The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.10.28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 40-2008 The Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls/NEWCO 1. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-93.1, 93.2, 92.4, 92.11, 96.1, 96.2, 97 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Site Plan No. 5-2001 Stewarts Shops 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25 Site Plan No. 38-2008 Robin Inwald 13. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 43-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings 21. Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.5, 27.4 Freshwater Wetlands 9-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC – Contract Vendee 37. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-30 Freshwater Wetlands 10-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC – Contract Vendee 55. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-48, 49 Freshwater Wetlands 11-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC – Contract Vendee 55. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-37 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, October 28, 2008. The first item on the agenda is Site Plan No. 5-2001 Modification for Stewarts Shops. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Before we get into that, I’m sorry, I was looking at the old agenda before we modified it. We did have a couple of Administrative Items to deal with. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 40-2008 SEQR TYPE I – PREVIOUS EIS [ADOPTED BY TB 8/6/01; ADOPTED BY PB 9/4/01] THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, NEWCO, LLC AGENT(S) CHAZEN COMPANIES; B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING ESC-25A LOCATION AVIATION MALL AND OUT-PARCELS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,400 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT BUILDING, 11,500 SQ. FT. ND MIXED USE BLDG. [RETAIL & RESTAURANT], 93,055 SQ. FT. BOX STORE W/ 2 LEVEL RETAIL, AND A 65,000 SQ. FT. THEATRE EXPANSION. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWABLE USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REVIEW FOR SEQR CONSISTENCY AND BEGIN SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63-08; SP 21-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/10/08 LOT SIZE 7 LOTS TOTALING 52.05 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-93.1, 93.2, 92.4, 92.11, 96.1, 96.2, 97 SECTION 179-9-030 MR. HUNSINGER-For further tabling consideration. I think, Keith, you confirmed that, nd Tuesday, December 2 was available? MR. OBORNE-Yes. The room is reserved for the Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’d be looking for a motion to table Site Plan No. 40-2008, until nd Tuesday, December 2. MR. FORD-So moved. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have a submission date on that? MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t talked about that yet. I’m sorry. th MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes, by November 17. th MR. HUNSINGER-November 17, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2008 PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS/NEWCO, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) Until Tuesday December 2, 2008, with a submission date of November 17th. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN & LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-His agent has requested that the project be tabled. Is there any questions, comments from the members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did he have a date on that? MR. HUNSINGER-There was no date. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-He wants to resubmit. He’s got some stuff he found, looking at the minutes, that he thinks will help the application. So we’ll re-submit next month. I haven’t seen what it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just for the record, that was Jon Lapper, his attorney. Still tabled until November? MR. LAPPER-He just was looking through past minutes and trying to make an analogy argument for other sites that he thought he wanted to, that you’ve approved, that he wanted to show the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Table it until November or December? MR. HUNSINGER-November or December? MR. LAPPER-We’ll submit in November for December. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have two meetings scheduled in December, the 16 and th the 18. I know there’s a couple of items that we’ve tabled. Do you know off the top of your head, Keith, which ones? MR. OBORNE-As usual, I neglected to bring the agenda that we are devising for the next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And I believe we’re five and five for November, and I honestly don’t think it’s too heavy for December. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: To the Planning Board’s December 16, 2008 meeting. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, I did check the minutes. We did leave the th public hearing open. So the public hearing will remain open until December 16. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO THE GAS ISLAND CANOPY TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BLUE STRIPE TO BRAND GAS AS “MOBIL”. ALSO APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE FREESTANDING PRICE SIGN FROM MANUAL TO DIGITAL. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 2-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25 SECTION 179-9-020 CHRIS CANUGIARI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. This is application SP 5-2001, Modification for Stewarts Shop. Requested action is the applicant proposes modification to the gas canopy face in order to internally illuminate a 24 inch wide by 150 long blue band. Further the applicant proposes to use a digital price changing sign that would be attached to the existing freestanding sign. Modifications to previously approved to previously approved site plans require Site Plan approval. That pretty much states what the applicant is here for. MR. CANUGIARI-My name is Chris Canugiari, and I work in the Real Estate (lost word) for Stewarts. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else you want to add? MR. CANUGIARI-No. So where we had left off, I know last time we had it tabled, and before then we did give you the lighting detail to show you that, from a photometric standpoint, nothing had changed with the LED sign or with the addition of the stripe and the MOBIL branding to the canopy, and so I’d like to get your feedback on that. MR. FORD-And the source of that lighting investigation was? MR. CANUGIARI-That it didn’t change. There was no reading, photometrically, the photometrics did not change, no foot candle reading from the stripe itself or the sign itself. So what I did was, there was a cover letter that I attached, and that did give you some lumen figures, in addition to what we had done for the photometrics test that I gave you on these Site Plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MR. FORD-These digital, the digital gas price sign, what’s the rationale for that, please? MR. CANUGIARI-Well, because, one thing is visibility and safety for oncoming traffic. It’s a lot quicker to glance up at that sign. The way it is digitally the visibility is even a little bit better, as opposed to having the current sign with all three numbers, across for all grades there, we would just be showing the Unleaded, and then it’s also just ease for staff. Obviously you’ve got like a 190 foot difference between where the doors and where the sign is. So it’s pretty far away. It’s, with gas price changes these days, with the current market, they’re changing pretty frequently. Even during the wintertime, when you’ve got snow banks and things that are even more of an obstacle to getting out there to change the sign. So it’s a number of those reasons where we’re trying to really make it easier for everybody. MR. FORD-The color of that would be? MR. CANUGIARI-Everybody agreed that they liked the amber better, if we were to do it, and we’re flexible. We’ve done amber and we’ve done red, and it sounds like, if that was to ever even go through, everyone would prefer amber. MR. FORD-Unfortunately I wasn’t at that last meeting where this was discussed. So maybe someone on the Board can enlighten me as to, this seems to be a departure from what our previous discussions have been about that type of digital signage. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. TRAVER-Yes. The digital sign was my only concern with this applicant. The lighting of the canopy, they’ve provided us materials on that, and I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the digital sign. I think it, you know, they’ve offered various colors, and I did find some information on the website of Dactronics, the manufacturer, and I’ve also seen a few of these Stewarts Shops digital signs. There’s one not far from my office in Troy, as a matter of fact. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, we have been rolling them out. We have quite a few locations with them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. My concern, I guess, is not necessarily with anything with regards to this particular applicant, but with the digital sign concept. I think that we’re opening up kind of a bit of a Pandora’s Box, that we’re going to get into sort of a technical argument that we can’t control. MR. FORD-And I know we’ve had some negative ramifications from previous decisions, and they’ve even looked back on it, I recall saying that it was a mistake, and it should not be allowed again. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, and the other concern is, you know, to what degree are we going to have, or should we consider technical issues regarding, you know, if we begin approving digital signs, what kind of sign we might approve and what kind of sign we might not, and again, my concern is that it’s going to lead us down a road where these are going to become more obtrusive and counter to the current nature of the plan, I think, for the Town. MR. FORD-I think those that are presently in use already are. MR. TRAVER-I agree. MR. FORD-So I’m in opposition to it. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. We did everything we could to make it a little more tasteful, and just by limiting the size of it by one foot by two and a half feet, and so we tried to make it so that wasn’t as outlandish as some of the ones you’ve seen. MR. TRAVER-I could also offer a comment with regards to that. The one that I see quite frequently in Troy actually is less objectionable, I guess I would say, than some of the ones that I’ve seen, unfortunately, in nearby communities up here, but again, the problem is that once you begin these signs, not everyone may be quite so concerned with aesthetics or whatever, and we may end up in some kind of technical issue with, well, if we permit this, then how do we not approve that, and it’s just, and I can certainly appreciate the difference in the labor and so one, but that’s my own personal feeling. I have no problem with the application, except for that issue, the digital sign. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think it’s too late to close the barn door. I mean, if we have a Sign Ordinance that says you can’t have that kind of sign, that’s one thing, but I see those signs all over this Town. So how can I tell you you haven’t one when everybody else, that your competitors have one? MR. SIPP-I don’t think they’re all over Town. The one at Stewarts down on Quaker and Dix escaped us. That’s the one that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there’s one up at Aviation Road. MR. SIPP-There’s one on Aviation Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve seen them all over. MR. SIPP-No, they aren’t all over. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And if it’s a violation of our Sign Ordinance, that’s one thing. MR. SIPP-We have control over what kind of sign we will approve, and since the Sign Ordinance does not say that it is legal, or it is preferable, we can say it’s not preferable, and I think this is what we have to do in order to keep out, not only gas price signs, but other signs that are doing the same thing, and digital signs, to me, are not what we want in the Town of Queensbury. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. FORD-We’ve had other applicants, drugstores, etc., which wanted to use similar type of signage. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’s only talking about, you’re only talking about the price of gas, right? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question for you, Steve, if I could. Have you seen any of the amber color signs? MR. CANUGIARI-I’ve got a printout here, too, if you want to see a comparison. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure. I’m not certain if I have, in the flesh. I did go to the website, and I think I brought in some handouts for the Board members, of what the manufacturer of the sign that the applicant is proposing says is an amber digit display. MR. CANUGIARI-Should I hand these out? These are current. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. Thank you. MR. FORD-I’ve seen the amber. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the reason why I ask is because in their, you know, August th 13 letter, it was stated by Stewarts that the overall lumen output of the red display was 1225, while the amber was 654. So that’s about half as bright. MR. TRAVER-Right. I think, it’s been my experience that, I think the issue with the digital sign is not so much the brightness as it is the frequency of the light. One of the reasons, for example, that police departments choose red lights is that they, that frequency of light can be detected over long distances. So it’s not so much the brilliance of it as it is that it penetrates, and it’s the very reason that the applicant wants to use it. It’s something that, it carries along, you can certainly, you can read a digital sign of a given size further away than you can an analog sign of an equal size, and I can appreciate that interest in their part, but I think it’s, the strengths of this sign, from the business perspective, are the weaknesses in terms of design for the character of the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re proposing an amber sign, correct? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, and this sign here, is this, you said it’s like one foot by? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. The actual, where it’s lit up? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. CANUGIARI-Where the digital print is, it’s like one foot by two and a half, roughly. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with it. MRS. BRUNO-Let’s look at it just from kind of a medium place between everyone’s thoughts. Chris, you were on the Board for the future zoning. Now I understand that it’s gone through multiple stages. I, myself, haven’t been to a more recent meeting. So I don’t know, really, how things have been altered, but at the time that you were on the Board for the zoning, what were they discussing, in terms of the direction of signage in Town? MR. HUNSINGER-We never dealt with the Sign Ordinance. No. In fact, it was specifically excluded from the scope of study that the consultant was hired to perform, and in one of the concerns, we talked about this a little bit after the meeting, last week, most of the Sign Ordinance falls under the purview of the Zoning Board. It doesn’t fall under the purview of the Planning Board, and one of the concerns that I have, as a Planning Board member, is applicants can not submit sign details as part of their Site Plan Review, then, you know, just go to Staff and say, well, our sign is compliant with the Code, and then go and do what they want, when it never came through Site Plan Review as part of the Planning Board record, or, worse yet, they need a variance, because if 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) they want to make their sign bigger than what’s allowed, they go to the Zoning Board. So it never goes through Site Plan Review, and I think that, you know, the Town needs to take a hard look at the Zoning Ordinance, and I think it really should fall under the purview of the Planning Board, because we’re the ones that do Site Plan Review. MRS. BRUNO-Now, is there a specific reason why they left that out, in terms of what Saratoga Associates was to cover? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t remember the reasoning behind it. We had to limit it at some point, and, you know, I think that was the scope of work that was proposed, and, you know, that was the amount of money that the Town was willing to expend, so that’s as far as we got, but it is a discussion that I think needs to be held. MRS. BRUNO-Well, you make an excellent point, because we’ve seen some other signs pop up in the area that, from previous Site Plans that were, right, okayed, and then it kind of popped back up when the property sold. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I recall, when we had the first discussion, the negative comments from the members of this Board were directed at the red ones, and, you know, I think they’re garish, and I think they’re bad, and I think they, sometimes, can confuse traffic and could be a public safety problem, but the orange ones, amber, whatever you want to call them, it’s almost like you cut the power in half, because they’re just part of the landscaping. You see it all over the country, but just lately they’ve started these real bright red ones and green ones, and the next thing you know they’ll be blue, because that’s the new color the police have chosen instead of red, but I don’t have a problem with the amber one. MR. FORD-My concern continues to be, we have felt in the past, when we’ve passed on these, that they were mistakes. I think we’re opening up Pandora’s Box. I think just from the regulatory and enforcement standpoint, who’s going to make a determination as to how bright it is, and that could be almost a full time job here in a relatively short amount of time, because we’re going to have an enormous amount of signs that are going to be digitalized, as long as we start saying yes, and I don’t think that we want to be, based upon our reflection on previous mistakes, want to become a digitalized, signed, community. MR. SIPP-I think also, because this is near the Main Street project, which has severely limited signs, and we’ve used a digital sign for a service station there at the entrance to the Northway, and I think, in order to keep in some kind of proximity, which you are, to what would be the Main Street project, that we do not have such types of signs. MR. FORD-Could you relate for us the number of Stewarts Shops there are in the Town of Queensbury that pump gas? MR. CANUGIARI-I don’t know the exact number, actually, to be honest with you. MR. FORD-Well, could you give us an approximation? MR. CANUGIARI-There’s probably four or five. MR. FORD-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing no takers, I will, any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted Action. I think they had submitted a Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. FORD-Aesthetic, yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Now you need to explain, on the form, how you’re going to mitigate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I don’t want to mitigate it. I want to eliminate it. MR. TRAVER-Well, I suppose we could say that it would be mitigated should the applicant reconsider the use of the amber digital sign to an analog model instead. I mean, would that not mitigate? MR. OBORNE-That would be a fine way to do it. You just have to have something down for the record that there’s something out there to mitigate that, regardless of what the vote is. MR. FORD-I can accept that mitigation. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to say analog sign use? Okay. MR. FORD-Instead of digital. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-So, we still propose a Negative Declaration? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I propose a Negative Declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion, is there a second? MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, just a point of discussion. Are we voting on the application, including the digital sign, I’m assuming. So that would include, with regards to the positive or negative declaration, the inclusion of the aesthetic issue raised by Mr. Ford. In other words, if we approve a Negative Declaration as submitted, with the application as submitted, then we’re negating the proposal that there’s an aesthetic impact. MR. OBORNE-If you pass this, and it looks like it may be passed six to one, it still would be a positive, I mean, a Negative Declaration, on the whole project. Is that the question? MR. TRAVER-The question is we found an impact with regard to aesthetics, or an impact was proposed by Mr. Ford. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Then the question was raised, could that impact be mitigated, and there was discussion about the fact that if the application were altered, so that the signage would be analog instead of digital, that that would mitigate that aesthetic impact. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but that has not happened as of this point in time. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So, when we’re voting on SEQRA, if, for example, I, or any other Board members feel, that the digital sign has this aesthetic impact, and yet we approve a Negative impact, isn’t that going against the original finding of an aesthetic impact? MRS. BRUNO-I know what you’re getting at. Does it give us footing, you know, or have we taken it away? MR. OBORNE-Well, it was one member of the Board that had an issue with the aesthetic impact. Are there other members of the Board that had? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess that’s, does this vote, then, bring that to the fore? MR. OBORNE-If it’s a Positive Declaration, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But it looks like, and I’m not speaking for the Board. If it’s a Positive Declaration, then yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So, should we go back to that particular one and take a vote on that? MR. OBORNE-I think that if you make a Positive Declaration, you’re going to have to figure out how you’re going to make it a doable project. A Positive Declaration means that you have to go into a, I believe, a Long Form. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you can have a Negative Declaration, and then you can have another motion as to whether you’re going to approve this thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, but we’ve been told in the past that if we deny something that we’ve already voted on in SEQRA, that it’s not an issue, then, again, we lose our footing. MR. TRAVER-That’s what I’m wondering. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, that’s what land use, though. Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I have a question to ask the applicant. Will you withdraw that portion of the application that calls for digital signage and go with analog? MR. CANUGIARI-Would we want to have any kind of poll as to everyone how they feel first? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s where we’re headed. MR. FORD-No, that’s a question for the applicant. MR. CANUGIARI-I mean, I would like everyone to vote on that piece. I mean, we could separate the branding from the sign. MR. FORD-Your answer is yes or no? MR. CANUGIARI-So no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I mean, I understand what people are saying, in terms of whether or not the aesthetic impact of one sign is going to result in a Positive Declaration. We do have a motion for, a motion to approve a Negative Declaration. I guess I’d be looking for a second for that motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2001, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEWARTS SHOPS, 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. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, we do not have a Negative Declaration. So now we have to go to the Long Form? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So now what are you going to do with it? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we need to address the aesthetic issue and resolve that. MR. SIPP-Let’s take a straw vote. MR. SEGULJIC-There is an option, if you say you can have an analog sign. MR. CANUGIARI-In that case we could, yes. MR. FORD-And you will, if approved? MR. CANUGIARI-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Same size? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. We could keep it, I mean, the way it is now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CANUGIARI-Is the answer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that what you’re going to do? Is that what you want? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. We could leave it exactly that way, rather than go through, I mean, we’d have to do the EAF, right, and go through that whole process? MR. HUNSINGER-And you know what the vote’s going to be. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. That’s what I was just going to say. So we’re going to withdraw that portion. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, what we need to do is address the issue that resulted in a Positive Declaration. The issue was the aesthetics. Is that fair, is that the only issue? MR. TRAVER-Yes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. FORD-That has now been modified. It’s going to be analog as opposed to digital? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-I don’t have concerns with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I think Mr. Ford had really made it very clear, articulated exactly what I was thinking. That’s why I didn’t repeat anything he said, but, in terms of where we’re headed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. With the proposed mitigation measure that the digital sign will be analog, same size, would someone like to put forward a, Mr. Seguljic, would you like to put forward a new motion for Negative Declaration? MR. SEGULJIC-I will motion to have a Negative Declaration in consideration that the applicant has proposed to remove the digital sign and replace it with an analog sign of the same size. MR. FORD-Second. MRS. BRUNO-Well, do we want to say consideration, in consideration that he does? Repeat how you put it, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-I said proposed resolution, that he proposed to change it to an analog sign. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I’m sorry. I misheard it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2001, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEWARTS SHOPS, 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. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Site Plan. I assume the sign would be back lit. I guess that would be the only issue to deal with. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, you’re talking about the freestanding sign? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CANUGIARI-I mean, yes, we could, we were thinking we’d leave it, I mean, as it is, back lit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it would be the sign that’s there now? MR. CANUGIARI-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. So we’re only changing the canopy. MR. SEGULJIC-So how do we word this? Because the application includes the change in the sign. So we’re only going to approve the canopy portion? MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-The application consists of the canopy and the sign. The applicant has stated they’re going to keep the sign the same. MR. OBORNE-Right. The condition of your approval should be that it’s without the digital sign. MR. SEGULJIC-Without the proposed digital sign? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Everything else is approved. MR. OBORNE-That would be nice and clean. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes alterations to the gas island canopy to construct an internally illuminated blue stripe to brand gas as “Mobil”. Also applicant proposes to change freestanding price sign from manual to digital. Modifications to previously approved site plans require Planning Board and approval. 2)A public hearing is not required for a modification ; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, Negative. In accordance with the following condition: 1.That the proposed digital sign will not be installed. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. CANUGIARI-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. CANUGIARI-I appreciate it. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 SEQR TYPE II ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S) PARADOX DESIGNS OWNER(S) INWALD ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 863 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WHICH WILL CONNECT THE GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND A 400 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-08; SEASONAL RESIDENCE; [BP 92-378, 89-059, 6987, 6732, 6589] WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-13-010, 179-9-020 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. First I’m going to read what the Zoning Board has brought about. A recommendation from the Planning Board concerning Area Variance No. 68- 2008 has been requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their meeting dated October 22, 2008. I have put Zoning Board Staff Notes in your file today. You can reference those during the proceeding. This is Site Plan, for the Planning Board, this is Site Plan 38-2008, the applicant is Robin Inwald. The requested action is Site Plan Review for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Location is 38 Gunn Lane. This is Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA Status is Type II, and a quick project description, existing one story house to be connected to existing garage with a 642 square foot expansion to the east side of the house. Further, a new 221 square foot foyer/porch and a new 400 square foot screened porch proposed in addition to the expansion. A new septic is also proposed for this project. Mr. Chairman, tonight basically what you’re going to have to do is have a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Obviously, you can’t approve this until Area Variances are approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Thank you. Good evening. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charlie Johnson. I’m with Paradox Design Architects, representing Robin Inwald tonight. She’s owned, her and her family have owned this property since the mid 70’s, and in the 30 years since she’s owned it they’ve built a garage, and I think a dock. So they’ve done relatively little improvements to the property over the years. The purpose of this expansion is to provide a handicap accessible year round house for Robin’s mom, who’s in her 80’s, and Robin herself. Robin suffers from Rheumatoid Arthritis and a degenerative spine disease that’s going to keep her in a walker in about five years, a wheelchair probably in about 10. So that’s the primary purpose for our addition. As you know the project’s a pre-existing, nonconforming. The house is too close to the side property boundary. The owners are also aware of their role as a shoreline resident. They’re concerned about impacting this site to a very small degree, and they’ve kept their addition hidden behind the existing house connecting it to the garage. So they’ve opted to go for this variance to keep this impact to a small visual degree. Current zoning would allow them to expand the house out into the yard, and build a two story volume if they wanted. It would be a much greater presence when viewed from the lake. They’ve chosen not to do that. There’s an existing septic that’s on site that’s going to be replaced that was also put in in the 80’s, unknown origins, unknown size, that’s going to be completely abandoned and removed. We’ve proposed a lot line adjustment. The same family owns the property to the rear. You can see on the Site Plan we’ve allocated new property for a brand new septic system to the rear of the property. So the project includes an addition that links the house and the garage together. We’ve got a new screened porch facing the lake, and then there’s a small shallow addition on the side that creates a new front entry to the house. No undesirable change is going to be created in the neighborhood. There’s no other means or designs that impact this site to a lesser degree. There’s no adverse impact to environmental conditions in the neighborhood. So I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-There’s an issue that’s noted both in the Staff comments and I believe in the VISION Engineering comments about the perc test. Can you address that? That’s, apparently occurred outside the seasonal period, it needs to be witnessed. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. We weren’t aware that it had to be witnessed. Charlie Maine did the tests. Well renown guy in the area, but we can have that re-done if that’s what’s required, under observation. MR. FORD-What is the drinking water source for this home? MR. JOHNSON-The lake. Well, there’s no well on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Do they plan to install one? MR. JOHNSON-As far as I know, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Is there living space over the garage, as of now? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SIPP-And that will stay as? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SIPP-And is there a bath? MR. JOHNSON-There’s a bath. You actually have to walk into the garage to access the bathroom for that. It’s not, the bathroom’s not really used. I think it’s her brother that comes up and uses that garage bedroom we’ll call it in the summertime. That’s counted into our septic system calculations as well. MR. SIPP-Now is there, does the neighbor draw their water, or do they have a well? MR. JOHNSON-That’s one of VISION’s comments is to document where wells are within 100 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of our proposed septic. So we’ll take that into account. I’ll get the surveyor back out there and we’ll document that. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. FORD-To make sure that that 1500 gallon tank is at least 200 feet away from the lake. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know where the existing septic system is? MR. JOHNSON-It’s purported to be, the actual septic tank itself is between the two buildings. The field is between the driveway and the side property line. That’s what I’ve been told. MR. SEGULJIC-And the plans with that is? MR. JOHNSON-That’s all going to be removed. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all going to be removed. Now, just clarify this for me, on this one, this parcel here, that’s going to get conveyed to this lot then? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s where the septic system is going to go? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s going to get conveyed there, and it’s all going to be combined into one? MR. JOHNSON-It’ll be merged as one new lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-Part of land taken from the larger lot in the rear. So I think a new deed has been drafted, as per Staff Notes. All that’s been taken care of and filed. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now, it would appear, now there’s no stormwater permit application under 147 with this application. It would appear that, there is? MR. JOHNSON-We completed one, I thought we did. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it wasn’t in the package. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Because that was one of my comments. It would appear to be, because in your Short Form I believe you say .54 acres would be affected. You know what, I take that back, it’s right here. MR. OBORNE-That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-I think you need some test pits near your stormwater, your trench that you have to take the roof water. We have no idea what soil or how deep and where, how much you have to any water mottling or. Now, along the southern boundary where you have existing wire fence, there are trees down through there, and these will stay? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SIPP-Now there’s one porch which is there now, goes all the way across the side, but you say you’re not going all the way across with the new one. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SIPP-That large tree. MR. JOHNSON-The reason we’re not going all the way across is to preserve the large tree. MR. SIPP-Okay. Now there are plantings down towards the lake also, as I remember it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. FORD-The balcony on the upper level of the garage, is that to remain or be eliminated? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, it is. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious. Going into the rear, your new rear foyer, and then proceeding into the hallway, it looks like you’ve got a couple of stairs there? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MRS. BRUNO-And it looks like bedroom three is what you intend to have as the handicapped bedroom? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. So that back door won’t be used by anyone in a wheelchair or a walker. They’re going to come off the front porch. On think on that plan, the porch doesn’t really show where the ramp would be, but there’s a long sliver of a porch, and part of that will be a ramped area. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-So there’ll be a walk to that porch. That’s how she’ll get into the house. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. You knew where I was going with that. So who will be here full time? Just the number of people, two? MR. JOHNSON-Two. In the summertime there will be more family members that would come and go, but, year round, it’s just the two of them. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, from my perspective, I’d like to see, I would assume there might be some neighbors here to comment on this, but overall, I’d be fine, but some of the details have got to get worked out. Like one of them is I think this should be a major stormwater project because, this is just my opinion, I think you’re over 5,000 square feet of disturbed area, and you’re adding more than 1,000 square feet of impervious area, because between two new additions, one’s 600 square feet, I think. MR. JOHNSON-I think the porch is four, the addition is 600 and change. MR. SEGULJIC-So it would be over 1,000. MR. JOHNSON-1,000, right. MR. SEGULJIC-That makes you a large, major stormwater project. The rules are a little different there, and the other thing is, in your plans you don’t have any, you don’t mention the 147-10, the erosion controls. MR. JOHNSON-Didn’t we have details on there for the silt fence? We don’t maybe have that statement that they need to comply with. MR. SEGULJIC-But it goes beyond that, where it talks about, when you grub areas, you have like ten days to re-vegetate them if you’re not going to be doing anything in the area. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess what I’m saying is, go back to 147 and look at that, and that’s really what I’m looking for. I mean, I think it’s good that you’re going to be installing a new septic system, which is always good, especially for the lake, and it looks like you’re going to try and get it as far away from the lake as you can. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And also, I know you have your drywell. I don’t see any test pit data for the drywells. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And this is another thing, I think it’s like 18 feet from the house, but I believe it has to be 20 feet from the house. MR. JOHNSON-A drywell? MR. SEGULJIC-A drywell, I think, has to be 20 feet from structures. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s just a detail that can get worked out. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, now I’m being nitpicky, but your Floor Area Ratio, you have a couple of different numbers. I think you have one, is, you come up with 3,450 in one spot and the other area is 3,403. Just clarify that. MR. JOHNSON-Where are you looking? Site Development Data? MR. SEGULJIC-No, the Floor Area Ratio. I think what happened is, Floor Area Ratio on Page Four, when you add them up, you come to 3,403 square feet, and I think it’s listed as 3,383 or something. I guess just recheck those numbers. I mean, that’s something we can. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. SEGULJIC-And the driveway is crushed stone, I believe. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Because one of the things, if you become Major, is that then you have to go back and pick up all of your pre-existing impervious surfaces. I don’t know what you have for stormwater control on the house right now. MR. JOHNSON-There is none, there’s nothing. MR. SEGULJIC- That’s one of the things I’d be looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-So the size of the residential project, you feel strongly enough that it’s a Major stormwater? MR. SEGULJIC-The way I look at it is, you’re in a CEA, which has been designated by the State of New York as an area of value to us. MR. OBORNE-If I may, sir, 15,000 square feet is the threshold. Obviously you can have some different, you know, if you’re in a Critical Environmental Area, the Zoning Administrator can classify that. It is classified as a Minor. MR. SEGULJIC-You know what, I take that back. You are correct, because if it’s 5,000, you have to have 1,000 square feet. I take that back. You are correct. MR. OBORNE-Right, yes, and he’s nowhere near. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. JOHNSON-Well, I think if there are stormwater elements that you’d like to see us include, I think we’d be happy to do that. MR. FORD-And make them a part of the plan. MR. JOHNSON-Sure. I mean, the applicant’s not wanting to have stormwater run into the lake just as much as you are. So if you guys feel that there’s something significant or important that we could add that would be helpful, we’d be happy to do that. MRS. BRUNO-We’ve been advocating for some of the rain gardens, and additional native plantings around, I forget the depth of the border we usually ask for the buffer 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) going up to the lake. We usually suggest that you visit the Lake George Association’s information. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. FORD-And as recommended by Dan Ryan, the engineer, when you’re putting those stormwater devices on the plans, please also make reference to the maintenance procedures. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. There’s was nothing in the technical element here that I had any issue with. The only, cleanouts for residential septic systems seemed maybe a little over the top, but, other than that, everything else was very reasonable. Cleanouts at the bends, I’ve never seen that before, but we’re happy to do it. MR. SIPP-While you’re dealing with the rain gardens, take a look at what is recommended for plantings along the lake. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. SIPP-That’s all grass as it goes down through there, and the slope is not too great, but you still could have some plantings there to help prevent any phosphorus materials from getting into the lake. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. SIPP-And that’s available through Lake George Association and the Fund for Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-If I can get back to my Floor Area Ratio, I found the numbers, because on your Sheet S-1, you show it as 3,015, 3,015 on Sheet S-1, if I’m understanding you correctly. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The total, and when you come to Floor Area Ratio, I add up 3,403. You’re still well within the allowance, I believe, but the numbers aren’t matching up. MR. JOHNSON-You know the garage is 660 there and I think it’s 720 here. I think that’s the issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If we can just clarify that. MR. JOHNSON-I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Good catch. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? One taker. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do not have a problem with the application, but we had a couple of questions on the technical issues. First was regarding the infiltration trench. They had a number of 21 gallons of storage per linear feet, based on the Park Commission regulations. However, their regulations are based on a four foot deep trench. They’re only proposing a three foot deep trench with some sand. So that provides less volume. So that should be taken a look at. Also, there was not a detail on their drywell. They had an eight foot diameter drywell, four feet deep. The Park Commission’s volume is based on that drywell being surrounded by one foot of stone. Again, we think that that detail should be added just to clarify that, and I think Mrs. Bruno had a good point on the rain gardens. That would be a suggestion of ours. Regarding the infiltration capabilities along the building, the infiltration trench, will that be impacted by construction, compacting the soils so that they could actually grade the site away from the building and install a rain garden away from 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) the building. We think that there would a better infiltration, plus you would keep water away from your foundation, and the other point that we had, I think the Board had picked up regarding the on site septic system that was existing. That’s been noted. So that’s been addressed. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Since this is just a recommendation to the Zoning Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I didn’t see is, were there any concerns from neighbors, in terms of the proximity of the addition to the property line? MR. JOHNSON-At the Zoning meeting, there were two letters, one letter from a non- adjoining property owner in opposite. Once they discovered about this project, they called the adjoining neighbor who would be most impacted. His letter, I think, said I didn’t know anything about it, please tell me more. So that’s all the information. MR. HUNSINGER-So has there been any discussions with the adjacent property owner? MR. JOHNSON-Steven Owen is the, what’s the term, the Executor of the Estate. So I don’t think, when we notified property owners, he was on the list. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the property next door is currently for sale? MR. JOHNSON-No, it’s in the family, but the property owner who’s listed on those documents is deceased. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who is listed on that document? MR. JOHNSON-Mrs. Owen. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mrs. Owen, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, Rebecca Lupe Owen. It was returned. The house is vacant at this current time. So it was returned to sender. MRS. BRUNO-What was the initial opposition of the non-adjoining owner? MR. JOHNSON-I don’t remember. MR. OBORNE-I could read that. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, it might be good to read that. MR. OBORNE-Now, keep in mind, these have already been read into the Area Variance, and are specific to the Area Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what the question I asked, actually, though. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Quite frankly, I don’t see it in here, but that doesn’t mean they’re not. MR. JOHNSON-They talked about the house as being rented. They were worried that they would be expanding the rental use, I think. MR. OBORNE-That was certainly one of them, yes. MR. JOHNSON-They’re probably going to tell you that it’s for the mother and the daughter, but don’t believe them. They’re going to rent it, something to that effect. They wish they had argued for another project that got approved, and they didn’t, and now they’re arguing for this one. Other than the rental thing, I didn’t, I don’t recall specific issues. As I said, they’re non-adjoining. I think they’re one or two lots over. I didn’t recognize the name from any of my survey info. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-This isn’t Steve’s sister that’s arguing this, is it? MR. JOHNSON-It’s Faulkner, something like that, was the last name. MR. OBORNE-Quite honestly, I can’t remember. I do not have that file with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, my only concern with the project was, it’s a great design, I really like the design of the house, as shown, but I think it was a comment from the Zoning Board as well, or from Staff. In looking at where the location of the new additions are, they could be designed so that they don’t encroach onto the neighbor’s property as much, and that’s really the only comment that I had on the overall project. MR. JOHNSON-And for us it was a kind of balancing. If we did that, that we didn’t need the variance, we’d be out in the middle of the yard, and it would be more impacting as viewed from the lake. So we were trying to minimize that. There’s a deed restriction between the two property owners, the one to the rear and the one on the lake, that limits the amount the house can be expanded. There’s a deed restriction for a view corridor across this property. Same owner, same family. We could probably forget about it, but that is in existence as well, but really it’s about the view from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, just an example, I mean, either the porch or the fill in between the house and the garage could be, you know, slid, I don’t know in which direct it is, away from your neighbor’s lot, you know, four or five feet. It certainly wouldn’t impact the design significantly, but it would get the property, you know, the house itself a little further away from the property line. MR. JOHNSON-You can see from the floor plan inside there’s kind of a central corridor with bedrooms on each side. So shifting it starts to impact that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-We tried to be efficient with the amount of addition that we’re doing here. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. JOHNSON-We didn’t think the garage is already there. The garage is actually four feet closer than the house. We picked the garage wall to use. We didn’t think the three or four feet would make any significant difference. We tried to look at the addition is sort of a best use, economical use of our footprint. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, all we’re doing is making a recommendation. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-How do we word a recommendation to the Zoning Board again? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think there were a couple of specific issues that they were asking us to address. I guess the two things that the Zoning Board was specific about was stormwater and wastewater. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, and they’re asking for 13.5 feet of side setback relief and greater than 50% expansion of a nonconforming structure. MR. SEGULJIC-So something like we recommend that the Zoning Board, just for discussion purposes, approve the variance for Robin Inwald, in consideration that wastewater and stormwater issues can be addressed during Site Plan Review? Is that the wording we’re looking for? MR. HUNSINGER-You can say that. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Is this on a slab? MR. JOHNSON-It’s on a crawl space. There’s, I don’t know how much dirt beneath the floor. You can’t crawl underneath it. So that’s going to be improved as well. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-Are you going to have problems getting the insulation in there? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. With the extent of construction that we’re going to need with renovations, all that’s going to be sort of accessible. We’ll cut holes in the floor and excavate out and put insulation down in there. MRS. BRUNO-So will you have a fully accessible crawl space in the new areas? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE ZONING BOARD THAT THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY ROBIN INWALD BE GRANTED CONSIDERING THAT STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JOHNSON-Thank you all very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. I’m sure we’ll see you again. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 36,000 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN A PO ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 9- 2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA ACOE WETLAND [0.13 ACRES] LOT SIZE 2.58, 2.17 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-30 SECTION 179- 6-100D(1), 179-9-020 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 43-2000 and Freshwater Wetlands 12-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings is the applicant. Requested action: Site Plan Review for the construction of a professional office and Freshwater Wetland Permit review for hardsurfacing within 50 feet of a wetland. Location is Willowbrook Drive. Professional Office is the existing zoning. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Vacant parcel within approved Baybrook Professional Park is basically the parcel history. Project Description: The applicant proposes the construction of a 36,000 square foot professional office building with associated site work in the Baybrook Professional Park. Staff Comments: The proposed office building is accessed off of Willowbrook Drive cul de sac. All utilities are proposed to be underground. There are ACOE or Army Corps of Engineers wetlands to the west of the property line and ACOE or Army Corps of Engineers wetlands on the property to the southwest. Proposal calls for hard surfacing within 43 feet of the existing wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. I’ll just hit the highlights and then Tom can walk you through the Site Plan and answer any questions. To start off with, this is the second to last lot to be developed in Rich’s professional park, as you know because the Board has reviewed and approved all of the different parts of this. The Hospital is one of his major tenants, the Imaging Center. Rich’s office is in front. There’s the daycare center and then his Willows Senior apartment project. All of his projects are fully leased in that complex. There’s this lot on the north side and one more lot on the south side for future development. What’s proposed, and what we’re here to talk about tonight, is located immediately behind Rich’s office and in front of the Willows. So he looked at this site and tried to fit something on in conjunction with the neighboring projects and the stream 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) corridor, Army Corp wetland, and what we came up with is a project that is leaving 50% impermeable. So this is certainly not a maximum build out, 36,000 square foot building would fit on nicely. This is smaller than the Hospital building in front along Bay Road. There are just about three comments in the Staff Notes and the engineering comments that I wanted to respond to, and then I’ll turn it over to Tom. First of all, the Freshwater Wetlands permit is for a very small sliver, which is just necessary to accommodate just the parking and the drive aisles, just to measure out. Rich had hoped that this would not require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. It’s just a real small sliver, I think 500 square feet. So a very small area, and in terms of any impact on the wetlands, because that’s curved, the water is collected and piped underground into a treatment basin. So it doesn’t have any impact. There’s, nothing drains from the drive aisle into the wetland, and I just want to point out that, on the adjacent site, which is the only building that Rich didn’t build that he sold to the dental practice, if you look on the first sheet of Tom’s plans, it looks like they’re paved about a foot from the wetland, and Rich is 43 feet, and it’s just in that small space. So we certainly tried to be sensitive to that, and in most cases it’s well beyond the 50 foot setback. It’s just in this one area where it couldn’t be met, and secondly, Keith’s comments suggested perhaps putting the parking in the back of the building, and in this case, because this is not on Bay Road, we don’t think that it needs to be addressed in terms of that aesthetic issue because you’re not going to see it from Bay Road, but the real reason why this was designed this way is because there is residential area behind it. So we didn’t think it was best to have more rows of parking. We tried to soften it, put the building in the middle, rather than to have more parking in the back closer to homes, but in order to address that, I’m sure you’ve noticed the landscaping plan, this is very extensive landscaping with spruce trees and maples, oaks, locusts in the back, really serious buffer, in terms of the size and number of trees, you know, in general an office is a quiet use anyway, but Rich wanted to be careful here to come to you with a very involved landscaping plan, and we think that’s what we have, and then finally, Tom has talked to Dan Ryan. All of his comments are really very basic and we agree with all of them. It’s just the one that we wanted to discuss that the 26 foot aisle width, Tom feels that’s best, just in terms of maneuverability for larger vehicles. We certainly could reduce it to 24, but it’s just better to make sure that you don’t have conflicts in a parking lot. You think about Lowe’s where you have to take two turns to get into some of the spaces. It’s just that, we think that that is pretty minor to ask for, and it just makes the site work better, and again, since we’re at 50% green space, it’s not like we’re overbuilding the site, and the final thing is parking. We have asked for180 spaces, which is five per thousand. The parking code for offices is one per three hundred square feet. So we’re asking for one for two hundred square feet. So it’s 50% over instead of 120 spaces 180, but in Rich’s experience, through all the office buildings, he feels that the five per thousand is what you need. This is certainly nowhere near the number of, you know, something, the larger building that Rich previously proposed elsewhere. This is sort of in the middle in terms of what office needs, but it just, based upon what he has with the other tenants, he doesn’t want to create a situation where people are parking on the grass, and certainly this parking can be accommodated since we’re, again, at 50% green space. So those were the major issues that I saw in the notes. Let me just ask Tom to walk you through it. MR. NACE-Okay. Real quick, short, sweet, and simple. The site is served by existing water and sewer, out on Willowbrook Drive, and we’re simply connecting to those. For drainage, everything, as Jon said, everything, all the parking areas are curbed. All of the drainage is collected in catch basins and piped to two basins, one up in front near the turnaround on Willowbrook Drive, and one over adjacent to the wetland area over to the west. In those basins, there’s a pre-treatment area where the stormwater comes in and sediment is collected. The final treatment and a discharge structure, a two stage discharge structure to regulate the flow, the peak flow out, and there are aquatic benches in both basins that are planted with aquatic, with wetland plants to help treat the stormwater. I think Jon’s covered everything else. The area of pavement that encroaches on the 50% foot pavement setback is a little triangle that’s right here. It’s a sliver about, I don’t know, a, if I remember right, seven feet wide, and maybe 100 feet long, but it’s a triangle, so it’s, if I remember right, about 500 square feet total. It’s a very small area. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We’re ready for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Could that sliver be cut down further, simply by cutting it down further? What is that, 26 wide there at that point? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. NACE-Actually, we already cut it down a little. What happened is, with the 26 foot wide aisle, when your parking spaces went from 20 feet long to 18 feet long, it made it more difficult to get in and out of parking spaces, if you keep a regular 24 foot aisle. We have 26 around the back. Here in front we did 25 feet to try to minimize, already to try to minimize that, but we still have to have circulation space around the building for fire truck access, and we felt that the minor encroachment into that 50 foot setback, simply because we’re not allowing runoff to just run across into the wetland, runoff is collected and treated in the basin. So it really doesn’t have any physical impact on the adjacent wetlands, the fact that we’re seven feet into the buffer zone. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Where’s the snow going to be piled, or is it going to be removed or what? RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-As far as the snow goes, as far as, well, we push it to the sides. We have plenty of room, and we actually use loaders for these. We don’t actually use plow trucks. We don’t actually use plow trucks, we use loaders now, because their parking lots, it’s a lot easier, but sometimes we do have to remove it, we bring our dump trucks in, but for most of the time it’ll be right on site, because I do have quite a bit of room around the project. So I can manage to put it there, but if it had to be taken out, I can do that as well. MR. SIPP-All right. Do you use salt in your operation? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We have to use salt. A lot of the uses are medical uses, and with the cost of salt, to be honest, we try and use it sparingly, but we use a combination of sand and salt. MR. SIPP-You’ve got two varieties, and possibly three, in your landscaping plan, red maple and Norway Spruce, which have a very low tolerance for salt. So I would think about damage done to them by. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Actually the parking lots is where we use the sand and salt, but if it’s walkways, I’m not saying there’s trees not around the parking lot area, but around the building where there’s heavy landscaping, we do use stuff that’s, that not only protects the concrete but it environmentally friendly to the bushes. MR. SIPP-On the way in, on the road in. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I do want to add, Bruce Frank does a great job with patrolling, especially my projects, and if there are replacements that are needed, it is done. So, we certainly don’t let things die. We replace them. Bruce does patrol it. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have a tenant in mind for this? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, and I knew that question would come up. Over the years, and as recent as last week, I get these calls all the time from, mainly it’s a lot of physicians, accountants, I had a law firm, and they’ll call me up and they’ll say, gee, we need 8,000, we need 10,000 square feet, and I’ll say, well, when do you need it, well, four months, and I’m like, four months, sometimes it takes that long for my engineer to draw things and then get it in front of Site Plan Review and get Sketch. It’s extremely frustrating because I do get a lot of tenants that, you know, I don’t want to say they slip away, but I can’t accommodate them because you just can’t do things that quick. I mean, once I even have this approved, they come to you, then you still have to take the time to lay out their office, their design inside the envelope here. So that’s the purpose for doing this, because I do get these calls all the time. I’ve had real estate agents, but most of it’s physicians, and that’s the other thing I wanted to explain for the parking. I have the parking down to exactly where I need it. My particular building has an allergist underneath where I am, and parking can be challenging at times. If I had to do it all over again, I’d try and, you know, get more parking in there. They have their peak times and their off times, but I do have it balanced well where, if physicians go in this building, it can accommodate them, and truthfully, I’m hoping to get a couple of physicians in there. So, I mean, could I have gone with less parking? Yes, but then it’s a situation where, years down the road, I may be coming back just asking, can we add here, can we add there? But I don’t think I’m overbuilding this site. We still have 50% permeable. MR. SIPP-Is this a wood framed building? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, it’ll be same architectural design, same structural, the way I built all the rest of the buildings over in the park. I did take consideration. There are two neighbors what I would say would be directly affected, the house to the north, and there’s one up in the corner. To date, knock on wood, because I open every piece of mail in my office, and I’m there every day, I’ve had no complaints from the neighbors since I built the Willows, and if we did have complaints, it was generally, like Bruce Frank would come over, could you fill a landscape void in or something like that. So I did take consideration of the way this was laid out, because if I did it another way, then it would block the residents from another direction. So I just picked the direction we thought would be best is as well. MRS. BRUNO-When you put together your original subdivision, I think that was prior to me, quite a bit, were the colors of the buildings, was that something that was, or was it just kind of an open, earth tone? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There was no, if you remember the project, there was no, and I don’t know if we have architectural review other than your discretion. It was very, it was when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was being developed by Jim Martin, when he was on the Planning Committee, I think, right, they wanted the streetscape and stuff, and John Strough was big on that, and I agreed to all of that. Pretty much the buildings, as far as the architectural design, was more or less John Strough’s design, which I’m happy with. I have no complaints with. MR. LAPPER-Residential in character. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Residential in character, and as far as colors, there was no adopted plan, just keep them similar in nature to what I had out there, which, again, I’ll condition it to similar colors again. MR. LAPPER-What you’re showing is pretty similar to the Hospital building on Bay Road. Right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. This is going to be a blend of my building, the rehabilitation building, the imaging building, you know, the hip designed roof, architectural shingles, the brick added in. MR. HUNSINGER-I had some similar kind of questions and comments. I mean, I like the design, in fact, I’ve been a patient in two of the doctors’ offices that you’ve built. I was there today, you know, I think the design works very well. I had questions on the color scheme as well. I mean, I assume they would be similar colors, but I didn’t know if you had specific colors in mind? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It would be in the same family as my building, the rehabilitation, the imaging. MR. FORD-You really go all out on site visits, don’t you? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Absolutely. MRS. BRUNO-I would almost like to see something, you know, not that far off, but a little complimentary, just so things maybe don’t look quite so creamy across the board. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you do have different color schemes, you know, you have different shutters and stuff. Is that what you mean, or do you mean more than that? MRS. BRUNO-The base color, the field color. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, certainly we can do, again, in the earth tone family, and just vary it a shade or two so that it’s not the same as the other ones. MRS. BRUNO-I mean, you look, the sages and all those kind of things are actually coming back in, and they work great with the Adirondacks. I’m not necessarily saying you have to use that, I’m just suggesting, you know, mixing things up a little bit. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, no, absolutely. No problem. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I actually had two more technical questions, though. On the lighting plan, it shows, it’s actually labeled as lighted canopy, but then it didn’t show the foot candle levels underneath the entrances. MR. LAPPER-Is that the one on the side of the building? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the two main entrances, the front and rear, right in the center. MR. NACE-We didn’t have actual fixtures picked out for that yet. Obviously, there will be lights, those will be lighted, and the light will spill out onto the front entranceway and also the rear entryway, but the actual fixtures would be flush mounted under the canopy. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the lumens taken into account in the lighting? MR. NACE-No, I said they are not. Okay. So you see the area here with no grid to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-That, the lights from the canopy would supply the light out in the area, but we just, we didn’t have fixtures at the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’d have to make sure that that was within the Code, because, I mean, it looked like the rest of the lighting plan was compliant. MR. NACE-Yes. We can certainly stipulate that it would fall within your Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the other question I had was, there are adjacent properties that are residential on Bayberry Drive, and I was wondering why we didn’t see a bigger buffer area between the residential use and the commercial use. MR. LAPPER-Well, the residentials are more in the back where the Willows, if you look at the first page that shows the tax map. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess I was thinking of, specifically, that Bayberry Drive Lot 21, where there’s that one corner, the northwest corner of your lot is adjacent to that property. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I guess we looked at that to say that what’s planted is pretty heavily planted, that corner there. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the buffer requirement, though, is 50 feet, though, isn’t it, between a residential and a commercial use? I should have looked it up before I asked the question. I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-It hasn’t been pointed out in the notes, but I’ll tell you in a second. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Tom, I guess he’s asking about the buffer. MR. NACE-I think one thing we could certainly do there, Chris, just taking a quick look at this, there’s enough depth to that corner that if we could add a, we’ve got one screening of, or one layer of vegetation or of buffer screening in there. I think we could probably put a second layer of lower stuff in front that would add an extra depth to that buffer just in landscape. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Chris, I’ll condition it, again, as well as if a fence or additional buffer is added, I’ll certainly add it like we did at Pine Street. So I’ll condition that, if they want fencing and stuff, or additional plantings, I’ll do it at Bruce Frank’s and the neighbor’s discretion at that corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It actually requires, I’m just looking at the Code now. MR. LAPPER-What Section is it? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 8-50, Types of Buffer Zones Between Uses, and the required buffer between commercial and, actually, this would be office, it would be A, which is only a 10 yard, so, yes, you’re okay. I mean, I thought the landscaping plan was well done, notwithstanding Mr. Sipp’s comments on, you know, the concern about salt 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) resistant trees. I wouldn’t have known that, but, you know, I think you met the requirement of the internal parking lot and, you know, I certainly thought the dimensional landscaping was good as well. MR. FORD-I have a question. I’d like to know the extent to which any other consideration was given for parking. Because you’re 50% over. Do you ever give consideration to a parking garage so we go tall rather than sprawl when it comes to parking? I’m not talking three and four stories, but we’ve got two and a half stories there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. The problem is I think, in this location, aesthetically, I don’t know how we’d make it look attractive. I think we’d have more of an issue with aesthetics if we tried. I just don’t know how I’d make a, not to speak of it would probably be crazy expensive where it would be hard to. MR. FORD-A two story? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Because they have to be concrete decked. You can’t do them any other way. I mean, in some applications, I agree with you, it certainly would work, but aesthetically I don’t know how I’d make it attractive. That’s, because it’s kind of like a mix of, I’ve got residential here, residential here, then office. MR. FORD-I guess I’m just throwing it out as much for future consideration as for this project. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Yes. Well, as the land gets smaller, we’ll have to. MR. SIPP-All right. You have one sign on the way in, on Willowbrook Road. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now is each office going to have their own particular sign? MR. SCHERMERHORN-What we would do is try and do it with one sign with the sign panel with each person’s name, and then again, if anybody wanted anything additional, we’d be back before this Board, asking for a request, but right now we’ll do the sign per the Code. MR. SIPP-Yes, because you’ve got monument type sign there of four feet. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I mean, in a perfect world, it would be nice if it was just one tenant that wanted the building, but honestly I think what’ll happen is I’ll probably have two or three tenants in the building. MR. SIPP-And those signs would have to come back to us, but they would be attached to the building, or would they be? MR. LAPPER-No, freestanding. MR. SIPP-Freestanding. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. The only signage usually is just on the doors for identification with the, you know, it’s doctor so and so, and that’s it. MR. LAPPER-And you can’t see them off site, so they don’t count to our signs. MRS. BRUNO-I think I need a little bit more convincing in the need for the additional parking you mentioned in your building, that it gets a little tight at times. I’m just thinking maybe if you can explain what your, if you recall what the square footage in the building is to parking spaces. MR. SCHERMERHORN-In my building? MRS. BRUNO-Well, you had mentioned that if you could compare that to what you’re doing here, you know, try to convince me. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I use the rehabilitation center as well, based on, some of it’s square footage, but it’s very hard to gauge by square footage because you can have a physician that only rents 2,000 square feet from you, and if he has a busy schedule, they stack these people up, like the allergist below me. There’s certain days when like 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) kids are out of school, and he’ll stack it up where there’s children going in and out all day long. I don’t know how you gauge that. I just tried to pick a happy medium, not the high, not the low, based on like the trends of the rehabilitation center, a mix of office with a mix of physicians. Again, I could always start smaller, but my gut feeling would tell me I’d be back here asking you, gee, is there a way we can go a little bigger. MR. LAPPER-And this was designed for the 180. So the stormwater, it all works. MRS. BRUNO-I guess all I’m asking is, it sounds like you’ve come up, from massaging your numbers from your different buildings, to a certain number. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And I guess being kind of an analytical person, I’d like to see how you fleshed all that out. MR. LAPPER-Let me answer you this way, Tanya. When we were here for the Travelers application, that was like double what the Code required, and that was because we had a tenant that was driving that that said, you know, that they just had very dense office use, and that’s not what the case is here. So that’s nothing, Rich has never asked for that number on any of his projects. MRS. BRUNO-Let’s stick to this site. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but just as a comparison. So that’s like the high end, but then on Rich’s building, he had to put in a wooden walkway to get to the building next door just for that reason, because sometimes he can’t accommodate the parking at his lot, so people have to park in the rehabilitation lot and walk across the bridge. So that’s really where it came up that he knew that parking was insufficient. So he’s trying to avoid that here, and anticipate that there could easily be two or three or even four tenants in this building, probably medical. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you knew who your tenants were, you’d have a shot at it, but you’ve got no possible way of telling. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and that’s the, my gut is I’m going to have a mix of physicians in there. That’s a lot of, the majority of calls I get are the physicians. Believe me, I’m not a fan of building more parking than I need. It’s expensive, especially with the price of blacktop now, but I also want to be realistic, you know, with any application I’ve brought forward, I’ve usually submitted what I’ve needed and what’s worked. Could there be the one time that I have a tenant that doesn’t require much parking? It’s possible. I’m not going to say it isn’t, but my gut feeling is, is this is going to be adequate. It’s going to be manageable. MRS. BRUNO-I just want to get to get that gut feeling as well, and I think, Jon, you kind of re-explained what you had already spoken about, and, granted, nobody likes to do math on the fly, but I didn’t know if that was something that you might be able to speak a little more specifically to, without actually running numbers. MR. NACE-One of the other things you can look at it other community’s codes, Wilton, Saratoga, Clifton Park. Most of those Codes are right around the 200 square feet per space, for office use. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think Queensbury is equivalent to any of those areas, though. MR. NACE-The uses are similar. MRS. BRUNO-Sure. MR. FORD-Do you anticipate, now or in the future, that this would be used for any overflow parking needs? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, but my particular building at some time, or at one time, if you remember I put that little wooden bridge in, and it didn’t require a permit because it was on stilts and we got permission from Dave Hatin and stuff. That worked very well 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) because we have had people, I don’t know why they park in my parking lot and they walk back and forth. So I would like to, at some time, come back to Dave Hatin and ask if we can do a wooden connector bridge like we did on the other. It’s just, people do walk through here, and it’s a nice way to get through, but. MR. LAPPER-But you’re only designing this for this building. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I’m only designing for this. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just want to throw it out there, in case you see a wooden bridge go across some day and you think I lied to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, and that brings up an interesting issue, and it’s too bad, you know, because maybe the peak in this building, you know, the peak parking requirements, aren’t the same as the peak parking requirements in one of the buildings next door, and it’s too bad there couldn’t be more of a sharing of the parking areas, you know, without people having to park on the driveway or something. MR. LAPPER-Essentially that’s what Rich does by putting the bridge in. The problem is, when we negotiate these leases, the tenants are also particular about exclusive use of a certain number of sites, and everyone wants to make sure their people can park. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And then again we could negotiate one now that would be, typically they’re 10 year leases. We could negotiate one now, in a perfect world we do exactly what they need, but when 10 years is up, somebody else comes in, and it could change the whole requirement again, where they need more or less one way or the other. So it is, it’s a toss up to get it. MR. LAPPER-But you certainly have no interest in over building and paying for pavement you don’t need. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MRS. BRUNO-Have you had a chance to look at the plans for your neighbor across the street and his new development, subdivision development and how he’s splitting up the shared parking between the lots? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I actually saw the plan, because at one time he wanted to sell the project and I looked at it, and it’s a different type of set up with the shared entrances. It wouldn’t be conducive for like the way my park’s designed. They’re much, much smaller buildings, more in the nature of like two or three thousand square foot buildings, which actually fits nice at that site. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? If you could state your name for the record, because we do tape our meeting, and then prepare minutes from the tape. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN MANNIX MR. MANNIX-My name is Dan Mannix. My wife and I own the property, adjacent to the north of this project. I hadn’t had a chance to review any of the project, but just hearing what was said tonight, I’m sure our concern’s going to be the lighting on the north side, the north entrance to the building, with the, I think you said a 30 foot buffer between the lines, and the lighting that’s going to be required in the parking, as to the number of posts and the direction of the lighting. Obviously the use of the building’s going to be, I would anticipate daytime use, but that’s a concern of ours, just because, as I said, we’re familiar with Rich’s other buildings in the development and the new dental office. So it seems like there’s a big gap between his line and our house, and it’s really a lot closer than you think. It’s only a few hundred feet. So the lighting is going to be a concern. Also the development along the north line, the vegetation plan that he’s proposed, will there be removal of hedgerow that’s there now, or whatever his line, on his side of the 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) line, and then re-planted, and the height of the trees and what not. Is that something that’s been addressed as far as the height of the vegetation that’ll be re-planted? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess when you get up you can see, they have the page open right there that shows the type of tree and the size of the trees that are being proposed. MR. MANNIX-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t really talked in great detail with the applicant yet on the planting scheme. MR. MANNIX-Because I don’t know if that’s something for this Board, or if it’s for the zoning or. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that would be for our Board. MR. MANNIX-The overall lighting, Rich does nice projects and we have no concern aesthetically. It’s just, it’s the lighting that would be a concern of ours, that it’s addressed appropriately, the down lighting, especially on the north side of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MANNIX-If that’s not the primary access to the building, we’d ask whatever reduction could be made to that side would be appreciated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Do any of your other tenants have evening or nighttime hours? I know this time of year you’re going to have lights in the evening, but later hours in that area? MR. SCHERMERHORN-None of them now. The only one that I know is there later hours is the Glens Falls Rehabilitation. They have their cleaning staff that goes in in the evening, but I wanted to address the lighting. I know all our engineering is supposed to not have any spillover to the neighbors and all that, but I just address to the Board that I will condition the approval as well where these can be put on timers. These, A, it’s costly to leave these on all night long, and I’ve been asked before with the Willows, just even my own residents in here where if we could have it where they come on, you know, at dusk, and go off five or six hours later. They don’t have to remain on all evening. I can have them set where, you know, it gets dark, let’s say 4:30 in the next month or so. I can have them go off six hours later so that they’re not on all night long, and I’ll certainly, if Mr. Mannix has any concerns with that lighting, again, I’ll say on the record we’ll condition it. We can set these specifically where they go off. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what we did over on Media Boulevard, right behind your other development. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That does effectively work, and, truthfully, I have my own tenants in some of my apartment complexes over at Hiland, they say, is there any way you can turn, it’s a toss up. Some want them off early, some want them on later, but, you know, I definitely know we can address the situation on the north side. MR. SIPP-What’s the parking requirement for handicap spaces? MR. NACE-It’s New York State Building Code, and it’s a graduated table. You’ve got to go into their table and look. It depends on how many spaces you’re providing. It’s like, I think it’s, I’d have to go look at the table. MR. SIPP-There’s only four, I think, on the plan designated as handicap, and that doesn’t seem like it’s enough for that size building. MR. NACE-I think there are eight. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s eight. Let me address that, too. Dave Hatin, again, like if 10,000 square foot of this building was to be leased, he’ll look at the Site Plan and he’ll also address the use of it, and as you can see, there’s plenty of spaces to add more 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) additional handicap parking. As a matter of fact, beyond what the Code is, sometimes when I’ve built for the Hospital, and I built at the old Kaymer building, we added additional spaces for the Hospital. So it’s not a problem, if you’re concern is to add more. Again, I’ll condition, I have no problem adding more. MR. SIPP-It’s in the State Code? MR. NACE-The State Building Code. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, yes, what I’m saying is the Code right now, based on this square footage, dictates what we have, but if I put, let’s say it’s another rehabilitation in part of the building, the Code may require that we have more additional, or the tenant may ask. So I certainly have the access and the ramps and everything there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Is there anything in there that poses an issue? A lot of it I think is, they’re pretty minor. MR. NACE-The only issue we had was with Number Two and the aisle width, okay. We’d like to maintain the aisle width that we’ve got, and I talked to Dan specifically about that today, and he had no, you know, he felt that if we felt strongly about that, he had no problem with it. The rest we’ll certainly comply with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any outstanding concerns from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing that really wasn’t clarified was the color. What is the Board looking for with regards to that? I’m not a color guy. MR. LAPPER-What I heard from Tanya was that the earth tone that was a little bit different than what was on Rich’s other buildings, to differentiate it, you know, brick with an earth tone siding that would be a little bit different. Does that sound right? MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got to put that in some type of motion. We’ve just got to have some. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Truthfully, like the brick, we go to do concrete, we try and get a blend of what’s already in there. I have changed it up, and then as far as the siding, it’s, there’s only so many shades of the earth tone colors. There’s probably no more than five. There is one that’s real dark, which is a clay. I typically try not to use the dark, dark one because what happens is the sun fades it, and it uglies out before it wears out. MRS. BRUNO-I mean earth tones, the term earth tone is used a lot. I think of that as, you know, your beiges, taupes, you’re talking dark browns, that type of thing. Are you considering earth tones as different shades of green and that type of color as well, in that spectrum? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only thing, I mean, one, I wouldn’t say not for the siding. The siding would be the beige, the almonds like we talked about, shutters could be, you know, a Hunter Green color, which is a popular one, with the architectural shingles that are like a brown, or weather wood is a popular one. I’m not looking for the whites, the silvers or the grays, because I don’t think it goes with the trend that’s there now. Truthfully it’s just going to be in the same family, a mix of what’s over there now. MRS. BRUNO-I guess I was thinking pretty much the beiges that, it actually, you know, the buildings don’t differentiate themselves, I think, enough personally. Maybe I’m picky, but that’s why I was just saying something that offsets it a little bit, you know, but it sounds like, you know, I don’t know what your contracts are. Maybe you’re sticking with the beiges because you’ve got, you know, your quantities in that or something like that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, no, not necessarily. Like I said, there’s only, with vinyl siding you only have so many choices. If it was painted siding, I’d have a gazillion choices, but with vinyl, you go to any of the different vinyl companies, there shades, yes, may vary a little bit, but there’s, in the earth tone family, there’s probably only five or six of them to choose from, but I think over time what’s important with these developments, is, as the trees mature, which the rehabilitation center is now starting to mature where the trees are getting real big. That’s what helps differentiate, I mean, break up the buildings and stuff, I feel. Truthfully, after 10 years the siding starts to fade and a little bit, but I know where you’re coming from. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we could always ask them to bring back color schemes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think that would be a good idea. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what does the Board want to do, first of all? Do you want to table this, are we prepared to make a motion? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Or if you want to do like we did before with the hotel, I certainly could put a color board together and then it could just be a submitted at a meeting that’s convenient, because, I mean, I’m not going to certainly need these for a while. MR. LAPPER-But as a condition, you want to finish it. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the concerns I’ve heard from the Board, one thing you have to address the increased parking, the color schemes. The applicant, I think it’s a good idea that you’ve agreed to turn off the lights six hours after dusk, and then the canopy lighting, and the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s pretty minor. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, that’s, and then the engineering comments. The only thing with engineering comments is really what I’ve heard there also is that Number Two doesn’t have to be addressed really, they just maintain the proposed drive (lost words). MRS. BRUNO-If we are going to table it, I guess I’d like to see maybe a couple of worksheets, it doesn’t have to be anything extensive, but just show me some numbers, just for the parking, just list it out, you know, this building we’ve got this. This is the type of tenant, you know, that type of thing, and then I understand that everything overlaps. I mean, everybody has sat in a doctor’s office. The applicant that we had last week made an excellent argument, and I know it’s difficult when you don’t know who’s going in, but. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and again, we could try and do our best on that. I would hope not to table it if we could condition things tonight, because I’m agreeable to anything, basically, you want. There’s not, again, there’s not a project that I’ve done in this Town, in this community, that hasn’t gone as the Planning Board has asked or the public has inputted on. There may be projects that didn’t get approved that I wanted, but when something’s been addressed at the Board, I’ve come through, and I’ll continue to deliver to you. If we’re down to the, I hate to cut, I mean, I could certainly say, gee, we’ll lob off 30 parking spots, but, I’ll tell you, our economy as it is right now, and everyone’s very well aware with what’s happening with our economy. I don’t want to certainly have an opportunity where I miss the next guy because they want to be in in six or seven months and then I’ve got to come back because I don’t have the required parking for them. I really feel I, and I know where you’re coming from, but I really feel I’ve got that happy medium that it gives me that little bit of flexibility. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I can. My problem is you (lost words) parking to get around the building. So how much asphalt are we really going to reduce? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are you trying to do, date wise? What’s your target? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, like I said, what I really find is it doesn’t matter who it is that calls me, whether it’s physicians or accountants, again, I find people’s timing is really crazy. It’s like the person who wants a house. We’ll say, when do you need it, well, three months. Well, you can’t do it that quick, but offices take time to plan, but I’ll tell you, I just had a call for someone, like I said, that wanted 10,000 square feet. Having the approval in place makes all the difference in the world. Because then I can say, I’m building permit ready, we just have to draw the plans, submit them to Dave Hatin, Town of Queensbury, and we’re ready to go. I’ll tell you, as a developer, the benefit to me certainly is to have, in hand, a site ready to go, but it’s also, I think, a benefit to the community if I’ve got sites, because right now, again, I think we all know, everything’s getting very challenged, and I can be competitive with this particular site. I’ve owned this land for a while, and again, I know people don’t care about the benefits to me, but it does make it very easy to market when someone calls you and you tell them, it’s ready, I’ve just got to draw it, I can realistically deliver it seven months to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I don’t know how space is out there, 10, 8, 10,000 square foot office. You might find a lot of two to three, I’m sure, but the bigger office space is tough. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, well, that’s what I was going to say. There’s very little office space available, and that is a good thing, because it tells us this, I feel our region, Queensbury as a whole, is a pretty strong community. You hear the horror stories of the housing and everything that’s going on around us, but our area, is pretty, I feel, is pretty strong. We don’t have a lot of extra inventory for sale out there. Commercial space is very limited, but I also think it’s important that we get these type of jobs in this area, and the type of jobs that will come to this particular building will be your physicians, your lawyers, your accountants, things of that nature, at least those are the calls I’ve experienced over the years. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only thing I’m really hearing from the Board that, you know, we’re not, we haven’t really finalized is the color scheme. MR. LAPPER-And we can come back, our colors. MR. FORD-And you can come back with that, right, with materials and colorations. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed colors. We can even do that in a meeting in November. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And if you could do it, like you did my last project, just approve this conditioned upon submission of a color board of the siding. I’ll bring the shingle, the siding, the shutter colors, I can bring all that in. MR. HUNSINGER-Submission and approval. Yes. Our Zoning Administrator pointed out that our resolutions read review rather than approval. I think it was tacit in the resolution that we meant review and approval. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, of course I try and save a step. It is possible for me to bring my attorney back. MR. SIPP-In relation to the sign, 179-7-040, signage, it gives you the whole thing there, monument sign, sign on the building. Individual building signs are subject to Planning Board approval. So when you get to the individual, you’ve got to go give us a model of what you’re going to. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Again, if there’s anything beyond what’s approved here or what the Code allows, I’ll come back, and again, just so you know, these signs are all like Holly Wheeler signs. They’re the carved wood signs that have been consistent throughout. So that’s the type of sign. MR. FORD-No digitalized. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MR. LAPPER-I want to clarify for Don. There’s no building signs proposed. It’s just a monument sign here. Rich was just talking about on the door, on the glass door. MR. SIPP-Just a monument out front, but the individual office signs. MR. LAPPER-No, not on the building. MR. SIPP-Not no the building. MR. LAPPER-Just on the glass door was what Rich was talking about that you wouldn’t see. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an Unlisted Action. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted Action. I do need to close the public hearing, which I will do. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I think they submitted a Short Form. Whenever you’re ready. MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. I propose a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) RESOLUTION NO. SP 43-2008 & FWW 12-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, 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. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Conditions? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what I heard was, correct me if I’m wrong, we’ll grant the 50% increase in parking? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-They’ll submit, submission and approval of color schemes. That canopy lights to be compliant with Queensbury lighting code, and lighting, parking lot lighting to be turned off six hours after dusk. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Can we condition that just to the north side, which is all of the residential? Because it’ll be commercial, well, it’s commercial now. I’ll probably still turn them off on the north side, but if I have a tenant that for any reason needs them on longer, I mean, right now, the park, there’s no consistency in the Town as far as when they go on or off, but I just want to address Mr. Mannix and the neighbors that it’ll be the north side on that, because there is six at least on that north side. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the west, or I’m sorry the east side as well, on the east side, too? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The east side would be out front. Yes. They would be my own people over here, which, again, they’re my people in my senior place. So if they had a problem, they’d tell me, and I’d have to turn them off. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re proposing to turn off the 12 lighting fixtures to the north? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-The six on the north side which would affect the neighbors directly. MR. SEGULJIC-The six A ones, okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The only reason I’d leave the front on is. MR. SEGULJIC-What about the C’s in the back, the C’s on the north side? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, I guess that would only be for safety because there’s a sidewalk there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’ve got to see to walk. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So is everyone okay with the six northern? MR. SCHERMERHORN-And again, as the plan sits, we’re not supposed to have spillover, but I never rely 100% on, you know, you want to rely on these plans, but I’m just saying on the record to address my neighbor’s concern to be a good neighbor that certainly, absolutely definitely the ones closest to them will be that six hour. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll say the six lights along the northern boundary will be turned off six hours after dusk. Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s what I’ve got. Anything else? MRS. BRUNO-You know what I just happened to think. Have you ever discussed with tenants light filtering shades or something light for the windows where if they are working at night, so that you don’t have this glare from the windows? We’ve talked about that recently in terms of some of the gas stations, that we’ve kept the outdoor lighting quite low, but then you’ve got this glow coming from inside. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I’ve been fortunate with the uses over there, again, where they pretty much work your typical hours. They’re there until six o’clock, and they go home, but like the rehabilitation center, there are times I’ll go down Bay Road and I’ll see the lights on upstairs, but it’s the people, the cleaning people that are in there, but again, unless, the only way I could control that, I’d have to have like, I guess internal blinds in between the panes where it’s all consistent, because some people leave them up. Some leave them down. There’s no way to, it’s like here. If that one’s open, those are partially closed. So I don’t know how you, but I know what you’re saying. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other thing, we haven’t really talked about this, the screening of the dumpster. You didn’t show screening on the north side of the dumpster. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s an enclosure, fully enclosed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but screening, you know, on the back side of the concrete. It’s a concrete enclosure. You’re showing plantings on the east and west side, but not on the north side. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. If there’s not plantings there, we’ll certainly add them. Okay. There’s, yes, three big pines, but I’ll, if you want more trees, I’ll put more trees behind it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, screen the north side of the dumpster. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-You have to be able to get a mower through there. We could add a planting bed on the north side of the dumpster enclosure. MR. HUNSINGER-To match the other side. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, one of the conditions that you’re proposing states six hours after dark. In May it’s 9:30. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, yes, no more than six hours after dark. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I guess the reason for me even putting conditions is I just want to assure the neighbors and the Town that I’m going to address lighting situations for the neighbors. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, understood. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, even if it wasn’t a condition, and the neighbors had a concern, I would address it. MR. HUNSINGER-I would hope that they would call you and say that there’s a problem. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, because when they call the Town, it doesn’t go very far. I mean, it doesn’t help me when they’re calling the Town complaining, when the Town will call me and say, Rich, gee, did they call you? How come you haven’t helped them? MR. TRAVER-Well, and you pointed out the economy of shutting them off when they’re not needed. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. TRAVER-So hopefully you’ll adjust them seasonally. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we’re ready to go? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12- 2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 36,000 sq. ft., two- story office building. Professional Offices in a PO zone require Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/28/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, Negative. In accordance with the following conditions: a)Canopy lights to be compliant with the Queensbury lighting code. b)The six light fixtures along the northern boundary to be turned off no more than six hours after dusk. c)Proposed color schemes will be submitted for approval, and color schemes th will be submitted for review by the Planning Board at the November 18 meeting. d)Engineering Comments, One, and Three through Seven will be addressed and engineering signoff will be obtained. e)The requested increase in parking by 50% will be granted. f)Screening will be provided along the north side of the dumpster. g)Per the Director of Wastewater, the plans must clearly state the following: a detailed set of sanitary sewer connection plans must be given to the Wastewater Department for review. A connection permit will be issued after the plans are reviewed by the Department, and the Wastewater Department must inspect the sanitary sewer connection before backfill. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I had is do we want to specify the date that they will bring in the color schemes? Would you be ready in November? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I could do the next meeting for you, if that’s convenient. MRS. BRUNO-I’d just like to make a point that I typically make to you, Rich, at the end of any proposal is that, I know it costs more money and material labor and all that, but I would encourage you to seriously consider some more alternate designs in your buildings, and encourage your architect to maybe push things a couple of more levels, too, some unique standards for the Town. That’s all. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 9-2008 SEQR TYPE II GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC – CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT(S) NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARGARET LISTON; SCOTT DUBIN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION PINE TREE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4290 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING WELL, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, AND STORMWATER MITIGATION. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE AV 66-08 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) APA/DEC/EA APA WETLANDS; LG CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/08/08 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-30 SECTION 179-6-100D(1), 179-9-020 DAVID KLEIN & MICHAEL CHRYS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Note: A recommendation from the Planning Board concerning Area Variance No. 66-2008 has been requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their meeting dated October 22, 2008. Application, Freshwater Wetlands 9-2008, applicant, Garner Holdings, LLC Requested Action: Freshwater Wetlands permit review for the disturbance of land within 100 feet of a wetland. Location: Pine Tree Lane, Assembly Point. Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential One Acre SEQRA Status is a Type II No further actions are required. Parcel History is vacant land Project Description: The applicant proposes the construction of a 4,290 square foot house on 0.34 acres. Site improvements to include wastewater system, well, and storm water mitigation. Mr. Chairman, this is the same drill as the Inwald application, and I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. The floor is yours, good evening. MR. KLEIN-Thanks, Chris. I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering, and my client is Garner Holdings, and Mike Chrys is here to represent them tonight. We have put together a little presentation that hopefully Keith can work technology wise. I’ll give you a little background. We were in front of the Zoning Board for two variances on one lot last week. So we got some of their input. We’ve got some input from the fire department, some of the neighbors. So tonight we’re here, originally we were planning to present plans to develop three lots adjacent to the wetlands. The middle lot, or the northern lot on Forest Lane, we’ve decided to table, or not table that, but withdraw the application. So there’s only two lots in front of you tonight, and I’d like to use the presentation to kind of show the viewpoint on that. The lot that’s in front of you is right here, right, right in the center of Assembly Point, and the lot would be subject to the next presentation is right next to here. They’re basically both in the center of Assembly Point, away from, you can’t see the lake from the lots. They are adjacent to wetlands. We’ve had the wetlands flagged by the APA and mapped, and any development of the house is 50 foot from the wetlands, and we’ve got the septic systems located 100 foot from the wetlands. If you go to the next slide, these properties are located in Shore Colony. It was a subdivision that was put in in 1957. We, I counted 96, basically, 75 foot by 100 foot lots. The property was intended to be on municipal water system, which they have installed there, back in the 50’s, and the lots were not large enough to support both a well and a septic system. Roads were built not to the current Town standards, but they were built to access the lots, and wetlands were not the concern in 1957 as they are today. Go to the next slide, downsize that a little bit so you can see the whole picture. This is a house that was built on North Lane. It’s very similar to the house, actually it’s a little bit larger than the houses that we were originally proposing. This house in front of you is. MR. FORD-What’s the square footage on that, please? MR. KLEIN-The footprint is, it’s about 2800 square feet, but they don’t count the basement in that one. In ours, for the Floor Area calculation, since we’re developing on a sloping lot, you can see that’s a rather level lot. We’re in a hillside on both of our properties. So you have to count the basement in the floor area for your Floor Area calculations. That’s why, in the applications, it looks like a McMansion. It’s not. It’s a very conventional house. It fits in with the neighborhood. This neighborhood is systematically going through an upgrade, and both the, there’s a lot of properties there that are on single lots. Some of them are double lots. Some of them are lots and a half. They split a lot between the two neighbors. We’re developing, on the Pine Tree property, two lots, and then we’re taking another lot and a half out of the center area. So basically we’ve got three and a half lots that we’re utilizing to support a house of that size, and, on the Forest Lane property, there were three original lots in the Shore Colony subdivision that we were going to be using to develop it, plus we’ve got, that property actually is 7.27 acres. We’re stealing a little bit of that 7.27 acres to add to the Pine Tree. MR. FORD-But it still is .34 acres, correct? MR. KLEIN-No. MR. FORD-It is not? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. KLEIN-No. It’s not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What is the total on Pine Tree, if you steal that little parcel? MR. KLEIN-We’re adding .24 acres to that, .34, so it’s a little over a half an acre, almost .6 acres, and this is a little bit different than the Site Plan that you’ve had, that you have in your, it’s a kind of a conceptual Site Plan. We’ve basically looked at all the comments that came in, both from our meeting last week, with the Zoning Board, Staff’s comments, the engineer’s comments, Water Keeper’s comments, and we’ve made some adjustments to the plan to try and modify it to meet everybody’s concerns. MR. FORD-Is there any possibility you can get closer to that one acre designation, which it is zoned for? MR. KLEIN-We have seven acres to steal from. MR. FORD-I noticed that. That’s the reason for the question. MR. KLEIN-First change, we had, originally, and I think still on this plan, we still have a little “W” there for where the well used to be located, but, there’s two things. It was down gradient from the septic system, and it was close to the boundary of the wetlands, and there’s a provision hidden in the Code that says you can’t take any vegetation within 35 foot of the wetlands, okay. What they define as vegetation, if it’s brush or grass, or if they’re real trees, that could be debated, but we didn’t want to fight that battle. So we moved the well over here. We got 35 foot away from the wetlands, and instead of having our property line adjustment, otherwise we’ve moved the property line to encompass this. It extends right over to the paper street of Cherry Tree Lane. There was, we were in front of the Zoning Board for two variances. The one that I thought was a no-brainer was we had 35 foot of pavement in front of the house. The Code says we need 40 foot of pavement. Instead of putting a bunch of hard surface adjacent to the wetland, my client was willing to have a grass driveway and entrance onto his property. We weren’t going to have any pavement whatsoever. In the Zoning Board, the fire department said they wanted some more access, better access. There were some thoughts about maybe you want to put a garage on the property, maybe you want to have some paved surface onto the property. So I laid out what I thought would fit on the property, and the other thing, you know, the comment on the house. People were saying it was too large. We’ve basically re-oriented the house to fit within the 30 foot setback on the front of the property. Now there’s property across the road that is definitely within the 30 foot, you know, it’s a tight neighborhood. The road going down there is only 14 foot wide. The fire department was there yesterday, and I met with the Highway Department chairman, or Superintendent this morning, Mike Travis, on the site, with the Deputy Superintendent, and evidently the fire department would like us to extend the pavement about approximately 35 feet from the end of the crushed pavement. We would, of course, re- pave the area that’s damaged, too, and this kind of just configures the maximum that we could do, but, if the fire department’s happy with the 15 feet, we’d just as soon put the 15 foot in, put the stormwater management controls in for the 15 foot of pavement, and be done with it. Less hard surface the better, we feel. The footprint of this house is approximately 1400 square feet. The original one was approximately 1600 and change. We also have a possibility for a garage here. I think my client would only like to put maybe one bay garage. We’ve got a two bay garage here shown. This layout, of course, is going to have to be a custom designed home to fit the lot. We were trying to re-utilize a design that was already built in the neighborhood, but we’re planning on using Adirondack siding or log siding to try to fit into the character of the theme of being up in Assembly Point. Conceptually, we’ve got a. MR. FORD-Excuse me. When you refer to, I know what log siding is, but when you refer to Adirondack siding, what are you referring to? MR. KLEIN-It’s slabs off the tree. So you have a wavy edge on the bottom of it when you put it up. It covers about 11 inches, 11, 12 inches. It’s fairly common up around the lake. I have it on my house. MRS. BRUNO-Is it a newer house? For some reason I was thinking that because that wasn’t milled, it wasn’t, and maybe you can speak to it, Keith, that it actually, Queensbury doesn’t allow it. It’s something I’ve always meant to look into. It could have just been a rumor that I heard. MR. KLEIN-I have a new addition. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-Do you, and it went up? MR. KLEIN-It went on mine, but mine’s not in Queensbury. Mine’s in Fort Ann. MRS. BRUNO-All right. MR. KLEIN-But I know there’s a couple of homes on Assembly Point with the Adirondack siding. I know one home right now is being re-sided with Adirondack siding. MRS. BRUNO-All right. Thank you. MR. KLEIN-There was one comment about the soil tests. We had made arrangements with VISION Engineering, come out, we did, actually on this property we did two deep tests. We had a Charlie Maine soil scientist come out when VISION was on site, to determine where the high ground water was. We have enough soil depth to install our wastewater system and our stormwater system. While VISION was on site, we conceptually went over what we were planning on doing with the stormwater, and I believe they were on board with our concept of how we’re going to handle the stormwater, and they, you know, obviously had witnessed the test, and there were no issues at the time. I haven’t been able to contact VISION since we got their comments, but I believe they’re all on board with our soil tests. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I got confused somewhere along your presentation. So, you’re proposing to extend the public right of way so you no longer need a variance for that piece. MR. KLEIN-We will no longer need a variance if we reconfigure the home, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to ask. So if that’s what you’re going to propose, I guess we don’t even need to do anything. MR. OBORNE-I agree, and I had spoken to the applicants previously, and correct me if I’m wrong, Dave, that this is more of a conceptual activity we’re going through right now, because I had already asked him for, we’re going to need plans. We’re going to need it on paper. It needs to be vetted. He most definitely could go back to the Zoning Board with these plans and, you know, it does beg the question, do you even need to go back to the Zoning Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KLEIN-I think we’ll probably pull our application from the Zoning Board, and we’re just looking for our Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have a question. That is not the drawing that you submitted to the Zoning Board? MR. KLEIN-No, and it’s not the drawing that you have in front of you tonight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And by the way, that pavement’s a lot, I was up there with the Highway Superintendent. That’s a lot more than 15 feet to go from where the Town stops to your retention pond. MR. KLEIN-Where the white mark on the? MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s the guy that put the white mark there, yes. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-For you. MR. KLEIN-Right. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Go from there to the retention pond is where, because the Town only plows a dead end street to the end of their pavement. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If they stop before that house, then there’s no access. That was the point. MR. KLEIN-Okay. I was under the impression that Mike Travis said he met with you yesterday. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He met with several people, but I just asked him to mark the street, and he did. MR. KLEIN-Okay. There were two marks on the pavement. One was what the Town thinks they own, and then there’s another mark further down, which is about 15 foot from the edge of the broken up pavement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, your original drawing went from the edge of Smith’s lot forward. Mike claims that that isn’t, the white line is where the Town stops. It doesn’t really matter, but there has to be enough pavement to take it to the retention thing to satisfy what the fire department was saying, that they have to get their apparatus in there. MR. KLEIN-Okay. You’d like to have the pavement go to this point right here? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where’s that retention pond? MR. KLEIN-Well, this is the new retention pond. That we configured the house a little bit different. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you move it forward? MR. KLEIN-It’s smaller. We moved it that way, and I think we reoriented. This line is the same line. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like you turned the house a little bit. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you turned the house, and I don’t even see where the garage is because I can’t see that well, but anyway, when you come for Site Plan Review we can deal with it. MR. KLEIN-The garage is right here. Well, we’d like to revise it and give you exactly what you want, and then we’ll come back here and everybody’s in agreement. That was the purpose of our presentation tonight, to get your inputs. We’ll go back and address the comments, and hopefully the next meeting would be much smoother. MRS. BRUNO-It is a little hard to give you all of what we want this evening, since we’re working off of plans up here that we really haven’t been able to study. I know I’m getting a bit confused. MR. TRAVER-I think it would be much easier, I think in this process, if you were to revise your plans, as you discussed, and address the comments that remain after you’ve made your adjustment, and re-submit the plans ahead of time, and give us a chance to digest them, and then come back for review. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re only building two lots now? MR. KLEIN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Could I ask you a question about ownership? On the list that we got here, it shows these properties are owned by the Dubins. The Dubins say that they sold them to you. MR. CHRYS-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns them? MR. CHRYS-I do. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. KLEIN-Garner Holdings owns them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you didn’t register the deed, is that why? MR. CHRYS-The deeds were not, there (lost words) were not filed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they still haven’t been filed, but you say you own it? MR. CHRYS-That’s correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. He says otherwise. MR. CHRYS-He says that we don’t own them? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. CHRYS-On the one lot he says that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. That’s the one you’re pulling. MR. CHRYS-We pulled it. That’s correct. On the one forest lot, which would be (lost word) that was completely different. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would that be different? MR. CHRYS-There were two separate, the two that we’re talking about are the two that were done first. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. CHRYS-And that last one won’t be. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you do your other drawings, and one other comment that the Highway Superintendent made, it’s a good one, is that if you’re going to build in the corner of Cherry Street, that’s probably going to be stubbed, you can’t call it Cherry Tree, come up with the Town with another name. It can’t be 2 Cherry Street, Cherry Lane. MR. KLEIN-We’re not going to develop that. Cherry Tree Lane is a paper road that goes all the way across from Honeysuckle. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Cherry Tree Lane has a house on it, off of Honeysuckle, okay. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, and then there’s a pond, and then it’s a paper street on the other side. MR. KLEIN-Right, and we’re not going to develop that paper street. MR. CHRYS-We’re not developing the paper street at all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In other words, you’re not going to have access to your property off that street? MR. KLEIN-No. MR. CHRYS-That’s correct. MRS. BRUNO-Do you have a master plan for this whole site? MR. CHRYS-The original Site Plan or the original PUD. MR. KLEIN-Yes. Can we go back to Number Two. This was a subdivision done in 1957. Cherry Tree Lane is a paper road that goes all the way across from Forest Lane to Honeysuckle Lane. It’s paved, I believe, to about here. I think there’s two houses on Cherry Tree Lane, and it’s not developed from this point to the end of paving here. That goes right across the wetlands. There’s no, you know, in 1957 they anticipated putting a road there, but it was never developed, and we have no inclination of developing it. As I 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) said earlier, there’s 96 lots in here. We’re taking Lots Eight and Nine and a portion of the 7.2 acre lot, and we don’t have any problem making that a full acre, if that’s, there’s not a full acre lot anywhere in Shore Colony, but we can make a one acre lot if you’d like, and then the other lots that we are proposing to develop are Lots 5, 6 and 7 of Block H, but that is also connected to this seven acre lot. There’s only one tax map for that 7.27 acre lot, and it includes the original three lots that were planned to be developed on the corner of Cherry Tree and Forest. So, that’s the original master plan, and through the years it’s varied a little bit. There are still some seasonal cottages in the area, but for the most part, people are improving their properties. On the corner of North and Forest Lane, there was a seasonal cottage on stilts. In the last two years they’ve raised the cottage up, put a full basement and a garage underneath the property. Same thing’s happening over North Lane, the middle of North Lane. Right in the middle of the wetlands, somebody raised a cottage and put a foundation basement underneath the thing, but there’s a lot of year round homes in here, too. MR. CHRYS-To your question, though, Paul, I think about the Cherry Tree and the address. The address for the only lot that’s being developed is the southern lot on Forest, it’s Forest. It’s not bordering on Cherry. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, his point was that if you stub out that street because that’s where the vehicles are going to come in, you (lost word) garage to park, then he didn’t want that name. I just conveyed that to you because that’s what he told me. MR. KLEIN-For emergency purposes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the 911 center doesn’t like double named streets, especially when they’re 100 yards apart. MR. KLEIN-Sure. A couple of technical things. I was prepared to address everybody’s comments here tonight. With regards to the wastewater system, there was a comment made at the last meeting that we didn’t meet the horizontal setback requirements for the wastewater system. On a fill system, you normally, a fill system that’s raised up well above the natural ground surface, you normally measure from the toe of the fill because there’s a concern that, as wastewater effluent travels through the fill, and hits original ground surface, it could migrate horizontally and come out of the toe. So you measure the horizontal separations from the toe of the fill. We have a conventional system here. It’s called a shallow absorption trench system, and, Keith, could you move to the next slide? It’s an Eljen system, but it’s basically a shallow absorption trench system. MR. OBORNE-Do you need that reduced? MR. KLEIN-Yes. Move it down a little bit. This first top is of Appendix 75-A from the New York State Health Department, and this is the regulations. This last was published in 1990. They’ve been threatening to republish it every year since probably ’96, but it hasn’t come out from the Health Department, but these are our current regulations, and for a shallow absorption trench, the design criteria is the bottom of the trench must not be above the original ground surface. So if you would basically put the bottom of your trench on the original ground surface, and that’s what we designed it for. If you move up a little bit, in 1996, the Health Department came out with their Design Handbook. This is not the regulations, and in here they mention that you need the bottom of the absorption trench at least six inches into the ground surface to make the effluent travel down instead of horizontally, and once you are at least six inches into the ground surface, you can use your standard setbacks for your horizontal separations. Otherwise, you have to use the horizontal separation from the base of the toe of the fill. So, we’re going to, we followed 75 A, in our design, because those were the regulations. The consultation with Dave Hatin, Jim Meacham at the Department of Health, suggested we use the Design Handbook, and we’re going to revise the cross section. If you go to the cross section, Keith, we’re going to take this Eljen system, and it comes with a sand bed on the bottom of it, and we’re going to depress that sand bed six inches into the existing surface, so it can use the horizontal separations, and you would be measuring from this point right here, to your property line, or this point right here to your well, or the wetlands, instead of the toe of the slope. It’s more important on the down gradient side, by the way, than the up gradient side. So that’s how we’re going to address that question, both from VISION Engineering and from the Waterkeeper. MR. FORD-And what is your distance to the well, or wells? MR. KLEIN-We’ll be more than the 100 feet from the well. Now mind you most of the properties here on Shore Colony are on seasonal water. There are some that are on 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) wells, and since we’re investing a lot of money here in this project, we want to make it year round, we want to put a well in. So we’re going to be more than 100 feet away from the well, and if you go back to the Site Plan. Right there. MR. FORD-Is that upslope or not? MR. KLEIN-No. The septic system is here. The topography, the drainage course is this way. We originally had the well down here, which would have been down gradient, which would have required a 200 foot setback. So we moved the well over to this part of the property, and it’s down gradient, but it’s not in the direction of travel. It’s got to be down gradient and in the direction of drainage to require the 200 foot setback. So we’ve got a 100 foot setback. Now the property, there was a comment about the properties to the north. Would our septic system impact the properties to the north? Well, remember, the properties to the north are, should be on, they have Town water to be as part of the original subdivision. MR. FORD-I’m sorry to interrupt you, but clarify something for me. You mentioned that you were differentiating between down gradient and flow or? MR. KLEIN-The horizontal separation? MR. CHRYS-The flow of the water. You’ve got it down gradient. You originally had the well. Now you’ve got it where it still looks like it’s down gradient, but the flow is not in that direction. MR. KLEIN-Right. These are contour lines here. Your flow normally goes perpendicular to the contour lines. So with our septic system here, the flow would naturally go down in this direction, okay. That was a problem. Putting it way over here, the flow is going to naturally go down this way. This is not in the direction. It’s got to be down gradient and in the direction of flow. MR. FORD-And that’s just down gradient, not in the direction of flow? MR. KLEIN-Exactly. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. KLEIN-Now, there was concern about, are we impacting the lot, actually it was a couple of lots to the north. If they were to put a well on their property, and a septic system on their property, they would want to have the well up gradient from the septic system. Otherwise they’re going to need a 200 foot separation distance. So, with our septic system here, their septic system would be here, and their well should be up gradient, if they were going to use a well. The lot’s been there since 1957, it hasn’t been built on yet, but we’re not impacting their ability to build. Naturally they would want to have their well, if they put a well in, up gradient to their septic system so they don’t have to have the 200 foot separation. Can you go to Number Seven? Comment from VISION Engineering about, they wanted us to detail our pumping station and provide all the storage volume and the dosing volumes. We try and put a generic detail on, because every contractor’s going to want to do it a little bit different, and it’s important to get the important information down, how much storage volume you have to have in your chamber. We like to leave flexibility. Some contractor might want to go out and buy a package pumping station, it comes with a chamber, it comes with everything you need, the pumps, and another contractor might want to take a 1,000 gallon septic tank, buy a couple of pumps, make his own. Some might want to take a round structure, a couple of pumps, make his own. So what we make a practice of is giving flexibility for anything as long as it meets the requirements. So we put a, we know we need a day storage volume, just in case the pumps go bad, you want to have one day’s worth of design flow extra capacity in your pumping chamber so that you’ve got time for the honey dipper to come and pump it out and fix the pumps. So we put a dimension here, B, and that says storage for one day’s design flow. You also want to dose your system six times a day, under design flow. So, we have a dimension here, A, between the pump on and the pump off, of one sixth the daily design flow. So they can go to a, if it’s a three bedroom house, we know what the design flow is for a three bedroom house. They can size the pumping chamber. If it’s a four bedroom house, they know what the design flow is for a four bedroom house. They can select the right pumping chamber for the application. So that’s how we would address VISION’s comment about the pumping chamber. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-Did you ever ask for input from your contractors, to have them come back to you so you can issue an amendment, rather than leaving things kind of out there in general? MR. KLEIN-Normally what we do is ask the contractors to give a submittal. So they’ll give us a submittal to review, and on our drawings there’s a, in the fine print in the corner there there’s a requirement for them to provide us with a submittal so we can review that, and make sure what they’re going to provide meets the intent of the design. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. KLEIN-You’re welcome. I’m done on Pine Tree, and I’d be happy to jump over to, do we need a public comment period now, or no? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just going to say, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I don’t know if there’s anyone that wanted to comment? We do have some people that want to comment. MR. KLEIN-Okay. Should we break, then, and come back for Forest? MR. OBORNE-You’re probably going to have to make your recommendation or have them resubmit, or table this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, they are listed as separate applications. So we will have to have. MR. KLEIN-Two public hearings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN MALONEY MS. MALONEY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. MALONEY-I’m Kathleen Maloney, and this is my mother Eleanor Maloney, and she is the owner of 36 Forest Lane, which is right now the last house, residence on Forest Lane that’s built, and we’re here to express our opposition to this Freshwater Wetlands application. I had some comments prepared based on the plan that was submitted originally to the Zoning Board, but what I would like to do is maybe supply some information and I can have my mom, who is one of the original Shore Colony owners. She bought the lot in 1958, and she and my dad built our summer camp there, and she’s owned it continuously for the last 50 years. We’ve used the property every year since it was built, and we still enjoy it. First of all, unfortunately I didn’t have a chance to count the number of lots in the original subdivision plan from 1957. However, every deed that is issued specifically states we have one one hundredths interest in the common swimming area, and that would mean there would probably be 100 lots in the subdivision that were listed. In addition, for this particular Pine Tree Lane proposal, the lot on, according to the assessment rolls, on Pine Tree Lane is .34 acres. The request is now to change the part that he was taking from the other property which is the property on Cherry Tree Lane, which is 7.27 acres, and according to the assessment roll is described as the following. Land Number Two, 03, undeveloped, 24 by 200, and that’s the part, I believe, that’s off Cherry Tree Lane, on Forest Lane, right on the corner there, the divided lots, and Land Number Three, description 14, wetland, 6.14 acres, and when he was using the PowerPoint, he was showing you that the part behind the Pine Tree Lane that he was going to take part of, because he said, I have 7.14 acres, 6.14 acres of this is designed wetlands, according to the assessment rolls, and that’s the part that he’s taking, going to be adding, I believe now, to create his one acre parcel. He also made, because I know about the properties up there, Shore Colony, the vast majority of the homes up there are seasonal residences, and the municipal water supply, yes, Shore Colony’s water is administered by the Town of Queensbury, so it is, I guess, municipal water supply it’s taken out of the lake, and I think they’re going to turn the water off 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) st November 1, and I think we got notice that that’s when it’s going to be turned off for the thst year, and it gets turned back on between April 15 and May 1. So it’s definitely, unless you have a well, you really can’t use your house, even if it’s winterized, because you have no water supply. In addition, I can tell you specifically about the houses, the residences that are on Pine Tree Lane. There’s only four of them right now. Four Pine Tree Lane is a seasonal house, and it has 825 square feet. Six Pine Tree Lane is a seasonal house and it has 1,076 square feet, and Nine Pine Tree Lane is a seasonal house and it has 780 square feet, and there’s, according to the assessment rolls, there’s one single family residence. That’s at 13 Pine Tree Lane, and that has 1426 square feet, and they’re all cottages. So the total square footage on the street right now, on Pine Tree Lane, is only 4,290 square feet. Now I don’t know how many square feet they’re proposing for this new plan, because unfortunately I haven’t seen it, and I do know that the prior one, the first two floors of it totaled almost 3,000 square feet, without the basement, which was going to be a walk out basement. So you’d have to classify it as living area. So I don’t know what the size is going to be now. I do know that 28 North Lane, which was a property that Mr. Chrys developed before and sold in 2007, according to the assessment roll, is only 2443 square feet of living area, and that’s what they assess it for, and according to the description on the assessment roll, it’s got only a partial basement. In addition, on Pine Tree Lane, the house on the corner that he was referring to is, excuse me, on Forest Lane, the house that he’s referring to that had a basement, a garage underneath put in, that house is classified as a ranch, one story, and it has 1,052 square feet of living area. What some people are doing, so they can stay just a little bit longer. It’s not like they’re adding two or three stories to their house and more bedroom spaces or anything like that. It’s basically so that it can stay beyond th maybe September 15, and I guess the wetlands is a big, there’s a big thing with the wetlands. Right now this is all vacant land, and there’s moose, deer, all sorts of animals that go through there. This is one big, that whole area there, that’s all woods. There’s streams, everything is right in there. This is all overgrown vegetation, and that’s all I can say about this, but it would be nice to know exactly what’s being proposed as an alternative to what was proposed before, as to number of bedrooms, like that. There’s a few houses that do have garages, but not a lot. On Forest Lane, we only have so many houses, and I won’t discuss that now because they have a request concerning Cherry Tree Lane, Forest Lane, and I’ll address that at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. MALONEY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. MALONEY-Thank you so much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else want to address the Board? Yes, sir. Good evening. CHRIS BENNETT MR. BENNETT-Good evening. My name’s Chris Bennett. I’m a current resident of Queensbury. I’m just here to say I’m not for this, I’m not against it. I just want to make some facts have haven’t been really brought up. I operate equipment. I know, you know, what’s going on here. By what I’ve heard, it’s going to be a tight fit, especially for trucks going in and out, especially bringing material in. I don’t know how they plan on getting in and out, especially with the trailer. You can’t back up very far before it screws up. So what I really just want to say is think, before it’s being built, how everything’s going to be run, and especially noise level with the diesel equipment, because that will scare aware, you know, animals. I live right next to watershed property in Queensbury, and I know, between the houses, and them logging occasionally, there’s no deer anymore. There’s occasional squirrel and bird, but there’s nothing else there. So I don’t want that to happen. I’m a nature guy. I hunt, I, you know, fish, and I don’t want anything else to get screwed up. So that’s pretty much it. Just think before you agree. Think before you disagree. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, Chris. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. Obviously we didn’t have the time to look at the new plan. I appreciate some of the work that the applicant has done. I still have concerns about the septic system. I think there was some 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) correspondence from Mr. Maine who said that there was depth to seasonal groundwater of 37 inches, but if they’re sinking their septic system into the soil six inches, you still need three feet of separation. So you’re not going to have it. So, just so that we’re all on the same page when they come back, and I think that that three feet of separation is in Section 136 of Queensbury. It seems like there’s a lot going on here with the extension of the road, with the need for the stormwater, for the well and the clearing. So, again, I’d just like to echo what the previous speaker said. I think there’s going to be a lot going on and, you know, when plans come in we’ll take a look at it then, but just so we’re all aware on the septic system. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Yes, sir. STEVE CARDONA MR. CARDONA-Can you go back to the 1950 map, or ’56? Yes, my name’s Steve Cardona. I presently live at 175 Assembly Point Road, but before living there, I had a summer residence since 2001 at Sunset Lane, which is the Lot Four and Five right now, and still presently have ownership in that home. One thing that was done, that I did, and it was Lot Four and Five out of the hundred or so lots that were proposed, but I have consolidated Four and Five into one lot now. If you see on the tax assessment, it is just one lot. So what I am for in this project is the consolidation of these little pocket lots, such as what has been proposed in the original plan there, and I think it’s a good thing that if they’re putting new structures in there, I know on the application, 4,000 some odd feet is definitely, square foot is intimidating, but taking into consideration footprint and the basement and the walkout like they’re doing, and in conjunction with the house that was built over there on, I think it was Cherry Tree or the one right over in Forest, looks like it will, you know, definitely enhance that neighborhood. I have been active in Shore Colony since 2001. I’ve gone to mostly all the meetings, even been asked to run for President there, but declined, but these lots also will be subject to the dues paid for the waterfront, which we take a lot of pride in, in keeping up every year. It just seems that we always see the same faces at those meetings, but, in speaking to Mr. Chrys, that those would be subject to those dues of Shore Colony, but, other than that, I do like the idea of the consolidation of these little lots, such as what I did on Sunset, to make the whole development, you know, brought up to this century, other than all these little tiny camps that were there. Looking at some of them that were on that back side where I still go for my walks and stuff like that, there is, you know, there is some places that are kind of running down to the ground, but it seems that some of this development is very beautifying this, and if the drainage plans work and everything, I’m all for a project such as this. As far as the wildlife, there is still a lot of wildlife there up in, I live in a more congested area of Assembly Point, and I still see a lot of the wildlife. I still see some of the moose that were mentioned. I haven’t seen them in quite some time, but they were there, but it’s like anything else, they’ll migrate from point to point or whatever, but I am for a project such like this, and especially the thing that turns me on about it is the consolidation of these lots to bring them into a bigger, more appetizing properties, such as all these little camps that were there, and still there. So that’s my point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-Approximately how many years ago did you see the last moose? MR. CARDONA-I’ll tell you when it was. I actually had a tree fall on my property in, I’m going to say 2004, it fell on my house on Sunset. So during the construction, and we were on the roof, there was two baby moose that were there. Also, 2001, April, when I closed on the property, my son and I were staying in the house for the very first time, and on our way to the Cleverdale Store, we saw a moose cross 9L, and which they’re very docile, sat there and just grazed along the road, and which at this time it attracted probably four or five different cars, and never spooked it. So, to this day, if you go to my 23 Sunset property, my whole motif in there is moose. Everything like that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. MR. CARDONA-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. Obviously we’re going to be tabling this application. MR. CHRYS-Have all the Planning Board members been out to the site? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-I haven’t been there recently, but I’m familiar with it. MR. KLEIN-I’ve got a photograph that I’d like to share with you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you don’t mind, I’d just update the Board on one thing. They’ve talked about 100 lots, which is how it started. Just the other day we counted the number of camps, and the definition of a camp up there is it doesn’t have year round water. It only has six month water. If it has a well, then it can be a year round camp. There are 22 lots. MR. KLEIN-There are 22 camps left. A camp would be one without a well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Without a well, that’s right, and one of the things that has happened is what Mr. Cardona is that the people that own the camps knock down the camps, bought the lot next door and then built a bigger house. MR. KLEIN-This is one of the camps, okay. This camp doesn’t have any parking on the property. They have to park on the road when they use this camp. MR. SIPP-Does that road dead end if you keep on going? MR. KLEIN-That’s the end of Forest Lane. MR. SIPP-That’s the end of it there. MR. KLEIN-That’s the end. That’s the last house on Forest. MR. SIPP-I saw a trail. I didn’t dare go down it. MRS. BRUNO-That’s the previous public’s house, at the end of Forest Lane that just spoke to us. MR. KLEIN-Yes. We’re trying to upgrade the neighborhood. This is the house that’s across the street from the Pine Tree property. They were talking about the square footage of this house. Well, I don’t think they’re talking about the basement when they include the square footage on this house. It doesn’t have an exit, legal exit. We have debris in the middle of the road. We’re hoping to get the debris moved out of the road when we extend the road. MRS. BRUNO-This is where again? I’m sorry. MR. KLEIN-This is across the street from the Pine Tree lot. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. KLEIN-This is the end of Pine Tree. In any event, the square footage of that property is a little bit larger than what was mentioned, and, you know, I’m just bringing, we’re planning on not using these photographs, but just wanted to demonstrate we’re trying to uplift the neighborhood. It’s amazing that somebody would invest this type of money across the street from that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the average price of the houses that you’re building on spec? MR. KLEIN-Off the lake, in that neighborhood. MR. SCHONEWOLF-North Lane and these two. MR. CHRYS-I think the house on North Lane is listed for somewhere in the high four’s. MR. KLEIN-We were planning, if we went back, I went around the neighborhood and took some photographs of the houses, just to demonstrate that this is not strange to the neighborhood. I don’t think the Planning Board is the place for this. If we went back to the Zoning Board, we would have used these photographs, but, you know, this is on the corner of Sunset. This is part of Shore Colony. Nice home, well landscaped. This is another corner property, I think it’s on the Sunset and Honeysuckle. This is going up Sunset. There’s a nice home up in there. This is another one that’s on Sunset. This is on Honeysuckle. This is on the corner of Cherry and Honeysuckle. It’s a fairly large 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) home. I believe there’s a well there underneath that little. This is a new home in the neighborhood. It backs up to Honeysuckle. It’s a rather nice home. This person bought the lot next to them, which was a little, I spend a lot of time in the neighborhood. I know they used to have bonfires there in the middle of the day and drinking beer and just a goodtime place, you know, and he bought the place next door, tore it down, put a little guest house in there, really trying to bring up the neighborhood. He also owns another property on Honeysuckle. I think he’s got three properties in the area. This is, backs up to Honeysuckle, that house there. This is in Shore Colony. This is actually at the west end of North Road. MR. CHRYS-And Forest is the other one. It’s on the corner. MR. KLEIN-It’s on the corner of North and Forest. It’s got a well. It was developed on a lot and a half. This is the property that they raised and put the garage under. I don’t know if it was in front of the Planning Board, but I saw some minutes in the Zoning Board that this property had to come in front of the Zoning Board and get a variance, that’s on the corner of North and Forest. This is right across, a new build right across the street from the Forest Lane property. This lot has got a well on it and it’s three and half lot, they took three and a half lots and combined it. This is another one in Shore Colony. Here’s one on the flip, there’s two new homes on the flipside backing up to the Mahoney’s property. They’re grandiose. They’re huge. This is a big one that I think came in front of the Planning Board. They took down too many trees, and there was a wind blow down, and that’s a result of one of the other homes that I was showing you here. MRS. BRUNO-How big is that one? MR. KLEIN-This one is, I’m guessing it’s 6,000 square feet. It buts up to Shore Colony. MRS. BRUNO-Well, it just points out the fact that a 6,000 square foot home needed a piece of property that then caused the domino effect of other trees coming down. So it is a, you know, a concern that we need to take into consideration. MR. KLEIN-This is another one on I think it’s Lake Parkway. It buts up to the back of the Mahoney’s property, a beautiful, beautiful home. They did a garage on the other side. I think it’s got maybe some marginal living quarters in it, but it’s just a beautiful home, and this is what’s happening in the neighborhood. The camps are being upgraded. Some of them are being replaced with year round homes, and it’s, in my opinion, it’s an upgrade to the neighborhood. I want to come back to that for a second. We have, originally every lot had one one hundredth of the use of the lake frontage. Some of them had deeded docks. Some of them were in a lottery system for three moorings, and when you combine three lots, all of a sudden you have one family using that lake frontage instead of three families using the lake frontage. Also, once you build on the property, there’s monies annually going into the upgrade of the beach. There was a comment about taking part of the wetlands. Keith, can you go back to the, maybe the Site Plan for Pine Tree. MR. CHRYS-You can probably tell right from there, right? MR. KLEIN-Here’s the wetlands delineation line. So approximately half this extra space is dry land. Half of it is wetland. The whole purpose is to get more property, a large property instead of these postage stamp lots. So it’s all going to stay green. There was a question about what size, how many bedrooms for the house. Our septic system is sized for a three bedroom house. We have a slower perc rate here than we do on the other lot. That’s always going to be here. That’s all the septic system will support is a three bedroom house. So that’s, when we come back, that’s what we’re going to be proposing. I’m in the neighborhood a lot. I see a lot of deer in that neighborhood. There’s been a lot of construction in that neighborhood. It doesn’t seem to have chased the deer away, because they’re prevalent in that neighborhood, and we will provide the proper horizontal separation to meet the Town’s Code, horizontal and vertical separation for our septic systems. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, obviously we’re going to be tabling this. MR. CHRYS-Again, I’m not sure how to articulate this, but the Pine Tree lot which we’re tabling, I guess, or going to table, I mean, my concerns were, I’d like to know what the criteria and what’s necessary to get through the wetlands side of it. I mean, that was the part. We’re within every parameter of the Codes, from wetland buffers to what we’re going to end up with ultimately in street frontage, to setback that was changed, to reducing the size of the house. One of the concerns was, you know, somebody’s going 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) to apply for a garage, whether you have one there or not, so, obviously the house was reduced not just because of the setbacks but we’d reduce it also to allow for a garage, and that’s in the site plan that unfortunately you don’t have a copy of. My single goal was to find out if we’ve, I’ll say, met the requirement to at least know, based on what you have, whether we can work within that wetland, and again, I may not be articulating it quite right, and/or what is necessary so that when we return, it’s not a rehashing of things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you’re here for two reasons. One is the Zoning Board asked us for a recommendation. MR. CHRYS-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And it sounds like your revised plan won’t require, or may not require a variance from the Zoning Board. So that issue’s going to kind of go away by your re- designed site plan. The other reason why you’re here is because you’re disturbing within 100 feet of a wetland. Just looking at that plan, I don’t think you’re going to be able to design a project that wouldn’t require a wetland permit. So you are going to have to come back before this Board. It’s essentially Site Plan Review, but it’s a Special Use Permit required under Freshwater Wetlands requirements of the Town Code. We get into all the same issues as you would on, as Site Plan Review, you know, we ask the same questions, and the goal there is to minimize impact on the Freshwater Wetlands. MR. CHRYS-Okay. So, theoretically, if we had the corrected Site Plan, theoretically, and we were within the guidelines that were outlined, and we’re pretty much in a situation where you could make a decision at that point. Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHRYS-Is there anything that would impede that process? I’m just trying to not have to come back for two or three meetings, or not give you what you’re looking for. So I guess, if there’s some feedback, relative to what we’re proposing, so we come back accurately. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it’s hard to give you any feedback when we haven’t, I mean, you know, we kind of went over the new plan. I mean, personally, you know, you’ve addressed a lot of the issues that I had. One of the main issues that I had was off street parking. I think it’s kind of naïve to set aside a portion on the lawn. I mean, you’re not going to build a, I was thinking the house would probably be more like six or seven hundred thousand dollar house, but five hundred thousand dollar house, you’re not going to build a five hundred thousand dollar house and then not allow for people to park their car in a garage. MR. CHRYS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially if it’s going to be a year round house. I think people are going to want a garage. So that was one issue that I had personally, but, you know, you’ve addressed it in your new Site Plan. Until we all collectively, you know, until we all individually sit down and review your Site Plan and then collectively discuss your Site Plan, I don’t know what other feedback we can give you. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I have one question. Is there enough room, with your new Site Plan, to size your septic system for four bedrooms? MR. KLEIN-No. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I’m uncomfortable with having an upstairs den with egress windows that’s called a den. MR. CHRYS-That’s changed, though. You’ll see that, you have the old Site Plan, or the old house plan. MRS. BRUNO-I think I have a new as well. MR. HUNSINGER-And even the Zoning Administrator will consider that a bedroom in terms of septic design. MR. CHRYS-I guess I haven’t seen that. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-There are other things you might want to consider redesigning. Walking into a dining room is kind of funky from your foyer, but that’s not our purview. MR. CHRYS-No, I understand. MR. KLEIN-So no den, no bonus room. MR. SIPP-Well, I’ll read you the regulation from the Design Handbook. Expansions, attics, basements, sleeping porches, dens, recreation rooms, which may be converted to additional permanent bedrooms in the future, should be considered in calculating design flow. Considerable variability in surge flow rate occurs from household to household. So that, in figuring your septic system, you’re going to have to take into account these dens, recreation rooms, bonus rooms. MR. CHRYS-So if the site can only support a three bedroom house, we can’t have a den or a recreation room or a bonus room? MR. FORD-Unless those are your three bedrooms. MR. SIPP-You can have them, but you’ve got to calculate them in your. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you understand the concerns. MR. CHRYS-I understand the commonsense side of that. I don’t have any problem taking out. th MR. SEGULJIC-You understand the concern that on July 4 you’re going to have a lot of people there, so we want to make sure your septic system is designed to accommodate that. MR. CHRYS-Yes, exactly. I have no issue with that, and I know exactly where you’re going with that. I don’t care if there’s a room above the garage or not. I mean, that’s just the obvious thing that people do to maximize space, and it was factored in the calculation, by the way. So it wasn’t something that, but regardless, I understand exactly what you’re saying. MR. KLEIN-By the way, that’s the Guideline. That’s not the regulation. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It is guidance. MR. FORD-Chris made an observation early on when he was delineating, and he made the point that he didn’t believe that you could construct here without impacting the wetland. Do you concur with that? You don’t concur with that? MR. CHRYS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, maybe it’s possible that you could design the house where you don’t even have to come before us. MR. FORD-Then bring it. MR. HUNSINGER-If you can design this project so that you’re not even within 100 feet of the wetland. MR. CHRYS-We’re not going to disturb the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KLEIN-But we’ll disturb within 100 feet of the wetland. We’ll disturb, primarily, within 50 foot of the wetland. We’re not going to take any trees or any vegetation within 35 feet. Not even a blade of grass, and I think that’s stretching it, because the APA defines vegetation with their clear cutting restrictions, they don’t consider a tree that’s six inches in diameter breast height a tree. If you were to trench through that, to take a little bit of the brush out, would that be taking vegetation? The strict interpretation of the Code is yes, but I don’t think that was the intent of it. MR. SEGULJIC-But I think also that the intention was to protect your water bodies, and the whole thing with water bodies is keeping the vegetation so the soil has the integrity so that it doesn’t wash off into the water body. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-Size your project so that it works on your site. MR. FORD-You’ll find, if you haven’t detected it already, we monitor wetlands pretty darn carefully. So just be aware of that. Keep that in mind when you come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KLEIN-Now, we’re keeping a 35 foot plus vegetative buffer. We’re not having any hard surfaces within 50 foot of the wetlands, and our septic system is 100 foot away from the wetlands. MRS. BRUNO-Sized for three bedrooms. MR. TRAVER-And we need to see the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHRYS-That’s fine. I’ve got just a curious question. I mean, Dave had made mention of a situation on North Lane where they’ve raised a house and actually filled in a lot of wetland. I guess my question would be, what is the policing of that kind of? MRS. BRUNO-Well, it started with my orange highlighter so I can go visit it. MR. TRAVER-That’s outside the scope of our authority. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t come before this Board. MR. CHRYS-Well, that’s what I was just curious about. If you drove over and looked at the Forest Lane sites, you saw exactly what I’m talking about, and I know that it was within a wetland because I paid to have it flagged, and it was just, I’m just curious as to what the policing is, just like with the septics. I mean, I’d rather have a 2008 designed septic system on any of those properties on the Point because I live there year round, and, you know, it’s just shocking to me what I know exists versus what today’s envelope encompasses. MRS. BRUNO-The first step is, because it’s not, it didn’t come before us, but the first step is to contact the Community Development Department and find out what the specifics are. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I would talk to the Zoning Administrator. MR. CHRYS-Thank you very much. Some of it’s just so blatant, I’m curious as to what the. MRS. BRUNO-Well, it raises a red flag. It did to me. I’m curious. I haven’t been up in that neighborhood since, you showed one of the buildings that I had designed a foundation for, and I haven’t been up there since then. MR. CHRYS-So you’ve seen the change. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. CHRYS-The positive change. MRS. BRUNO-I think all things can be debated, but. MR. CHRYS-That’s true. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will entertain a tabling resolution, if someone would like to put forward one. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I mean, we don’t have the plan, so how do we, table it for submission of the revised plans? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, I mean, we’ll be looking at a December meeting. MR. CHRYS-There’s no November meeting? MR. OBORNE-Yes, but the deadline has already passed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHRYS-That answers that question. Thanks. MR. KLEIN-Since we’re already in, though, do we have to meet the deadline? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You have new plans coming in. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to say, if they already have new plans, they could submit them tomorrow? MR. CHRYS-Absolutely. MR. KLEIN-Well, a couple of days. MR. CHRYS-I mean, I would think that courtesy would be extended, I would appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do, I mean, we do have an opening in the November meeting. The problem that we run into, though, since we’re already past the submission deadline, is getting the submission to the office, getting copies to the Town Engineer, getting comments back, and getting through that process, in half the time than. MR. CHRYS-Can we make that attempt? I mean, if somebody can’t do it, they can’t do it, but I’d like to have at least the option to make that attempt. MR. SEGULJIC-Not to put the weight on Staff, but really Staff has to get it done. MR. CHRYS-I mean, you’re so familiar with the site now. MR. OBORNE-Right, but I won’t be involved in this incarnation. So, that would fall on the Staff that’s currently in the office right now. To say that they can’t handle it would be a misnomer, because they certainly can handle it. So, it’s to the will of the Board, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Now is this just this one site, or is it the two sites? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s the other question. MR. OBORNE-You haven’t done the other site yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t talked about the other site. MR. KLEIN-We haven’t made significant changes on the other site. We’re going to review that tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re still going to review that one. Is that going to be the same situation? Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-This is Freshwater 10-2008, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-This is nine, 9-2008. Ten was withdrawn. MR. SEGULJIC-So what date are we going to? What am I hearing? MR. TRAVER-We’re five and five in November right now? MR. SEGULJIC-Am I hearing that people want to go on December? MR. CHRYS-I thought you were going to give us the option for November? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, when are submissions due for November? MR. OBORNE-Well, what they’re asking for is a special consideration. MRS. BRUNO-How quickly can you change all the documents? MR. KLEIN-Can we have until Tuesday? MR. TRAVER-The next application is similar. You have a new design, so you’d be resubmitting for that one as well? MR. CHRYS-No, that’s not the case. I think that the, I would ask until Tuesday. I think I can get the site taken care of definitely by Tuesday. We’re going outside for the house design, and so they’ve been very responsive to date, and I’m suspecting they can get it done by Tuesday, too. We’ll let them know tomorrow morning. MR. KLEIN-Yes. We’ll commit to Tuesday. If we miss Tuesday, we’ll go to December. MR. CHRYS-I’ve got one other question, too. MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds as though your house design is going to be impacted by the septic issue, in terms of the number of rooms and so on, bonus room, den. MR. KLEIN-We’ll eliminate the bonus room, the den. MR. CHRYS-We’ll eliminate the bonus room and the den. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, that’s what I’m saying. So the folks that you’re having do the design work are going to accomplish that by Tuesday? MR. CHRYS-We’re just looking for floor plans and elevations. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 9-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC – CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by: th To our November 25 date, with a submission of revised plans by November 4, 2008. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-What that means is, if you don’t get the plans in by the fourth, then you’re into December. MR. CHRYS-Understood. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was left open. So there will be an opportunity for the public to comment again. (LOST WORDS) MR. HUNSINGER-They’ll be available the day it’s submitted. Yes. th MR. OBORNE-Assuming they submit the new documents by the 4, and that will include FAR and permeability and the whole nine yards. MR. KLEIN-Mr. Schonewolf represents the fire department also. We want to make sure the fire department’s happy with whatever we propose for paving that. So I know Mr. Schonewolf’s a Board member, but can I contact him to make sure? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can contact the Chief if you want. I was just carrying the water for him the other night because he couldn’t make the meeting. MR. KLEIN-Mr. Baertschi? Okay. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’ll be fine with, I reported to him what you were going to do, and if you bring the road back to there, that’ll take care of it. MR. KLEIN-Okay. Great. MR. HUNSINGER-As indicated earlier, the next item on the agenda is Freshwater Wetlands 10-2008, also for Garner Holdings, LLC. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 10-2008 SEQR TYPE II GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC – CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT(S) NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING OWNER(S) HELEN DUBIN; JANE DUBIN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION NORTH CORNER CHERRY TREE LANE & FOREST LANE, ASSEMBLY PT. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4566 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, TWO HARD SURFACING PARKING SPOTS, SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MITIGATION. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-48, 49 SECTION 179-6-100D(1), 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER-This application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2008 SEQR TYPE II GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC- CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT(S) NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERNG OWNER(S) JANE DUBIN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION SOUTH CORNER OF CHERRY TREE LANE & FOREST LANE, ASSEMBLY PT. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4566 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL & STORMWATER MITIGATION. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 7.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-37 SECTION 179-6-100D(1), 179-9-020 DAVID KLEIN & MICHAEL CHRYS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize the notes on that one. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. As previously stated, Freshwater Wetlands 11-2008, Garner Holdings, LLC is the applicant. Requested action: Freshwater Wetlands permit review for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. Location: South corner of Cherry Tree Lane, which is a paper street, and Forest Lane, Assembly Point, Waterfront Residential One acre. This is a SEQRA Type II Status. No further action necessary. This is vacant land. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 4,566 square foot single family home on 7.27 acres. Addendum to that will be the size of this lot will change due to the size of Pine Tree Lane expanding. The parcel proposal includes a wastewater system, well, and stormwater mitigation. Staff comments include the parcel is located in the Shore Colony Subdivision on Assembly Point. The proposed site plan calls for disturbance within 49.5 feet of a freshwater wetland and as a result, this triggers the need for a freshwater wetlands permit, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. KLEIN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. I won’t bother you with the introductions. We’ve already been introduced, and I’m not going to. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, for the record, yes. MR. KLEIN-For the record, I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering. I represent Garner Holdings, LLC, and in any event, you don’t want me to rehash all the same issues with this project. I’ve addressed them pretty thoroughly with the last project, and they’ll be, they’re on our application, so I won’t bore everybody with that. If we could go to Slide Number Eight, Keith. We’ve made some minor changes on this one. Basically the site is exactly the same as what we had submitted. There was a comment about being too close to the wetland with our well on the last site, when we went through on the Board. So we moved the well closer to the road, and we’re providing 40 foot buffer between the well and the wetlands. We’ve also gone and located the septic system and 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) the well on this property here. That was one of VISION’s comments. They were also concerned about well and septic on these particular lots, but earlier I had mentioned that Wilcox owns this lot, this lot, and half of this lot where they built that new house on top of the garage, right directly across the street from our project. So, we’re now we’re being able to note exactly where the 100 foot setback is from this well, or from this septic system to the well, and we’ve added a little arrow here to show where the Wilcox property begins and ends. So it’s clearer to the engineer. Robert’s property is on Town water. They don’t have an opportunity to get out of their 100 foot setback to install a well on that property. So I just wanted to note that they’re on Town water and our septic system will have no impact on their water supply. There was another comment about the septic system being on too steep of a slope. It appeared to be a 12% slope. Talked to Dave Hatin. It doesn’t seem to be an issue, but if it is an issue, we’ll take it to the Board of Health and any approval can be conditioned that we get a Board of Health approval. I don’t think it’s necessary to go to the Board of Health on that. I think the comment was misleading, based on my conversations with Dave Hatin. There was question about the surfaces, also, of the stairs, the walkway and the parking area. We’re planning on providing two off street parking spots that are required by Code alongside of the road on a grass, soft surface. We’re not asking for any pavement in that area. We want to minimize environmental impact, and that’s why we’re proposing grass parking. We’re also proposing to make these a pressure treated walkway, elevated walkway, elevated stairs. It’s kind of a steep slope to get down to the house from the parking area. So we want to put in an elevated walkway with some stairs built into it, so we can get conveniently down to the house. So, that whole assembly is going to be permeable surface, no hard surfaces. There was another comment if we should have a front setback from Cherry Tree Lane. The comment came from VISION Engineering. A front setback is 30 foot required. A side yard setback is 20 foot required. We talked this over with Staff. Since it’s a paper street, it’s never going to be developed on, Staff indicated that a 20 foot setback from Cherry Tree Lane would be the appropriate setback. MR. FORD-Is that not a wetland? MR. KLEIN-The wetland mapping shows, this is where the wetland is, excuse me, it goes down this way. So, we’re within 100 foot of the wetland, but all of our structures and everything are, you know, at least 50 foot away from the wetland, and we have no clearing. Here’s the 50 foot setback line from the wetland, all right. You can see the house is well beyond the 50 foot setback from the wetland, and we were able to provide 40 foot buffer here for the well, and I don’t envision taking down a lot of trees for that. We’ll snake the water line in between the trees wherever we can. It would be brush, basically, that will grow right back, you know, within a few years, and we put a note on the drawing, you know, do not remove any vegetation within 35 foot of the wetlands, and the wetlands are flagged out there. So I think there’s a, we added a note to, you know, stake out that setback. If the note’s not on there already, we would accept that as a condition. I think it’s a good idea that the contractor stakes out where his setbacks from the wetlands are before he starts any construction, so he knows what he’s doing. Doesn’t get carried away. Also in your packet that we handed out earlier today are current CAD house plans. They’ve, when we, we took the base stock drawings of the house and marked them up for every site, the three sites we were proposing to develop. Everyone’s a little bit different, so they needed a little bit of tweak one way or the other. One we flipped over, one we flipped, and we marked them up on the plans. Keith said, you know, you better come with clearer plans so there’s no notes on them. So that’s what we delivered tonight. This particular one’s got a small deck. It provides egress from a couple of spaces in the drawing. You’ll notice, I think we have a walkout basement on this also. The property on North Road was on a level lot. You didn’t have to count the basement in your square footage calculations. When you have three foot of basement exposed in the Town of Queensbury, you’ve got to count the basement in your Floor Area. Since we have a sloping lot, the back end of the house was at grade in the basement. So it made sense to, you know, put in the doors and windows. It’s practical that you would have a walkout basement. On this particular lot with this particular configuration as the property slopes off, you don’t want to bring a bunch of fill in adjacent to the wetland. So that’s why we have that. If the Board thought it was necessary, or, you know, my client would offer not, to take out the windows and the door, doors on the back side of the house. MR. CHRYS-(Lost words) there’s no way to avoid that under your Code. MR. KLEIN-And this is a very large lot, seven acres. We’re going to take a little bit of that 7.27 acres and put it on to the Pine Street property, and, you know, it’s a very large lot, so the Floor Area Ratio, you know, we’re way under what we could normally build on that. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. FORD-Well, you’ve just brought that up. Could you point to where you probably will be taking that land and adding it to the first parcel? MR. KLEIN-Can you go back to, I think it’s Number Three. MR. CHRYS-While they’re doing that, Tom, just to address your question about making it an acre or not, that lot, I think, is 7.2. MR. KLEIN-7.27 acres. MR. CHRYS-So if we took out 2.4 to make that other lot a full acre, or whatever the case may be, we’re still going to end up substantially in excess of six. MR. KLEIN-Yes. Is that something, by the way, when we revise the plan, is that something that you would look favorably upon, getting a full acre on that Pine Tree lot? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. FORD-That’s why I initially raised it. MR. KLEIN-Okay. You’ve got it. Okay. This is the two lots on Pine Tree. Currently we’re carving off a little piece of property here, and it brought it up to just under .6 acres. What I would suggest you do is draw a straight line from that point right there, right across to Cherry Tree, and if that’s an acre, we’ll call it quits. If it’s not, if it’s under an acre, we’ll move it a little bit further to the. MR. FORD-So how much of that being conveyed is wetland? MR. KLEIN-It’s, earlier I mentioned that this piece of property was about half wetlands and half high grounds. I would say the majority of the balance of that is going to be wetlands. There might be a little dry land in it, but the majority of it’s wetlands. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand what’s going on here, the Zoning Board asked us for a recommendation, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Not on this one. MR. SEGULJIC-Not on these lots. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s Pine Tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, not on this one. This one’s only here for a Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That clarifies that for me, then. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to see some other boundary line of this parcel, whether it’s getting that mapped or having it superimposed over your site over here or making this a smaller scale and getting it in. MR. KLEIN-Are we back to Pine Tree, or are we back? MRS. BRUNO-No, we’re out on the one that we’re on right now. MR. KLEIN-Okay. Could you go back to our Site Plan? Actually, it’s not on there. We have, as an insert on this Site Plan, I believe, a tax map. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, but it’s not, it doesn’t show the property. It just shows the house. MR. CHRYS-This is the site. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. CHRYS-And before we were going to be conveying this little dashed line here over to Pine Tree. MRS. BRUNO-Right. This is going up here. What I’m referring to is over here. See, your site right here only goes here, but you’ve got 7.27 acres. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re doing the same thing, right? You are conveying that over, aren’t you? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. See, he’s got it sketched on his. I’d like to see it for real. See, this piece of property that you’re cutting off over here for this house. MR. CHRYS-Yes. It’s kind of difficult to see, because one of the tax maps, like the one he has, actually shows that he’s drawn out, actually, yours does, it looks like you drew it in. MR. KLEIN-I drew it. MR. CHRYS-Yes. He drew it in, but it’s this whole parcel. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I see that now, I’m sorry. Thank you. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to put a garage on that house? MR. CHRYS-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ll wind up parking in the street. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they have them shown parallel to the street. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, but. MR. CHRYS-(Lost words) in fact, some of them don’t have anywhere on that property to park. They park on the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where’s that? MR. CHRYS-On different parts of Assembly Point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but not on that street. MR. KLEIN-On Forest Lane. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Forest Lane, everybody pulls off the street. You’ve got to in the winter. MR. KLEIN-Well, I could not find a parking spot. MR. CHRYS-The house at the end of Forest. MR. SCHONEWOLF-David has a driveway. Doesn’t the other two? MR. KLEIN-Maloney? MR. SCHONEWOLF-She doesn’t have a driveway. MR. KLEIN-And the people to the north have a minor depression in the lawn that goes up there. The house is for sale. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m just telling you the one complaint that I had, people complained about. MR. CHRYS-Yes. There’s two houses on Forest I know for a fact that don’t have driveways. Theirs and the other one with that little indentation or whatever. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What, the A frame? Everybody else has got. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess part of the concern of not having designated parking spaces, I know there’s some slope there, but the concern is that, if the lawn is the parking, that you’ll park over the septic field. I mean, there is some slope there, but it’s not super steep. MR. KLEIN-Here’s a parking spots. We don’t have any problem putting some boulders along the side of the parking. MR. CHRYS-We can put something up there that’s natural, stone. MR. KLEIN-Normally people put boulders in there to protect the septic. MR. HUNSINGER-And that was really one of the other questions is, you know, why wouldn’t you have the parking spaces more delineated by gravel or, you know, some other material? MR. KLEIN-We’re trying to minimize hard surfaces near the wetlands. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Like you did on North Lane. You put gravel there for parking. MR. KLEIN-We have currently, I think, in the new proposal that we, North Lane, yes. I wasn’t involved in North Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-And then, and my other question, and I looked up the Code. I’m a little confused on the side setback. I mean, Cherry Tree Lane is a, is that a deeded public right of way? MR. KLEIN-It’s a paper road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Paper street. MR. KLEIN-A paper street. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, it’s a paper street, so it’s a public right of way. MR. KLEIN-I’m not sure it is. MR. CHRYS-I don’t think it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it private? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. KLEIN-It’s never been developed. It was intended, in 1957, to be a road going all the way across. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KLEIN-And the Town has never taken it over. MR. HUNSINGER-The Town’s never taken it. So who owns it? MR. OBORNE-Subdivision. MR. KLEIN-Don’t know. MR. CHRYS-The whole Planned Unit, just like the beach front, it’s the same kind of thing. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s a question that probably should be asked, absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I mean, the property over here that Dubins own is on one side and Mr. Chrys’ property is on the other side. Who owns that? I think it’s a stub, I know it’s undeveloped, but I still think it should be stubbed, and when somebody tries to build this lot, I think then that’s when. MR. KLEIN-On the tax maps that road shows all the way across, on the tax map. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but it’s impossible if you walk it. You know you can’t do that. MR. KLEIN-No, and you wouldn’t want to develop that. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I guess the Zoning Administrator is saying that you don’t have to have the front, the 30 foot front yard setback from Cherry Tree Lane, is that he’s considering that to be a private right of way at this point in time. MR. CHRYS-That was my understanding. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would you have to have any setback from a road that doesn’t exist? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KLEIN-That’s what we discussed with Staff, and they concurred with that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to clarify it so I understood. Because the Code is pretty specific. MR. KLEIN-You’re right, it is, and that’s why we raised the question. MR. HUNSINGER-But it says exclusive of a private right of way. So, they must be interpreting that to be a private right of way at this point, since it was never. MR. SIPP-Is Forest Lane plowed in the wintertime? MR. KLEIN-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Cherry Tree Lane is plowed? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Cherry Tree Lane is plowed from the other side. MR. KLEIN-Correct. MR. SIPP-Yes, but not up to Forest Lane. So emergency vehicles would have to get down to Forest Lane from the north end in order to get to this piece of property. MR. KLEIN-Correct. It’s a dead end road, just like most of the roads in that area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. The address of his property has got to be Forest Lane, not Cherry Tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CHRYS-There’s no issue with that, if you look at the extension of the road, of where the road ends. It’s not depicted on that map, but I don’t know how many feet it goes down, but it goes down a couple of hundred feet. MR. SIPP-Yes. I was on that. I was on Forest Lane and came to the end there, had to back up two houses to get a driveway to turn around in. MR. CHRYS-To give you a frame of reference, this is directly across from two houses up. So if it’s farther north. This is not at the end of Forest Lane. MR. SIPP-Yes, I know where it is. MRS. BRUNO-Now, how many bedrooms is this septic system? MR. KLEIN-Four. MR. FORD-Three plus two. MR. KLEIN-Four. MR. FORD-Where’s the fourth one? MR. KLEIN-I think there’s three upstairs and one downstairs. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. FORD-There’s a master down and two up plus a den plus a bonus? MR. KLEIN-I don’t think there’s a den in this one. There isn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s three bedrooms plus a bonus, yes, upstairs. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, just to clarify. You passed out some plans tonight. Is that what’s proposed for this site, or the plans that were in the? MR. KLEIN-I passed two sets of plans out tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. They don’t match up to tax map numbers, one’s 30 and one’s 37, and we’re looking at 48 and 49. MR. FORD-Is the one we’re talking about now. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is these. MR. KLEIN-What I wrote on the set I was hoping she was going to copy is Pine Tree and Forest North. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and she gave you both Forests. MR. SIPP-I’ve got Forest South. MR. HUNSINGER-This says Forest South. MR. FORD-And what I’m looking at is Cherry Tree Lane and Forest Lane. MR. KLEIN-You need a set that matches Forest. MR. FORD-These numbers correspond. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’ve got one. We’ve got Forest South. MR. KLEIN-Yes, that’s Forest South. MR. FORD-So you’ve got a master on the first, bedroom two, bedroom three, den, and bonus. You’ve got five bedrooms. MR. KLEIN-What do we have on the first? MR. FORD-Master. MR. KLEIN-Just one. All right. This, what they, I just got these this morning, I was so busy getting ready for the meeting, I haven’t taken a good look at them. We have a master bedroom on the ground floor, and upstairs we should have three bedrooms, and what we have is. MR. FORD-Two. MR. KLEIN-One, two, and that should be a bedroom. That den should be cut and labeled a bedroom. It should be a four bedroom house. MR. TRAVER-Plus the bonus. MR. KLEIN-Plus the bonus. MR. FORD-Plus the bonus. So there’s the potential for the fifth. MR. SEGULJIC-You didn’t submit basement plans either. What’s in the basement? MR. KLEIN-Nothing. MR. SEGULJIC-Because that would be pretty easy to submit that. MR. FORD-But it’s living space. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a walkout basement. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. KLEIN-It’s a walkout. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, you also, if I’m understanding this correctly, you have porches on this house, and I’ll admit, I’m all screwed up with the different plans. In your area calculations, you didn’t list any porches. Maybe I looked at the wrong one, I’ll admit it. MR. KLEIN-I believe the area calculations included the porch. If it didn’t, it would have been in the, let me see. MR. HUNSINGER-Covered or enclosed porches, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Covered or enclosed. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it on there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 141 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s on there. So I was looking at the wrong ones then. Okay. MR. KLEIN-I could have made a mistake, because I did three of them and all three of them were slightly different. MR. HUNSINGER-Does everyone understand which project we’re looking at? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’m getting there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-So the bonus room is going to disappear? MR. CHRYS-I’ll make that disappear, not a problem. MR. KLEIN-And the den will be the fourth bedroom. MR. SEGULJIC-all right. So you did test pits on this site, correct? MR. CHRYS-Two of them, with your Town Engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-Was the Town Engineer there? MR. KLEIN-Yes, he was. MR. SEGULJIC-I thought there was a comment that they weren’t. MR. KLEIN-There was a comment that Staff raised that they were not aware of the engineer being there. MR. SEGULJIC-But the engineer was there? MR. KLEIN-The engineer was there. MR. CHRYS-He was there for all three of them. MR. KLEIN-All three lots the same day, and I believe we had. MR. FORD-So the bonus room is now going to be a vertical extension of the sunken living room? Is that what’s going to happen? The cathedral ceiling. MR. CHRYS-(Lost words) and/or it’s just going to be closed off (lost words). MR. FORD-That’s what I was thinking. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as your stormwater pond, did you do any test pits in that area? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. KLEIN-No, we did not. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’d like to see something in that area. Just because I think you’re going down a. MR. KLEIN-It would be awful hard to get a piece of equipment down there right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe a hand auger? Well, I mean, how are we going to know if it works, if it’s going to work? I mean, you’re going down three feet. MR. KLEIN-Town regulations, this is a minor project. MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe you have to have test pits. You have to have a separation distance of two feet, I believe. MR. KLEIN-I don’t believe it’s worded exactly that way in the Town Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, wouldn’t it be the Lake George Park Commission Code adopted by the Town, 147? I believe you have to have test pits under 147 at two foot separation distances. MR. KLEIN-I was looking at that this afternoon, and I couldn’t find it, under minor projects. MR. SEGULJIC-I could be incorrect. MR. KLEIN-147-9A. MR. SEGULJIC-147-9A, Minor Projects, by the bottom of the, well, it’s infiltration device. MR. KLEIN-It says the bottom of an infiltration device shall be two feet above seasonal high groundwater. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we have to see that. MR. SIPP-So we have to see the test pit, the test boring. MR. KLEIN-I don’t know how I’m going to get a backhoe down there. MR. SEGULJIC-Hand auger? I’ve done a lot of hand augers in my day. MR. KLEIN-Do you want to volunteer? MR. SIPP-Get two machines and cable it down. MR. KLEIN-Well you’ve got all the trees that are in the way right now, you know. It’s not an easy feat to get a piece of equipment in there, and for two foot of separation, and the other test pits were up, were done up high. We got in as far as we could get in, and, you know, we had, Forest Lane we had 51 inches and 37 inches, no, excuse me, we had 47 inches and 37 inches to mottling, on both test pits we did on Forest Lane. MR. SEGULJIC-But if I’m looking at your plan correctly, you’re going down at least two feet to the bottom of your basin. So you’re already 24 below. MR. KLEIN-I can make the basin bigger, in plan view. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just pointing out. MR. KLEIN-I believe we’re down to about a, there’s two contour lines, but the top contour line is the top of the basin. MR. SEGULJIC-You can get a power auger. I’m sure you’ve seen those. MR. KLEIN-I’ve got an ice auger. MR. SEGULJIC-There you go. MR. KLEIN-It’s not going to work in that soil. We can try and rent one. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve rented a few in my day. MR. KLEIN-Okay. We’ll do an auger test pit and get the soils engineer out there, soil scientist, and size the pond to keep the, maybe two foot above seasonal high groundwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. My concern is just that we don’t know if it’s going to work. MR. KLEIN-What do you do with a wet pond? Can a wet pond be considered a stormwater holding? MR. SEGULJIC-I think it can be, but I’d lean on the engineer for that one. That’s not my forte. MR. KLEIN-Okay. If we discussed that with the Town’s Engineer about using a wet pond? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s not the preference, but I think it is allowable. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I just want some level of comfort that what you’re going to put there is going to work. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Right now I’m not getting it. MR. KLEIN-Well, can we make it optional that we either get a test pit in there and we design a dry pond with two foot of separation, or we design a wet pond, subject to the Town Engineer’s approval? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. The other thing, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see 147-10 addressed here. MR. KLEIN-Erosion control measures. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. KLEIN- MR. SEGULJIC-What goes beyond silt fences? Within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of any lake, pond, river, stream, wetland, low land area, including areas stockpiled with earthen material which have been cleared may be left devoid of growing vegetation for more than 24 hours. I’m just pointing that out to you. Read 147-10 so you can get a handle on that. MR. CHRYS-I don’t think we can get vegetation in there. MR. SEGULJIC-It goes on from there. Without a practical covering securely placed over the entire area, (lost words) erosion control measures properly installed to prevent. MR. SIPP-You have to cover it. MR. KLEIN-We can cover it, we can seed and mulch. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, something like that. MR. KLEIN-And there was a comment from the Town’s Engineer. He wanted to have maintenance. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, that’s under 11. MR. KLEIN-That’s not a problem. Getting grass to grow in 24 hours is a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes. They just want some type of protection there. That’s all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sod it. MR. KLEIN-I don’t think sod would grow up there too well. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And now as far as the 100 foot separation for the wells, potentially down gradient of the site, with the septic system across Forest Lane, I assume the groundwater will flow that way. No, it flows the other way. I’m sorry, it flows in towards the wetlands. Okay. MR. CHRYS-And our well’s way over here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. KLEIN-To tell you the truth, we’ve got the house to block any flow, if it was down that way. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. They’re not easy sites, are they? MR. FORD-Interesting use of foundation, to block the flow. MR. HUNSINGER-Why not? Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Another form of a dam. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this project? Who wants to be first? Since I assume your comments will be similar to before, if you could try to limit your comments to three minutes, we’d appreciate it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN MALONEY MS. MALONEY-I plan to. Kathleen Maloney. My mom owns property at 36 Forest Lane. I’m not going to pretend that it isn’t a summer camp, and I’m not going to pretend that we just didn’t close it for the winter and thank you for the great picture of the winterization of our camp. So, I just want to point out that there are currently only six residents on Forest Lane, and four of them are seasonal residences, 12 Forest Lane contains 1118 square feet. Twenty Forest Lane contains 1128 square feet. Twenty-six contains 893 square feet, and that is the house that they had a picture of, that is the colonial with the garage underneath. That is considered a seasonal residence. It only has 893 square feet in it. They built that after a tree came down and took out their seasonal camp, and that’s the reason they replaced it, and our camp, 36 Forest Lane, which has got 1344 square feet, and there’s two single family residences classified by the Assessor, 15 Forest Lane which has 1,052 square feet and 32 Forest Lane that only has 835 square feet. This house is going to have 4,556 square feet. That’s almost as big as all the other six houses that are on the street currently, and I’m of the opinion that considering this is near wetlands and everything, I don’t think bigger is always better. It’s nice to make everything look, you know, new, but that is a large house. I do have a question. Considering that it’s a walkout basement and it’s considered living area, what is to stop someone from finishing that off and using that as another bedroom and would that mean that the septic system might have to be made larger since there’s four bedrooms there? I mean, there’s plenty of people that finish basements and have children sleeping there. So that I believe might be a question that should be considered and I’m just asking is there a possibility that that could be used that way? And those are, I think those are my only new comments. I’d like you to consider what we said before, and if there were any letters that were sent in in opposition from neighbors as well. I would appreciate it if you would consider those as well, and I’ve been a little confused by this last plan. I’m not sure whether it was one I looked at or whether there were some changes. I don’t know. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Hello, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. Echoing one of the comments regarding the septic system, the first group of comments, again, based on their detail, this does appear to be a fill system. The slopes of the, the toe of the slope is within five feet of the building, five feet of the property line. It appears that they need to get a variance on that. Again, there’s 37 inches of soil down to seasonal high groundwater. You need three feet of separation by Queensbury Code. So I do not know if that can actually be considered a shallow absorption trench system. I feel that the 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) existing slope is 14%. I don’t see how Dave Hatin, with all respect, can just waive the Town Code, but if he can, then they should provide a letter from him on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Waive the Town Code for what? MR. NAVITSKY-You cannot have, the maximum allowable existing ground surface slope for built up sub systems shall be 10%, Section 136-10B2. Existing grade I measured was 14, whether it was 12, I don’t think he can simply waive that. I think that needs a variance. They did provide test pit information. Regarding the stormwater, I agree with the need for the test pit down below. That’s within 60 feet of the wetland. So you’re probably within the, groundwater table is probably very close to the surface. There was some discussion about utilizing the wetlands. That is not permitted under the APA, so you cannot use the wetlands for the treatment of stormwater. It’s also against the Clean Water Act, and you cannot use a wet pond, because wet ponds do not infiltrate. So you need to infiltrate that one and a half gallons per square foot. So you need infiltration. That’s what the Code is, and those are the comments that we have. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Did you have written comments? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is addressed to Gretchen Steffan. Concerning Cherry Tree Lane and Forest Lane on Assembly Point. This has reference to the proposed plan to construct a 4566 sq. ft. single family dwelling on 0.26 acres, 0.28 acres, located on North corner Cherry Tree Lane and Forest Lane, Assembly Point.” So at this point I’m going to remove this from the list, because they’re talking about a, the house that’s been removed from the plan. I have more here, and I apologize for not vetting these prior to reading them. I tried to do the best I could. MR. HUNSINGER-How many are there? MR. OBORNE-Three, it’s looking like three. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Queensbury Planning Board. “This letter is in regard to the application by Garner Holdings for a Freshwater Wetlands permit for disturbance within 100 ft. of wetlands. My first comment would have to be directed as to the timing of this meeting in October. Shore Colony has six year round families and approximately 30 seasonal families; majority living many miles away and hard to reach. I own property, since 1965, adjacent to the wetlands and have come to realize how important the wetlands are to the health of the lake. Sure our lake is still clean, but it isn’t as clean as it was. Disturbing the wetlands, building bigger and bigger homes and paving everything in sight is not the way to keep our lake clean and beautiful for future generations. Even the animals (deer, fox, etc.) have little room to roam on Assembly Point. So many trees have been cut and property cleared. I am hoping that this application is denied so that the wetlands that we have left can go on protecting our beautiful lake. Yours truly, Rose Olson, 18 Chestnut Lane, Assembly Pt.” Let’s see. Queensbury Planning Board “I am opposed to each and all projects above. My objection to the construction of these homes is not the effect on the wetlands for I know from having appeared before the board myself that you will make sure that the construction will be done in such a manner as to protect the wetlands and the lake we all value so much. And if that cannot be achieved, you will disallow the application without need of any comments. I believe that all of us who live on Assembly Point, even for just part of the year, value the beauty and treasures we derive from this community on Lake George and that whenever residents expand their homes for whatever reason, it is done so with consideration for the people and character of community. My objection to these projects is that as contract vendee the properties will have been immediately flipped without the original purchaser even taking possession of the properties. It is a business deal and as such they have the right and we can expect that it will be to maximize profits regardless of the impact on the community. To say the least I am very disappointed that the properties were sold in this manner. It is my hope that we can prevent Assembly Point from becoming a place for speculators to desecrate at will. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey and Sandra Lejuez 6 Cherry Tree Lane Assembly Pt.” And one more very short one. To Stuart Baker, “We are unable to send a fax regarding Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008. Attached are our responses. Thank you. Barbara Diehl This is a reply to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding construction of a 4,566 sq. ft. single family dwelling located on Cherry Tree Lane – Tax ID 226.19-1-37. We object to the approval of this dwelling for the following reasons: 1. the home is much too large – it does not fit the character of the surrounding 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) vacation community 2. the wetlands will be disturbed – the wetlands should be protected Sincerely, Richard Diehl 7 Chestnut Lane Assembly Point, Lake George, NY” And that’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CHRYS-I just want to make the comment, prior to Dave making comments that, as I said, I’m a year round resident up there. I drink the lake water, and I’m actually very critical about things that are going on that, you know, I think unfortunately the Town’s not aware of. I have, and respect all the due diligence that everybody’s done and their comments. I understand that emotionally, and I understand it, you know, from an eco system perspective. With respect to the conversions to, of a cellar, possibly, to a bedroom, I don’t care if there’s a door there or not, I think if you look at it, anywhere up there, I can’t prevent people or my, I can prevent myself, obviously, but you can’t prevent people from violating and doing what they do. I mean, human behavior never changes. By taking away as many of the opportunities to violate, that’s a plus in the right direction, which is why I said I really don’t care about a bonus room. There’s no other place to cheat. I mean, if you want to say that a cellar with three concrete walls that are actually four concrete walls, but only one wall that would have any light, that’s within the legal guidelines of your Code, is a problem, I’m certainly open to whatever firewalls you can create or that you can inform me of to stop somebody from maybe being creative or trying to utilize that in a negative fashion. You can convert garages. Everybody up there have, you know, a lot of the people up there have garages. You can make, the ones that are separate, you can make them guesthouses. The ones that are attached, you know, they can turn them into bonus rooms. I mean, there’s umpteen different possibilities of, I’ll say cheating. I don’t know how else to prevent that, other than what I have agreed to do, and if you have, as I said, a suggestions with respect to one of the comments relating to the cellar, which would certainly be damp, and as I said concrete, it’s not a wooden structure at that level, I’m open-minded to that and would do what’s necessary in a preventive fashion to satisfy the neighbors and the Board. So, I just want to make that clear, and thanks for your time. It’s a late night. MR. FORD-One of the things that immediately comes to mind is re-design the house to make it two levels instead of three, and utilize that space in the basement. MR. CHRYS-I guess it’s preference. I, personally, if you’ve ever spent any time in a damp setting, especially with the way that land slopes, I would have no interest in that, personally. I wouldn’t want my family in that kind of a setting, and I think it’s much less desirable. Any of you who have known real cellars to be re-vamped into something in the order of living space, it’s never really a comfortable spot, at least I’m not aware of. Understand that three of those walls don’t have any windows. It’s going to be damp and dark. It’s just a back wall that has any kind of artificial, or excuse me, natural light capabilities. MR. FORD-That’s by the way it’s designed. There could be windows. MR. CHRYS-The height restriction prevents that. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just concerned about what you just said. That indicates to me the site’s not developable, because groundwater’s too shallow. MR. CHRYS-That isn’t what I said. I said it’s damp, and maybe I’m not articulating myself well enough, but, you know, if you’ve got runoff off a roof, or you’ve got anything, I mean, normally cellars are damp. I mean, I’m not telling you they’re wet, but I would tell you that if you did a humidity test on every cellar on Assembly Point, I’ve got to believe that you would find. MR. SEGULJIC-My cellar’s not damp, you know why? I don’t have one. MR. CHRYS-Okay. I think that solution works. MR. SEGULJIC-So is this a fill system, then? MR. KLEIN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-How is it not if you bring in all this fill to make it, then? MR. KLEIN-It’s a shallow absorption trench system. Basically, when we went to the other portion, you’re allowed to have, conventionally, you’re allowed to have a shallow 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) absorption trench system where the bottom of the trench is no higher than the existing ground level. That’s what Appendix 75-A, and I have a section of it in my presentation. When you have a mound system, you’re raising the ground, and use a mound system where you don’t have much natural soil. So you’re raising the ground, and you’re putting some usable soil above the ground that your effluent filters through and you get your purification, your removal of your pathogens, through that fill material. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but if I’m correct, you had indicated you’re going to scour down six inches into the existing soil. MR. KLEIN-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you have to have, I believe, the three feet, if you’re within 1,000 feet of the lake, and then I look at your test pit results, Test Pit Four, which is on Forest Lane, mottling is at 37 inches. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to take out six inches to get to the bottom of that trench, leaves you 31 inches. You’re not going to be in Code. MR. KLEIN-What are we going to replace it with, Tom? We’re going to replace it with sand. MR. SEGULJIC-But still you’re going to be within the 31 inches, though, if I’m understanding you correctly. MR. KLEIN-You’ll still have 31 inches of usable soil. You take your native soil out and you put sand back in. MR. CHRYS-Thirty-seven inches of usable soil. MR. KLEIN-Yes, 37 inches of usable soil. MR. CHRYS-That’s the way the design is. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. You said you’re going to scour six inches into the existing grade. MR. KLEIN-Yes. MR. CHRYS-And then fill it back in. MR. KLEIN-Let’s get that slide up here. We’ve got a graphic presentation. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Tom, we went through it. MR. HUNSINGER-Here it is. MR. SEGULJIC-Apparently I missed something. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right there. MR. KLEIN-We’re going to carve six inches into the native soil. This is the regular ground surface, and then take that material out and put it over here and put it over here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you’re going to maintain 37 inches, then. MR. KLEIN-And then we’re going to replace it with sand, that six inches we took out, we’re going to replace it with sand, and we’ve still got six inches of soil, and if our mottling is down 37 inches from this point to here, you still have. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s what I missed. You’re going to take it and replace it with something else. Okay. All right. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. KLEIN-And, by the way, that six inches is the guidelines. It’s not the regulations. The design handbook is not a regulation. Appendix 75-A says it doesn’t, it only has to be up at the ground surface. It can’t be any higher than the existing ground surface. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but keep something in mind, within 100 feet of a wetland, and I believe you’re in a CEA. The western edge of this property, I think, is in a CEA. Because that middle part of Assembly Point was not in a CEA, because I think, and that’s one thing I’d like to see on here is where that line is. MR. KLEIN-The CEA line? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Because I think it’s right on the. MR. KLEIN-What’s the purpose of the CEA again, I’m sorry? MR. SEGULJIC-The Critical Environmental Area. MR. KLEIN-Okay, and within the CEA, what kind of regulations or restrictions do you have? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you’re a minor project, then we can bump you up to Major, for one thing. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And it comes up on the SEQRA review, I believe, and you should be aware that it is a CEA. MR. KLEIN-I thought Craig had the authority to either declare it a Major or Minor project. MR. SEGULJIC-He does, but the Board can also request that, as I understand it. MR. KLEIN-And the CEA line, is that like 500 foot from the lake? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s 500 feet, some, and 420 foot contour or something like that. If you talk to George Hilton, he’ll show you. He’ll be able to give you a map of it. MR. KLEIN-420 foot contour? MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t quote me on that. I think that’s what it is. MR. KLEIN-It can’t be a 420 foot contour. I can be 420 foot from the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s something like that. Five hundred feet from shore, plus one hundred feet from the four hundred foot contour. When I look at the map, the middle part of Assembly Point is not in a CEA, but it looks like the western portion of this property is, and as we both know, you’re in the Lake George Park Commission, correct? So that’s what kicks in 147. MR. KLEIN-Town regulations. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we already talked about 147. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, right. MR. KLEIN-147 is. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater management, yes. So the issues that they still need to address, they’re going to eliminate the bonus room on the second floor. We talked about delineating the parking area with some sort of natural material. You’re going to provide test pit data for the stormwater infiltration pond. Show compliance with Section 147, address engineering comments and show the CEA line on the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-And then also you should verify there’s no wells within 100 feet of this. Just state that on the plan, there’s no wells. MR. KLEIN-Well, we’ve located all the wells on the plan. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. SEGULJIC-By even up gradient, though, you should, just for the record so we have it then. MR. KLEIN-Well, we did locate them up gradient. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is the well at Lot Five? MR. KLEIN-Lot Five is Wilcox property. He’s got two and a half lots. MR. SEGULJIC-Does he have a well? MR. KLEIN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on Lot Four. MR. KLEIN-It’s on Lot Four. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s on the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-It is? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, it’s on there. MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t see it. I apologize. Okay. MR. KLEIN-Yes. We tried to clarify this. We put an arrowhead here and a line to here. So Wilcox owns from here to here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. KLEIN-And that’s his well. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and the other thing is I really think you should consider reducing the size of this house. Because I mean. MR. CHRYS-It’s a seven acre lot. My only comment, I have no problem with that either, okay, but my only comment to that is, you know, I don’t know, I mean, we’re within your legal guidelines substantially. I have no issue in doing that, but if you look at the house on North Lane, it’s virtually the identical house. If you look at several houses, they’re substantially, substantially larger, and, you know, I’m not saying it’s discriminatory that you’re asking for that, but, you know, I don’t know where you draw the line. If you’ve got a suggestion, I would like to hear it. MR. HUNSINGER-What was the suggestion? I’m sorry. MR. CHRYS-He said I think you ought to make the house smaller. I mean, you know, it’s a subjective comment, and that’s okay, if that’s what you want. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On this lot, you know, there’s a lot bigger houses within spitting distance of that. So, on this lot, you can build this house. You couldn’t have built it over on Pine Tree. MR. CHRYS-That’s okay, and I addressed that and said that I would put something substantially smaller, and that’s why we tabled that and are coming back. MR. KLEIN-We also removed a property. MR. CHRYS-Right, completely. I’m not coming back on that, and I’ll go on record telling you that, but, so, in this particular case, I guess I don’t understand, I appreciate the comment, but I don’t, if you can give me a solution. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think he’s being discriminatory. I think the comments come from the real concern for the CEA and everything, you know, where some of those other lots that you’re talking about that had the larger homes along Assembly Point Road and all of that, you know, they might not have these issues. So, it’s just, it’s. MR. CHRYS-Well, the unfortunate thing is I can’t fix what already exists over there, and I think that what I’m doing, as one of the commenters made, is a substantial benefit to the community, and definitely an uptick. It’s a tax increase. It’s everything, in so many ways, 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) and I can’t tell you to approve it or not approve it, but I spent over two years working on this and brought it to this point, and I appreciate every comment that was made. There’s some things that don’t make sense to me that I guess I’m getting an education on how it is. MR. KLEIN-Can I ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KLEIN-I suspect we’re in a CEA. Is the Board going to change this to a Major project? MR. SEGULJIC-I can’t comment for the Board. MR. KLEIN-Would you comment? MR. SEGULJIC-Because I don’t know if you’re in a CEA or not yet. MR. KLEIN-I believe it is. MR. OBORNE-It’s in a CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s in a CEA. MR. CHRYS-And Craig knew that when he said it was a Minor project. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think there’s a lot of advantage to making it Major. The real advantage when you is that you get to pull in everything else. Since there’s nothing pre- existing there, I think the big advantage to going to a Major project is that then you get to pull in the pre-existing conditions of the site. MR. CHRYS-So the answer is that you’re not going to make it a Major? Is that what you said? MR. SEGULJIC-No comment, at this point. MR. KLEIN-But there’s no existing impervious area. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So I don’t see that there’s really, but the CEA is to make people aware of it. MR. KLEIN-Probably if we went to a Major project, we’d downsize the size of the stormwater pond. MR. CHRYS-So making the assumption that it is in the CEA, which I think is what the engineer said, where do we go from there? It’s a question of whether the Board wants to make it a Major then or not, is that correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. CHRYS-Okay, and how do you make that determination, or when? MR. SEGULJIC-The way the Code reads is if it’s a Minor project located in a CEA, there’s like about five or six things, that says that the Board can then make it a Major project, the slope, whether it’s in a CEA, and there’s a few other things. MR. CHRYS-Right. Maybe I’m not being clear, but I guess if that’s the intent, I would just like to know if the Board’s going to do that, I mean, how do you make that decision and when do you make that decision is my question? MR. SEGULJIC-There’s been no motion to make it a Major project, yet. MR. TRAVER-Well, some of the things that impact on that might be, for example, the design of the house. So, I think really to address that question, we’re going to need to see the information that we discussed tonight, that you’re going to be resubmitting, including the actual plans for the building that you’re proposing, in terms of its size and so on. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. KLEIN-I don’t think we were planning on doing anything different except getting rid of the bonus room, changing the designation from den to bedroom, putting a closet in that room. MRS. BRUNO-But we needed other things answered, the test pit information that we’re asking for. There was a list of about six things. MR. TRAVER-And I think, too, you were talking about the cathedral ceiling in the basement, which might address the issue of the use of that space. Did I hear you mention a cathedral ceiling in part of the basement area? MR. CHRYS-No, what we said is. MR. FORD-Over the sunken living room. MR. CHRYS-Right, over the, to prevent the bonus room from ever becoming a bonus room in the future, we were looking at the possibility of putting a scissor truss or something in there to give you a cathedral effect rather than, you know, a floor in there that somebody can later convert. I mean, the whole comment was to prevent somebody from, in the future, doing something that the Board wouldn’t approve today, and I think that was, but as far as the plan of the house, it is identical, other than, you know, Xing out the bonus room. It doesn’t change the footprint of the structure, and making a closet in the den which makes it a bedroom. So it’s clearly only a four bedroom house, non- expandable, you know, and no bonus and no den. That was the. MR. KLEIN-I’m just wondering, is there a, you’re looking for this additional information. We conceded say Critical Environmental Area. We’ve listed a lot of things that we would agree to, including getting a stormwater system that’s approved by the Town Engineer. If we, you know, can get a wet pond in there, a wet pond. The septic system’s going to have to be approved by the Building Inspector, Dave Hatin, and/or Department of Health, the Town’s Board of Health. We’ve told you what we wanted to do with the house, or what we would agree to do with the house. I’m wondering, you know, instead of trying to resubmit a bunch of stuff, when we’ve got to re-submit for Pine Tree anyhow, you know, and we’ve got a short timeframe to do that, is there a real reason to come back in front of the Board, or could we get an approval tonight, with conditions? MRS. BRUNO-There’s quite a few conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ve got to be honest, I don’t see the Board approving it this evening. I guess the only question I would have is, I mentioned the list a minute ago, and I’ll list it again in a minute for a tabling resolution. Is this something you can get back to us by the fourth, so that they can be on the same meeting? I think the tricky part would be the test pit information. MR. KLEIN-Yes, and getting with the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KLEIN-I’ve called the Town Engineer three times since I received his letter on Friday and haven’t gotten a return phone call. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I want to clarify something, and I think I want to clarify it for the rest of the Board, as well as maybe Staff and the applicant. I think when we table something to address the Town Engineer’s comments, the intention is that by next Tuesday you will provide a definitive and articulated response to the Town Engineer’s comments, not that you will have received a clearance from the Town Engineer, because, you know, your new information is going to be submitted to the Town Engineer for his review and additional comment. So I don’t think we would, you know, by saying by the fourth, we’re not expecting you to meet with the Town Engineer and have agreement on everything. We’re just asking for you to provide an articulated response to his comments. MR. KLEIN-Yes, well, it would be nice to be able to talk to the Town Engineer so we can come to an agreement on the different issues, instead of throwing something in. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood, instead of going back and forth. Understood, yes. MR. KLEIN-There’s got to be an end to this. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHRYS-Let me ask you this. We’re addressing the stormwater pit, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHRYS-Is a soils engineer not substantial enough to do that, or is the Town Engineer required to witness that as well as the septic? I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe the way we ask it now, if you’re outside the, when you look at the Code, there’s certain dates you’re supposed to do it within. I think it’s. MR. OBORNE-That’s just for the leach field I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHRYS-Yes, just for the leach field. I don’t think, with respect to drainage, there’s anything in the Code, that I’ve noticed. MR. OBORNE-You have to keep it two feet above, right. MR. CHRYS-Well, that I’ve seen, but I never saw anything in the Code that says the Town Engineer has to come out during these months and witness that. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes, I can reference that for you. MR. CHRYS-Okay. I stand to be better read. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. CHRYS-I didn’t see it. That clarifies that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did we table the other one to which date in November? MR. CHRYS-November fourth is when you need the. th MR. HUNSINGER-November 25. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC – CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: thth Tabled until November 25 with a submission deadline of November 4. The applicant will update plans to remove the bonus room on the second floor, and to designate the three bedrooms on the second floor, to delineate the parking area, to provide test pit information at the location of the stormwater pond, to show compliance with Section 147, to address the engineering comments, and to show the CEA line on the Site Plan, and submission of the basement floor plan. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, what is it that you’re for in the basement? MR. SEGULJIC-The basement plan. I mean, they gave us the first floor and second floor, might as well do the basement, too. MR. OBORNE-You want the floor plans? MR. SEGULJIC-Floor plans. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The same deal. If you don’t get it in by Tuesday, then it’s off until th December. Yes, well, you fall to December if you get everything in by the 15 of November. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/08) MR. OBORNE-Right, the typical protocol. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KLEIN-That’s fine. Did we agree that we don’t need the Town’s Engineer to witness the test pits for the stormwater? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s correct. MR. KLEIN-We do not? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s only required for septic. MR. CHRYS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was left open. Is there any other business? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. I believe when you made a recommendation for Inwald, a tabling of that application to a certain date was not accomplished. Typical protocol would be to table that to a date, or you can make a motion saying in? MR. HUNSINGER-Inwald? We made a positive recommendation to the ZBA. They won’t come back before us until they go to the ZBA. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So no tabling motion is really necessary. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s fine. So they’d be on the next available meeting prior, after. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, after they go to the ZBA. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Fair enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, since we can’t control the ZBA, we don’t know when it might come back here. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for bringing that up, though. MR. OBORNE-No problem. I did not want to prolong this meeting anymore than we needed to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other business before the Board? Just a reminder, there is nd no meeting on Thursday, because it was tabled to December 2. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2008 , Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 74