Loading...
2010.06.15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 36-2010 Sean & Karen Flanagan 1. RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-7 TO ZBA Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 4. RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 TO ZBA Site Plan No. 12-2010 William Crowell 7. RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-59 TO ZBA Subdivision No. 7-2010 Meredith Kerr 10. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1 Site Plan No. 22-2010 Mike Ringer 12. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-11 Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 17. Tax Map No.289.14-1-28 Subdivision No. 4-2010 Robert Wing 21. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 279.17-160 Site Plan No. 41-2010 RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Site Plan No. 34-2010 Capital Region Properties 31. Tax Map No. 252.-1-75.1 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 06/15/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on th Tuesday, June 15, 2010. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 20 and th April 27, 2010. TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 20 TH AND APRIL 27, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda, there are three items for Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: AV 22-10/SP 36-10: SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN: VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SITE PLAN: CONVERSION OF DOCK WITH PITCHED ROOF TO A DOCK WITH A 700 SQ. FT. SUNDECK ED FITZGERALD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Application is Site Plan 36-2010 and Area Variance 22-2010 for Sean and Karen Flanagan. Requested Action is recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. This is a dock boathouse in a WR zone and it requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 150 Lake Parkway. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is SEQRA Type II for both Site Plan and Area Variance. Project Description: Applicant proposes to modify a pre-existing, non- conforming dock with pitched roof to a pre-existing, non-conforming dock with a 700 sq. ft. sundeck. Staff Comments: This application is not eligible for expedited review per the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Bylaws and Policies & Procedures due to the non-conforming nature of the project. The dock/boathouse currently does not meet the 20 foot north side setback requirement and the modification from a pitched roof superstructure to a sundeck will require side setback relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Nature of Variance: There is a correction to this. It is actually, I believe, nine or 8.1 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot setback structure. There was an issue with the measurements on the survey as to where they were supposed to go to. What follows is the Code reference. Everything else with this is okay, as far as the height from the mean high water mark. There’s no facilities for sleeping or cooking or sanitary facilities, and one other addendum would be the Planning Board may wish to 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) direct the applicant to enhance shoreline plantings, as has been (lost word) recently, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Good evening. MR. FITZGERALD-Good evening. I’m Ed Fitzgerald from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum in Glens Falls, on behalf of Sean and Karen Flanagan, the owners of the property. Their property is on the west side of Assembly Point. Currently on the waterfront property there’s a boathouse with a pitched roof. This boathouse is lawfully nonconforming in nature because it does not meet the 20 foot setback from the north side property line. The applicant seeks to remove the pitched roof on the boathouse and replace it with a sundeck. The sundeck they propose would actually be smaller in size than the pitched roof that is currently there, but nevertheless it would be still within the 20 foot setback. It would be located 11 feet 9 inches from the north side property line, with a 20 foot setback required. In their Area Variance they are requesting eight foot three inches of relief in the Area Variance. You’ll notice, as Keith pointed out, that the setback request actually differs from what we submitted on the plan. There’s been no change to what we proposed to construct. It was only a question of where the measurement was from, from the, as submitted on the plans you have, the measurement was from the north side property line to the edge of the boathouse. After speaking with Craig Brown this afternoon, Zoning Administrator, and Keith Oborne, Planner, we confirmed that the measurement should actually, in fact, be to the edge of the proposed sundeck where the railing would be, therefore making it 11 feet 9 inches, or 8 foot 3 inches of relief. As I mentioned, the plans we submitted are what we propose to build. Briefly, I’d like to go through the balancing of the equities test that the Zoning Board will apply in this case, the five part test, the first element of which is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or whether a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the Area Variance. On the property to the north, there’s a dock with a covered sundeck that sits 12 feet from the northern property line, similar to this one. It’s also lawfully nonconforming, and that is actually 90 feet from the applicant’s dock on the south side. There is also an open dock, 110 feet from the applicant’s dock. So you can see there’s no issue of overcrowding of docks in this area. Furthermore, the existing pitched roof is actually larger in size than the sundeck that is proposed, and the proposed sundeck will have no adverse effects on the aesthetics of the adjacent parcels, because both side lines are tree lined, and to the extent that you could even see the boathouse from the property to the north, you’re probably, in fact, improving the view by cutting the pitched roof off and turning it into a sundeck that you’d be able to see through. The second element