Loading...
2008.12.18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 13-2008 Lake George Campsites 1. Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6 Site Plan No. 44-2008 Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 314.-1-3 Subdivision No. 7-2008 David Miner 8. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.6-1-1.2 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 4-2008 Jane Lowell 14. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290-1-22.221 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 51-2008 B.G. Lenders 21. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.1 Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 29. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 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 12/18/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Thursday, December 18, 2008. For those in the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table, along with information on the public hearing process associated with each project. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 SEQR TYPE I LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1053 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAMPSITE OPERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR APPROXIMATELY 340 RV CAMPSITES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES INCLUDING A NEW FIELD HOUSE, RESTROOMS, POOL AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR ALL USES REQUIRING A USE VARIANCE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE USE VAR. 10-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE 38.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 th MR. HUNSINGER-I think everybody got a copy of the e-mail, dated December 16, from the applicant’s attorney, asking that we table this. They said until April of ’09. I mean, we will inform them of what the submission dates are. We’ll have to re-publicize the meeting if it’s that far out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was held open, and will remain open. So I’d be looking for a resolution from someone on the Board to table Site Plan No. 13-2008. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the April 21, 2009 meeting. They’ll have an application deadline for any th additional materials of March 15. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC. AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) R.D.2 TRAILS, LTD. ZONING RC-3A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT AND OPERATION OF A 195 FOOT TALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER/BROADCAST TOWER. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.. CROSS REFERENCE USE VAR. 79-08; BP 08-243, 98-324 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 247.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 314.-1-3 SECTION 179-5-130; 179-4-020 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Note: Use Variance No. 79-2008 was approved on November 26, 2008 with no conditions. The application is now before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Site Plan 44-2008, Northern Broadcasting Company, Inc. This action is Site Plan Review for a 195 foot tall telecommunications tower. It’s location on the top of West Mountain. Existing zoning is Recreation Commercial Three Acres. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board will be required to make a declaration as they are Lead Agency. Project Description: The applicant proposes to erect a 195 foot tall telecommunication tower, and a 336 square foot support structure. The tower is stabilized by three guy wires set 120 degrees apart. The existing support structure would be eliminated and both of the tower’s machinery and power will be located in the one proposed support building. We have previously gone through Site Plan Review, or had discussed what’s in the Site Plan Review aspects, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, good evening. Thank you. I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Jesse Jackson, a principal of the applicant. Basically I think we’ve been here before because the Zoning Board asked you to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board on the Use Variance that we needed to obtain in order to do this. We haven’t changed the application at all. We have outstanding, I think, a waiver request, which we’d like to have you act on, as well as the Site Plan Review. I did get a copy of VISION Engineering’s comments, and thth they were dated December 14. I think I got them on the 16, and they had looked at this before. I’m not sure if it was for the Zoning Board or what, and they had three comments at that time, and we actually had a new map made up, and I think that they’ve indicated that those three items have been satisfied. They wanted the limits of clearing shown. They wanted to know if we needed to reserve an area for other telecommunications, that would co-locate on our tower, and we do have room in the building that we’re going to build for that purpose, and they wanted to know whether or not we needed easements to obtain access to the site, and we don’t. This latest letter also had an additional comment, and was a question whether or not the northeastern guide wire would require a setback variance. This is a very isolated piece of property. I think it’s 88 acres or 188 acres. I’m not sure, or I don’t recall right now. I can look it up. The front setback is 50 feet. The side setback is 30, and the rear setback is 30. I don’t know how you determine, necessarily, which is the front, because it’s at the top of the mountain, and we looked at it, and we looked at the drawings that we’ve submitted. You have a book here, and the best I can tell is that the one door on the building does face out the northeast. So if we apply the standard that is used for housing, the architectural front of that building probably is to the northeast, and the way the tower was situated, or the way that the guide wire, the anchor for the guide wire was situated, it was not 50 feet away. That’s the front. So the other question he had was why did we show 100 foot guide wires as opposed to 110 foot guide wires? If you go through the plans that were submitted by the manufacturer, they called for 110 foot plans. So we did a lot of running around in the last couple of days, which is typical for this type of thing. The manufacturer came back and said that 100 foot guide wires can be used, as opposed to the 110. Apparently you just need to put a little heavier guide wire on it. I talked to Jesse and he talked to his people. We could switch this door. We could put the door on the other side, and that would be the architectural front, and then, I think fortunately I caught Don Pigeon in a good mood, and I said, Don, can you change our sketch so that you rotate those anchors, so that they are 50 feet, even on the northeast side, so we don’t have to change the door, and can you make the guide wires 110 feet long, and he said yes. So I have a new map. I know you don’t like to see new maps the night of the meeting, but you can either, I’d either ask you to approve it conditioned upon us filing the new map, or you could take a peek at it. The only changes on this map at all is that the guide wires have been rotated a little bit, so that the anchor on the northeast guide line is 50 feet away from that boundary, if we’re going to call that the front, and the wires have been put at a, or the anchors have been put at 110 feet from the base as opposed to the 100. So I think we’ve satisfied all the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have a variance for the existing tower? Because according to this map the existing tower for the guy wire comes almost to the property line. MR. O'CONNOR-That was there long before I became involved, and actually, at that time, probably the same owner or the same entity owned both sides of that line. The line on one side now is owned by, if you look at it, both deed sources are from West 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) Mountain Liquidating Partnership, LP, and on the east side of the line, that parcel went to East Slope Holdings, LLP, and the other one, the one on the other side that’s to the people we have the lease with. I don’t see their name right here, but it’s still in West Mountain Liquidating Partners. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know what the date of that was. When was that built, Jesse, that other tower, do you know? Do you recall? It’s quite old, if you take a look at the pictures of it. In fact, I didn’t even think we had buildings like that. You’ve seen the pictures of it? MR. TRAVER-Yes, last time you were here. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I mean, that’s different. Okay. We asked, in our submittal, for a waiver for the topographical mapping, the landscaping plan, the stormwater management plan, grading plan and lighting plan. The area that, there’s going to be very little disturbance for any of this construction. The area where the proposed transmitter building is going to be constructed is fairly flat. We didn’t think the topographical mapping would add anything to your ability to make your determination, or should be necessary for you to make your determination. The landscaping plan, basically everything that you would see in a landscaping plan is totally invisible to anyone, unless you’re flying over it, or maybe, I’m not 100% sure. I’m not a skier. If you get off the chairlift it’s over here. Maybe you can catch a view through the woods at some time or another. Stormwater management plan, again, we don’t propose anything of any significance that would be non-permeable. We’re going to demolish the existing building and we’re going to build this small building, 24 by 14. The grading plan, again, we don’t plan on doing any grading. We’ll put a foundation in for the little building. They apparently drill a hole for the anchors and they put a sonotube in there with a steel rod with an eyehook on it, and that’s what it’s hooked to, and that’s all the construction that they do for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how far down they go? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t, but I don’t know if that’s in there or not. MRS. BRUNO-It would have to be at least four feet, if not deeper, just strictly from the frost perspective and not the structural. MR. FORD-When we reference length, such as that guy wire, on a map like this, and we go to plus or minus, how much leeway are we anticipating there? MR. O'CONNOR-You’re asking the lawyer? You want an honest answer? Well, I’ll tell you this, we’ve talked about it. MR. FORD-Because that’s the way it’s delineated. MR. O'CONNOR-When we went back to them. Okay. You mean where it’s plus or minus on the mapping? MR. FORD-It says the length of the guy wire, plus or minus 100 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it says 110 feet. MR. FORD-Okay. I beg your pardon, plus or minus 110 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, okay. We will actually have that staked out, so that where the pin is at the bottom of the antenna, this thing sets on a ball, so it has some, and I am getting beyond my expertise, but it sets on a ball type set up, so it has some ability to move a little bit, the tower itself. We will have a surveyor actually do 110 feet from there out to the guide wire, to the base of the guide wire. So, the variance should be very, very little. MR. FORD-I thought the length of the guy wire itself was 110 feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the pin would be quite a bit less than 110 feet out from the. MR. O'CONNOR-The way that they have shown it on their engineering plans it’s the base is 110 feet. The wire itself will be longer. There are, in fact, I think, three wires that go to each base. One starts at 40 feet, and there’s one of the drawings here that tells 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) you. One starts at 40 feet, and then one’s midway, and then one’s probably 150 feet or 145 feet. So those wires will be progressively longer as the angle increases, but what we thought was key, or what I thought was key when I saw the plans was the set up as to the dimension from the base. I think I talked on grading plan. Lighting plan, we plan on no lights. There may be a light on the outside of the building for access. If there is, it’ll be downcast. We’d tell you that. Purposely this tower was designed so that it would be less than 200 feet. So it would not be required to be lit by the FAA. MR. FORD-Do we have verification of the length of the road? MR. O'CONNOR-From there to a municipal road? I don’t. It’s the existing road to the existing tower. MR. FORD-I just noticed in the Staff comments that the approximate distance to the site is one mile by this road, and this should be verified by the applicant. It’s a recommendation from Staff. MR. OBORNE-That can be verified, if you were to choose to approve this, upon the final submitted plans for signoff, if that is the will of the Board. MRS. BRUNO-Do you know what the intent, it looks like you may have done the notes here, what the intent was? Usually if it’s a residence we’re thinking of emergency access. Is that what you were? MR. OBORNE-No. More for just actual quantitative distance for the file. MR. O’CONNOR-That may have been before we were able to get a surveyor. In the beginning we were dealing with a plot plan that was drawn by an engineer and not a surveyor that was not located to a parcel. If you take a look at the location map in the upper right hand corner of your map, that little straight line is actually the side line that we tie into. So you now can locate, it’s not, that’s where the tower is going to go. It’s not some place up or down. It’s right opposite that. So we have no objection to running a distance, ballpark distance in from the road. I was thinking of, you’re probably trying to figure out how much further do I have to go, to go to inspect. MRS. BRUNO-Just go up the chairlift. MR. FORD-Has a determination been made yet as to the inventory of trees to be taken down? MR. O'CONNOR-Very minor. If you can take a look at the areas that, we’ve marked on there the areas for cutting there the broken lines. We did a 10 foot box on each anchor, and running to each one is what we anticipate. Some of it is open already. Part of the southerly guide wire is open. Part of the northwesterly guide wire is open, and the other one crosses a road. We aren’t sure, either, Mr. Ford, whether or not, what’s there, it was depicted as mostly scrub brush. It wasn’t significant trees. The thought is if we can get there and we get the anchor bolt put in there, I was told, and we can look at the guide wires, where they’re going to go, and if they don’t interfere with the guide wires as they go up, there won’t be a lot of clearing, even of that. MR. FORD-And no major trees anticipated, at any rate? MR. O'CONNOR-No. JESSE JACKSON MR. JACKSON-No. I’ve been up there many times and I’ve looked at it. I wouldn’t want to take them down. It’s not dense up there at all. There’s some photographs in the book, you can see it’s pretty clear. MR. O'CONNOR-The initial layout was purposely laid out with anchors to avoid everything, okay, and that was by Jim Bergeron who was up there. This modification of it was done in the surveyor’s office to swing away from the side line so we’d have the 50 foot. I can’t guarantee you that there isn’t a tree or two, because of that swing, but they didn’t think that there was anything significant in that area. MR. FORD-Thank you. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Even if you do some clearing, isn’t it mostly just going to be branches? I mean, it’s probably unlikely that you’ll have to take a whole tree out. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably. They take out something so it won’t interfere with it. I mean, especially, it’s like a utility company putting a line in. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, because you don’t want branches growing over the wire. MR. O’CONNOR-No. You don’t want a maintenance issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing that there are no commenters and no written comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now according to my notes we did the SEQRA review in November. th MR. TRAVER-November 25. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought you did, before it went back to the Zoning Board for its review. MR. OBORNE-You need to have your variances done before SEQRA is done. So I’m pretty sure you haven’t done your SEQRA yet. MRS. BRUNO-It says right in the ZBA’s motion, based upon the fact that we’ve received a negative SEQRA declaration from the Planning Board last evening, and that would be 11/25. MR. OBORNE-My mistake. MR. O'CONNOR-The motion was made by Mr. Traver, no, the motion was made by Tom Seguljic, and seconded by Mr. Traver, November 25, 2008. