Loading...
2009.10.27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 31-2009 CES Holdings 1. Tax Map No. 290-1-21.3, 21.4 Site Plan No. 54-2009 Mike Arnold 2. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Site Plan No. 46-2009 Debaron Associates 3. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 53-2009 James White 14. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-9 Site Plan No. 55-2009 Dariusz & Bozena Jackowski 16. Tax Map No. 265-1-73.2 Site Plan No. 56-2009 G. A. Bove & Sons, Inc. 20. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-47 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday October 27, 2009. Our first item on the agenda is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 31-09 CES HOLDINGS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION [SEE LETTER FROM J. LAPPER DATED 9/15/09] MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has submitted a letter for further tabling. I think there was a draft resolution provided with your Staff Notes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we table it, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2009 CES HOLDINGS, 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 a four unit apartment building, paved parking area, private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices and landscaping. Multifamily in a SR-1A zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval. Freshwater wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009, tabled to 8/25/09, tabled to 10/27/09; and 3)Please see letter from Jonathan Lapper from BRSR dated 9/11/09; and 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This will be tabled to the November 17 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 SEQR TYPE II MIKE ARNOLD OWNER(S) ANITA ROSS ZONING WR LOCATION 108 LAKE PARKWAY, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 625 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-09; BP 09-323, BP 85-574 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/14/09 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-9-010 MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Okay. We didn’t think there would be. Is there anyone in the audience that is here for that project? Okay. MR. OBORNE-I do have public comment, if you wish to open up the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll open the public hearing if you have a public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-I’ll read in the public comment. “Dear Mr. Oborne: We are Pamela Lester Golde and Robert Golde, the neighbors directly south of Anita Ross. We extend our apologies for not being able to attend the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings for the above-mentioned project, and would appreciate if our comments would be read into the record. It is our understanding the Ross/Arnold’s would like to expand the garage by adding a second story to its current footprint. For this request, we do not have a concern or an objection; however, our concerns lie with any need to disturb and/or expand the current septic system. Our home, 110 Lake Parkway, has been in my family, the Lester Family, since 1960. At that time, the Ross/Arnold property was an empty parcel. Their present home was not built until the early to mid 1980’s, which also included the current septic system. The system lies between their house and our side property line. Due to the system’s proximity to this property line, the original system’s construction affected mature vegetation existing on the edge of our property. Originally, there were four large Sugar Maples, only the western two remain. Over the years, we have replanted trees, and trees have also seeded themselves in creating an effective buffer between the two houses. It is our concern that with the addition to their home it will require an expansion/upgrade of the septic system, again impacting our trees. We would request that any expansion/upgrade to their septic system protect and minimize any disturbance to the root zone area of the Sugar Maples, Hemlocks, and Spruces occurring along this joint property line. Thank you for this consideration. We remain, Pamela Lester Golde Robert Golde” And that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I would look for a motion to table this item, and the reason being is that the applicant did not receive a variance from the Zoning Board last thth week. We’re tabling this to the, is it the 15 or the 17 of December? th MRS. STEFFAN-It has to be the 17. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 17. th MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because the Zoning Board meeting’s on the 16. So I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 625 sq. ft. second story residential addition above existing garage. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval; 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/27/09; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) 4. The Planning Board issued a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/20/09; 5. On 10/27/09 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled Area Variance 52-2009 until such time as an engineer can verify that the wastewater system can support the proposed additional bedroom; 4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the December 17, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Any new materials need to be received by the Town by th November 16. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DEBARON ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION LOT 4, DARK BAY LANE, OFF RT. 9L, WEST OF DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,886 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 39-09, SP 14-09, BOH 1-09, AV 11-08, SP 32- 89, AV 1442, AV 12-92, SUB 2-69 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/8/09 LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION CHAPTER 147, 179-9-010 DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, any time you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 46-2009 The applicant is Debaron Associates. Requested Action: Site Plan Review for the construction of a single family dwelling in a Critical Environmental Area Location is Lot 4 Dark Bay off of Rt. 9L west of Dunham Bay Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 square foot single family dwelling on a 0.35 acre lot with shoreline frontage on Lake George. This project has been classified as a Major Stormwater Project. Staff Comments: The applicant has received approval to install two 2000 gallon precast concrete holding tanks for wastewater. Design notes and alarm sequences for the holding tanks are located on sheet S-5. The lot currently has an existing gazebo to the north, 88 sq. ft. cabin, one ‘U’- dock, one ‘I’ dock and five retaining walls of differing length and height. All existing conditions to be incorporated into the site plan. What follows is a soils description, and additional comments. VISION Engineering comments are attached, and to apprise the nd Board that an Area Variance, AV 39-2009, was approved by the ZBA on July 22 of this year. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer, and I’m representing Debaron Associates, and with me is Tom Hutchins, an engineer who’s doing the same. I’ll briefly remind the Board that we’ve been before this Board on many occasions relative to this project, and the last time we were here, the Board recommended variances to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and based on that recommendation, the Zoning Board of Appeals did grant variances as requested, primarily relating to a shoreline setback and stormwater, and based on the granting of that variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, where we basically satisfied all of the requirements of the statute, with respect to obtaining a variance, that variance then was sent to the Adirondack Park Agency. The Adirondack Park Agency was satisfied with it. They accepted it, and so we now come back for Site Plan Review, and we did have some engineering requirements to satisfy before our application was complete, before 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) this Board. So with that, I’ll turn that over to Tom, and let him explain what we’ve done on the engineering. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins. I will summarize briefly the differences in this plan from the one that we last looked at at a meeting which I believe was July 21, and all of the differences came about in working with the engineer and resolving engineering comments, which we have wholly resolved. One item we changed the design of the diversion swale slightly, that is on the north side of the proposed house. Instead of directly diverting we put in a very small stilling area so that the flow can be spread out, a level spreader. We have included a water treatment system design, including lake intake, pump, frost free intake that does not involve rock excavation, and a water treatment system which includes a pre-filter, a backwashing filter, a UV disinfection system, and that’s all on the plans. We’ve clarified the concern about the septic tanks with a double butyl sealant on a two piece tank. We have put the requested elevations that the engineer had asked for on the plans with regard to the holding tanks. We’ve shown an outlet to an under drain behind a very small retaining wall, which he had requested, and we had responded to his comment about the vehicle barrier in the area that we’ve shown for parking cars. Other than that, the plans are unchanged. The house size is unchanged. It remains the 24 by 36 house, which you’ll recall is the smaller sized house than our original application. Stormwater controls remain unchanged. We’ve shown a full erosion control plan, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? That was an interesting review on that heat line, water pump system. I’ve never seen it before. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s the first time I’ve been asked to do that, but we did get through it and I met with one of the local pros in installing lake intakes, and we’ve come up with a pretty good system. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I never saw that before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to make a note. On the Van Dusen and Steves plan, this lot is marked Lot 15. That just would need to be changed, because this is Lot 4 in the subdivision. MR. PHILLIPS-This is Lot 4 in the subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. On the Van Dusen & Steves S-1, Sheet One of One, it says Lot 15. Obviously there’s another Lot 15 over on Route 9. This is supposed to be Lot 4. All the other drawings, the Hutchins Engineering drawings are correct. They’ve got Lot 4, but on the Van Dusen and Steves drawing it says Lot 15. Top one. It just jumped right out at me. MR. HUTCHINS-Good catch. Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-We’ve been through this a lot of times, and nobody ever saw that. So we’ll change that. MRS. STEFFAN-I asked myself that very same question. I’m like, how many times I’ve been over those drawings. So that’s just one little thing that needs to be changed. It’s minor, but. MR. SIPP-I have a couple of questions. Is the gazebo and the shed going to stay in the present position? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Okay. I think you know that you have to put in a 15 foot vegetative buffer along the shoreline of this lot. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and we have over a 30 foot vegetative buffer between our house, the proposed house, and the shoreline. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. SIPP-Does this meet the specifications in 179? MR. HUTCHINS-The buffer that we’re showing between the proposed house and the shoreline, I believe it does. MR. SIPP-Well, you have to do the whole shoreline, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Not if I’m not disturbing. We’re proposing to leave the existing structures in place. We have shown stormwater controls for the roof of the existing cabin because that was a request from this Board, as I recall. MR. SIPP-What about the gazebo? MR. HUTCHINS-We have not shown stormwater controls for the gazebo because that wasn’t requested. It’s an existing structure that’s been there. Debbie, how long’s that gazebo been there? DEBBIE SCHIEBEL MS. SCHIEBEL-About 15 years. MR. HUTCHINS-About 15, 20 years. We wouldn’t normally implement stormwater controls on an accessory structure that really isn’t part of the project, unless requested, and we were requested on the other one, which you did. MR. SIPP-Can I call to your attention, 179-8-040. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I don’t have my Codebook with me, but. MR. SIPP-Which says buffer composition and density. For every 50 linear feet, following a shoreline contour of the shoreline buffer, the density calibration for a large sized tree and small tree included in the area, one large tree with a minimum of three inch diameter, and one small tree which is, or a large shrub. For every lot following the shoreline, an increment of less than 50 feet, the clearing should have one small and one large tree. For every 100 feet of ground cover, buffer, allowed clearing areas are exempt, 10 herbaceous plants. Ground cover density minimums may have to be altered to accommodate large trees and/or existing vegetation. Now are we going to have a buffer there that’s going to follow the shoreline? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We want to leave the shoreline as undisturbed as we possibly can, which is why we’re almost 40 feet, 35 feet from the shoreline. Our disturbance line doesn’t go closer than, yes, 35 feet from the shore. So we’re not proposing to disturb. I mean, if we were to put plantings in this area, we’d have to disturb it. We’d rather not disturb it. It’s wooded now. I presume you’ve been to the site. I mean, the whole shoreline is quite wooded. There is a stairway up to the upper level, but even over by the gazebo, there’s large vegetation there and it’s well established and we’re not proposing to disturb that area at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the Zoning Board variance, the language that’s also on the plan, said that, you know, that won’t be touched. MR. HUTCHINS-They said no cut, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly, and if anything dies or falls down, you have to replace it. So I thought the language in the ZBA’s resolution was pretty specific on keeping the vegetated buffer vegetated. MR. SIPP-Now in the case of where that gazebo is, you’re going to have probably 150 square foot of roof area there, and you’ve got to have some stormwater controls there. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s an existing hard area. Frankly, it’s landing on a very rocky area. We’re not proposing stormwater controls for that existing structure. We didn’t get a variance for stormwater controls for that existing structure. This is the first time that one’s come up in review of it, and, no, we haven’t proposed it. MR. SIPP-Well, I mean, I can’t, the area around that gazebo is not what I would call a buffer area, and you’re going to have water coming off this roof. What are you going to do with it? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUTCHINS-It’s going to come off the roof, land on the rock, either work into the soil. MR. SIPP-It isn’t all rocks there. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not all rock. It’s very rocky, but it’s not all rock. MR. SIPP-When you talk about these steps, you’re going to run those steps within 15 feet of a. MR. HUTCHINS-Those aren’t new steps. Those are existing. We put controls into those steps because this Board asked us to do so, and they asked us to do controls for the existing cabin, which we did. MR. SIPP-Where are the controls? MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a small infiltration area. There’s three of them as you walk, four of them as you walk down the steps. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I also have a note here which is to hit rock, (lost words) and you’re not taking a soil test there. You don’t know where the bedrock is. You’ve not taken a soil sample in that well. Where those steps are, you’ve not taken a soil sample. Am I correct? MR. HUTCHINS-That is correct. We added some controls to an existing set of steps that have been here way more than 15 years. They’ve been there. MS. SCHIEBEL-About 100. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and frankly the steps themselves are not impervious, if you look up and down. They’re old pavers, and they’re all, they’re certainly not impervious. We added the controls because the Board asked us to add them here. The same with the existing storage cabin. MR. KREBS-And Paragraph D says use of existing natural vegetation is generally preferred. That’s what the Ordinance says. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there are places where there is no vegetation, no good vegetation, and between those steps and the gazebo, I was out there last week, and there is not a good buffer in that particular area. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-I’m not finished. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Don. MR. SIPP-If you’re going to have a buffer across there, you have to have lake access, in other words a path going from the land to the water. Now this access I would like to see put in on an angle so that you do not completely open a pathway for erosion. MRS. STEFFAN-But the path is already there, and they’re not putting in the new path. They’re utilizing what’s existing. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. They were going to utilize this, and, no, if anything we’d have a path across, within our disturbance. No, we haven’t proposed a new, any service paths down to the lake, no. Their lake use will be to this dock. MR. SIPP-To the U-shaped dock? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-There will be a path, where, using the steps? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they will use the steps. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. SIPP-Well, I would like to see a buffer in place. The area where the cabin is, there’s not that much native vegetation in that area, and 15 feet back from the shoreline takes you right through the middle of the cabin. MR. HUTCHINS-So, I mean, there’s a 20 inch hemlock in that area there. In order to plant a buffer, I guess my opinion was where we would do more damage in tearing up and getting soil in there in order to establish a buffer than we would to let the native vegetation prevail, and there is vegetation there. There is large trees to the south of the existing cabin. In the area to the north, it’s smaller vegetation. We haven’t located every tree. We’ve located what we thought were the significant ones. MRS. SCHIEBEL-Can I make a comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’ll need to get you on the mic, though, ma’am. You can come on up to the table if you want to get on the record. MRS. SCHIEBEL-No, I just want to clarify the path. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you identify yourself, first. MRS. SCHIEBEL-I’m Debbie Schiebel. The path was there for our elderly and my father who was dying of cancer used that path, could not get down the steps. That’s why there is a path around that perimeter there by the gazebo. It has been used for our elderly relatives to get down to the dock because those steps were, you know, obviously too difficult for them. That’s why there’s a smooth, round path going down along there. It’s been there. MR. HUTCHINS-How long has it been there, would you say? MRS. SCHIEBEL-Well, since before my father died, at least 15 years. Nothing’s been disturbed here in at least 15 years. At least. But I’m saying that was the purpose of keeping that, was so that we could help people get down to the water. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Do you understand what I mean about an access path? MR. HUTCHINS-You’re talking about from the proposed house, am I correct? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SIPP-That it be on an angle, not straight through. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and we’re fine with that, that that not be directed to the lake. If there were one in, we would wind it. That’s fine. MR. OBORNE-Would you like them to follow the contours, is that what you’re proposing, if you do have a path? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, if you follow the contour, you won’t get there. MR. OBORNE-Well, then you do a dog leg back, sir. MR. HUTCHINS-If there is a path between here and here, we’ll angle it, and that’s fine. MR. SIPP-Just so we get all of that. Now, is this swale going to be enough to take care of what comes off of that road? That’s a pretty steep angle that that water’s going to run down. MR. HUTCHINS-You mean the diversion? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. The swale will be high enough to catch the diversion and it’s off site runoff, it’s really that. It’s a diversion. MR. SIPP-Now, who plows this in the wintertime? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUTCHINS-I believe they have a contract, the Association has a contract guy that comes in and plows. I don’t know who he is. What they do with snow is they push it right down through, down here, right beside this house, in the area that they park now, they push it all down in here, or they push what they can down there. MR. SIPP-Now, I just think that there’s a need for a, in some areas there, particularly in the area of the gazebo, for some stormwater control, an improved buffer. I don’t see where that gazebo is there’s that much vegetation there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you all set, then? Any other questions, comments from members of 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 application? Okay. We have at least one. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Chairman, while we’re waiting for the public comment, on the advise of Town Counsel, I wanted to just notify everyone that I have used the professionals of the applicant in the past, and I plan to do so in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Starting out, we’d like to thank the applicant for their efforts to reduce impacts from the proposed project and their concessions as well as the efforts of the reviewing Boards of the Town of Queensbury for their diligence in reviewing the application. We offer the following comments for the Board. The site contains significant constraints that may result in environmental impacts. The applicant has stated the lot was approved as a building lot 40 years ago and is justified to build on the lot, and some of that is due to taxation issues and further justification. However, we have learned a lot in the last 40 yeas and there is much more information available today regarding impacts of land use activities within critical environmental areas as well as water quality data documenting the declining water quality of Lake George. It is for these reasons that environmental regulations requiring shoreline setbacks and stormwater management have been implemented. The project is deficient in 3 areas: 1) The proposed project will reduce the required separation distance for stormwater treatment with soils that have rapid infiltration which reduces the potential for treatment. 2) Vegetation will be removed on steep slopes, which would be returned; 3) The minimum shoreline buffer of 35 feet will be provided, but a larger and more effective buffer could be returned. For these reasons the Lake George Water Keeper does not support the current application and urges that it be denied, or improved. If the project is approved, the Lake George Water Keeper has the following items for consideration by the Board: 1. Since the undisturbed buffer proposed is at a minimum and setbacks have been significantly reduced, additional planting or amendments should be required for water quality protection. 2. The erosion control blanket proposed is recommended for use in environmentally sensitive areas with a slope of 3:1 and flatter. The existing and proposed disturbed areas are 1:1/2:1 slopes. Therefore, a higher grade blanket should be specified to protect the steep slopes. 3. The clearing limits and “no disturbed areas” should be delineated and protected with an orange construction fence. In addition, considerations of fines and restoration requirements for any violations or encroachments should be considered as conditions of approval. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman. Tom, could you maybe explain a little bit more about the higher grade blanket that was just referred to by the Water Keeper? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. There are, we’re on S-2. I’m sorry, we’re on S-3. I’ll change that number. There are two types of erosion control blanketing shown on the site. Anywhere that we expect channelized flow that is any directed water over the area, we have specified a heavy duty, it’s a straw fiber mixed with coconut fiber, it’s erosion control blanket. It’s very effective. It’s long lasting, and it does a great job where you have channelized flow. The remainder of the area we have used a, it’s just a straw blanket and it’s an SC-75. It’s a standard straw erosion control matting. It doesn’t stay there as long. It’s not intended for channelized flow, and I think there’s reference to that in the recommendations that Chris mentioned, but there are, the majority of the areas where that is utilized are flatter than one on three. There are two areas, just to the north of the house, where the edge of the wall slopes down to the front, or down to the front of the house, and that is a total length of about 10 feet, and there’s an area back by the holding tanks, another length of about 10 feet, that is significantly steeper than one on three, one on one and a half. He’s probably right. I didn’t put a different blanket there because it’s the length of 10 feet, and it is, there’s no channelized flow, and there’s no flow coming across it from above. Basically it has to handle the rainwater that lands on it, and I was very comfortable with the blanket we’ve specified, but if it makes a difference, I would gladly take the blanket in those two areas off the step. We’re talking about an area that is 10 by 25, and an area that is 10 by 15. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Are members comfortable moving forward? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think a Short Form was submitted with the application. MRS. STEFFAN-I always find that remarkable that you can have a Major Stormwater project and only have a Short Form. That defies logic sometimes. Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-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. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it could, but it’s being mitigated by the applicant. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say yes, and mitigated by the Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on your input, I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 46-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DEBARON ASSOCIATES, 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: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) 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 27 day of, October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-How do others feel about the comments that Don raised around stormwater controls for the gazebo and plantings around the gazebo? I’ve got to be honest, I didn’t focus too much on the gazebo itself when I was there on the site visits. I was looking more at the house issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s a non factor. It’s kind of stuck like out in the woods. I didn’t even consider it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s got grass around it. Yes. MR. KREBS-There is some vegetation around it. I remember the day you and I went up and looked at the site, but, you know, it’s been there for how many years? MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you’re going to put in stormwater controls for the shed, you’ve got to have stormwater controls for that gazebo because it’s the same thing. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s been there for 15 years at least, and it’s been functioning. MR. SIPP-Well, so has the shed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s been there a long time. The only concern that I had with regards to that is that once there’s a residence there, there’s going to be more people going in and out of it, and therefore there’ll be more, you know, the vegetation will be impacted around it, but it’s such a small impact, as compared with the controls that are in place that I felt that it was fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Are we all concerned, too, with the amount of fertilizer, you know, the regulations on fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides? MR. HUNSINGER-I see the applicant shaking her head. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I also know that it’s not an enforceable condition. So, you know, we’ve talked about this before. MR. TRAVER-I do think if the applicant is willing to increase the control matting in those additional areas, as they indicated they would, I think that will also be an improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-And that was where the slope exceeds one on three is that? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Now that’s just temporary erosion control matting. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. HUTCHINS-All right. That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-During construction. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How would that be termed? I mean, we’re talking about improving the quality of the matting. Is there a name or a number or a classification? MR. HUTCHINS-I could just double up the one that’s there. That would work, too. I would go to an S-150, which is double the material as an S-75. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re just going to fold it over, right? You’re going to have two layers instead of one. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, until you get into a situation where you have channelized flow, which is down here and over here, I’m not overly concerned about the fabric that we have. It’s more important that it gets looked at once in a while than it is what material it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other conditions? MR. TRAVER-There was the one discussion about if a path were to be added that it would be done on a diagonal. MRS. STEFFAN-And from my point of view, I mean, that’s another enforcement issue, and they wouldn’t have to come back with a permit. So if that’s done two years from now, we’re not going to know about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, there’s nothing shown on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Good point. MR. HUNSINGER-The only path shown on the plan is the existing steps. MR. TRAVER-So we’re only approving what’s there. MRS. STEFFAN-I had a question, Keith. A parking waiver? I saw that somewhere in the documents. No? MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, you are supposed to have two spaces, but I believe they show two spaces. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but you had it in your motion. Right? MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t apply at this point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s G. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. So we’ve got the erosion matting and we also have the Van Dusen & Steves change on that survey map. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 square foot single family dwelling and associated storm water controls. This proposal has been classified as a Major Storm water Project; Planning Board review and approval is required. 2)The Planning Board make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 7/21/09; the ZBA subsequently approved the application on 7/22/09, therefore a public hearing was advertised and held on 8/25/09; and 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A.According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four E, F, & G do not apply. B.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 C.The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and D.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; and E.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and F.NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and G.NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and H.NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests I.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff J.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. K.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff L.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] M.This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant correct the Van Dusen & Steves survey drawing labeled Sheet S-1 to denote Lot Four appropriately. It’s currently marked as a second Lot 15. 2.That the applicant will change the erosion control blankets on the two slope sections. The slope sections are 10 by 25 and 10 by 15. They will change to erosion control blanket S-150. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. PHILLIPS-Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2009 SEQR TYPE II JAMES WHITE AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 104 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANDING AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 54-09; BP 02-543 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/14/09 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 1.34 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-9 SECTION 179-9-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 53-2009 Applicant is James White. Requested action is expansion of a nonconforming use in a WR zone requires Site Plan Review Location 104 Seeley Road Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion of existing 480 square foot 17’-11” tall garage to a 1080 square foot 22’-10” garage in order to provide additional vehicle bay and overhead storage as part of an overall renovation and expansion of existing single family residence. Staff Comments: The Planning Board has issued a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this site plan. The applicant requests 6’-10” of relief from the 16 foot height restriction for accessory structures in the WR zone. Plan Review: There appears to be a portable garage and storage unit as part of the proposed site plan. The applicant has stated to staff during a site visit on September 29, 2009 that these units will be removed upon completion of the garage expansion. This appears to be an oversight on the site plan; however, clarification on the proposed status of these structures must be forthcoming. Will all garage roof water be directed to infiltration trench? Please clarify. And that is all I have, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. The Whites apologize they could not be here tonight. They had to travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for Beth White’s mother. As Staff stated, we do have a project that was approved for height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals last Wednesday night. There is an addition to the garage. We’re adding one bay to the existing garage, putting a new roof on the building as we had stated before that will more closely match the house. There is also a small addition on the west side of the house and a new entry cover that’s going in for an airlock type vestibule so that they don’t enter directly into the family room of the house. Outside of that, the portable garage and the storage unit are being removed once the garage portion is up. The roof water from the garage, the front is being channeled through gutters and downspouts on the eave into an infiltration trench under the ground, and the eaves off of the back drop directly into an eave trench, which is two feet deep and two feet wide. That is also the same on the back of the proposed addition to the house, the uphill side of the house. The front part of the house is existing and will remain as it is now. This is 1.3 acre lot, which is probably one of the larger lots up on Cleverdale that hasn’t already been built on. So, questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No, since we saw it for the recommendation last month. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Or last week. MR. HALL-Last week. MRS. STEFFAN-Last week. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HALL-A week ago tonight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That looks nice. He must have taken a little property on the left from his neighbor over there, that house that burned down. MR. HALL-Actually there was, at one point there was some discrepancy about where that line was, and between his surveyor and the surveyor for Mr. Marra, they’ve gotten that all squared away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I talked to Mr. Marra. He’s very happy with it. MR. HALL-Yes, with what’s going on up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments, unless there were written comments? MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I will make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2009 JAMES WHITE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes expanding an existing non-conforming detached garage in conjunction with proposed renovations and expansion of existing residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/27/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2009 JAMES WHITE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four E & F do not apply A.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 B.This application is a Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and C.Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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, 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and D.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and E.Not applicable. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and F.Not applicable. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and G.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff H.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. I.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff J.This is approved with the following condition: 1.That both the portable garage and storage unit will be removed upon completion of the garage expansion. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I have a discussion item. There was nothing in the plans about the infiltration that you mentioned. Can we just make sure that those are depicted on the final plans? MR. HALL-They’re done. No, it’s on the Site Plan Drawing C-2. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. HALL-There’s an infiltration trench that says proposed eaves trench, see detail, along the back, and along the front of the garage there is an infiltration trench and gutter for roof leaders. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry. MR. HALL-That’s okay, and the same along the back side of the house. There is also an indication for those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2009 SEQR TYPE II DARIUSZ & BOZENA JACKOWSKI AGENT(S) BRUCE FIFIELD OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR LOCATION BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A 3 +/- ACRE PARCEL. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF A PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 5-09; SB 14-06, SP 34-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/14/09 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 3 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-73.2 SECTION 179-9-010 BRUCE FIFIELD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 53-2009 Dariusz and Bozena Jackowski Requested Action is Site Plan Review because it was a condition of previous subdivision approval. Location is Bay Road. Existing zoning is RR-3A. SEQRA Status is Type II, no further SEQRA review required. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of single family residence. Site Plan Review is required as a condition of a previous subdivision approval. Staff Comments: The Vision Engineering letter dated 2/11/2009 submitted by the applicant dealt with Sub 5-2008 which the Planning Board approved (see attached resolution) and not this site plan. Vision Engineering did provide sign-off for the stormwater controls proposed for the subdivision portion of the project. Both of these parcels will each need site plan review prior to issuance of a building permit per the condition of approval. Both parcels reside in the Lake George CEA, that’s Critical Environmental Area, specifically the far eastern portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to build on the northern lot. All I have, basically, is under Additional Comments, I do want to point to the application itself. Impermeable Area calculation on Page Three will need to be updated, specifically the driveway calculation, I believe that that has been updated at this point. Additional Comments: Under the Stormwater Considerations heading on Page 2 of plot plan, the proposed impervious square footage should be revised from 5890 SF to 6480 SF. Note: Volume provided for Pond A on Lot 1A calculated correctly. The applicant is required to submit a Stormwater Pollution Preventative Plan or SWPPP when more than one (1) acre of disturbance is anticipated. Although it appears that the amount of disturbance for Lot 1 is less than 1 acre, the total disturbance for both lots will exceed one acre. Further, it can be anticipated that Lot 1B will have additional clearing associated with its development, ensuring more than one acre will be disturbed. See Staff for guidance if necessary, and I put that on there because you need to direct them to do that, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. FIFIELD-I’m Bruce Fifield. DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI MR. JACKOWSKI-I’m the owner, Darius Jackowski. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add or any additional information you want to provide to the Board? MR. FIFIELD-I believe the impervious calculations was improved when I recalculated it. That’s been taken care of, and we had it surveyed for the ground disturbance, and at this present time his daughter doesn’t know for sure when she’s going to do Lot B, I guess it is. It could be two, three years from now. So it would be hard for us to calculate the clearing and stuff for that. That’s down the road. We’re only calculating right now what the owner’s doing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. OBORNE-He is correct. I read that, and I do have complete in my own words. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-As far as the permeability numbers, they have been changed? MR. OBORNE-It was updated. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Is it easier to do a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan now and not have to do it three years from now, with, you know, regulations change, and. MR. OBORNE-Well, who knows if regulations are going to change. MRS. STEFFAN-I right. MR. HUNSINGER-I would say would count on that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. OBORNE-It is required for a disturbance of one acre or more. Now the applicant owns both lots, and that is my concern. I would prefer to see a SWPPP generated because there will be more than one acre of disturbance combined on the two lots. With that said, again, that needs to be directed by the Board. As far as ease, it’s not difficult to fill out a SWPPP. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but it’s a static form. MR. OBORNE-It is a static form. Yes, ma’am. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MRS. STEFFAN-Obviously it wasn’t submitted to VISION Engineering, but the Staff has looked at it. They only have a couple of concerns. We’ve looked at it before, and so I think it could be approved tonight with two conditions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the florist shop is over to the left side of it as you’re looking on it? Is that what, there’s a little driveway that goes in there. That’s not involved in there. That’s not involved in these lots. Is it? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I have pictures of it and I could show you. MR. FIFIELD-Where the old log header was? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. FIFIELD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s on the plans. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s just past it, right? MR. OBORNE-Bruce, I could put these up. That’s up by the front, that’s by the main entrance, I believe, the entrance that you’re going to be using. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. OBORNE-That’s the road, I believe, that leads to the log header right there. That’s on their lot that they’re planning on building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s on their lot. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s already been cleared. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. I can see that. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think what you’re thinking of, Paul, is to the south, the green house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean over here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought there was a driveway over here that went down into a florist shop or something down in there. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s farther down the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s farther down the road? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no commentors. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is also a Type II action. You said there were two conditions. What were the two? MRS. STEFFAN-Plot plan change according to the Staff Notes, the stormwater considerations, they had to change the square footage number, and then the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2009 DARIUSZ & BOZENA JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling on a 3+/- acre parcel. Site Plan Review is required as a condition of a previous subdivision approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/27/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2009 DARIUSZ & BOZENA JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four E & F do not apply. No waivers. A. 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 B. This application is a Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and C. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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 D. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and E. Not applicable. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and F. Not applicable. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and I. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff J. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) K. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff This is approved with the following two conditions: L. 1.That plot plan Page Two under stormwater considerations should be change. The proposed impervious square footage should be revised from 5,890 square feet to 6,480 square feet. 2.The applicant will submit a stormwater pollution prevention plan. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. JACKOWSKI-Thank you. MR. FIFIELD-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED G.A. BOVE & SONS, INC. AGENT(S) HARLAN-MC GEE OF NORTH AMERICA OWNER(S) TAYLOR WELDING SUPPLY CO., INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION 22 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL 30,000 GALLON LIQUID PROPANE TANK AND 8’ SECURITY FENCE. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 19-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/14/09 LOT SIZE 1.2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19- 1-47 SECTION 179-9-010 WAYNE CLAIRMONT, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN BOVE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 56-2009, G.A. Bove and Sons, Inc. Site Plan Review for commercial expansion in a Commercial Light Industrial zone. Location is 22 Lower Warren Street Existing Zoning, as mentioned before, is Commercial Light Industrial. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes to install 30,000 gallon liquid propane tank and 8’ security fence. Commercial Expansion requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: A nearly identical project, Site Plan 19-2007, was approved on April 26, 2007 by this board. The applicant has not applied for a building permit within the required 1 year time frame from site plan approval and is now before the board seeking a separate approval. I do have some comments. One being that a final plan shall be sealed by a licensed P.E. Additional Comments: Ground level equipment, such as dumpsters and loading docks, shall be screened so as not to be visible from public view. Screening shall consist of landscaping, natural material walls, fencing, or other design treatments compatible with the finish of the principle building. Two, the applicant has requested a waiver from stormwater due to the minor scope of the project; however, staff notes that the applicant states in the response to Standards for Site Plan Approval letter D that a stormwater plan has been submitted. I would like clarification on that, and attached are Fire Marshal comments. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. BOVE-Yes. My name is John Bove. I’m a partner of G.A. Bove and Sons fuels. MR. CLAIRMONT-I’m Wayne Clairmont with Harlan-McGee. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. CLAIRMONT-He pretty much covered it. The application is to install a 30,000 gallon liquid propane tank, used for transferring propane to delivery vehicles that will be servicing Queensbury and the greater surrounding area. The site was previously approved April 26, 2007. When the project was previously approved, it was requested that the tank be turned. We did that in this plan. We turned the tank so that it’s perpendicular to the road rather than parallel with it. The area proposed for the tank is a 5,000 square foot area. It’ll have an eight foot high security fence. Gravel paving is proposed for the delivery truck area for the gravel paving is 990 square feet. Additional porous pea stone maintenance surface will be put down in the area where they do the hook ups for the hose and where the pump will be, and those kind of things. The project is a conforming use in a Commercial Light Industrial zone. To the north, east, and west are industrial and commercial uses, Taylor Welding Supply occupies the adjacent property. The project is on Taylor Welding Supply property. It’s a leased piece of property that G.A. Bove will be installing their tank on, and that’s about it. The adjacent land uses. Taylor Welding Supply to the west. To the east and northeast is a vacant lot, and JBAP auto wrecking yard. Lower Warren Street is to the south, and beyond that is the Feeder Canal. The nearest residential property is about 500 feet away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the reason for the delay? I must have missed that? From ’07 until now? MR. CLAIRMONT-Well, this is a different company. We’re G.A. Bove, and Taylor Welding Supply originally was approved. Now this is a little bit different situation, but it’s the same, you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Taylor still owns it, but yes, right. I’ve got it. MR. CLAIRMONT-The same use, same application. Taylor still owns the property. G.A. Bove will be leasing this part of it and operating the tank. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve got it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? That was my main question is why the project wasn’t started before. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I can remember we had quite a discussion on this project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. We did. They’ve got to get a final inspection from the Fire Marshal. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess the only issue that comes up, based on the Staff Notes, is that the security fencing, it seems, should be bumped up. I understand the need for gravel. I mean, we did do an extensive Site Plan Review on this the last time it came in, and there’s proposed gravel in front of the tank between Warren Street and the tank itself, but the Code does require that it be screened in some way. So instead of just having chain link fence, maybe chain link with covers, or, you know, they have inserts. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. MR. OBORNE-They do have what are called link slates that you stick in, and it would probably take them about six hours to put them in. So, and that certainly would be sufficient if the Board is happy with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Plus it doesn’t leave it exposed, in case somebody wants to fool with it. MR. CLAIRMONT-That can be done. MRS. STEFFAN-And you wouldn’t have to change the construction of the fence. It would just be putting, what’s it called, Keith, slats? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’re slats, link slats. MR. HUNSINGER-Link slats. MR. TRAVER-They fit into links? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They go right through. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-They’re typically green. So they’ll blend in with the background. MRS. STEFFAN-And the situation with the stormwater. You requested a waiver, but initially there was a plan. MR. BOVE-Was that the application? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it just states in the application. MR. BOVE-When I originally did the application, I was envisioning that we were going to go over the 1,000 square foot threshold, but kept revising the plan and got it under the 1,000, and I missed, I didn’t change my application. MR. OBORNE-And that’s fine. I was just looking for clarification on that. I do, ma’am, there was an issue during my plan review as far as National Grid. Have you approached them? Are they allowing you to put the light on there? Because that’s National Grid property. Just want to let you be apprised of that. MR. CLAIRMONT-The light would be on Taylor Welding. MR. OBORNE-Right, but the pole is a Grid pole. MR. CLAIRMONT-We have not contacted National Grid. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and also, as far as the erosion control into the woods. I think, if the Board would, direct the applicant to extend that silt fencing into the woods because they will be clearing that. MR. CLAIRMONT-Yes. We have no issues with that, no problem with that. The only thing I do want to add to that is that we may end up clear cutting less. After seeing the note and looking at the plan, we may clear cut a little bit less, but whatever we do clear cut, where any disturbance, we will make sure that the silt fence is outside of that. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and the reason for that is, are you downsizing the fencing or? MR. BOVE-Not downsizing, but when I read it and I looked here, I could see where maybe I showed a little bit too much clear cutting. So we may reduce that, but whatever we disturb we will, it will be inside the silt fence, and I will revise the drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-So, I have two conditions. I have the slats for the fence, and then to extend the silt fencing for the erosion control. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Those are the only two. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Before you go too far, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and since there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the input, I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: G.A. BOVE & SONS, INC., 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 27 day of, October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-We do. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2009 G.A. BOVE & SONS, 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: Applicant proposes to install 30,000 gallon liquid propane tank and 8’ security fence. Commercial expansion in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/27/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2009 G.A. BOVE & SONS, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, Negative Declaration. Paragraph E, F, & H do not apply. A. 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 B. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and C. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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 D. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and E. Not applicable. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and F. Not applicable. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and H. Not applicable. Waiver requests I. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff J. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. K. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff L. This is approved with two conditions. 1.That the applicant will add dark green link slats on the chain link fencing to satisfy the requirements of Town Code 179-8-080 C. 2.The applicant will extend the silt fencing into the wood for erosion control purposes. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set. MR. CLAIRMONT-Thank you. MR. BOVE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Okay. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2009, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/09) NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 26