Staff said they had it. MR. RINGER-Staff has got it. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just a note. It might not necessarily be directed to you. It might be directed to Staff. MR. SCHODER-All right. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to see that at our next time that we had had an opportunity to review the deed. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Secondly, do you require anything from me, any additional submission on that deed from me? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Secondly, as far as that patio is concerned, you noted infiltrators on the east side of that property. That is not feasible, unfortunately, and the reason I had addressed putting the scupper in and directing to the infiltrators we currently have in place is to be able to do that. Infiltrators below this patio, from a technical point of view, could be problematic, in that if it’s a stone retaining wall. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll re-word that, and we’ll say stormwater management plan to service the east side of the property. MR. SCHODER-Okay. That’s, yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I noticed that after. MR. SCHODER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Mr. Vollaro. Do you want to move it. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2003, KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: With the following conditions: 1. That future plans will show the fourth alarm flow switch to shut off potable water if the effluent reaches the level that could discharge from the pit. 2. Building and Codes should look at the septic system design, reference the number of bedrooms. 3. The packet should include a copy of the deed altered 4/2/03 to show the right of way exchange agreement. This is really a Staff requirement. 4. C. T. Male Associates sign off on their letter dated July 8, 2003 and re-wording the last one, that the stormwater management plan to service the east side of shore of the property will be submitted for C. T. Male Associates review. 5. An updated set of drawings to the latest revision. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Thank you. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 4-2003 SEQR TYPE II GAVIN ROONEY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 47 HANNEFORD ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT SEEKS RECOGNITION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AS A PRE-EXISTING NON- CONFORMING MARINA PER SECTION 179-10-035 LGPC, APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: BP 91-168 [REBUILD TOP DECK ONLY] WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-45 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-060, 179-10-035 GAVIN ROONEY, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing this evening. MR. ROONEY-Good evening. I’m Gavin Rooney. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? Anything? MR. HILTON-Nothing really bad, except that Section 179-10-035 spells out the requirements for the Board recognizing pre-existing, nonconforming uses, and it’s up to you to decide, based on what they’ve submitted, whether it qualifies. That’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. ROONEY-Good evening. I’m Gavin Rooney. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your application, Mr. Rooney. MR. ROONEY-The docks have been, according to as far back as I can see, been rented since at least 1960. They’ve been, they are commercial docks approved by the Lake George Park Commission. The application to them was made in 1992, after the Commission was formed in ’88, and was approved in ’95, and commercial fees have been paid from that year through this year. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got anything else you wanted to add? MR. ROONEY-There’s numerous things here from people that rented the dock, documents and of course the permit with the Park Commission expires in 2005. Each permit is issued for five years, and then there’s a review. That’s the second permit that was issued, and there’s also a note from the former Queensbury Director of Community Development, Jim Martin, stating that my docks have been rented for at least 35 years prior to his note, which was I think in ’95. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In Staff notes, we’re talking about four existing docks at this location. Is this, the Special Use Permit, talking to four docks? MR. ROONEY-No, actually to five berthing slips. MR. VOLLARO-Five berthing slips. MR. ROONEY-That’s correct, sir. One dock is a deeded dock off the neighbor’s. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just looking at some of the documentation, there’s a lot of it here. I had to read through most of this, but I just noticed, not just noticed, but I guess noticed by other Planning Board members as well, that the rates paid on these docks were residential rates. MR. ROONEY-No, sir. MR. VOLLARO-For two commercial docks, it was, and one residential dock, for two commercial docks, so that makes four berths, it looks like. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. ROONEY-Four berths. MR. VOLLARO-So the rates have been consistent over the years for two commercial docks, as I see it. MR. ROONEY-If you read the Park Commission permit, it’s for five, but one boat is my own, and one boat is actually owned by the Lake George Park Commission, because they’re not paying a fee for it, maybe that’s why they charged me a lower thing on that. I can’t answer that question. MR. STROUGH-Well, going back, if you don’t mind me, Bob, since we’re on the topic. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. STROUGH-From 1995 to 2003, you registered two commercial docks. Now, prior to 1995, in other words, from 1988 and 1994, you had listed no commercial docks. You only paid, registered two residential docks and one boat, for all the years, ’94, ’93, ’92, ’91, ’90, ’89, and ’88, it was two residential docks. Only starting with 1995, do we see you in your annual Lake George Park Commission’s Annual Dock Registration, you show only two commercial docks, and I’m assuming that’s four berths. MR. ROONEY-That’s correct, but there’s a receipt in there from Lake George Park Commission where the money for the application was received by them in 1992, but then there was a lawsuit started over this question, I believe, in Assembly Point, and the Park Commission wanted to hold off mine, rather than make that more complicated until that was settled. So that stood, that application stood from ’92 to ’95. MR. STROUGH-But what you’re supposed to do is establish that these docks have been used, you’re supposed to establish the use. Now one of the ways that you can establish the use is by showing your dock registration that you’ve been paying commercial fees, and it only shows to ’95, and I think we’re supposed to go back to ’82. ’81. MR. ROONEY-There were no fees on docks at all in those years. MR. STROUGH-Well, and that’s why I look at that rather lightly. So what I start looking at seriously is how you registered the docks from 1988 onward, okay. That’s how I look at it, and from 1988 to 1994, there were no commercial docks registered. Starting in ’95, only two commercial docks are registered. MR. ROONEY-Well, the two commercial docks would cover four boats. MR. STROUGH-Four berths. MR. ROONEY-Right. MR. STROUGH-But you’re asking for five. MR. ROONEY-Well, they changed it to five after that, but it was the way they doped the fees out. The fees are much higher this year because the fees are up 50%, and commercial docks are done by running foot, rather than the others are done by association, one side or two sides, whether you’re talking association or residential. MR. STROUGH-Right, and you weren’t paying commercial fees. You were paying residential, on the rest of the docks. So, based on the documentation you gave us, you only show a commercial use on two of the docks going back to 1995. MR. ROONEY-But two of the docks with four of the boats. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Right, four berths. MR. ROONEY-Yes, four berths. Yes. MR. STROUGH-See, I’m not comfortable with five berths. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I had the same problem, since we talked about in Staff notes four existing docks at this location, and that’s the first thing I used in my review, and I’m following exactly what John is saying, that the documentation doesn’t show that we’ve been paying commercial dock fees all along. It only started up in the recent years. So I have to agree with Mr. Strough that the documentation, in my mind, doesn’t show that we’ve been using these docks commercially over the years, in order to satisfy the requirements here. MR. ROONEY-Well, there’s a note by the Director of Community Development that they were going at least since 1960, and then those years of 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, there was no commercial fees. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you may have had a dock in 1960, but you have to establish not only that the dock existed, prior to 1981, you also have to establish the use. MR. ROONEY-That’s what his statement says. MR. STROUGH-Well, it doesn’t say how many docks. I read the statement. It says we rented. Well, great, one person, one dock, one berth, it doesn’t establish how many of these docks have been rented as a commercial use since 1981. As a matter of fact, you know, another thing that confuses me, we’re talking about four docks, and you’re only registering three. So we’re only talking about three docks. Right? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s saying the Lake George Park Commission utilizes one of your docks. Right? MR. ROONEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That’s not under our purview. We’re only looking at three docks. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you have to look at it objectively here. Let’s suppose that the Lake George Park Commission decided, two years from now, that they didn’t want to moor their boat at his dock anymore. They wanted to move it up the lake. So now he’s out of luck of having to rent that out? MR. STROUGH-Well, in my mind, even though the documentation isn’t great, I’d be willing to go along with recognizing two docks, and giving a Special Use Permit for two docks, four berths, but, I’m one Planning Board member. MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify Staff notes. When we say four docks, we’re talking four piers. I mean, I wasn’t addressing berths or anything like that. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, four docks is eight berths. MR. VOLLARO-Four docks. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re saying you’re talking four piers. MR. HILTON-What I did was I counted how many projections went out into the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-How many have you got? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HILTON-Four. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s eight berths? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s eight berths, right? MR. HILTON-It could be. MR. VOLLARO-One on each side. MR. ROONEY-If I can correct that, the one is deeded to my neighbors, actually one and a half. That’s where you come up with the five berths that I have five berthing slips. I can put five boats there. That’s it. Because one half of one dock is deeded to a neighbor, and one dock is deeded to a neighbor. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I understand what you’re saying. MR. MAC EWAN-I hate Special Use Permits. MR. VOLLARO-Boy, I second the motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. STROUGH-Well, not only that, but wait until you get to my turn and I go through these Whereas’. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought we were on your turn. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I’ve got the same problem as Mr. Strough does on the Whereas’. MR. STROUGH-All right. So let’s go through the Whereas’. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. MR. HILTON-Just to continue, real quick. I mean, again, we were looking at four piers on this property. I guess the applicant should somehow address the situation as he has, or has attempted to, as to how many berths are truly being rented, and how many of them have deeded access to another property, but just to clarify, we were just counting the number of projections into the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-John, let’s not get into the Whereas issues right yet. Let’s deal with determining how many slips we’ve got. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Determine what we’re dealing with right now. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the left wing of the Board have to say? MR. METIVIER-I remember the last application to do with Mrs. Hopper, she didn’t have any Park Commission stuff, and we granted that for her because she had letters from people that rented the docks, and Mr. Rooney has done the same. I argued that with you guys all, that she didn’t have it, and that Mr. Smith did, and so you just have to take that into consideration, too, even though the Park Commission didn’t recognize that she rented any of those docks. The letters that she submitted were acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-Excellent point, Tony. MR. STROUGH-Well, let me ask Tony this. Tony, looking at the documentation, how many of those docks was he paying commercial rates for through the past years? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. METIVIER-Up until, what, ’95, he was paying commercial. MR. STROUGH-On how many of those docks? MR. METIVIER-Two commercial docks, which would mean. MR. STROUGH-Two. MR. METIVIER-Now wait a minute. Let me finish. Two commercial docks which would mean four boats, because you look at a dock, the finger docks, you can berth a boat on either side. MR. STROUGH-I can agree with that. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So that’s four boats. He has one residential dock. That would be two boats. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But he’s only allowed to rent out four berths, because he’s only paying commercial rates on two docks. MR. METIVIER-If he takes a residential dock, and he has a boat for himself and a. MR. STROUGH-If he takes a residential dock and rents it out, he has to pay commercial rates. MR. METIVIER-Is he renting it out? He’s indicated all along that the Park Commission was using that dock at no rent. MR. STROUGH-So, you agree with me that we’re only talking about four berths? MR. METIVIER-Four berths. Commercial docks. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I can live with that. MR. VOLLARO-I’d go along with that, four berths is what I see in the documentation. MR. METIVIER-And if you can recall on the Smith application, we did the same. He couldn’t prove the fifth and sixth dock, and we didn’t grant it to him. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. METIVIER-We granted him four as well. Correct? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-On the Smith thing there was four berths. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-But just compare this application with the Hopper application, the gentleman has supplied far more documentation to support his history of this parcel than what the Hopper application did. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but I have to interject this, Tony. I’ve inferred, from what you’ve just said, that you lead us to, you know, you told us that all the documentation wasn’t there, and that we should keep that in mind, but when I think back about the vote, as I can remember, 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) it was four, three. So I don’t want, I want this on the record that in no way was the decision unanimous to grant that application, and if I can remember, I think you voted for it, after you warned us of the fact that all the documentation wasn’t there. MR. METIVIER-You’re absolutely correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s what I’m saying, you know, I don’t want anybody to think otherwise, that there were three of us that were not very happy. MR. MAC EWAN-I think Mr. Metivier was driving home a point that we shouldn’t be in the Special Use Permit business. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we all feel that way. MR. METIVIER-Because, you know what, we set a very bad precedence the first time we did that. The first applicant, Mr. Smith’s documentation, was excellent. And the second one was lousy, and we screwed up. We truly did. MR. LA BOMBARD-I voted no. MR. STROUGH-I’ll agree with Tony. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with what you’re saying right now. MR. VOLLARO-Just let it be on the record that this member of the Planning Board submitted a letter to Chris Round stating that I didn’t think we should be in this business at all, and that letter was, I don’t know the date of it. MR. RINGER-What does that have to do with this application? MR. MAC EWAN-The difficulties we’re having with it, Larry. That’s what that has to do with it. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Strough and where his argument’s going. The issue that I have with that argument, though, is that it’s just totally unenforceable. I don’t know, you know, unless the Town goes out and hires somebody to go up and down to every one of these docks and say, you know, are you renting or are you the owner, I just don’t know how you would enforce that, John. I agree with you. I absolutely agree with you. MR. STROUGH-Well, the same way we enforce site plans, the number of bushes that are planted. I mean, you could make that argument for anything that we pass here, that everything’s tough to enforce, and ask Bruce. It’s tough, especially with the limited time that he’s given to enforcement, but that certainly doesn’t stop me from doing what’s right and what’s wrong. MR. MAC EWAN-Does that mean we have to buy a Town boat now? MR. STROUGH-We’ve already got a Town dock in Assembly Point. MR. HUNSINGER-I think one of the bigger issues with this specific application is to how to deal with that fourth dock, which is an easement, and it’s on his, I don’t know, I guess it’s his Lake George Park Commission application. It shows the southernmost dock is an easement reserved by John VanSant. Are we considering that dock in this application? He hasn’t provided any. MR. ROONEY-No, if I could interject now. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HUNSINGER-So that would be up to, I guess, your neighbor to come in, for the Special Use Permit then, well, whoever holds the easement. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s using it for residential purposes, though, right? MR. ROONEY-He’s limited by the deed on my property, the deed that he has, whatever. Only he can use it. He can’t let a friend use it, and this goes back before I bought the property. VanSant owned my property, and gave some of his property to his son who built the house, and that’s why the names are the same, and through the years, Mr. VanSant died. I bought his property, his son sold out, moved to Florida, everything’s different, but all that’s limited. I control the dock, in the sense that if I feel that it doesn’t look right and should be rebuilt, I can have it rebuilt and they have 30 days to pay the fee, or they would lose the easement. MR. HUNSINGER-So they would have no need to come in. MR. ROONEY-The dock would come out. MR. HUNSINGER-They would have no need to come in for a Special Use Permit. MR. ROONEY-No. MR. STROUGH-Are there two docks that you rent out that are listed as commercial, are they the northernmost docks? MR. ROONEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So is there a general argument amongst the Planning Board that we are generally in a state of mind to approve the two northernmost docks, and four berths as the marina portion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It is for me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But he wants five berths. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the fifth is for himself. MR. STROUGH-Well, what he wants and what he gets. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the fifth one is the third dock south, and that’s going to be your boat and the LGPC’s boat. MR. ROONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But that doesn’t come under Special Use Permit. MR. STROUGH-That’s not with us. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a residential dock. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m saying. Right. MR. VOLLARO-We have really two commercial docks that we’re going to approve under Special Use Permits. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-But can I just ask this question? The third one to the south, who’s boats are on that one? Is that where the LGPC has its boat? MR. ROONEY-Right now, my boat. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Your boat. MR. ROONEY-My boat. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s your residential boat. MR. ROONEY-Yes, they go back and forth between. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And where does the Park Commission keep their boat, on which one? MR. ROONEY-At the next dock. Sometimes I flip them back and forth. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The fourth one. Okay. So the fourth one to the south is where the Park Commission keeps its boat. MR. ROONEY-One of the definitely unquestionable commercial docks. In other words, there’s one dock to the far, towards Route 9. That’s a completely deeded dock, and then the next one I share with a neighbor, and usually my boat is on that one. Sometimes the Park Commission boat, my boat’s on the next one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, but I’m talking, I have no problem with the two northernmost docks, right now. I just want to know, the next two docks, there’s four boat spaces. What boats are there, yours, your neighbor’s, the Park Commission’s? MR. ROONEY-The neighbor’s and either mine or the Park Commission boat, either one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you just have three on those two docks? MR. ROONEY-Yes. I mean, with the Park Commission boat or my own boat, it doesn’t really matter to me, whichever one goes in first. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And here’s my last question. Out of those other two docks that are the residential docks, you have just three boats on them? You only dock three boats? MR. ROONEY-No. There’s like two neighbors. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two neighbors. MR. ROONEY-And then the one, two neighbors, say, on the furthest one, towards Route 9L, then next pier is one neighbor and then the other side is mine, which either I put my own boat or the Park Commission boat. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got you. So we have two neighbors, yours, and the Park Commission’s boat. So all berths are taken. MR. ROONEY-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. ROONEY-Since, maybe to clarify, I work for the Park Commission. So which dock I pull in to doesn’t really matter. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I don’t care about that. Yes, all right. No, the neighbors own those docks. MR. ROONEY-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The neighbor owns that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, do we need to do a SEQRA on a Type II? MR. STROUGH-Now, can we talk about the Whereas’s? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s do the Whereas’s. MR. STROUGH-On the second page of the draft resolution, and I wish my other Planning Board members would go along with me here. If you find the draft resolution, go to the second page. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, sir. Gotcha. Which one? MR. STROUGH-The first Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and positive and negative impacts on community character, including the character of the adjoining properties, districts, uses, the positive and negative impact on density, including the density on adjoining property, districts, uses. Did you all do that? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. STROUGH-How about the next Whereas? The Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts of the use on the vehicular congestion and parking including the provision of adequate parking in the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions? Anybody here do that? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are these resolution coming from? MR. HILTON-Let me tell you something. MRS. LA BOMBARD-These Whereas’ are like an A.K.A. of SEQRA, and if we want to get into these Whereas’, then we’re back to Square One like we were with the initial applications a year ago with the Hoppers and the Smiths. We want to start here on the parking and those were our hang-ups for a whole year. MR. HILTON-That may be true when you’re recognizing something as a pre-existing use, but, I mean, during the last application when those conditions were in, or the Whereas’ were in, I said at the time that I wasn’t sure where they were coming from, and we hadn’t discussed them with that application, and that’s true. However, Cathi found some information from NYCRR 646 concerning Class B Marinas and docks, and it seems to me that that’s where that’s coming from. That language, again, not having written or authored the resolution, I can’t speak to it, but just kind of a sense of where it’s coming from, but I would agree with you that when you’re recognizing a pre-existing, nonconforming use, quite possibly you wouldn’t need to consider all those whereas’. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve talked, I’ve looked at five of the Whereas’. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, even the bottom part, at the end, we don’t know what those rental conditions are. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, hang on a second. MS. RADNER-If you refer to 179-10-035, the list of what you have to look at for a pre-existing, nonconforming use is very limited, and I think as long as you go down through that list and are comfortable that you’ve satisfied the requirements of that Section, that’s all that’s required. MR. MAC EWAN-What are the five or six items, just for the record? MS. RADNER-It just says “A. Substantiated, pre-existing, nonconforming uses shall be exempt from a comprehensive Planning Board review. B. To substantiate that a use qualifies for this exemption, the property owner shall submit a site plan review application together with information demonstrating that: (1) The structure(s) associated with the use were constructed according to the permit procedures which were enforceable by the Town at the time of construction. (2) The use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date, without interruption, since prior to 1981 for marinas and prior to 1967 for all other uses. Consistent seasonal use may qualify as continuous use. C. The Planning Board shall, upon finding the substantiating evidence valid, complete and satisfactory, issue the applicant a pre- existing nonconforming special use permit. This special use permit shall be considered a permanent permit and may be modified only upon review and approval by the Planning Board. This special use permit shall serve to document the existing status of the project.” That’s the limits of what you’re doing in determining pre-existing, nonconforming uses. The Sections that George was referring to are the Sections of 6NYCRR, I think it’s 646, right, and it has to do with what Lake George Park Commission requires of, in this case it’s Part B Marinas. MR. STROUGH-So, Cathi, when we make our resolution, we could say that we are making a resolution approving the two northernmost docks with four berths for Mr. Gavin Rooney, and in accord with or pursuant to Town Code 179-10-035, and in accord with the first page of the draft resolutions. MS. RADNER-I don’t have the first page of the draft resolution. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Whereas concerning the SEQRA could be deleted from here, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I would delete that entire second page of this draft resolution. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you on that. MR. HILTON-Just procedurally, if you’re considering entertaining a motion, there’s a public hearing scheduled. MR. MAC EWAN-I realize that. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m just trying to get an idea here. MS. RADNER-Yes. You definitely want to parse out anything that you haven’t done and that you don’t think is applicable to this review. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to open the public hearing, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, my name is John Salvador. Has the applicant submitted a site plan? MR. MAC EWAN-We have information he supplied in his packet with his application that shows the docks and such. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We don’t have a site plan, other than the docks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the house and the bathrooms. MR. VOLLARO-The layout. MR. SALVADOR-Well, what we’re dealing here with is a Class A Marina, and there are a lot of services, you know, we’ve been all through this. MR. VOLLARO-That we have, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-More than we care to admit to. MR. SALVADOR-Well, you know, I’d like to comment on that. Frequently these resolutions refer to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I served on that Committee, and this Board had a representative on that Committee, and we were talking about these sort of these things. I can’t tell you the hours we spent on this subject. That was the time for the input, if you thought we were going in the wrong direction. Anyway, I think we need a site plan for the total property that’s going to be supporting this Class A Marina. We talked here about the use of the docks. A Class A Marina constitutes any storage, berthing, or mooring of two or more motorized vessels and/or non-motorized vehicles, 18 feet in length, or more, not registered to the owner of the property, regardless of remuneration or profit. It doesn’t make any difference the easements, the Park Commission boat, if they’re not registered to the owner of the property, they are a Class A Marina. They are considered commercial docks. Regardless of remuneration. I asked the question about the site plan. I think it’s imperative that you have one, and address these other issues, and this resolution, this draft resolution, goes to a comprehensive analysis of the project. How can you delete anything? MR. VOLLARO-I’m not, I’m not asking for deletion, John. I haven’t examined each one of those. So I couldn’t vote on this resolution one way or another if they’re in here. MR. SALVADOR-The previous application you deleted. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-You deleted certain Whereas’. Any of those, if you delete any of those, you subject the review to a non-comprehensive review. That’s not allowed. MR. STROUGH-John, I agree with you, but the way that we’ve re-written, and I don’t really like it in afterthought, we re-wrote the Special Use Permit for marinas. Basically all we’re looking at now is if it’s been established use, if the docks were established and the use has been established, to 1981, to the best of the applicant’s ability, and we have some latitude there, and in my part, I look at very strongly, because it’s convincing, how the docks have been registered, especially in recent years. Now I’m not going to hold them to 1981. As a matter of fact, I’m going to let this applicant go. He’s been doing this for two docks since 1995. I’ve got the documentation to prove it, and he’s been paying commercial rates on two docks. So, okay, and he’s got some letters. So I’m going to give him that, on two docks, you know, if I’m the one that draws up the resolution, but I agree with you, but the way the wording of the current 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) Town Law reads, we don’t have to do site plan review if we establish that the uses are grandfathered. MR. SALVADOR-Part of the privilege of being able to conduct commercial business is that you furnish certain services. MR. STROUGH-And I’ll agree with you, but it’s moot. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, I don’t want to get into a whole dialogue back and forth here. I mean, this is an opportunity for the public to make their comment. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Go ahead, John. I’m sorry for interrupting. MR. SALVADOR-And that goes to use. That goes to use. You have to demonstrate that you’ve furnished these services. That’s the complete package, not just the rental of the dock. That’s too easy. So I maintain that if you’re going to approve this, this draft resolution is well done. I don’t see how you can strike any of it. With regard to who’s docking where, the Park Commission has all the data. They have it on a computer. They can punch it out anything you want. Just make a FOIL request. It’s available to you. They know where every boat is docked on this lake. They’re registered, and when you fill out the registration, you’ve got to tell them where you’re docking. It’s as simple as that. MR. STROUGH-And don’t forget the point, John, that the docks really aren’t even in the Town. MR. SALVADOR-Do you want to go there? MR. STROUGH-No. I mean, they’re beyond the applicant’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Well, in any case, that is the subject of another battle, but, seriously, the exercise is fruitless if you don’t get to a comprehensive review, and the intent of the Town Board, in putting this in to the regulations, was that we get, make a comprehensive review. There have been burning issues with regard to parking, wastewater, all of this, for years, on the lake, okay. This is the time to address it. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-But I’m not convinced that this Board is the one that should do the addressing. I have never been convinced that we should be in this business. I’ve said it many times at this Board. This is not the business of this Board, in my opinion. Some place else, but the Park Commission ought to put their arms around this and try to do this, but I don’t think this Board should do it. MR. SALVADOR-They tried to do that. The public policy is it isn’t working. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve got to make it work. It’s not our job to make it work. I don’t think. My opinion, as one Board member. MR. SALVADOR-Most of the land that this Marina operates on is in the Town of Queensbury, and it is our obligation to regulate it. MR. STROUGH-And I agree with you, John, the handicap issues, the public safety issues, the parking issues, all those should be addressed, but the way it’s written, we can’t do that. MR. SALVADOR-No, no. No, no, you can do it, but you can also duck. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Ducking is the game, I think. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Mrs. Salvador? KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathleen Salvador. Just a couple of things. You mentioned that you did have the dock layout that showed the docks, and that shows four docks. MR. VOLLARO-There’s pictures. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we do have a layout that was submitted with the application. MRS. SALVADOR-And it shows docks? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it does. MRS. SALVADOR-I’m not talking slips. I’m talking docks. Okay. It shows four docks. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It shows numerous docks. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. Now we’re talking about these docks being in existence since 1961 or whatever. Are they legally pre-existing? Is there any determination on that? I know we went through this with the Smiths and the Hoppers, and all, but has anyone ever proven that their docks are legally pre-existing? They could be there, but they could be illegal, and if they’re illegal, then you can’t operate them today, I don’t care how many fees you pay or how many years you’ve been doing it. I think, too, with Smith and Hopper, parking, restrooms, and trash removal were very big subjects, and they should be, and I haven’t heard that mentioned this evening at all. There should be a plan for parking. There should be restrooms that are available to his clients, 24 hours a day, with no restrictions. That’s the Park Commission regulation also. Also, John mentioned something about the Park Commission knowing where every boat is docked. They know where every boat is docked, whether you buy a day sticker, and you’re going to stay overnight at a facility. When they fill out that form for their sticker, they have to say where they are staying, where the boat is being docked, and where it’s launched. Launching and where it’s being docked, so they know everything, and if this gentleman works for the Park Commission, he knows that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Board members have any questions or comments? MR. VOLLARO-The only comment I have is, as one Board member, I agree with Mr. Strough. I couldn’t approve this resolution as it’s drafted, unless it’s amended to the first page only. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that, if we’re comfortable with it, based on what Counsel’s told us. MS. RADNER-A draft resolution is just a draft, and it’s your job to pass the resolution that fits what you did and the review you gave. So you can throw the draft resolution in the garbage and fashion your own resolution, any time you want to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-John, do you have something in mind? 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I would make a motion approving the special use permit for Mr. Rooney, by eliminating the second page of the resolution, and by pointing out that we have considered 179-035, and I would condition it on, that the Marina standard Special Use Permit applies only to two docks, four berths, and those are the two northernmost docks. MS. RADNER-John, I don’t know that that’s properly a condition. I think that’s the extent of the evidence that your finding is substantiated. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MS. RADNER-This isn’t a Section that allows you to condition a permit. It allows you to determine whether or not the applicant submitted enough evidence to demonstrate the existence and use of the structures and that it’s valid, complete and satisfactory to you. MR. STROUGH-All right. So it would be the Planning Board’s determination. The only other thing that we could do, Mr. Chairman, is we could table this and allow Mr. Rooney to gather more evidence, or we can deal with it tonight, based on the information. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board as a whole is comfortable with what’s presented to us to move forward on it tonight. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you want me to start with my motion? MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 4-2003 GAVIN ROONEY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Special Use Permit Applicant/Property Owner: Gavin Rooney SUP 4-2003 Zone: WR-1A SEQR Type II Location: 47 Hanneford Road, Kattskill Bay Applicant seeks recognition from the Planning Board as a pre-existing non-conforming marina per Section 179-10-035. LGPC, APA, CEA Cross Reference: BP 91-168 [rebuild top deck only] Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03 Tax Map No. 227.18-1-45 Lot size: 0.45 acres / Section: 179-4-060, 179-10-035 Public Hearing: July 15, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on June 16, 2003; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/11/03, and 7/15 Staff Notes 7/9 Warren Co. Planning Board: 7/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/27 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/15/03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Special Use Permit requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: Motion to approve: 1. Pursuant to 179-10-035, and that our determination for the Special Use Permit, the marina permit, applies to the two northernmost docks on Mr. Rooney’s shoreline property, and it applies to four berths only, 2. And as per the resolution prepared by Staff, only for the first five whereas’. The rest of the resolution should be deleted. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-And as per the resolution prepared by Staff, only for the first five whereas’. The rest of the resolution should be deleted. MR. VOLLARO-John, before you continue that, did we take into consideration the last Whereas on Page One? MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I said. I eliminated that. MR. VOLLARO-Did you? MR. STROUGH-I said the first five Whereas’. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The first five. MR. STROUGH-The first five Whereas’. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think you want the first four, because the fifth Whereas on that page I don’t think we did that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The economic stability and community character. MR. STROUGH-No, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Special Use Permit, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Wait a second. There’s four. MR. STROUGH-Five. MR. HILTON-There’s a Whereas underneath the seconded by. That’s Number One. MR. STROUGH-All right. You’ve got a different resolution. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. No, no, no. You’re starting from Page One. MR. STROUGH-Five. You missed one. MR. VOLLARO-I missed the first one. Okay. MR. STROUGH-Right. The first five. Bob missed one. The first five. Okay. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Rooney. MR. ROONEY-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT E. SHARP, D.D.S., M.S.D. PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK DE SANTIS, BAY ASSOCIATES AGENT: JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC ZONE: PO LOCATION: 16 HUNTER BROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DENTAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN THE P O ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-4 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES SECTION: 179- 9-020 TOM JARRETT & TRENT MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-2003, Robert E. Sharp, Meeting Date: July 15, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 34-2003 APPLICANT: Robert Sharp is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 5700 sq. ft. dental office. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 16 Hunter Brook Lane. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found SB 5-89 (Crossroads Park), in which the lot was originally created, as the only previous Planning or Zoning Board action. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 5700 sq. ft. dental office on a currently vacant property located at 16 Hunter Brook Lane. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a waiver request to install 2-inch caliper trees instead of 3-inch caliper trees, as well as a request to waive the Type ‘A’ buffer requirement from the residential property to the north. This property, although fronting on Hunter Brook Lane, is directly visible from Bay Rd. and is within the Bay Rd. Design Area. The applicant has submitted building elevations with this application, which show a residential style building. The proposed building also meets the required 75 ft. Bay Rd. travel corridor setback. The lighting plan submitted as part of the application shows light poles and fixtures, which appear to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. Light levels appear consistent with code requirements, with limited spill onto adjacent residential properties; however some areas along the building exterior appear to have light levels which exceed code requirements. A Type ‘A’ Buffer is required between the multi-family residential property to the west, as well as between the single-family property to the north. The applicant has provided a buffer from the property directly to the west; however, no buffer has been provided from the residence to 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) the north. The applicant has stated that the present owner of the property to the north is comfortable with the landscaping plan as proposed. Staff suggests that the street trees (Spruce and Serviceberry) proposed along Bay Rd. be replaced with a shade tree from the list contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as Red Maples. A row of red maples along this section of Bay Rd. would eventually result in shade trees with a larger canopy than the serviceberry, and trees that are more salt tolerant than the spruce that are proposed. Red maples are also tolerant of the sandy soil conditions of this site. Existing mature trees on this site should also be preserved as much as possible, and used as part of the applicant’s overall landscape plan. The plans also indicate proposed future development at this site (lighting and parking). Staff suggests that any future development be reviewed by the Planning Board as a second phase. This approach allows the Planning Board to make sure the site is functioning properly and address any issues before any new development occurs. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report, which has been sent to CT Male for their review and comment.