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only thing left to do is the Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How are we on the waivers? How does the Planning Board feel about waivers on topographical mapping, landscaping, stormwater management, grading and lighting. MR. FORD-I’m good to go. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is the new map that has been submitted acceptable to the Planning Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I just have the waivers. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. FORD-I don’t want to belabor this, but if you scale this out, using that 50 foot dimension on the side of the map, it would appear that they talk about the proposed guy wire, plus or minus 110 feet in length, and it would appear that that distance from the ground to the pole itself would be the 110 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. Then that’s not the length of the guy wire. MR. O'CONNOR-No. The anchors, which is part of the structure, will be 110 feet away from the main tower. MR. FORD-You see where it says proposed guy wire anchor wire plus or minus 110 feet in length? MR. O'CONNOR-Proposed guide anchor wire. It should read guide wire anchor probably, would be a better way of saying it. There’s a drawing, that’s Nine of Nine, and it’s. MR. TRAVER-Although from this perspective of this map, it is portrayed correctly because you’re looking at the anchor point and all three of the guy wires straight down to the base of the tower, and that would be approximately 110 feet, if I understand the engineering correctly. If you set it on end, then you’re going to have the three wires, but looking straight down at the plan, you have a spot out here with the anchor. You have the base of the, or not necessarily the base, but you have the location of the tower, and this is showing that the wires are covering that distance of 110 feet, and from this perspective, that is correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s like looking at the base of a triangle. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. FORD-As opposed to the guy wires, which would be the hypotenuse. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, the hypotenuse is undoubtedly longer. If I knew math, I probably would take a guess at that, but I think one guide wire comes in. MR. FORD-As I said, I didn’t want to belabor this. We understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-Actually, if you just captioned it differently saying proposed guide wire anchor, 110 feet, you probably wouldn’t have that much confusion. I think. MR. FORD-It’s just this description here, proposed guy anchor wire plus or minus 110 feet, and there are three wires at each location, and none of them are 110 feet plus or minus. They’re all longer than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So do we want to change the language on that? MR. FORD-Perhaps we could stipulate that the anchor points are plus or minus 110 feet from the pole itself, from the base. MR. O'CONNOR-You want three copies when it’s all said and done? MR. OBORNE-Not right now. I need one for the file. MRS. STEFFAN-Now there is also a boundary change you mentioned on this? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MRS. STEFFAN-There is not. MR. O'CONNOR-I was referring to the difference, perhaps, with the old tower and this one, with the setbacks, had nothing to do with this one. MRS. STEFFAN-There is a document in the file that talks about the towers being taken down if they’re decommissioned. Is that sufficient, or should there be a plat notation on this, on the final plans denoting that? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. OBORNE-I think there should be a plat notation. It is in the file. It is part of the application. They have offered that up, but it certainly would be more stringent if you required that. MR. FORD-Within four months of decommission, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-It is whatever the, you have a provision in your Ordinance and we followed that provision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 11/25/08; 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; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: a. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Planning Office before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. b. 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. c. 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 this will identify the exact road distance of the dirt access road off of Cormus Road, d. NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 3 to be combined with a letter of credit; and e. NOT APPLICABLE The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f. Paragraph Four complies. g. Paragraph Five, Negative. h. The conditions of approval are listed on this motion, but I would like to amend Item C, that the applicant will provide as built plans to certify that the Site Plan is developed in accordance to the approved plans prior to 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) issuance of a CO, and this will identify the exact road distance of the dirt access road off of Cormus Road, i. Letter E does not apply regarding the Sanitary sewer connection, or D, the combined letter of credit is not necessary, . j. The Planning Board grants waivers for topo mapping, landscaping, stormwater management plan, grading plan and lighting plan, k And the conditions for approval is that the applicant will put a plat notation on that speaks to removal of the tower within four months of decommission, l. The applicant will submit new plans to Staff denoting guy wire anchor points at plus or minus 110 feet from the base of the tower. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Can we do that prior to getting the Certificate of Occupancy, so we have the surveyor only do this once? He would do an as built, and he will show on the as built the distance from the road, the plat note that you want, as to decommissioning, and that change of language as to a guide wire anchor as opposed to guide wire length? MR. HUNSINGER-People okay with that? MR. FORD-I would be okay with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is what you’re talking about the dirt road or the anchor points? MR. O'CONNOR-Everything, we’ll put it all on one map. MRS. STEFFAN-At the end with the as built plans? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, before we get the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. OBORNE-If I may, that’s going to be difficult to issue a permit. I don’t see how the Zoning Administrator would be able to sign off on that. MR. O'CONNOR-The construction permit? All right. Then, Mrs. Steffan, go ahead. MR. OBORNE-What I suggest is have an as built. MR. O'CONNOR-I withdraw my request. We do want the building permit. Every time we touch it it’s a couple hundred bucks. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR UNLISTED DAVID MINER AGENT(S) KRISTINE WHEELER OWNER(S) DAVID MINER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 590 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.20 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 9.16 ACRES AND 1.04 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AD 4-07, AV 64-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-1.2 SECTION A 183 KRISTINE WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Subdivision 7-2008, Preliminary and Final Stage. Applicant David Miner. The requested action is Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision review for a two lot subdivision situated on 590 Luzerne Road. Existing zoning is Suburban Residential One A. This is an Unlisted. SEQRA determination is required. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.20 acre parcel into two residential lots of 9.16 acres and 0.04 acres. Staff comments. The applicant was before the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting an Area Variance from the minimum lot width requirements for 179- 19-020C which requires all lots created that front on an arterial or collector road to have either double the minimum lot width or a shared driveway. The ZBA approved the variance request with no conditions. The engineering and stormwater reports succinctly explains the proposal that has been submitted. The applicant has requested waivers from grading and erosion plans. I do have three points under Staff review, the last one being the most important, and probably the easiest to take care of, I would imagine. MS. WHEELER-And that would be the lot sizes. That was the third one, Keith, the lot sizes? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MS. WHEELER-Yes, and I believe that the survey is correct, but I will double check. The second one was the expansion area on the septic system. That was an oversight on my part, and that can be corrected on the Final. I did request a waiver from grading plan because the lot is quite flat, and the grading would be spot grading at best, to maybe plus or minus six inches, which is difficult to show on a plan like this. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, that’s it. MRS. STEFFAN-Did VISION Engineering provide any comments on this? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think they typically do this for a two lot subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MS. WHEELER-And I think the other comment from Keith was to have the driveway at the location as shown on the plans, and that’s acceptable, and I believe that was part of the condition on our zoning variance as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours, if you could identify yourself for the record. MS. WHEELER-My name is Kristine Wheeler. I’m agent of the applicant and recipient of the lot that’s to be subdivided. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MS. WHEELER-No, I don’t have anything else to add. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll open it up for questions or comments from members of the Board. MR. SIPP-In regard to the Staff request, can you put a driveway on the final plot that will, location of a driveway? MS. WHEELER-In terms of an as built, to put the driveway on an as built? I’m not sure I understand the question. MR. SIPP-Under Staff review, Planning Board may wish to consider, as a condition of approval, that the proposed driveway be located as drawn. MS. WHEELER-That was my expectation. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, Kristine, what you just said was that you weren’t sure about the discrepancy in the, the disparity between the 9.56 acres? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MS. WHEELER-That’s correct, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, I forgot, how are you going to resolve that? MS. WHEELER-I believe that the plan, the engineering plan, is incorrect, but the survey is correct. So I’ll just make the correction to the plan to represent the actual lot size. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there are no comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board? Okay. For SEQRA it’s the Long Form. Whenever you’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN- Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. FORD-No. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DAVID MINER, 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 18 day of, December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for the subdivision? First we need to do Preliminary. There shouldn’t be any conditions on Preliminary. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 DAVID MINER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 DAVID MINER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant(s) DAVID MINER Application Type Subdivision 7-2008 Preliminary & Final Stage Owner (s) David Miner SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Kristine Wheeler Lot size 10.20 acres Location 590 Luzerne Road Zoning SR-1A Classification Tax ID No. 308.6-1-1.2 Ordinance Section A 183 Cross Reference AD 4-07, AV 64-08 Warren Co. N/A Planning Public Hearing 12/18/08 Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.20 acre parcel into two residential lots of 9.16 acres and 1.04 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/18/08; 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. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) 8. NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 DAVID MINER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five is Negative, and Paragraph Eight, regarding a letter of credit, does not apply. Paragraph Nine, the sanitary sewer connection plan, does not apply, and this is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will address the Staff Note comments. 2.The leach field should have a 50% reserve for expansion and/or replacement denoted on the Site Plan. 3.That the applicant will construct the proposed driveway as located on the drawing. 4.The applicant will correct the plat to correspond with the survey to correct the discrepancy in acreage. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. WHEELER-Thank you and Happy Holidays. MR. HUNSINGER-Same to you. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE SEQR UNLISTED JANE LOWELL AGENT(S) DAN & SHARON LOWELL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD & COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.626 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 5.28, 4.7 AND 4.65 ACRES . SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 1-2004; AV 13-2008 LOT SIZE 14.626 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290-1-22.221 SECTION A-183 DAN LOWELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 4-2008, Preliminary and Final Stage. Applicant is Jane Lowell. Requested action, Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision review for a three lot subdivision situated between Chestnut Ridge Road and County Line Road. Location, Chestnut Ridge Road and County Line Road. Zoning is Suburban Residential One Acre. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this application. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 14.63 acre parcel into three lots of 5.21, 4.70 and 4.65 acres. Staff comments. The applicant has received approval for Area Variance No. 13-2008, on July 16, 2008. This Area Variance was concerned with the lack of road frontage on County Line Road, an arterial road, for Lot 1B. The condition of approval is that the location of the driveway for Lot 1B to be located 200 feet from the driveway to the north. See attached. The condition has been 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) noted on Page S-3 of the submitted survey. The applicant has requested a waiver from construction details, landscape plans, clearing plans, grading and erosion control plans. Staff reviewed, the side setbacks as depicted on the survey are incorrect. Please note and correct on plan. Side setbacks for the SR-1A zone are 10 minimum, 30 total. That could just be stated on the plot plan in words. That doesn’t necessarily have to have a visual field with that, and most importantly, the Planning Board may consider, as a condition of approval, eliminating the disturbance of rock walls on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes. Any major removal or total removal of rock walls would have impacts on character of the neighborhood and should be discouraged, and finally the Planning Board may consider, as a condition of approval, that Site Plan Review for any proposed construction on these lots be required. This condition would be consistent with previous conditions placed on other subdivisions of lands recently approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. SHARON LOWELL MRS. LOWELL-I’m Sharon Lowell. MR. LOWELL-And Dan Lowell, representing my mother. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add, or do you want to tell us about your project? MR. LOWELL-Not really, I think you just covered everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. LOWELL-It’s just a subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Any concern about leaving the stone walls, as indicated? MR. LOWELL-No. If we were to ever sell the lot at some point, or do something like that, I think the only time anybody would touch those would be to put a driveway in. There’s already one opening in one anyway that’s been there for years. It’s an old (lost word), but currently the intent is not to do anything, other than just have the property divided up. MRS. LOWELL-Just an entrance. MR. KREBS-So then that would be important that we require Site Plan Review when they go to use the lots, if we’re going to give them a. MR. LOWELL-That’s fine. I mean, I don’t think anybody feels any different about that road, as far as disturbing stone walls. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. LOWELL-Just what needs to be done to permit access. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other questions or comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Did I just miss something about the side setbacks? It says in Staff review notes the side setbacks as depicted on the survey are incorrect. Side setbacks for single family one acre are ten minimum, thirty total. So that correction is going to have to be made on the plan. So that was incorrect. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. OBORNE-Yes, and typically what you would have is something written, not depicted. It’s just, because they could have 20, and 15 and 15, or 10 and 20, however they want to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-And that would just be on the Final plan. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to ask Staff. It’s been my understanding, over the years, that when we look at subdivisions, we need to ensure that every lot is buildable, which, in my understanding is that you can either get septic in, if you don’t have a sewer line, you know, etc., etc. I didn’t see anything that said, I don’t think you’re on a sewer, Town sewer. MRS. LOWELL-No, we’re not on Town water, either. MR. LOWELL-No, we’re not. MRS. BRUNO-So I really would like to see some information which would require some engineering, someone to do the test pits and locate those on your plan to ensure that a sewer system, or septic system, excuse me, could be supported by each piece of property. That’s just one point that we tend to cover. MR. LOWELL-Wouldn’t that be required if the property were to be developed or built? I mean, when we re-did our house, I had to do that with the old farmhouse, but it wasn’t done prior. I mean, are we requiring that prior to? To do more perc testing and test pits? MRS. BRUNO-We need, I don’t believe you have them on all of these pieces yet. Do you? MR. LOWELL-No, we don’t, because there’s no intentions of any structures or building at this time. MR. OBORNE-Typically, if you have a realty subdivision. This is not considered a realty subdivision. Realty subdivision is five lots, and five acres or greater. This doesn’t fall under that category, and we didn’t forward this to the Town Engineer because we didn’t feel that it was warranted, the same with the previous applicant. There are no steep slopes. The soils do perc very well in that area, although it is very cobbly. Knowing the soils in the area, they do. So there really wasn’t much of a concern. I mean, I do understand where you’re coming from, ma’am, but I don’t think it’s necessary in this case. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-That’s okay. MRS. BRUNO-You looked a little shocked there for a minute. I didn’t mean to alarm you. MR. LOWELL-Well, yes, I’m thinking, all right, I went through this when I re-did the house, and I’m thinking there was no intent at this point. It was just to divide the three pieces. MR. FORD-It’ll come in due time. MR. LOWELL-Yes, somebody will. Right. MRS. LOWELL-Maybe. MR. LOWELL-But I mean I know it’s required when we get to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Are we ready to move forward on SEQRA? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JANE LOWELL, 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 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Is everybody okay with the waivers for construction details, landscaping plans, clearing plans, grading plans, and erosion control plan? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant(s) JANE LOWELL Application Type Subdivision 4-2008 Preliminary / Final Stage Owner (s) Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Dan & Sharon Lot size 14.626 +/- acres Lowell Location Chestnut Ridge Zoning SR-1A Rod & County Line Classification Road Tax ID No. 290-1-22.221 Ordinance Section A-183 Cross Reference SB 1-2004; AV 13- 2008 Public Hearing 12/18/08 Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.626 acre parcel into three lots of 5.28, 4.7 and 4.65 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/18/08; 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. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five is a Negative declaration. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply, regarding letter of credit and sanitary sewer connection. This is approved with the following conditions: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) 1.That the applicant will correct the final plan to indicate that the side setbacks which are currently indicated on the survey will be changed, so that they reflect the 10 foot minimum side setback, 30 foot total setback. 2.That the Site Plan Review for any proposed construction on these lots will be required before development. 3.That there will be a limit of disturbance on the rock walls on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes. 4.Any major removal or total removal of rock walls will be considered on the Site Plan Review. 5.The Planning Board has granted waivers for construction details, landscape plans, clearing, grading and erosion control plans. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LOWELL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2008 SEQR UNLISTED B.G. LENDERS AGENT(S) BRIAN GRANGER OWNER(S) DOUGLAS MABEY ZONING LI LOCATION 94 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO FENCE IN A PORTION OF AN EXISTING STORAGE LOT FOR THE STORAGE OF REPOSSESSED ITEMS. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY OWNER SEEKS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING SITE PLAN TO ADDRESS EXISTING IMPROVEMENT THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN; SP 30-2000. CROSS REFERENCE SP 30-2000, SP 45-2008 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 LOT SIZE 5.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1- 23.1 SECTION 179-9-020 MARK NOORDSY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 51-2008, applicant is B.G. Lenders. Requested action is Site Plan Review for the storage of re-possessed autos in the Light Industrial zone. Location is 94 Big Boom Road. Existing zoning is Light Industrial. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this applicant. Project Description: Applicant proposes to fence in a portion of the existing storage lot for the storage of repossessed automobiles. Additionally, the property owner seeks to modify the existing plan to address existing improvements not part of the original approved Site Plan, SP 30-2000. I will assume that the Planning Board has read through the Staff Notes, and if you have any questions, I am right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GRANGER-My name is Brian Granger. I live at 63 Wincoma Lane in Queensbury, and I’m the owner of B.G. Lender Service. MR. NOORDSY-And my name is Mark Noordsy. I’m with the Lemery Greisler firm, and I’m here to assist Mr. Granger. This is really the second part of an application that we were here on last month, although I think only two of you heard it. So if I go too quickly through any of that, we can certainly go back and explain that. Basically Mr. Granger 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) has a, or B.G. Lenders is a repossession business that’s located on Newcomb Street, and what the approval that was granted last month that is approve that for office space which is an allowed use there and as well as processing and redemption of the cars that are repossessed. What this will do is move the cars that aren’t moving through there quickly but need to be stored for a while, onto another location, which is basically been the bone of contention for a while. So this is, the storage area will be on the Mabey storage property and this is really just a matter of putting a fence up. I think actually it’s just a provision with regard to fencing in industrial areas that gets us here for the Site Plan Review, and it’s just putting up two more walls, if you will, of fencing inside a bigger fenced area. Mr. Oborne mentioned there are some other items there with regard to buildings, which we’re a little uncomfortable with, because Mr. Mabey really didn’t give us any authority to deal with that. I realize there, (lost words) agree with his original Site Plan, but really all our authority is as far as being able to lease the property and come in here asking for the fence. So (lost words) trying to change his other items which we don’t have authority for. That’s about it, but, you know, we’re happy to answer any questions and again, I realize most of you didn’t hear us last month. So we can give you some mapping and what have you on that if you care to see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-As I recall, this creation of this storage area is basically to enable you to continue to use the office space, in as much as that, you intended to store the vehicles there and discovered that that was not an allowed use. So this is a. MR. GRANGER-Temporary solution until I can sell Newcomb Street. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. GRANGER-I’m still keeping Newcomb Street for sale until I can put the two components back together. Based on what the current zoning says, I still disagree with the Zoning Administrator that it’s not an allowed use, but as I said before, you have to draw a line in the sand, with no disrespect to the person to my right, how much you want to spend. So Newcomb Street’s up for sale, and when I can sell Newcomb Street, I’ll find a more suitable location and to be truthful we’ll probably look for a larger location than what’s been, but what’s going on in the industry now I don’t think is going to last for that much longer, but going through our growing pains. We’re figuring things out, re- grouping, re-organizing. Trying to be efficient in the interim. MR. NOORDSY-That’s what this does is move the storage off of Newcomb Street. MR. GRANGER-Off the street, and I just want to assure the Board, wherever I go, it’s always my intention to keep everything neat, clean and extremely low profile. I have no sign at my business. I have a non-published business phone number. To be truthful, I don’t want anybody to know where I am at, and I know that’s not like most businesses, but that’s our motto, and our motto is no one you want to know. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-We have people that know us, repeat customers. It’s not a good thing. So I just want to assure you that wherever I go it’s always neat, clean, low profile, out of the way, inconspicuous, flying under the radar. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s certainly indicated by the materials you’ve provided us. MR. TRAVER-The only other question I had, with regard to the fencing, was there any arrangement within the owner that, in the event, or at some point when you no longer, your lease is expired and you no longer use the facility, are you to remove the fencing? MR. GRANGER-We hadn’t discussed it. Sometimes it’s, where I’ve been in the past I’ve left it, because it’s cheaper to leave it than move it. I am getting tired of buying fencing, but nothing specific that’s on there. MR. FORD-Was additional fencing added east of the storage building? MR. GRANGER-That was existing, Mr. Ford. I know you’re familiar that I used to do paving and snow plowing. When I plowed 12 years ago, that fence was always there. That fence that was on the outside along the Northway or, you know, toward the Northway end and the other, that was there when I plowed Doug Mabey’s back in, it was ’94. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. FORD-You have not added that fence? It was there when you? MR. GRANGER-No, way back when it was there. That’s why when Keith pulled the plan for, the Site Plan from 2000, that’s when I looked at it and I said, wait a minute, there’s fencing there that’s always been. It wasn’t on this plan, but no, no fencing has been added over there. I haven’t done anything, and then fence that’s there has been there for years. MR. NOORDSY-It would be, though, if this was approved. Then you’d be putting in fencing for the other two sides. MR. GRANGER-Then I’d be putting the two sides. MR. FORD-And if that were the case, then you would indicate the fencing that exists as well as the new fencing. MR. GRANGER-Correct. That’s what’s indicated on the smaller part of the plan. MR. SIPP-You’ve got noted on here two test pits where percolation tests were done, and a soil test, but I don’t see any results of the soil tests. MR. GRANGER-That’s on the plan from 2000. It’s nothing that we did. MR. SIPP-Now, are you hooked up to sewer? MR. GRANGER-Where this? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. GRANGER-There would be no sewer for it. It’s just for parking of cars. MR. SIPP-There’s no office attached to this? MR. GRANGER-No, not over there. MR. NOORDSY-The office stays at Newcomb Street. MR. GRANGER-The office stays at Newcomb Street. MR. SIPP-Well, I assume that that’s pretty well drained down there. It’s all sand. MR. GRANGER-It’s all sand down there, and then there’s some drainage along the new mini storage building, the newer mini storage building that’s 100 feet long instead of 155 as on the original plan. There’s a French drain that runs along in front of it, as proposed on the plan. I don’t think of it as being a water issue. We’re just, the area that’s there is sandy. We’re not planning on putting down any permeable or non permeable material. We’re just going to park it on the earth that’s there. MR. SIPP-Are you going to buffer the property from the Northway with some new plantings of arborvitae, 24? MR. GRANGER-That’s on the old plan to what Mr. Mabey did. I didn’t have anything, and we picked the area, the fenced in area that’s existing. We’ve moving away from the Northway so the cars can’t be seen from the Northway. That’s my intent. Mr. Mabey basically said anywhere you want back there, and I chose to go in toward, away from the Northway. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other questions or comments? MR. FORD-A question for Keith, if I might. That last sentence, Keith. The Planning Board may consider that the changes to SP 30-2000 be given general approval as a condition of approval of this project. Have we addressed those sufficiently to address this concern? MR. OBORNE-Basically the intent of that sentence is to give a blanket approval for what is already existing. MR. FORD-Yes, I understand that. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. OBORNE-And maybe I didn’t understand your question. MR. FORD-Well, if we move with approval, then do we need to delineate anything specifically that we are generally approving that 2000? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, as a condition of approval. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’m not sure whether that’s the right thing to do, considering this person is a tenant on that property, and that fence, even though we approve it, may not be a permanent fixture there. Well, obviously it will be there, but if the landlord decides, after Mr. Granger leaves, that he doesn’t want it there, they can knock it down and this Site Plan would still be as approved in 2000. There wouldn’t be any changes on their part. MR. OBORNE-You may want to put a condition of approval on Mr. Granger’s fence, that upon dissolution or his moving from that property, to remove the fence or to bequeath that fence to the owner. MR. GRANGER-Whatever you feel comfortable. It doesn’t matter to me. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It is, talking with Brian and understanding what his position is and what his intent is, this is a temporary solution, and based on when Mr. Granger can sell his Newcomb Street and combine his operations on a larger parcel, hopefully still within the Town of Queensbury. However, at this point, it is just a temporary solution which probably would take you a day, Brian, to put up. That’s my understanding. MR. GRANGER-A couple of days. That’s not an issue. I have to, for my insurance purposes, they have to inspect, the fence has to go up. They have to inspect and approve and deposits paid, and, you know, it’s very careful. I’m storing collateral. It’s ensured. I don’t want anything to happen to it. I like my insurance policy. It’s hard to get. MRS. STEFFAN-I also don’t think you have to take it down when you leave. MR. NOORSDY-Maybe the owner wants him to keep it up, I mean, once it’s approved. MR. TRAVER-But that would be a part of your lease agreement. MR. GRANGER-Yes. Doug and I haven’t talked about that too much. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t think those issues are before us. MR. FORD-I don’t have a problem with that. I just wanted to make sure we addressed it. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wouldn’t want to change somebody else’s site plan without. MR. GRANGER-I don’t, either, that’s the thing. MR. FORD-I wanted to make sure we addressed it. We’ve addressed it and we can get on with it. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other thing that’s in the Staff Notes, clarification as to the maximum amount of cars to be parked in the storage area may be needed. My thinking on that one is that, why, we can’t regulate it. I mean, if they don’t park them in a way where they can get cars in and out, that’s their issue not ours. I don’t know how anybody else feels about that, but I don’t think our Code Enforcement is going to go in and count cars. MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, it was just a foray into information gathering. That’s pretty much all that was. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. NOORDSY-Because the limit will basically be the area. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. TRAVER-Right. The size of the vehicles may vary. I mean, I hope you don’t have to impound somebody’s 18 wheeler or something. MR. GRANGER-It happens. I had a whole string of logging equipment this summer. Whenever I, I do a lot of machinery and equipment, but it never comes back to my yard. It always goes directly to a dealer. We do a lot of machinery, a lot of excavating equipment, a lot of logging equipment, but I never bring it back to my office. There’s no sense in moving that twice. We just move it right to the dealership. So the Newcomb Street was only a small portion of what I do. You don’t see a lot of what I do. So this is just a little bit over. Mr. Ford knows me. He knows I’m not afraid to do much. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there is no one to comment, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is a SEQRA Unlisted action. Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MRS. STEFFAN-“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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 51-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: B.G. LENDERS, 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. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental 5. 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 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-They didn’t ask for any waivers? MR. NOORDSY-That’s a good point. We would need to waive the landscaping, lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don’t think we got a waiver request. MR. NOORDSY-Can he or I amend that orally, to make that request? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why you can’t do it orally. MRS. STEFFAN-If they want waivers, then have them put that in writing. Can they do that orally? MR. OBORNE-They will need to do that in writing, and they could submit that with the final plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-You can do it orally tonight and we can approve it, and then submit it in writing. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s going to do it while he sits there, probably. MR. NOORSDY-All right. As far as the items that we would need to do, I mean, we really haven’t provided anything to you, outside of a fence diagram. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually what you put on your application is that there were no change in those. MR. GRANGER-Yes. There’s lighting on the building. There’s stormwater there. MR. TRAVER-The landscaping is still there from 2000. MR. NOORDSY-Yes, along the Northway. MR. HUNSINGER-But we’re treating this as a separate Site Plan from Site Plan 30- 2000. MR. GRANGER-Is this separate, or is it a modification? Or is that the same? I don’t know these things. MR. NOORDSY-You didn’t do it as a modification. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think because it’s a new Site Plan, we would require waiver requests. MR. TRAVER-Better safe than sorry. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-And then we can just make it a condition. MR. NOORDSY-Landscaping, stormwater, grading and lighting. MR. FORD-Right, those four items. MR. NOORDSY-We make the request that the Board waive those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NOORDSY-And we’ll follow up with a letter. MR. OBORNE-You can hand it to me tonight. MR. NOORDSY-You won’t be able to read it. Plus I need to sign that form to show myself as agent anyway. MR. OBORNE-I think you have. MR. NOORDSY-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Good. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2008 B.G. LENDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to fence in a portion of an existing storage lot for the storage of repossessed items. Additionally, the property owner seeks to modify the existing site plan to address existing improvement that were not part of the originally approved site plan; SP 30-2000. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/18/08; 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; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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 8)Not applicable - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)Not applicable - 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. 51-2008 B.G. LENDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply. This is approved with the condition that the applicant submit in writing a request for a waiver for landscaping, lighting, stormwater management and grading. The Planning Board has considered the request for waivers and will approve those waivers, but again, the applicant must submit in writing a request for those waivers. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. GRANGER-Thank you. MR. NOORDSY-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR UNLISTED MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A. AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING RR-3A, SR-1A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05; PREVIOUS MEETING DATES 5/26/05, 6/28/05, 10/18/05, 11/15/05, 4/24/06 LOT SIZE 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.-1-19 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. It’s nice to be on last and be up at 8:20, which is always good. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 8-2005, Modification. The applicant is Mountain Hollow Homeowners Association. Requested action, subdivision review for modifications to the stormwater control structure. Location is Western Reserve Trail. Existing Zoning is Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this applicant. Project Description. Applicant proposes modification to an approved subdivision in order to address existing stormwater issues, with the modification to an approved Site Plan. Specifically, the stormwater basin is proposed to be enlarged to increase the water storage capacity from approximately eight acre feet to approximately fourteen acre feet. See Page Seven of the Hydro CAD results for the modified stormwater basin. Further an inflow gauging weir will be installed near the stream inlet along with a pond level gauge in the main pond. Finally, seven drywells will be removed from the existing overflow basin and relocated on the south bank of the expanded pond, between the 469 and 470 contours. Staff comments: Care should be taken to protect the proposed leach field located on Lot Nine. There appears to be a drywell located on the south boundary of Lot Nine. What effect will this have on the proposed leach field? Please clarify. No erosion control details are present on plan. Will seeding of the pond slopes be accomplished? Will silt fencing be utilized? Please clarify E & S controls and place on plan. Concerning the record keeping for the rain gauge, who is responsible for recording the readings? Please clarify and note on plan. A construction sequence should be noted on plans. This sequence should include installation of E & S controls, grading, drywell installation, seeding, etc. and an addendum to that is a timeframe of when this project will be completed. Are all existing and proposed changes shown on this plan versus the approved plan? And I’d turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Mickie Hayes and Tom Nace. We received, tonight, Tom has had some discussions with Dan Ryan, and we received, this evening, an engineering review letter. I don’t know if it made it into your packet, because it was probably around five o’clock when we got it. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MRS. STEFFAN-I got it. MR. HUNSINGER-It was handed to us when we got here. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s perfect. I just wanted to make sure you had it, and everything in here is fine, but we’ll get to that in a few minutes, I guess. In the big picture, there were two incidents in the last two years where there was flooding at the site. One of them was the winter storm which affected the Northway in Bolton where we got rain after the ground was frozen, which was a real bad situation. The second one was, a lot of rainwater was coming down the mountain from a very wide drainage area, far more than this site. So Tom’s been talking to Planning Staff, and we obviously recognize the necessity of coming in with a revised plan to increase the capacity of the basin, and some of what Dan Ryan is talking about is an off site, permanent solution, which Mickie doesn’t have the ability to do without getting some rights from other off site property owners, but Dan is talking about a short term solution, an emergency solution, to be able to pump water out of the pond if necessary, and that’s something that we’re fully prepared to address, and Tom can talk about it, and we can either re-submit that and come back next month if you’d like to see that in writing or discuss it tonight, but Mickie’s goal would be to do the work in February because he certainly, he wants to get it done before Spring season, the rainy season, and he certainly can’t do it during mud season. So it would be best to do it in the winter. He’s going to be ultimately removing a substantial amount of fill so that he can increase the capacity of the basin. So that would work fine with the schedule. If we go through it tonight and if you feel we need to make another resubmission and then come back next month, that would still be fine to do the work in February. So that’s sort of big picture. Let me turn it over to Tom because these are primarily engineering issues. MR. NACE-Basically the plan is to provide as much reserve capacity as we can, while we are able to, or while we have time to gather additional information which will allow us to determine whether or not these interim steps we’re going to take are sufficient for long term permanent solution or whether we need to do more in the way of an off site solution, or more storage even yet. One of the factors that comes into play here is that there’s groundwater and runoff coming off the mountain on a permanent basis that a normal stormwater analysis doesn’t account for, and we need to be able to gauge that through a spring runoff period, to be able to see what that number really is. There’s a lot more that appears to be coming into that pond than any of our stormwater models predict. So what we’re trying to do is buy enough time here with these measures to allow us to gather that information, so that next summer we can come back to you with enough data to support a permanent solution. The temporary measures we’re proposing are primarily the increase of storage volume in the pond, a very substantial increase in storage volume, and putting in some measuring devices which will measure rainfall, measure the amount of water coming down the drainage ditch that enters the pond from the uphill portions of the site, and putting in a gauge that’ll measure the water height or water level in the pond. Given that, if you would like to, I will go through the VISION Engineering comments one by one if you like, or, I don’t know whether you have any particular ones that are questionable there for you. It would be our intent to come back to either the Board or to the Town Engineer with complete revision that would address each of these issues that the Town Engineer has come up with, and I think, you know, they’re straightforward. We would certainly intend to comply with all of them, 100%. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds as though you’re really trying to accomplish two goals here. One is you’re increasing capacity to deal with what you already know is a situation that’s greater than the original design, because you had this unanticipated, or uncalculated, additional stormwater events occurring off site that are contributing to the problem, and your number two goal is to collect data on what that impact is, so that you then have a real world calculation that you then make a determination of whether this modified stormwater management will work or whether you, indeed, have to do something, yet a third system. Is that correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-So in the material in the application, it talks about an interim, but in fact, this may not be an interim. It may be, if the data comes back to support this, this actually would be a permanent solution, correct? MR. NACE-It is possible. Okay. We don’t know until we have primarily the data from what’s coming in that drainage ditch from that fill site. MR. TRAVER-You have to hope we have a typical year, I suppose. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. NACE-Well, if we don’t, we can probably make a fairly reasonable extrapolation by comparing rainfall events through the Spring period. We have complete weather service data from, you know, however many years we want to go back. So, by comparing rainfall data, we can at least interpolate what we get this Spring. MR. TRAVER-Right. You’ll have a starting point anyway. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Tom, could you describe, or characterize how much capacity, additional capacity this plan adds? MR. NACE-Actually, I’ve got to look back at my numbers to remember. In essence we’re adding or increasing the volume of the pond from eight, was it 8.2 or something like that? MR. LAPPER-How many gallons? MR. NACE-Well, eight to fourteen and six and six acre feet, and an acre foot is a little less than 50,000 cubic feet. So six times fifty is three hundred thousand cubic feet, times almost eight gallons per cubic feet. So that’s a lot of water. So eight times three hundred. So you’re well over a million gallons, over two million gallons actually. MR. TRAVER-So hopefully this’ll do it. MR. LAPPER-Over two million gallons. MR. NACE-And I believe it will, but I just can’t, I don’t have the numbers that I can prove that to you or to your engineer at this time. MR. FORD-Tom, help me address a confidence issue that I’ve got. We had a lot of discussion, prior to the approval of this project, relative to drainage off West Mountain and stormwater runoff and a lot of discussion, and the plan itself called for an accommodation sufficient for a 100 year storm runoff. Is that accurate? MR. NACE-Correct. It is. MR. FORD-Okay. Help me with my confidence, not only for this project, but for any other project where we get an engineer assuring us that this plan will accommodate a 100 year runoff when this one did not. Would you agree that this was not a 100 year storm, this past year that was trying to be accommodated? MR. NACE-I believe it exceeded it. MR. FORD-You think it exceeded it? MR. LAPPER-Tom, I want to address that in one respect. When we were before the Board a number of years ago for the approvals, the neighbors that were concerned were the neighbors on Applehouse Lane to the south, and the Town commissioned Dan Ryan to do a study, which Dan presented to the Board in September, and we were there because it affects this property and we wanted to hear his conclusions, and what he said was that this is the division line between two drainage basins, and the drainage basin that goes into the Applehouse Lane people to the south was separate, and so he has designed a stormwater plan that the Town is considering implementing that will address those neighbors, but had nothing to do with what was going on this property. So their, I mean, they have flooding. They have high groundwater. They had issues, but it wasn’t caused by any water that came from this property. This is a completely separate, I mean, stormwater issue. MR. FORD-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And so there was a lot of concern at that time, but it wasn’t, and Dan’s study ultimately proved that out. MR. FORD-Yes, and my concern is not that it’s running off from their property. I understand that’s a separate issue, but what they were indicating was that there were drainage issues in that immediate neighborhood, and the potential for this particular parcel to have similar issues was a concern that was expressed. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. NACE-Well, what the stormwater calculations predict, and I believe fairly accurately, predict the actual runoff from a storm event. What they don’t predict, and what we’re trying to get a handle on now, is the base flow during wet periods that comes from groundwater off the mountain, opened up through that ditch line that comes down into the pond. Okay. That’s a totally separate entity that’s very difficult to try to pacify. MR. FORD-I don’t mean to be putting you on the spot with this, Tom, but I want it to be a learning experience for me and for us. So that in the future, when we have, if we have somewhat similar conditions, in terms of potential runoff, that we know how to handle it. MR. NACE-What the real issue is, the pond can easily accommodate a 100 year storm. What it’s had trouble in the past accommodating is the base flow that comes in day after day in the Spring, hour upon hour, and utilizes the volume of the pond, and a lot of that’s groundwater that’s been opened up and day lighted through that ditch line that comes into the pond, that is our problem in predicting, and that’s what we’re trying to get a handle on by monitoring. MR. HUNSINGER-So stormwater management controls that you put in place exacerbated the situation? MR. NACE-Some of the after the fact stuff that was put in, too, to, okay, the original, if you go back, way back, the original design did not anticipate opening up the side of the mountain and putting in that ditch line. The modification that did that, we tried to go back and model, but all we were modeling was the surface water runoff from a storm, which as all your normal stormwater calculations do, okay. What we weren’t able to put numbers on, and what we still aren’t until we gather some data here, are the base, is the base flow that comes through that, not generated by a specific storm, but generated by saturated ground conditions and groundwater, opening that ditch line up to groundwater coming to the surface and collecting in the pond. MR. HUNSINGER-What happened during the Spring runoff in 2007? Were there any problems that year? MR. NACE-Mickie, you know the history better than I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Because this was approved in 2006, and you had problems this year, but did you have problems last year? MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-Yes, but not to the degree it was this year. This year definitely was the, with the saturation of, the way I understood it from talking to Tom and other engineers, is the amount of water content in the snow had a lot to do with it as well, with a storm, because it was so slushy that it held a lot more, and my research showed that the storm was actually a 200 year storm, but that’s off the Internet. That’s not professionally done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HAYES-But basically there’s no question about it, we could have another 100 or 200 year storm this year, and if it can’t make it, it can’t make it, the capacity has to be increased. It may be that it may not overflow for 50 more years, if there’s normal conditions, but that could be normal, I don’t know what normal means, you know, it could come any time. MR. SIPP-The pond did overflow, then? MR. HAYES-It actually really didn’t over, but there was an area that was slightly lower that it did breach through, yes. MR. SIPP-I heard it overflowed. MR. HAYES-We have films and pictures of it. MR. SIPP-Now, if we’re calculating or going at trying to find out how much actual water there will be, can we come up with a system that’s 125% or 150%, so that, in the case of excess water, in 100 and 200 year storm, we will be ready, because these homeowners are in tough shape here with this water. MR. HAYES-That would probably be a good idea. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. SIPP-So that any calculations are not based on a 100 year storm, but based on something that may be 125 or 40 or 50%. MR. NACE-They would have a safety factor included. MR. SIPP-Yes, built in. MR. HAYES-Yes, plus plus type situation, yes and that’s definitely a valid concern. I own four of the units that front it myself, and I think it’s a good idea from a builder and owner, that’s definitely a good idea. MR. SIPP-I mean, I remember when this was brought before the Board, and there were enough neighbors who said, you’ve got water, period, coming down that hill, and they warned you, and obviously something didn’t work. MR. HAYES-The same situation with Applehouse Lane. They went years without flooding, and then the last two years, they’ve had major, worse conditions than we’ve had here. So they’ve got some (lost words) on the side of a mountain I guess there’s kind of a lot of unknowns. MR. SIPP-Well, any place you’ve got a slope, you’ve got water problems, period. MR. HAYES-Water’s got to go down. Water rolls downhill. MRS. BRUNO-Just out of curiosity, in the summer, is there any problem with the stagnation of the ponds? MR. HAYES-There’s live fish and it’s pretty deep in the middle, it’s very deep. So it stays relatively cold, not too bad, because it’s groundwater fed once it gets to a certain level. There’s actually good sized fish is there. We have more of a problem with geese and they’re probably the most nuisance for their droppings and stuff. It’s a major problem there, and you can’t really do anything about it. That’s a big problem we have there at the moment. MRS. BRUNO-It doesn’t turn green itself, then? MR. HAYES-No, but the geese create a lot of problems around the area, though. MRS. BRUNO-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a term in the report, hard pan, and I was trying to decide if I had ever heard that before, because usually we talk about soils, and different, you know, obviously we’ve got the soil maps, and so describe for me what is hard pan? MR. NACE-Hard pan is, I don’t know if it’s particular to the northeast, but it’s a term generally associated with glacial soils, glacial deposited soils, that means it’s a dense mixture, typically around here it’s a mixture of anything from large cobbles to fine gravel that packs in very tight and forms a less pervious material that water will go through, but it takes longer to go through. A lot of times the water table would be perched in the Spring, on top of a hard pan layer. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If you ever try to plant a tree, and you get to a level where you can’t use the shovel, you have to use the pick axe, that’s the hard pan. It’s no fun. MR. SIPP-Yes, but it also can be associated with the clay hard pan, a layer of McCustron type soil. MR. NACE-With the clay we talk about varved soils, silty, varved soils and clay itself is a fairly impervious material. I’m not sure that we ever talk about hard pan when we’re talking about clays. MR. SIPP-Well, you do in western New York. MR. NACE-Well, each area the soils, the nomenclature varies a little bit. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. SIPP-Yes. Your basis there, of course, was the glacial lake, and they have them right down here on the end of Quaker Road. You’ve got a glacial lake remains which is a hard pan type soil, and the McCustron type soil, which is going to give you poor drainage. The glacier will just move things around. MR. FORD-Compacted it pretty good. MR. SIPP-You want from us an approval to carry on this type of experiment or monitoring. MR. NACE-To be able to, yes, to enlarge the pond, so that we provide some safety net, some additional capacity that we didn’t have last year, and to construct the flow monitoring device, and continue, yes. MR. SIPP-In, and this is very difficult to do in a situation like this, but in an area where there is excess water, generally what is used is something like a sod waterway or a diversion ditch, but in this case there’s no place for the water to go. MR. NACE-Well, one of the things, obviously, that we’re going to be looking at is the feasibility of some off site discharge point for excess water. MR. FORD-What will be the frequency of the monitoring of the? MR. NACE-It should be daily. MR. FORD-Daily. That’s what I was hoping you’d say. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, my question on the revised, the revision, the 11/8 revision of the stormwater management report, Item Six on Page Four, installing a rain gauge on site and keeping a log, recording daily observations of rainfall. Who does that? Who records that daily? MR. NACE-Ideally, Mickie said he has somebody who is an engineer who lives on site, Mickie? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. NACE-And ideally we’d retain him to do the daily measurements, somebody that’s right there. MR. FORD-And if he can’t or won’t, then you’ll get somebody else that’ll do it on a daily basis. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Can’t it be automated? MR. HAYES-I hope so. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I have a weather station at my house and it puts it all on the computer. MR. NACE-The rain gauge can be done so it can be done, the pond level gauge is a little more difficult. The flow monitoring gauge is starting to get expensive, but it can be done. So we’ll see how much Mickie wants to spend. MR. HAYES-Not much. MRS. STEFFAN-That was one of the other questions that I had in the documentation. Now is this Hayes and Hayes, or is this, the applicant is the Mountain Hollow Homeowners Association, but you’re representing them, Mr. Hayes. MR. HAYES-Yes, I still control that, that’s just because that’s the property owner of the, where the pond is. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the Homeowners Association? MR. HAYES-Yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But Mickie’s responsible, under the terms of the Planning Board approval, and in the Offering Plan, for warranteeing the condition for a period of five years, and he’s also in control, as part of the Offering Plan, for a period of five years, in control of the Association. So it’s his responsibility, his legal authority on behalf of the Association. MR. HAYES-Either way. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And it’s his checkbook. MRS. STEFFAN-We did talk about that during the approval process, but I didn’t have a copy of the Homeowners agreement. So I was kind of confused. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions or comments did Board members have? MR. LAPPER-There’s one neighbor here who might have a comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to get to that next. MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing I wanted to reiterate, I had the same question that Mr. Ford had, and, you know, I had a couple of questions on some of the documentation, you know, did it exceed the 100 year storm event, and my confidence wasn’t high on the sentence that was in this documentation two times, all of these are hard to quantify in the stormwater design, and I’m not an engineer, and it just kind of freaked me out that, you know, that would be in there when, you know, we’re. MR. NACE-It’s the truth. They are hard to quantify. MR. HUNSINGER-A public hearing is not required for a Site Plan modification, and it wasn’t warned to have a public hearing, but, ma’am, did you want to address the Board? HEATHER O’NEIL MS. O’NEIL-I just really came to gather information and try to figure out deadlines for what’s going forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wanted to give you the opportunity to address the Board if you had anything to say. MS. O’NEIL-Yes, I just, you know, really more than anything just information gathering for myself and just to figure out what the time line is for things that are required. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And if I might, are you Claudia Copeland? MS. O’NEIL-No, I’m Heather O’Neil. I live at 30, right next to Claudia. MR. OBORNE-Yes. We did get a couple of e-mails today that I’d like to read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, that would be appropriate. “Hello my name is Claudia J. Copeland and I live at 28 Mountain Hollow Way in Queensbury, NY. On March 21, 2008, my house had a severe flood in the basement. It caused severe damage to my finished basement. I lost furniture and other items that were very personal. I did not request for anything to be paid for I just wanted the water and damage to be fixed. I would like to have attended the town meeting that is happening tonight at the Queensbury Town Hall. But am unable to do so. I’m writing this e-mail with concern that the problem out back has still not been resolved by the Hayes Group. I’m looking for a Permanent Solution to what is going to happen to the pond situation. I’m also requesting a Time Line and Deadline of what will happen and when it will be started. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from you on what will come of this meeting. Thank you, Claudia Copeland’ And I have one other. This was addressed to Craig Brown. “I am a co-owner along with my daughter of Unit 28. I am very interested in what Hayes is going to do to 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) correct the problem with the flooding. The only thing I have seen them do is divert more water from one of the houses they just put a family room on, on to the condo association’s property. Did they get a permit to do this? The town and the owners of the condos need a permanent solution and a timeline with deadlines from Hayes as to what they intend to do. They let a summer and fall go by and now they will say it is too cold to do anything. Do they take you and us for fools? All building permits and approvals for other development by them should be suspended until they resolve this problem. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Michael Copeland” And that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else on the Board? Any comments from the applicant? MR. LAPPER-No. However you’d like to see it, in terms of whether it’s the engineer that has to review the resubmission or the Board, we’re happy to do it either way. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What is the timeline? You said you wanted to start to gather this information in February and find out what it is. MR. LAPPER-What has to happen first is to remove the soil and to add the capacity, and then to put the monitor in before the Spring rainy season. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So Mickie needs, it’s a lot of earthwork. So he’s like to certainly get started no later than February. MR. FORD-Can that be done immediately? MR. HAYES-Yes, relatively so, even in the winter, actually in some ways, as you probably know, is it’s probably easier because everything is firmer. The Spring season is the season you have to avoid. It would be, even though it’s sandy, it can be done, but it’s, you know, the cold, there really is no detriment at all to us. MR. FORD-So expansion of capacity needs to be pre-Spring. MR. HAYES-Definitely. MR. FORD-Basically the sooner the better. MR. HAYES-Yes, exactly. So if it can be done in January or February, then you’d not even cut it close to the Spring, that’s better. No doubt about it. Every (lost words) there’s just more water that it can hold. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a location to take the dirt? MR. HAYES-I have a location to take some of the dirt, but I have other places that will take it, but we have lots of property, as you know, but not for all of it, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just a little unclear. You want to gather the data, you want to make a modification, you want to gather the data through the Spring? If it works, then you will submit a modification plan? MR. LAPPER-No. The modification plan’s been submitted, but Dan and the Staff raised some issues that we have to, Tom has to resubmit or just address those issues, none of which he has any problem with or Mickie has any problem with. Then we have to, Mickie’s got to get on site with a track hoe and the dump trucks and increase the capacity of the pond, and when that’s done, then the monitoring device has to be installed so that during the Spring, it can be monitored. Part of what Dan is asking for is an emergency plan that if, during the Spring, it turns out that there’s another, you know, whatever, 200 year storm, and there’s not enough capacity there, that there’s a way to pump it off site, so that there’s not flooding, and that’s part of what Tom would re-submit either to the Board or to Dan, right now, and if that happens, then there’s going to be the question about, is there a better permanent solution, then we would have to come back and talk about that. MR. HUNSINGER-What do you see as being your options for the emergency plan? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. LAPPER-Well, what happened last year, which was effective, but difficult, was to put a pipe across, or a hose across West Mountain Road, and ultimately it gets into the Halfway Brook Reservoir and the City drainage facilities, the watershed. The interim plan that Tom and Mickie have been discussing is to pump the water along the County right of way until there’s a culvert. So it goes underneath West Mountain Road, so it doesn’t affect traffic, and then it ultimately will get near Potter Road and will get into the same drainage ways that’ll get into the Halfway Brook reservoir. A permanent solution, and so that’ll take care of it now, and a permanent solution might be what Dan has proposed with Applehouse Lane to go south, that the Town, if the Town implements that, it’ll be very close to this property and there may be an easy way to get into that system depending upon capacity and need, and the other alternative would be to try and work it out with the City to permanently go into the watershed property, but that would take some negotiation. So those would be the issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a timeline for when those options would be explored and resolved? MR. LAPPER-We have to know the capacity issue first. So that’s when the monitoring comes in, to see whether it’s necessary, and then look at, at that point, what the best solution is, and at that point we’d come back and talk about it. MR. FORD-I want to make sure that we’re not creating a similar problem in another location, while addressing this one. MR. NACE-Meaning? Okay, with this invert? MR. FORD-Well, we’re talking about taking water from this pond, this expanded pond, and transferring that to another location, whether by culvert, or however, Potter Road or elsewhere. MR. LAPPER-Only if necessary. MR. NACE-Yes, at this point we’re only talking about doing that in an emergency, dire emergency situation, okay. As a long term solution, we would be looking at taking some overflow from the top of the pond or the upper levels of the pond, and doing that, and obviously one of the criteria or one of the things that would have to be looked at is wherever we’re taking that, is it acceptable, can it be accepted. MR. HUNSINGER-So, for example, this past Spring, when you had to pump water out of the pond and across West Mountain Road, what kind of a permit or what kind of approvals were necessary to do that? MR. NACE-Correct. Mickie arranged that. I have no idea. MR. HAYES-Basically the approvals were because Glens Falls controls, you know, so Glens Falls water, we had to get approval from their Water Department and the Mayor, and they were very cooperative and they actually came up with pumps and helped (lost words) because their water line happens to go through this property. So they were very cooperative in that way. It’s a very large area there, as you know, in the big scheme of things, but I understand what you’re saying, and one problem doesn’t necessarily pass another problem, but I think with the increased capacity of the odds that we’d have to have, any overflows would probably be slim if the capacity is increased to a certain, and conversations with VISION Engineering is that they happen to do any kind of drainage system, regional drainage system, which I think there’s potential talk, but it’s about funding, if they want to do it, that’s totally up to the Town Board, but if they ever do anything in the future, we’d be glad to tie in to anything they do, in cooperating, if they want to cut across our property just like we gave an easement on Luzerne Road, and if they want us to hook in at a future date, anything they want us to do resolve it, nobody wants to resolve an issue more than myself. So we’ll cooperate any way, ours go in and they want to cut through, whatever they feel is correct is fine with me. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just to clarify, though, when you did those emergency measures this past Spring, you didn’t need any permits or approvals from the Town? MR. HAYES-No, because the water was going to the City. It’s ironic that it’s a watershed property. MR. SIPP-West Mountain is a County road. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-So did you need any County approvals? MR. HAYES-Yes, we went to the fire department coordinated the whole thing. They go to them and they handle the closure of the road, they provide you the signs, they tell you what you’ve got to do. We staffed and manned it ourselves. They just told us what criteria we had to do. We did it all, the pumping, the manning, the flagmen, it was all totally on us. MR. SIPP-Without looking up on my map, how far is it to Potter Road? MR. HAYES-Probably a couple of hundred, two hundred and fifty feet. MR. SIPP-Two hundred and fifty. MR. HAYES-To Potter Road? No, West Mountain, Potter Road is probably about a third of a mile, half a mile. MR. SIPP-Because you’ve got capacity there for any amount of water. MR. HAYES-With that stream, except when that one, two years ago, by Queens Lane, it blew the road out. MR. SIPP-It just needs to be cleaned out. MR. HAYES-I guess that doesn’t happen as much as it should, but, yes, they increased the capacity of those culverts, I guess, there anyway. MR. TRAVER-And in any case with this project, you’re, by increasing the pond, you’re greatly increasing the buffer. So you’re greatly reducing the impact on people, the likelihood of a significant impact on people downstream anyway. MR. NACE-Correct, that is correct. MR. HAYES-I guess the long and the short of it, by adding two and a half, three million gallons of capacity, it gives you quite a bit of leeway. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HAYES-And whether that’s the end all, but that still, it’s a huge step forward to solving any problem. That’s a lot of water. MR. TRAVER-And the data will tell the tale. MR. HAYES-And then we could factor with in what the rainfalls are per year. The Town could do the scientific part of it, but, Tom, how much would it drop the pond? What did you figure, about six, seven feet from the highest capacity, to the highest level, with increased capacity? MR. NACE-Well, no. In fact, there’s a question in my conversation with Dan this afternoon, Dan Ryan asked if we had the increased capacity of the pond last Spring, what level would it have reached, how close would it have come to the basements? And the answer is, after looking at it, it would have come about three foot below the high water level, if we had the increased capacity, the high water level would have been three foot below the basement floor elevations. MRS. STEFFAN-So they would not have been flooding. MR. NACE-So they would not have been flooding. MR. SIPP-Who owns that property now to the north of you, facing on the West Mountain? MR. HAYES-To the north directly above this property? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HAYES-That’s Kelly Carte’s. MR. LAPPER-He’s to the south. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HAYES-He’s to the south? He’s right above us. Ted Rawson. There’s a new subdivision planned for the, to that side. MR. SIPP-The old cement plant? MR. HAYES-It was kind of part of it. It was to the right of it, yes. It’s a new six lot subdivision. It hasn’t been done, though, nothing’s been done. MR. SIPP-That’s a disaster area in there. MR. HAYES-There’s a ravine there, too. MR. SIPP-They used to dump their used motor oil. I won’t say anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-When you were doing the construction of the subdivision and the homes and stuff, did you find anything unusual? Because there were all the rumors, when you came before us for the subdivision about buried trucks, and, you know, things like that. MR. HAYES-Well, actually, I’ll tell you what we found. First of all, to get financing on the townhouse portion, you remember when we did this project, it was designed to be us to retain them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HAYES-And then we, during the construction, we built them in a way that they could be broken up because of the Codes changed, and then the market dictated us selling them, but we actually, to get financing, had to have core drillings, environmental testing, soil tests. It cost me about $50,000. I had to have the whole place tested for contaminants and stuff, to be able to get financing from the bank. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-But what we did find is they poured concrete everywhere. There was concrete three or four feet thick. There was also about, believe it or not, almost three thousand tires. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. HAYES-So that was a very expensive process. We took them out in log trucks. That’s how many tires there were, and there were some hulks of no motors and stuff, but the back ends of the Ashton Cement trucks, and they were actually full of cement. So they were, that was difficult, but the tires were just, they just, I guess they must have made deals with people. There were tires with trees growing through them, and there were over 3,000 tires, and they weren’t the type, the small ones that are easy to get rid of, because of the larger capacity, they won’t take them, handle them. There’s only certain spots that will take the big tractor tires. That’s probably why they threw them in the woods. So there was, the concrete was the main problem, which it’s good fill, and stuff, but you’ve got to go through it, and some parts were bridge concrete, and we actually had a hard time jack hammering it. It was unbelievable amount of, those hydraulic cameras just for days, months straight. So it was expensive. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Interesting. So what’s the feeling of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, if they get a signoff, right, on the. MRS. STEFFAN-We have to do SEQRA. MR. KREBS-Well, certainly what they’re proposing is better than leaving it the way it is. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SIPP-I think it’s a good start here. If we can get a good, and it looks like we may have a decent snow pack this year to get a good idea of what the possible runoff is going to be, unless you get an awful warm January, February, but at least the groundwater will be, you get a better idea of the groundwater, I think. So I would go ahead. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. FORD-Getting it addressed sooner rather than later is going to be critical. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable moving forward? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. FORD-I am. MR. HUNSINGER-This is just a Short Form. MR. HAYES-Does anybody want any dirt? MR. LAPPER-Minimum is a dump truck, though. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But it is trying to fix them. MR. FORD-Exactly. In a positive way, but it’s going to impact. There will be an impact, and it’s positive. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver : WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., 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 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) 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 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-But they want to get started in February. That would mean, because we’ve missed the deadline for submissions for January already, we would have to give them a modified date for submissions to get them on the January agenda. MR. FORD-Let’s get them on the second date. MR. OBORNE-I’m a little confused as to why you want them back. MR. TRAVER-If they get a signoff. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because VISION Engineering has asked for information. MR. OBORNE-So you’re going to table them? MRS. STEFFAN-And they would need to address VISION Engineering’s comments. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t that correct? I got that from the conversation. Am I correct? MR. KREBS-Can we just approve this with this as a condition, they meet all of Dan’s? MR. OBORNE-If you’re going to approve it, I do suggest that you specifically state which ones you want the signoff on. Staff and the Department of Community Development is very keen on getting this moving along. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because we want to fix what’s wrong. Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. In order for them to come back, you’re looking at February, if not March, because we are full. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re full in January. We bumped a whole bunch of projects in December and January. MRS. STEFFAN-We could add it as an extra item, if we want to get this here in January, and if they’re willing. MR. KREBS-Can’t we just approve it with the conditions that they meet the Staff comments and they meet VISION Engineering’s requirements? MR. TRAVER-I think so. MR. LAPPER-It could be subject to a signoff letter from Dan on all those issues. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And so the work couldn’t start until Dan issued a letter to the Planning Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-Dan’s asking for a monitoring plan and a schedule be provided as part of the Site Plan. Do you want to give Dan Ryan the responsibility for approving that, or is that a Planning Board approval item? I’m throwing it out. These are decisions that we have to make. It’s our responsibility. Even though Dan is our agent, it’s our responsibility as a Planning Board. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we can say that we want it monitored. I think the engineer, in cooperation with the applicant, can determine what the frequency of the monitoring is. I mean, we can say, as a Planning Board, we want it monitored, but let’s let the engineer decide what an appropriate monitoring system would be to generate the data that’s going to effectively deal with the stormwater. So if we’re saying we want a plan, and we’re saying that if the plan is approved by engineering staff, then that’s adequate, or at least hypothetically that’s what we could say. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course, if, getting the engineering signoff, it changes any of the design, you’d have to come back. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. That would be a different story. Sure. MR. FORD-Can we put in there a deadline for submission to our engineer? th MR. LAPPER-Yes. January 10, if that would be okay. Tom said he could meet that. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m getting nervous here as the Planning Board Secretary, just because I don’t want to put forth a motion that is going to get us into a situation where our Code Enforcement people and our Zoning Administrator cannot enforce our resolution, and I’m nervous about that. MR. OBORNE-Madame Secretary, I’m not speaking for the Board at all, as you know. You do have the power to have them come back in January, and I don’t think that that is beyond the realm of possibility. I think that would be a wise step, instead of tabling them until February or March, obviously. It seems that you’re getting a lot of heads here in the affirmative and maybe that’s the way you should go. MR. SIPP-Does that leave you enough time to get together with Dan? MR. LAPPER-It’s important that it get finalized in January, whether it’s at the engineering level or with the Board, as long as it’s January, it’s fine with the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-And I guess that’s where I started, is to put you on the January agenda, so that, if all conditions are satisfied, that you could start your project in February, but obviously the deadline for submissions has passed. So we would have to give you another deadline for your submission, but also, give you a deadline for submission, but then add you as an additional item, because the agendas have already been set for January. MR. FORD-That’s where I wanted to go in the first place. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And maybe I could suggest to the Board that you might want a third meeting. That would alleviate some of the pressure down the road. Again, it may be a little bit too late for that, at this point. You maybe want to consider a third meeting in February. By no means am I advocating that, for personal reasons, but it does seem, from a business point of view, the way to go. MRS. STEFFAN-The items on the January agenda, we’ve obviously tabled a lot of things last Tuesday night and now, are they some of the larger projects? MR. OBORNE-There are some large projects. I don’t know, off the top of my head. I have not done Site Plan Review on the majority of those. So I don’t know what they’re encompassing at this point. I couldn’t give you a definitive answer to that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Can we put them on the second agenda, with the option of adding a third meeting, if, as we get closer, it appears to be necessary? MR. SIPP-Jon, when is Walgreens and Chili’s? th MR. LAPPER-That’s on the 27. th MR. SIPP-The 27. MR. OBORNE-That Site Plan Review has been completed, though. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) thth MRS. STEFFAN-Is a January 10 deadline sufficient to hear this on the 27, for Dan Ryan to get comments and those kinds of things? MR. OBORNE-It will have to be. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. NACE-I could promise I’ll get it to you sooner, but with the Christmas break in here. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually January 9 is a Friday. th MR. NACE-The 9 is fine. Yes. MR. HAYES-We’ll stage out the planning to do the thing, regardless. So we’ll be ready to, whenever, I mean, however you arrange your meetings. I know it’s more complicated than it appears to me, but we’ll be ready. We’ll have, you know, the plans and the trucks and the machines ready to go. So whenever you’re ready, we’ll be ready to go. So I just thth won’t start the process, the meetings are the 27 and the 20. So I’ll be planning during the waiting period. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. FORD-Excellent. Submission by January 9 at the latest. MRS. STEFFAN-What about Staff Notes, folks? MR. LAPPER-Tom will be addressing both of those. th MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine. We’re going to put you on the 27, just because it would only be five business days for the Staff to turn everything around, and it would be an unreasonable expectation. MR. LAPPER-Right. No, that’s perfect. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This will be tabled until the January 27, 2009 Planning Board meeting, so that the th applicant can address VISION Engineering comments dated December 18, and also to address Staff comments. The applicant will have an extended application deadline which will be January 9, 2009 to submit their materials. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. LAPPER-I have two very quick items under the “Any Other Items”. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me guess, Nigro? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but a simpler one than that. I don’t know if Dave Kenny, Adirondack Factory Outlet, made the cut for January. What he’s doing. Do you know? MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. Excuse me? MR. LAPPER-The Adirondack Factory Outlet Site Plan modification made the cut for the January meetings? MR. OBORNE-Yes. That is in. We don’t know if that’s going to make the cut or not. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. LAPPER-Okay. If I could just very briefly describe this. It’s a really simple issue. Dave has a new tenant that we’ve just signed a lease with Nike, which is an important tenant, to replace Liz Claiborne in the back section of that, and the only, as part of the lease, he has to replace a cloth awning area in front with a permanent awning, and he’s going to re-paint the whole building. So that’s, because it requires a building permit, it requires Site Plan Review for just replacing the awning with a permanent, it’s like a porch with a walking area. MR. SIPP-Where is the awning? MR. LAPPER-If you’re looking at the building, it’s on the back on the right side. Liz Claiborne was the tenant, facing the road but in the back. What Tanya was talking about, he was just in for the hotel. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, but I thought besides that there was also something on that mall that was just. MR. LAPPER-There might have been. MRS. STEFFAN-It was the stormwater on the other side of the mall that was affected by the hotel development. MR. LAPPER-I’m only mentioning it because he’s got a tenant and a lease obligation, and it’s just so minor, painting it and then just replacing this awning with a permanent structure, it doesn’t change the footprint at all. So I’m hoping that, because I think that would take about five minutes, and he just, because he’s got to get that to a new tenant, and in this crazy retail economy, that’s a good thing that he has this lease. So I’m mentioning that for your consideration. The other, on Dave Kenny, which is some of the issues that I think Gretchen was talking about, there were only four members here at the last meeting. So you all weren’t here, but this was to re-tenant the vacant building, which used to be Hollywood Video, and we went through it and requested of the Board that, the only thing that we didn’t have were the sign panels. We showed the façade and we showed the boxes of where the signs would go, all conforming, but we didn’t have the words, because we didn’t have that from the new tenants, which are Five Guys, which is a burger place, kind of nice, a Game Stop, and a hair salon. What the Board asked us to do was to take the existing pylon and to lower it so it would be a monument. So we were asked to do two things, to resubmit the plan with the changes that we agreed to, which was to add landscaping in front of the building along the road, to reduce the, to lower the sign, and to correct the parking in the back of the plaza that was just not shown correctly on the plan, and it was clear to me, reading the minutes, and certainly being here, that the Board said, and you can get your building permit and do the construction, but we want you to resubmit the new sign panels and come back next month, just so we can sign off on the signs, and all that got done, but Craig felt that the language wasn’t clear enough in the resolution that it was your intention that we could get the building permit, before we came back to the Board to show the sign panels. So, I’d like you to consider clarifying that, just so, it’s another case where there’s a vacant building and they’d like to get in there. It’s all internal stuff, but they’d like to get in there and start constructing, and I know that that was the Board’s pleasure at the last month’s meeting, but I know that the Chairman wasn’t there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wasn’t here. MR. SIPP-Three panels, one for each? MR. LAPPER-Right. Totally conforming, no variances, and then, and we also showed the panels on the new monument sign that comes down. MR. TRAVER-And as I recall with regards to the landscaping and the signage here, you readily agreed to that, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We added a bunch of trees, what the Board wanted, and we want to the monument. So that’s all been submitted, with those changes, and recently we just got the sign panels and submitted that as well. It’s just a matter of trying to get the building permit, and Dave Hatin has approved it, but Craig is saying that he didn’t think that the language was strong enough in the resolution. MR. TRAVER-So we would need to make a resolution removing the condition that you resubmit in order for you to get your building permit? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. LAPPER-I don’t know how you’d, I mean, we did resubmit. You wanted us to resubmit, but you didn’t want us to resubmit as a condition before we could get a building permit, but we have resubmitted, so maybe to just clarify that you’re satisfied that it doesn’t need to be reviewed by the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, we received a memo from Craig this evening saying that if the Board has not yet issued an approval, than no permit can be issued until the Board review has been completed, and there has been a couple of other instances where he has advised the Board that an action that we took, a condition that we took, was such that a building permit couldn’t be issued until that condition was met. MR. LAPPER-And I think it was the Board’s clear intention that, not to hold it up, because we agreed it was just showing new trees, reducing the sign, and we agreed to it on the minutes. MR. TRAVER-That’s my recollection as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Steve was a big part of that resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to see that, or did you just want to add it to the final plan? I guess really that’s the question. MR. LAPPER-It was added to the final plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We wanted to make sure that it was included in the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-But did you want him to come back to the Board to review it? MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, that’s what we said. I mean, I can see how we were not clear enough in that, and I am satisfied with Jon’s presentation that that information has been added to the plan and submitted. So as far as I’m concerned, whatever we need to do to resolve that is fine with me. Because he’s right. It was not our intention to hold up their progress in implementing their plan. We just wanted to make sure that the discussion items were, in fact, adopted, but they were very, there was no concern in that they were very readily willing to, and Mr. Seguljic had some discussion, as he often does, regarding the landscaping and so on, but all those points, as I recall, were readily agreed to by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-So you think the discussion was specific enough and enough guidance was given to the applicant on what was wanted to be added to the plan? MR. TRAVER-I do, and further, in listening to Jon’s remarks this evening, it’s clear that, in fact, they have been added to the plan. So the only question is whether or not. MR. FORD-Even though we haven’t seen them. MR. TRAVER-Even though we haven’t seen them. Right. MR. SIPP-That was the landscaping and the sign, and the parking were all pretty well agreed to. I know the landscaping was, we added some trees and shrubs. Signs were to be only building signs. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SIPP-Monument type. MR. LAPPER-It’s ready to be issued because the, Dave Hatin has signed off. It’s just waiting for Craig because of this condition. So, you know, tomorrow would be good. I mean, they won’t start until after the holidays, but. MR. SIPP-We covered that pretty well. MR. HUNSINGER-So what Craig has asked is for the Board to clarify our intentions as to the approved pending status of the project. MR. TRAVER-And I think we just did that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, is he looking for a resolution? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will lean on either Steve or Don to offer the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not sure how I can vote on it. I think I’d have to abstain because I haven’t looked at the plan. I’m just taking people’s word for it. MR. TRAVER-Well, maybe we have a super majority of those that are familiar with it. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t here either. I mean, I’m just going to go on yours and Don’s recommendation as to what your intentions were. I mean, I think that’s what Craig’s asking. MR. TRAVER-Well, let me try something. MR. HUNSINGER-I think all that’s being asked that you clarify the intent of the resolution. I don’t think you’re asking us that haven’t looked at the plan to pass on a plan that we didn’t review. MR. TRAVER-Right, but the preference is that that be in the form of a resolution. Okay. I will offer a resolution to clarify the record to show, regarding Site Plan 47-2008, that the Planning Board has, in fact, approved that Site Plan with the changes to the sign and landscaping and parking lot, as attested to by Jon this evening. MR. SIPP-I think you’ve got to add to that. You’ve got to be more specific and say the sign was to be a monument type sign. MR. TRAVER-Well that was in the existing resolution that we passed that night, the number of trees, all of that. That’s already in the resolution. So I think all we need to do tonight is affirm that that resolution’s been complied with. Right, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Well, it is my understanding that, if you could, make a resolution stating that you’re giving approval for Nigro Corporation to commence their construction of, renovation of the old Hollywood Video store, and that at these dates that are on this condition of approval, which is in front of us, for Site Plan No. 47-2008, still stands. I believe all the applicant is here trying to gather from you is approval to go ahead and commence construction, in resolution form. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. OBORNE-That’s the only thing that’s holding him up. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I’ll withdraw my former resolution, and I’ll propose a resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-How about, do you want me to help? I think I can help you. MR. TRAVER-Please. MRS. STEFFAN-Because we want them to be able to start construction, but we don’t want them to be able to construct the sign or the landscaping. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s the building signs that we just have to, the façade, the three façade signs we have to show you. So we won’t put those up until the Board reviews that. MR. FORD-Have we not reviewed, this evening, and in essence will approve the signage and the landscaping issues? MR. LAPPER-That’s already done. It’s just that there are three separate signs that were not on the plan because we didn’t have the panels that just say the tenants names. MR. TRAVER-And there were a couple of trees that weren’t on the plan. MR. LAPPER-But we agreed to where the trees were going to go and what the trees were, and we just had to show that. So that was more of a condition that was agreed to in the resolution, and it didn’t have to come back to the Board. It just had to, the Staff 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) had to just see that it was on the plan and we could build, but we are going to come back to show you the sign panels next month and we won’t put the sign panels up. I guess Craig is saying clarify that it was okay to issue the building permit, based upon the Site Plan with those modifications. I mean, I read the minutes and I think that’s what it says anyway, but Craig’s just being careful, and obviously this isn’t something that the Board does, if it’s a complicated, you know, you need to see it again. This was all completely agreed and straightforward. MR. FORD-He said my reading of this resolution is that the Board still wishes to review and approve certain components of this project. MR. SIPP-I think that refers to the sign panels. MR. OBORNE-And they will be before you in February. MR. KREBS-Also the last item says that the plans for additional door on the west side of the building will also be submitted. MR. LAPPER-That was just, all that was was just, same thing, show that on the plan. So we added that. We explained it. The Board said it was fine, it didn’t have to come back. MR. SIPP-Just wanted to make sure those weren’t flashing LED lights. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. No. MR. SIPP-That dumpster was a? MR. LAPPER-We had had that on the plan already. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that was between the two, between you and the hot dog stand there? Was that the idea, that’s why it couldn’t be moved? MR. LAPPER-No. It was just it was too close to this building. So it was moved over by the other building that Nigro has, the big building, just to get it out of the way. It wasn’t for the hot dog guys. MR. SIPP-New Way Lunch. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they have their own. MR. SIPP-They have their own. MR. LAPPER-They’re on a separate parcel. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION THAT BASED ON PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 47- 2008 FOR THE NIGRO COMPANIES, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DECIDED THAT WE PROVIDED A FLAWED APPROVAL. WE RESOLVE THAT THE NIGRO COMPANIES, SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008, WILL BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THEIR BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FINAL APPROVAL OF BUILDING SIGNAGE. THE APPLICANT WILL APPEAR AT THE JANUARY 20, 2009 MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD SO THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CAN REVIEW SIGNAGE PLANS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much, and Merry Christmas, everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Jon, same to you. MR. FORD-Happy Hanukkah. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did have, from Tuesday night carry over, consideration of officers for the Board for 2009. We were discussing that before the meeting started. MRS. STEFFAN-He’s not here. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s not here. MRS. BRUNO-Can we put it off again, or does it have to be done before the end of the year? MRS. STEFFAN-It needs to be done, the Town Board will need to pass judgment on it at the beginning of the year. st MR. FORD-At their January 1 meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, typically. MR. FORD-Typically. MR. HUNSINGER-Typically. MR. FORD-But will they meet again before our first meeting in January? MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Board, do you know? MR. OBORNE-The first and third, no, they’re done. MR. HUNSINGER-They must have another meeting, the Town Board. MR. OBORNE-Possibly. I don’t know if they can get on the agenda, though. MR. SIPP-That would be the fifth, the first Monday. ndth MR. HUNSINGER-They must have a meeting the 22 or the 29. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom’s term, I believe, is up, at the end of the year. Has he expressed his desire to stay on the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. He issued a, well, it was by e-mail. I saw it today. It was addressed to the Town Board, requesting that he be re-appointed. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I believe that’s what you need, obviously. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I would like to make a motion to nominate Chris Hunsinger for Planning Board Chairman for 2009. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN FOR 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for the vote of support. I appreciate it. MOTION TO NOMINATE THOMAS SEGULJIC FOR QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MOTION TO NOMINATE GRETCHEN STEFFAN FOR QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY FOR 2009, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-We were going to go over the Sign Ordinance, but I think since it’s been amended, the only, I think the only item that, there were only two word changes, and I thought that there were just a couple of things. The Town Board addressed the LED lighting in their resolution, but I think that there should be a definition within the Sign Ordinance for a reader board, because that is the terminology that appears in our Site Plan Reviews, as an example the Rite Aid proposal that came through specifically with reader board. So I think that that is a definition that should be added to the Ordinance. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest that you put that in writing and send the, your concerns to the Town, help me here. MR. SIPP-Yes, Gretchen, that night I asked that if this referred to all signs, all signs, building signs, roof signs, and I was assured yes. So when start saying, and then there was an exception for time/temperature, and that would remain. Now, I couldn’t get my Supervisor to raise his head too high, but I did get John Strough to agree to all of that, and nobody objected. So I assume that’s the way it stands, that it takes in all signs, from billboard signs on down. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did the exception make it into the final draft of the resolution for time and temperature, because Glens Falls National Bank does have that. MR. SIPP-Yes. The next line after what they inserted is the exception for time/temperature. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-And I asked if that remained, and I couldn’t get my Supervisor to raise his head off his little game he was playing, but John Strough said, yes, that would be included. This one sentence was just inserted. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, Keith, I’m assuming that the Sign Ordinance will be updated immediately. MR. OBORNE-I think it’s at the beginning of the year. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the word that I was searching for was Clerk. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I apologize for that brain freeze. MRS. STEFFAN-Darlene. MR. OBORNE-Darlene, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing that, as I went through the Sign Code, there were a couple of things that have been hot buttons for us. I mentioned the reader board specific description, but also when we had looked at signs, back, during Site Plan Review, and we were looking at signs on Route 9, we had identified that the Dunkin Donuts sign with was at 25 feet. The Glens Falls National Bank was 17 and a half feet. Jack’s Bistro sign was at 18 feet, and CSA Jewelry was at 20 feet. We liked the 20 foot sign height. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. SIPP-How about 15? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it depended on the sign, and certainly we’ve had discussions here about monument signs, and obviously we’re in charge of Site Plan Review and that’s part of what we do with Site Plans, but in the Sign Code it talks about 25 feet being our height requirements. Based on our prior discussions on Site Plan Review, we had identified that 20 is a better height. So we, as a maximum. So we may want to make a recommendation to the Town Board about that. MR. SIPP-Well, there’s two. One is for the commercial height, and there’s also a mixed use standard. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s in two places within the Codes. There’s sign by permit and then, actually they’re both under sign by permit. This is in commercial zones, but I certainly think that we should make those recommendations. Those are things we talk about frequently. MR. SIPP-We should talk about roof signs, too, because here’s where you can get a 30 foot sign, a sign 30 feet off the ground. MRS. STEFFAN-But the Code is very specific about that, and it would be very difficult for somebody to do that. MR. FORD-Just as an aside, I want to make sure that we’d cover signs potentially hung from aircraft. MRS. STEFFAN-Where does that happen? MR. FORD-Happens every hot air balloon festival, and conceivably could happen on fixed wing aircraft in the future. I just wanted to throw it out there. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if the Board is aware that The Great Escape sign was approved last night. It’s a 185 foot tall freestanding sign, right now, on the Sasquatch thrill ride. So, I think that may have set some precedent as to, maybe draw some ire from the Board. I don’t know. MR. FORD-I can get higher than that. MR. OBORNE-No, the EIS wouldn’t allow it. I just wanted to bring that up to the Board’s attention. MR. SIPP-We also got taken on the lights on that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the Johnny Rockets restaurant. As I was driving by the other evening, they have signs that do not fit within our Code, and I am unsure how those signs were approved. MR. OBORNE-Well, were they approved through a variance? MRS. STEFFAN-I do not believe so. MR. OBORNE-Well, then, if not, I would bring that up to the Code Compliance Officer. MRS. STEFFAN-Because there are illuminated edges on the Johnny Rockets sign, and they have a building sign. They have a standing, it’s not a monument sign, it’s a neon sign, and then they have window signs within the front of the building. If you stand in front of the building, there are three separate signs on the top of the building. There’s the Johnny Rockets sign at the road that replaced the Adirondack style sign that went with the old restaurant, and then they also have illuminated window signs within the windows, and the lighting that comes off the signs on Johnny Rockets is brighter than all of the lights for the parking lot, and for the lodge. It is, in my mind, it is totally unacceptable. MRS. BRUNO-I find it very difficult that the people that work in the, the Code Officer has not noticed that. MR. OBORNE-Well, he would only notice it at night. The Code Compliance Officers do not work at night. They also, being that Staff levels are not as high as they should be, or 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) as high as people may want, in order for every complaint to be followed up on, it’s very difficult. I mean, I can attest to that because I see them working every day, but I will bring that up to the attention of the Zoning Administrator. I do suggest, as a concerned citizen of the Town of Queensbury, that you do write something to that effect, because they are going to need a complaint in order to act. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I have a question regarding the new Sign Ordinance. Are the existing LED signs grandfathered in, or are they going to have to be removed? MR. OBORNE-I can’t answer that question, and quite frankly I have not seen the document yet. MR. SIPP-It doesn’t say what they approve, but there is another section which says 60 days is the. MR. HUNSINGER-They have to become compliant within 60 days. MR. SIPP-Compliant within 60 days. MR. TRAVER-They do? Okay. Good. MRS. STEFFAN-Now the other thing, based on what we just heard about the ZBA approving that 185 foot sign, I‘m just, I don’t understand why the Planning Board wasn’t included, or they refer so many things to us, not so many things. They occasionally refer things to us. Why would they not refer that to us? MR. OBORNE-I discussed that very issue, or actually the Zoning Administrator brought that up during our debriefing meeting this morning, and they did not do it, and it possibly could have been because I didn’t recommend it. MRS. BRUNO-Keith, I know you and I had discussed through e-mail this, because I was trying to jog my memory about the minutes, about the Sasquatch, and I thought it was pretty explicit, and my compadre over here thinks the same thing, if you want me to throw you in. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. BRUNO-That it was pretty specific in the meeting minutes that we did not want signage to go up there, and that they had agreed to that. MRS. STEFFAN-When you approved the ride? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. Well, yes, I didn’t approve it, but when it went through. MR. OBORNE-No, it is my understanding that the ride was approved with the knowledge that the signage would come at a later date. MR. SIPP-I don’t think that, well. MR. TRAVER-I thought that it was approved and that they were not going to come back for the sign. MRS. BRUNO-I think we need to review the minutes. MR. OBORNE-I do suggest, if you can show that to me, I mean, I’ll review them, too, when I get the chance. MRS. BRUNO-They’re not posted yet. Remember I had said that I couldn’t find them in my office because it was a bomb zone right now. MR. OBORNE-Right. You should see my office. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I do remember thinking, or maybe even commenting, maybe not on the record, the night of the meeting, that the reason why they withdrew that portion is because they would go around the Planning Board to get it approved. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, absolutely. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m not surprised that that’s how it played out. MRS. STEFFAN-And in my mind, this is still on the record. In my mind, that’s absolutely unacceptable. In the Town we spend so much time reviewing lighting plans and signage plans on other Site Plans, and so for them to go around us is just unacceptable from my point of view, and it has a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the Town, because what they’re doing is they’re lighting up the night sky, and that is contrary to our Code and contrary to our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. SIPP-Well, I said that that night, that for those lights, they wanted to shine upwards, they should never have passed. MRS. BRUNO-I did, too. MRS. STEFFAN-I will take a look at the meeting minutes on that, and I will also lodge a complaint on the Johnny Rockets sign, because I want that to be evaluated. MRS. BRUNO-And I certainly hope, and I’d like this to be on the record, that if, I just lost my train of thought. I’m sorry. Oh, that if it had indeed been going around the Planning Board and that it was pretty explicit in our meeting minutes that the Town Board does back us in what needs to be done, and that they recognize this situation, because I think it happens more often than not, more often than we’d like to see. MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m going to prepare for January’s meeting a resolution from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Site Plan Review on signage, because I want this loophole to be corked off. This is not right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We need to address it. MR. FORD-Good. MR. OBORNE-Did you want me to look into having a conference room or something for a work session? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was just going to bring up. Thank you. I don’t know if everyone saw the e-mail, but I had intended to bring up to the Board this evening the concept of having some kind of a workshop in January, sort of an organizational workshop, if you will. Certainly we can talk about some of these issues and items at that, but also, you know, policies and procedures and look at the by laws, you know, see if there’s any changes we want to make there. I guess we could coordinate the meeting date through e-mail, once we find out room availability and that kind of thing. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’ll have Pam look into that for me tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I imagine you’d want that prior to the first meeting in January? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if it really matters specifically when we have it. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think it does. Last year, one of the things that happened, is that we wanted to have a January meeting, and it ended up getting postponed, and I don’t th think it happened until like February 20. So I think that it’s important for us to regroup at the beginning of the year, so we set the tone for how we move forward. So I would like it to be before. th MR. HUNSINGER-Before the 20, then. MRS. STEFFAN-Before the first Planning Board meeting, and I think that that’s a great idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that, I had my calendar out earlier. Maybe the Tuesday before th our first meeting or something, the 13 of January. MR. OBORNE-I shall inquire. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/08) MRS. STEFFAN-There’s also a Saratoga Planning and Zoning Conference at the th Saratoga Hilton on January 28 which is a Wednesday, and I believe we got something in the mail last month on that. I’ve been to that conference. I’ve gone several years in a row, and it’s a great conference. It’s close by, and it provides really good programming. MR. OBORNE-Is that Planning Federation? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the Saratoga Planning and Zoning, Saratoga County. MR. OBORNE-Okay. th MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ll try to schedule the workshop certainly before the 20. Shoot th for the 13 or any other evening that week. MR. OBORNE-Are you talking seven o’clock, seven p.m.? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Until, give a time, until 10, or something along those lines. It probably doesn’t matter. MR. HUNSINGER-I would think it would be seven to nine, and if there’s items that people want to discuss and bring up, you know, let me know, and we’ll put together an agenda before the meeting, for distribution. MRS. STEFFAN-I also want to remind folks that, I just got an e-mail on this, that on th January 7, that’s a Wednesday, from six to eight p.m., at the Ramada, there’s a meeting on the Exit 20 corridor. They’re doing a traffic analysis, and so the meeting, it was rescheduled from December when it was snowed out. MRS. BRUNO-It may be interesting, even more so now, because with BBL making those, they made the bid on the two pieces of property. Well, they haven’t okayed it yet. MR. SIPP-They bid $350, $349,000, it’s an oddball figure, but it’s not anywhere’s near what the assessed valuation is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-It’s $800,000, but you never know what happens. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a mistake to sell off assets. Desperate companies do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Have Staff been involved with the discussions on the Exit 20 corridor? MR. OBORNE-This Staff member is not. The Senior Planner may be. MRS. STEFFAN-I know Stu Baker was there because I was at the first meeting. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes. That would not surprise me at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business this evening? Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 54