is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area Variance. In this case, it’s unreasonable and impractical for the applicant to re-locate it’s entire lawfully nonconforming dock in order to construct the proposed sundeck. The cost to build the sundeck with the existing dock is $74,000. To move all the cribbing and dock in order to build the sundeck so it conforms would cost $189,000 per Elite Docks. This is a 61% difference, two and a half times the current project expense. Purchasing property from the north parcel is not feasible to solve the setback problem, as that parcel currently has a lawfully nonconforming shoreline frontage of 131 feet, and in a zone that requires 150 feet. Therefore there is no alternative that is feasible to the applicant. The third item, whether the requested variance is substantial, I’ll just point out that our applicant is only seeking one variance, in this case they’re seeking and 8 foot 3 inch variance or 40% variance, replacement of a pitched roof on a grandfathered boathouse through a sundeck in essentially the exact same location. In the abstract, it could appear that the variance is substantial. However, considering that the roof already exists in the same location, we feel that this request is fairly insignificant of a request. The fourth element, will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We say no, there will be no effect to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The parcel is not a view shed parcel on Lake George, and it will fit into the character and purpose of the neighborhood. As I mentioned, the property to the north already has a boathouse with a deck. The last element in the balancing test, is the alleged difficulty self-created. I’ll only point out that this consideration should be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals when they weigh it, but it shall not preclude the granting of an Area Variance. The entire dock system was constructed prior to the requirements for size and setbacks for boathouses and docks. Thus, the location of this dock was inherited by the applicants, the Flanagans. In order to make the least disturbance to the lake, our applicants propose just simply replacing one roof with another roof, instead of moving the whole cribbing farther down the lake. After going through the balancing test, we feel strongly that the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-How did you calculate that this is smaller than the current roof? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. FITZGERALD-The current roof actually extends, basically covers most of the dock. It’s about 26 feet or so, and the proposed sundeck is only 20 feet, 22 feet. MR. FORD-And that goes to the edge of the new roof? It’ll actually be at the bottom of the sundeck? That will extend out from the sundeck? FRANK DENARDO MR. DENARDO-It’ll be another 18 inches on each side. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, 18 inches. It’s a 20 foot sundeck with 18 inches, 18 inch eaves on that side. MR. OBORNE-Just for clarification, we do not count that 18 inches. We go right to the railing, when we’re figuring out what relief is needed for a sundeck. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn’t we approve this deck already, and now they just want to put a sundeck on it? MR. OBORNE-No, this is the first time you’ve seen it, at least under my tenure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought this project was, I thought the dock renovation was before us a while back? MR. DENARDO-No. One similar to that with me. Maybe that’s where you got it from. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe, yes, okay. MRS. STEFFAN-For the record, the second voice on the tape is Frank Denardo. MR. DENARDO-Frank Denardo. Yes, I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? Would anyone like to make a, we don’t have a public hearing with these. MR. OBORNE-No public hearing, no. MRS. STEFFAN-You will be back on the agenda, and I’m assuming that during Site Plan you’ll be ready to address the enhanced shoreline plantings, when you come back? MR. FITZGERALD-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-I think we should recommend that there be an increase in the shoreline buffer. There is a series of plantings about in the middle of the lot, and there are some trees on the north corner which are very mature trees, but I think the south end needs a little more buffering material in it. MR. FITZGERALD-We’ll discuss that proposal with the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a Site Plan Review issue. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else related to the zoning request, variance request? Would you like to put forward a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2010 FOR SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2010 FOR SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - The Planning Board based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. FITZGERALD-Thank you very much. MR. DENARDO-Thank you. MR. KREBS-On the application, is that 799 square feet correct? The minimum dock surface area. MR. DENARDO-The pre-existing dock. MR. OBORNE-The pre-existing, right. MR. KREBS-The existing dock is 907 feet, but it says proposed 799. MR. DENARDO-The dock was hit by ice this past year, and when we rebuilt the dock from the ice damage, we actually made the dock smaller. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DENARDO-So we decreased its size. MR. KREBS-Because it says proposed 799. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, that’s as to the dock. MR. DENARDO-Yes, that had to go into the information. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, that doesn’t have to do with the actual, the sundeck, the square footage, though, is the dock. MR. KREBS-Right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. DENARDO-We changed those numbers after the ice damage, and we re-conformed into new style cribbing. MR. KREBS-Fine. I just wanted to make sure the number was correct in the application. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, that is the existing. MR. DENARDO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. AV 26-10/SP 39-10: INWALD ENTERPRISES: VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SITE PLAN: BOATHOUSE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) REVIEW AND APPROVAL STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 39-2010 and Area Variance 26-2010, Inwald Enterprises. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Again, boathouses in the Waterfront Residential zone require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 38 Gunn Lane. The existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. Again, this is a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with 693 square foot sundeck accessed by 58 foot linear foot long handicap ramp above two pre-existing, non-conforming docks. Staff Comments: This application, again, is not eligible for expedited review as there is an Area Variance associated with this. The nature of the variance: The applicant will need 20 feet of north side setback relief for the portion of the sundeck totally within the 20 foot setback requirement, per 179-5-060. Additionally, 6 feet of additional relief above and beyond the 20 foot relief sought for that portion of the sundeck that extends beyond or negatively into the side setback perpendicular to the shoreline per §179-5-060. Site Plan, again, the boathouse does not exceed the 16 foot maximum height requirement. As designed, there are no facilities for sleeping, cooking, or sanitary issues, and again, shoreline plantings may wish to be explored by the Planning Board, and with that I’d turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter on behalf of Inwald Enterprises. We’re here this evening seeking the Planning Board’s recommendations for a variance to modify the existing docking system to actually add the 693 square foot sundeck, together with a handicapped ramp, which would be 58 feet in length. Due to the layout of the shoreline, I took some pictures for your assistance today. Due to the layout of the shoreline, there’s no actual compliant location to construct a dock on this lot. Setbacks are required not only from the north side, or setback variances required from the north side as well as the south side, at this location. This addition is actually being requested due to the current disabilities of the owners. I don’t know if any of you were able to go to the site today, or any days prior to it, but the grade of the site is difficult to walk down for someone wearing heels, or anyone else, but the current disabilities of the individuals are back issues. In addition to walking down to the dock, they have difficulty covering the boat. So the sundeck would obviously allow them that coverage to the boat, as well as the availability to sit on the sundeck and enjoy the lake. So when we look at that factor, together with the balancing test that obviously the Zoning Board will be looking at, we feel that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist in the community. Looking at the first element, would there be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? If you’ve been to the site, you’ll realize that this site is surrounded by sundecks. So it would be very similar to the other sundecks located there. Keith was nice enough to put on pictures that demonstrates what’s located to the south. I counted approximately five in the immediate vicinity. Specifically the properties located to the south actually have a similar ramp that we’re requesting. The second element, is there another feasible method? No, unfortunately not, because as I mentioned before, due to the layout of the shoreline, there’s really not a compliant location which would allow the applicants to proceed with no variances being necessary for a dock system. The third element, should it be deemed substantial? Due to the factors that I’ve described, we don’t think this is a substantial request because of the unique layout of the lot and the fact that there’s other sundecks in this immediate vicinity. Again, no adverse effects on the community because of those reasons, and we don’t believe it should be deemed self-created because it’s a pre-existing nonconforming structure that we’re just simply modifying. The County did have an opportunity to review this, and at that time they also did have a discussion about screening vegetation due to the ramp that we were requesting, and the applicant is willing to obviously explore that with the Planning Board at the Site Plan meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. OBORNE-Quick point of clarification. I do want to correct counsel on a comment that she made. There is no south setback relief required. MS. BITTER-I apologize. MR. OBORNE-It’s only north setback relief. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Obviously that boathouse to the north is grandfathered. It’s never been before this Board. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. OBORNE-Yes. MS. BITTER-But no structure on the top is being requested. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It fell out of the sky. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of the things I noticed during the site visit is electricity, and I didn’t see any lighting plan or anything. Are there any plans to put lights out? MS. BITTER-Not that I’m aware of, but I can have that answered for you for the next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I don’t know if we’ve actually ever reviewed, we’ve had requests for land bridges before, but never a handicap ramp. So this is a little unusual for the Board to consider. MR. OBORNE-It is interesting, because per handicap requirements, you have to have a certain pitch, and they meet it just right on. that’s why it’s so long. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. I’m sure that was why, but it’s not a right to be able to go to a sundeck, though. It’s not like a handicap ramp for a house or a garage or a public buildings. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You know it’s really by Site Plan Review. So it’s not, you know, required. MS. BITTER-Right, but everybody should be able to enjoy the lake. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and in my recollection, yes, but land bridges have been discouraged in the past, from my experience on the Board here. So it was kind of interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Can you help us out with that issue by elaborating a bit more? I mean, is there or are there wheelchairs involved? You said there was a back issue. MS. BITTER-The actual disabilities that I was advised, which I apologize, I can’t pronounce the actual disability, but he has a fused back, and the other individual has osteoporosis and degenerated disk. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. BITTER-But as mentioned, we understand that the aesthetics of it is going to obviously be a concern, and we’re ready to work with the vegetation screening that’s necessary. MR. KREBS-But I was there today, and on the south side, there’s a lot of vegetation already. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-And there’s quite a bit of vegetation on the north side. So I don’t know how much more vegetation you’re going to need, but you can see the vegetation along the south side, and all the way along the north side there seems to be quite a bit of vegetation also. MS. BITTER-Right, that’s actually the view from the property to the south. MR. KREBS-Okay. MS. BITTER-The view to the north is the little pop up camper sundeck. MR. HUNSINGER-And the ramp is not part of the variance request. MS. BITTER-Right. That’s part of the Site Plan obviously we’ll discuss that. MR. KREBS-Just a thought. In other places where these have come up in other towns and so forth, a lot of them have been granted for the duration of the need, and that may be something you might want to think about. MS. BITTER-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. KREBS-Well, maybe the length is different, but it’s not unusual on Lake George to find ramps from the ground to sundecks. MS. BITTER-Right, and that’s why I took that picture to the south. MR. OBORNE-I’ve seen some that are up 30 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I would imagine, though, a ramp like that is very expensive, and the thought of taking it down at some point in the future would be cost prohibitive. I don’t know, but we can explore it in Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously we’ll want to talk about waterfront buffers as well. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else related to the zoning request? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll put forward a resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2010 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2010 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - The Planning Board based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. AV 25-10/SP 12-10 WILLIAM CROWELL: VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK & FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE BRIAN HOGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. OBORNE-The notes are as follows for the pre-mentioned Site Plan and Area Variance. The applicant is William Crowell. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application and potential impacts. Location is 20 Holly Lane. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This, again, is a SEQR Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion of an existing 1.5 story year round home to include expansion to the existing kitchen, office/den, second story, and the addition of a wraparound porch on the north and west side of home. Further, applicant proposes to replace existing wooden deck with a permeable patio and the construction of two retaining walls adjacent to the shoreline. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA, which means Critical Environmental Area, and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant is proposing 550 square feet of total expansion to an existing 3,061 square foot pre-existing non-conforming single family home. Shoreline buffering is proposed as well as stormwater controls in the form of eave trenches on the west side and infiltration trenches to the north and under the proposed patio. As this has been determined to be a Minor Project under Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, relief for infiltration devices within 100 feet of a shoreline is not necessary. Nature of variances: 353 square feet of Floor Area Ratio relief requested from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio of 3,258 square feet for this parcel, as per 179-3-040. The total proposed FAR for this parcel is 3,611 square feet. Second variance request, 28 linear feet of shoreline setback relief requested from the 50 foot requirement per 179-3-040 for the proposed patio. Final relief requested is for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA for that portion of the home to be expanded within the 50 foot shoreline setback. The expansion of the structure begins 15 feet into the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement. What follows is Site Plan Review, which will be taken up next week, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOGAN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. HOGAN-Sure. My name is Brian Hogan, and next to me is Bill Crowell, the owner of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. HOGAN-Not so much. Keith did a very, very good job in explaining the project. I mean, basically what we’re doing is we’re adding, expanding two bedrooms upstairs in an existing structure, adding a bathroom, and we’re modifying the roof on the family room, which is on the front of the structure, basically to increase the pitch a little bit to give it better ring, and the other main project that occurs within the setback is the addition of stormwater controls. What we’re proposing is 100% management of stormwater through a permeable patio, which will take care of everything, the sheet flow coming off of the front of the roof, and then we have a couple of trenches on the north side, and the west side, which take care of the other runoff. Would you guys like me to go through this whole thing about desirable, undesirable? I mean, I could do that if you want? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s for the Zoning Board. MR. HOGAN-Okay. We’ll leave that out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have anything else before I open it up for questions? MR. HOGAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I think, you know, when I went and looked at it today, I was thinking that they should put a patio there, and the fact that it’s permeable, because right now the downspouts come down and just go right onto the ground, right into the lake. MR. HOGAN-Correct. MR. KREBS-That’s a major improvement. MR. SIPP-Is that walkway going to change, or is that going to remain the same, the walkway down to lake? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HOGAN-Part of the walkway, the existing walkway is going to remain. Basically what happens is the part that comes up, did you look at the property? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HOGAN-Yes, where it comes up from the lake, that part is going to remain intact. It makes a turn and goes back, and then will actually go underneath the proposed covered porch. At that point, that walkway will be removed, and then the part that’s existing, that goes back up to the garage is proposed to remain. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a good flow path from the house down to the lake. If that walk stays as it is, it’s non-permeable. Water’s just going to run down that like a waterfall. MR. HOGAN-On the slight part of the, if you look at the stormwater plan, what you can see is that we’re proposing to mitigate some of that, is there’s a lower wall. We’re proposing some terracing. So basically what we’re going to do is to prevent it from coming down, the whole land comes down like this currently. We’re going to flatten that out a little bit, and then have a small terraced walk probably about a foot high that’s going to take care of that. The other part of the walk that’s remaining, actually the walk also tilts to the north a little bit, and directly to the north of that is one of the infiltration trenches. So it’s going to mitigate the flow from that as well. BILL CROWELL MR. CROWELL-So that particular spot that you’re talking about, there is an infiltration trench that’s built in there. So it’ll flow right in there. MR. SIPP-Two feet down the slope from there, there’s nothing. It just runs right down the walkway. MR. CROWELL-Yes. I think that there’s also a tree and there’s, you know, a bunch of trees right along the side, but I think the infiltration, at least the calculations that we have from the engineer, indicate that this trench will leave us with no stormwater impact. MR. KREBS-I have a question on the drawing. It says permeable pavers, and it has an arrow to the deck, but then it says slab, and over under the umbrella it says slab. Usually that means concrete slab. MR. HOGAN-No, no. It’s not a concrete slab. Are you looking at? MR. KREBS-I’m looking at Number Three. MR. HOGAN-Yes, you’re looking at the plot plan. That’s, the detail for the stormwater is on a separate stormwater plan which you should have a copy of, but that’s not a slab. MR. KREBS-I just wanted to make sure. MR. HOGAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the stormwater plan, and I’m a little confused between the Staff comments and the engineering comments. Under the patio, you have listed proposed infiltration trench device number one, and there’s also a proposed infiltration trench device number four. Those are both under the patio. MR. HOGAN-Right. There’s two infiltration trenches. MR. HUNSINGER-So those are not considered infiltration for purposes of infiltration trenches within 100 feet of the lake? MR. OBORNE-Sure they are, but only for major projects do infiltration trenches within 100 feet require an Area Variance from the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is considered a minor project. Now, just to clarify a little bit more, because I do need to talk to Clark about it, is that for a minor project, you can’t infiltrate water from a road, or from disturbed land into an infiltration device within 100 feet of the shoreline. If there’s no road water coming off to these infiltration devices, then it’s a minor project. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from the Board? Do members have concerns with the zoning request, variance request? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forth a resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2010 FOR WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2010 FOR WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - The Planning Board based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. CROWELL-Thank you. MR. HOGAN-Thanks, guys. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW MEREDITH KERR AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR LOCATION 212 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.49 +/- ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.23 & 0.26 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE A.V. PENDING, SUB 15-99 LOT SIZE 0.49 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-69.1 SECTION CHAPTER A183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Application Subdivision 7-2010. Meredith Kerr is the applicant. Subdivision of land requiring Planning Board review and approval. This is at 212 Sherman Avenue. This is Neighborhood Residential is the existing zoning. The SEQR Status is an Unlisted SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 0.49 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 0.23 & 0.26 acres. Staff Comments: This application will require relief for both proposed lots from the Zoning Board of Appeals for lot size as the requirement for the Neighborhood Residential District is 0.5 acres per parcel if not connected to both public water and sewer. Please note that the parcel is served by public water only. Additional Comments: The applicant is seeking waivers from topo and sketch/drainage plan, and location map denotes properties within 500 feet of subdivision boundary line shall be submitted with Preliminary Stage application, and with that, this is at subdivision at this point, at Sketch Plan. Get through Sketch