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is property which is located in the Bay Road design area, at 16 Hunterbrook Lane. The applicant proposes to construct a 5700 square foot dental office. The applicant has requested a waiver in order to install two inch caliper trees instead of three inch, and requested a waiver from the Type A Buffer requirements from this property to the residential property to the north. The lighting plan that’s submitted appears consistent with the Town Codes with little light spill, limited light spill. As mentioned, the Type A Buffer requirement is required between, is not only required between the Multi Family property to the west but also the single family property to the north. The applicant has indicated that the property owners to the north are comfortable with the landscaping plan as proposed. Staff suggests street trees along Bay Road be changed to red maples that are more salt tolerant and would I guess do better in the sandy conditions, and any existing mature trees that could be retained at this site to be used as part of the overall landscaping plan should be kept. Any future development, such as shown on the site plan, Staff suggests that this be reviewed, possibly by the Board, as a second or additional phase in the future. The applicant has submitted a stormwater plan and it’s been forwarded to C.T. Male, and any C.T. Male comments should be addressed as part of the review of this application. MR. MAC EWAN-The last set of C.T. Male comments that you have are July 8, their letter? th You haven’t received anything since then? MR. HILTON-We have a July, it’s noted as we received it on the 14, but it is dated the 11, July thth 11. th MR. VOLLARO-We have a July 8, I believe. th MR. MAC EWAN-The last correspondence we have. That’s what I have anyways. MR. HILTON-Yes. No, we have a July 11, and again, the Board not wanting things distributed th the evening of the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Okay. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin engineers. With me tonight is Trent Martin of my office and Dr. Sharpe, applicant. Dr. Sharpe is proposing a 5700 square foot professional office, a dental office, in Crossroads Park, across the street. Supporting that proposed office are 15 parking spaces of the 19 that are required by Town Ordinance. Dr. Sharpe feels that he does not need all t that parking, and we’re asking for the approval of only 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) 15 at this time, and potentially adding four future spaces if needed in the future. We’re providing lighting for that parking, as well as a wastewater system for the dental office and stormwater management for the entire site. You’ll note that we’re only proposing constructing half of the wastewater system at this time. We’ve sized that system based on what we think is a typical use for eight dental chairs, basing it on water use for other dental offices, but we’ve allowed space to expand that system if required in the future. We’ve provided a landscaping plan, avoiding planting trees along the property line to the north. The neighbors that orally discussed this with Dr. Sharpe said they did not want any additional trees and we have a letter from them that says they would like to reserve the right to ask for a buffer in the future, but right now they don’t want any planting. We can enter this letter into the record. I don’t know, George, did you see a copy of this? MR. HILTON-No. I haven’t seen that. MR. STROUGH-Tom, you mean additional planting. MR. JARRETT-We’re not proposing any trees along that northerly boundary. The neighbors, I believe when you see this letter, they’re requesting. MR. STROUGH-Yes, you’ve already got some vegetation there. What you’re saying is nothing in addition? MR. JARRETT-Yes, no additional, right. Staff has commented that they wished that we substitute some of the species along Bay Road, and we would stipulate to that condition. Would you like to add to that? ROBERT SHARPE DR. SHARPE-I could add to that, yes. There’s a sizeable number of trees now, and this is, by the way, the lot directly across the street here, and there’s a lot of trees, we were going to try to save as many as we can, and those, the ones that will be saved will be on the Bay Road, right on the Bay Road corridor. So there probably won’t be a lot of room, maybe two maples, I would guess. That’s just a guess hazard on my part. MR. JARRETT-So I guess we can open it up to Board questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just a note to Board members, try not to get bogged down in a whole bunch of technical questions. Obviously there’s several issues that still need to be resolved with C.T. Male before we get a signoff. With that, we’ll start with Mr. Vollaro. MR. STROUGH-You did last time. MR. MAC EWAN-Did I? We’ll start with you, then, Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-No, I like the layout. Given the dimensions of the property, whoever laid it out, I thought, did a nice job, and how did we resolve that? The two inch and the three inch caliper of the trees, why do you want a waiver for that? DR. SHARPE-I can address that. My wife, Bonnie, spoke with some nurseries, and the three inch caliper trees are very difficult to get, Number One, that’s the primary reason. They’re just difficult to get, at this juncture. Two inch caliper trees are much more readily available, and from my viewpoint, having run a tree service at one point in my past, a two inch tree becomes a three inch before too long anyway. MR. STROUGH-If we granted your waiver and said a minimum of two inches, then. DR. SHARPE-Yes, that would be fine. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. The lighting on the exterior of the building, Staff made a note that it may exceed Code, but, you know, I went back and looked at lighting. You’re talking about 70 watt sodiums, right? And how much lower do you want to go? MR. HILTON-We’re not suggesting anything, just an observation as it relates to the Code. MR. STROUGH-I looked at that. I didn’t see that as a problem, myself. DR. SHARPE-I might address that, too, if I could. The neighbors, the Lyons who are here behind me this evening, don’t want a lot of light in the neighborhood, and I really don’t have any intent to leave the lights on at night anyway, unless that’s required for some reason. I will leave some internal lighting on at night, like in the foyer, this type of thing, for security, but we don’t intend to leave the outside lights on. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the 70 watt sodiums, I thought were pretty minimum anyway. DR. SHARPE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And what’s your opinion about allowing the future parking spaces and the infiltration bed expansion to be treated as a second phase? MR. JARRETT-I don’t feel it’s a problem. I think I would recommend that to Dr. Sharpe. MR. STROUGH-I agree with Dr. Sharpe in that, let’s not put anymore parking than what we need. I don’t like more paving than what we need. So, go with the minimum. If you need it, then we’ll add it. I agree with that philosophy. MR. JARRETT-And the associated lighting to go with it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the height of the building, you listed 36 feet? MR. JARRETT-We listed less than 36 feet. I believe. DR. SHARPE-I think it’s only around 30. I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-Well, on the site plan review packet. DR. SHARPE-The designer is present, Bill Herlihy, tonight. He could answer that. BILL HERLIHY MR. HERLIHY-Bill Herlihy. I helped design that particular building, and it’s 26 feet to the ridge of the building, and with a cupola it would add another approximately five feet in height. MR. STROUGH-So it’s not 36. MR. HERLIHY-No, it’s not. MR. STROUGH-Because it says 36. There’s a site plan, and it says 36 on the plan here. MR. JARRETT-The plan says less than36. Our application mistakenly uses 36. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, in your infiltration bed I see that you’re using a high capacity chamber laterals. MR. JARRETT-For stormwater, you mean? MR. STROUGH-No, no, in your infiltration beds. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. JARRETT-For wastewater? MR. STROUGH-Yes, wastewater. MR. VOLLARO-They’re Elgin systems, aren’t they? MR. JARRETT-It’s not an Elgin system, no. MR. STROUGH-No, it’s different. I notice all the new technology here. That’s what I’m saying. MR. JARRETT-Actually, infiltrators have been around a long time. They make a number of different models. MR. STROUGH-Well, we haven’t seen them that often. So thank you for correcting me that they’ve been around, but, you know, to me it was new, and I always like seeing new technology being used. I see you’re using a geo thermo heating/cooling system. MR. SHARPE-Funds permitting, we’re trying to, but as the numbers roll in, we may have to forego that, but that’s the plan, preliminarily. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and your stormwater, I see you’re using the Cole Tech Re-charger 180 Infiltration unit. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I was impressed. I was impressed. The only thing that I would suggest, and I’ve noticed this on my own house, this is a little bit of a Planning Board aside, I’ve saved a lot of money by changing from the incandescent lighting to the fluorescent lighting. They last longer and they use a whole lot less electricity. DR. SHARPE-Well, that’s what we’re, for the most part, we’re going to try to use fluorescent. In fact, when we were trying to work with NYSERT on this issue, but NYSERTA’s running out of money and they’re overwhelmed, I guess, with applications. MR. STROUGH-But they’ve come way down in price in the last year. The fluorescents, and they work just as good, and boy they save a lot of energy. Just a suggestion. So that’s my little list, and I thank everyone for putting up with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing to add. I just like the elevations, and I particularly like the what I’m going to assume is the siding, the green. It’s very, very nice. I’m impressed. DR. SHARPE-Yes. We’re going to try to use cement siding. MR. METIVIER-That’ll be a nice change. After a while you get so sick of looking at the same stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything new to add. I agree with the earlier comments. I like the lot layout. I certainly do not have a problem with the smaller number of parking spaces, and, you know, reserving some for future need, if, in fact, you do need them. I like the design as well, and I didn’t notice the color until Tony commented on it, but I think a different color would be nice as well. I have nothing else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. RINGER-I like it, too. It would be easier for me to get to than the other place, too. I have nothing to add. No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just address the issues that C.T. Male has and concerns they sign off, and, I’ll tell you, it’s just a beautiful looking building. MR. JARRETT-If I can interject, the letter from C.T. Male on July 11 is not appropriate to bring th up? MR. HILTON-I don’t know if that’s. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no. I just have the 8. We just have July 8. thth MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t know if that’s the case, but we have a copy that we received. It’s dated July 14. We didn’t distribute it to the Board. I mean, it’s up to the Board if they wish to th entertain discussion about that letter or not. MR. VOLLARO-What does the July 14 letter say? th MR. HILTON-Well, it’s July 11, again, but we received it on the 14. There are a lot of items thth that have been addressed. I can pass it on to you if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there still outstanding issues? MR. HILTON-I think the applicant can probably summarize them. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there still outstanding issues? MR. JARRETT-I’d have to answer yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Say no more. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll let you say one more. MR. JARRETT-There are three issues they’ve left open which we consider very minor, and Jim Houston, on Friday, told Trent that he felt the Board could act on this application based on the comments that they left. MR. MAC EWAN-I just love it when the consultants say that. What are the outstanding issues, just tell me. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Number Seven says, additional spot elevations have not been added to the drawing, but the detail for the swale does show the creation of a berm. The desired intent should be shown more clearly to avoid concentrated flow from exiting the site onto the adjoining property to the south. Number Eleven, the frame on the sump detail should be revised to show the frame being supported by the gravel, similar to Detail Three, which was down, and Jim didn’t realize it. He’s now realized it since then. Number Fifteen, a determination should be made as to whether or not this water line has to supply fire flow. If the line does not need to supply fire flow, an extension of the existing lateral would be reasonable. A location of the nearest street hydrant should be shown or indicated on the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically engineering details that need to be shown on the plat. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Primarily. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We can’t actually size the water line right now until we know what the fire flow demands are. We can update that later. The hydrant is right in front of the site and we can show that. DR. SHARPE-I could add to that. I think if I’m correct, Bill, didn’t we, weren’t we planning on a four inch? MR. HERLIHY-Yes, there’s a four inch ductile iron water supply which is required for the sprinkler system in the basement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, did you have anything? MR. VOLLARO-I have no comments on this. I think it’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what he just told us, you have a copy of that very same letter, right? I feel comfortable we can move on this thing tonight, and condition any approvals we might consider that we get a final sign off by C.T. Male. With that, I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE LYONS MR. LYONS-Good evening. My name is Mike Lyons. We are the northern property owners on 763 Bay Road. We have been working with Bob Sharpe on this issue with the trees with the waiver and all that. We are pretty comfortable with what he has said, as far as waivering it, but we just want something to fall back on if we’re in our back yard and we’ve got traffic in there all day. So that’s really the only thing I’m looking for is just something to fall back on. So if our relationship does go south, this is some recourse that I can use. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, I don’t know that we could put a condition in an approval that said should you have a disagreement seven years down the road, make them plant something. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, the advantage of making this a two phase project, Mr. Chairman, is when they do come back for the parking, and the extra infiltration, that’s the time we can address these new issues. MR. VOLLARO-But they may never come back for those, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, otherwise, I don’t know how to word it. MR. MAC EWAN-They need to come back for a modification to the site plan if he was going to add parking to it down the road. Okay. I suppose at that point we could address it, you know, should he go down that road. Okay. MR. LYONS-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-The only thing, we have just a comment here. BRB Group says “No objection”. It’s just part of the record. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Bill, did you use 3-D Architect on that? Did you use a 3-D Architect program on that? MR. HERILHY-CAD. MR. STROUGH-Didn’t you use to use it? You had the commercial version of it. MR. HERLIHY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-See, I’ve got the home version of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we done, Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-It’s a great little thing. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MR. VOLLARO-I still use generic CAD, the old DOS system. It works good. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s try SEQRA and see how we do on that. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 34-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT E. SHARP, D.D.S., M.S.D., 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, 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 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Hunsinger, have you got something drafted up? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Are there any more than two conditions, basically? MR. STROUGH-I’ve got four here, so far. MR. RINGER-I’ve got four, too. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got the C.T. Male concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the C.T. Male signoff. MR. STROUGH-The tree calipers, we’re going to allow the waiver and allow a, but we’re going to word it as two inch minimum. We’re going to replace the trees alongside Bay Road, currently listed as spruce and service berry with red maples, and that any future development will be reviewed as a second phase. MR. MAC EWAN-That would be a modification. We wouldn’t review it as a phasing plan. If he comes in and decides he needs his parking or needs to add that other area on his, detention area on there, he’d have to come in and ask for a modification. MR. HILTON-The only thing to consider is that a modification wouldn’t require public notification and wouldn’t be a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-In this case, I think what we would do, because we have an issue potential impact on neighbors, we’d make this a condition that, should a modification be required, or he ask for a modification, that public notice be done. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I missed that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to think of how to word it. So that the neighbors are notified. MR. RINGER-I put down that if additional parking is required, applicant will come back for a modification, and I didn’t think about the public hearing, but with public notification, with public hearing notification for a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go, with public hearing notice. How’s that? That way we advertise it. MR. HUNSINGER-So I have four. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. RINGER-We’ve got the parking reduction, from 19 to 15. MR. STROUGH-Yes, plus we’re going to grant the waiver for the Type A Buffer requirement, between this and the residential area. Did you get that, Chris? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what did you call it? MR. STROUGH-Waiver from a Type A Buffer requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Type A Buffer. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question with that? Does that run with the land? In other words, if this is vacated from its present proposed use, does that buffer continue to run with the land? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to know. Thank you. DR. SHARPE-Could I comment on that? I would have no problem listing proposed planting, if that would please the Board, or in some way simplify this, because I have no problem if we plant a tree or two. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s a big issue with us. DR. SHARPE-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, go with it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2003 ROBERT E. SHARP, D.D.S., M.S.D., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 34-2003 Applicant: Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., M.S.D SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Frank DeSantis, Bay Associates Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC Zone: PO Location: 16 Hunter Brook Lane Applicant proposes the construction of a dental office. Professional office uses in the PO zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 5-89 Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-4 Lot size: 1.31 acres / Section: 179-9-020 Public Hearing: July 15, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/16/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/11/03, and 7/15 Staff Notes 7/9 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments 7/9 Warren Co. Planning 7/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/27 Meeting Notice 6/24 Water Dept. comments WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a final sign off from C. T. Male engineering. 2. That the additional infiltration and parking shall require a modification to the site plan and require public notification. 3. A waiver will be allowed on the tree planting, such that the proposed trees will be no less than two inch minimum diameter. 4. That the proposed trees along Bay Road shall be red maple, and 5. The proposed parking reduction is approved as shown on the plan and is the waiver for Type A buffer requirements on the northern border of the property. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. DR. SHARPE-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, while we’re still in session, I’d just like to discuss this July 10 th memo from Craig Brown. Did we put this USA Gas thing to bed for August? MR. MAC EWAN-We are going to move on only doing SEQRA Lead Agency Status. MR. VOLLARO-Tonight. MR. HILTON-That’s all you were going to do anyway tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MR. HILTON-One thing I just wanted to clarify, USA Gas was on for next week anyway. So it wouldn’t increase the agenda. I think that was the comment before that if we had them on next week it would increase our load to like nine items or something like that. MR. STROUGH-No, no. Bob was saying with that. It’s already on the agenda. MR. HILTON-Yes. No, it’s already on the agenda. That’s just my point. MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to see this Friday morning, Larry and I? MR. HILTON-I don’t know why we would. I mean, it’s something that’s already been through the completeness review process. MR. MAC EWAN-What are the big outstanding issues, Bob, that you don’t want to review this thing next week? MR. VOLLARO-It was just load, that’s all. Strictly the Planning Board loading. MR. MAC EWAN-We have 10 items on the agenda, right? MR. VOLLARO-It’s 10 items. MR. MAC EWAN-Two more than what we need, but we have on there two. MR. HILTON-Two, one’s a Freshwater one, combined with a site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you take them independently, there’s more than 10 because there’s a Freshwater Permit in there. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And we spend time on those. Those are not just flash through. MR. MAC EWAN-Then I’ll ask the question. Why are we at 10 on an agenda? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the reason for that, I can answer the Chairman’s question. You’ve coupled Freshwater Permits with the application as one. MR. HILTON-I think that’s part of it, yes. I think that’s probably most of it, but again, the agenda went out to Board members, and we had our review, and it was, it’s something that’s been set prior to this meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just grin and bear it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Can I ask a question? Later on today I got an e-mail from Dan Stec, from Chris Round to Dan Stec or whatever about. MR. MAC EWAN-August the 11. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it August 11? th MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I forgot to write it down. So is that 7 p.m. here? Is that what they’re talking about? MR. HILTON-I believe so. I know it’s August 11. th 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s definite. It’s a definite. The meeting to discuss the KB butterfly. MR. HILTON-It’s an update on the Karner blue. MR. VOLLARO-The Karner blue thing? MR. HILTON-Yes, the draft protection plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will that be at the Town Board meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a workshop. MR. HILTON-I think it’s a joint, yes, workshop, joint. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a regular Town Board agenda. It’s a workshop. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a workshop. Because what are the meeting dates for the Town Board, usually? I thought they were the second and the third Mondays? Because this is the first and the second. MR. HILTON-Yes. Chris picked the date. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The first and the third, and the second and the fourth are workshop dates, if they have them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So it’s August 11. th MR. VOLLARO-Then, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to make a motion for the resolution seeking Lead Agency Status. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 37-2003 AND AREA VARIANCE 65-2003 FOR OZBAY, USA GAS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance application for a proposed gas station and convenience store for USA Gas, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined it necessary to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: th 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/15/03) AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So we’ll see everybody Thursday, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Wal-Mart night. Everyone should have gotten, or will be getting by now, an outline about how we’re going to conduct this meeting Thursday night. What I would like to is to make things go efficiently and not get bogged down in a billion details. If we can kind of focus ourselves to that outline agenda, and what we’ll do is, as a group, we’ll ask the questions relative to lighting, relative to landscaping, relative to architecture, without bouncing all over the place, just in an effort to move this thing a little bit. I don’t anticipate that we’re going to get very far with this thing. There’s still a ton of issues out there with it. That I just don’t want to see us getting bogged down for three and a half hours on this thing Thursday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I asked Chris, for some reason, somebody messed with my computer and I cannot open up attachments unless they’re following the document, and, you know, if it says, if you want to come over, you’re welcome to. I always used to be able to, and it’s something to do with my Adelphia, because I have no problem at school doing, on my computer at school. Somebody messed with it somehow. MR. STROUGH-It might be Adelphia itself. A lot of times I send things out and I get a message saying, well, this person at Adelphia Net is not accepting the e-mail. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, anyway, I asked Chris Round to make a copy of it and have it delivered to me here tonight so I would know the format for Thursday night, and what I would like, then, is to have somebody print it out for me, because. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have a fax machine at home? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 72