Plan and Preliminary submittal will come in, and that’s when you’ll see this again for a recommendation. So, at this point, we’re just at Sketch to give the applicant some direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Meredith Kerr who is at the table with me. Again, briefly, this is for a two lot subdivision on the south side of Sherman Avenue, bordering on the west side of Harris Street. We did submit a location plan with the Sketch Plan. I believe you did have that cover sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. I know it says at Preliminary, but we did have that. This is to accommodate a new single family lot to the south of the existing home that is there on a 10,000 square foot lot, and leaving the existing home on an 11,000. If you could look at the location map, even though the requirement in this district is the half acre minimum, it is fairly consistent with the lot sizes in that subdivision. If anybody’s been over on that end of the Town of Queensbury, they’re predominately 7500 to 10,000 square foot lots, as you can see on that location map. So we’re now, and as Staff has stated, it is for a Sketch Plan. The area is what we need the variance for. The lot width requirements, 50 feet can be accommodated, and the setbacks can be accommodated. There was a question as far as the soil types in this area by Staff. It’s predominantly sandy soils in this area. We have no objections to performing a test pit or a perc test if it’s the wish of this Board before we move forward. There were some new homes that were just built just to the south of this property by Pace Builders just a few years ago. Test pits were done at that property, and again, it was all pure, you know, Queensbury western sand, fine to medium sands, and there was no issue of groundwater involved with those, but again, if the wishes of this Board were to have another one done, we’d have no objections to that. MR. HUNSINGER-They don’t drain too fast. MR. STEVES-In that area, I guess they may need to be modified because they’re right around the three minute, maybe just under, so there may have to be some modification to slow that down a little bit, yes. I would not disagree with that at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But that would be mandated during the building permit process, right, you have to present that, and then they’ll let you know whether you have to modify the soil? MR. STEVES-Correct, and the reason we asked for the waiver on the topography and the grading plan, it’s, you know, one lot, new building lot, and if you were there, I don’t think, if I put contours on it, I’d have to show probably half to a quarter foot in order to show more than one contour on the property, but again, you know, we’re not objected to that at all, but it is, very, very flat, and I’d open it up for any comments from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments, questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s pretty straightforward, and it is consistent with the lot sizes in the area. So I don’t really see any issues. Also knowing that the soils would have to be modified for a septic. MR. STEVES-I mean, we would definitely have to go through that at the building stage, regardless. MR. KREBS-There’s no sense doing it in advance. He’s going to have to do it again anyway. MR. STEVES-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Any Staff issues, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Short of the Area Variance that’s needed, but, no, there’s no Staff issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-Again, like I say, we understand about the Area Variance, but as far as being in conformance with the general neighborhood, we believe that there’s no question that it is. So we just want to, one step at a time, move forward to the Zoning Board and then come back to you. MRS. STEFFAN-And since we are at Sketch, would the Planning Board be inclined, when we see it again, to grant waivers for topography, grading, and drainage, since this is a fairly flat lot? MR. FORD-Yes. Agreed. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s a wise thing to do is put them on notice that they don’t need to do that. I will say that the protocol is, once Preliminary is in, you have to go through SEQR, issue the recommendation, and then you go to the Zoning Board, and then it’s back to you guys for Preliminary and Final. I’ll recommend that we do Preliminary and Final on the same night. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t. MR. FORD-Good. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you soon. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Old Business. Actually the next four projects all have public hearings scheduled. On the back table, if anybody in the audience has not already picked up an agenda, there is an agenda. There is also a handout for public information. The purpose of the public hearing is for neighbors and interested parties to make comments on projects. Any comments made during the public hearing should be addressed to the Board. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 22-2010 SEQR TYPE II MIKE RINGER AGENT(S) MATT STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MAIN STREET LOCATION 104 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 2,650 +/- SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL ALTERATION FOR A PAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 10-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE 0.32 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-11 SECTION 179-9-010 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 22-2010. Mike Ringer is the applicant. Requested action is office in the Main Street zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 104 Main Street is the location. Existing zoning is Main Street. This is a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes 2,650 sq. ft. commercial alteration for a Pain Management office and associated site work. I’m not sure if the Planning Board remembers this application. It was before us a few months ago. It had some issues that needed to be clarified. They have been clarified for the most part. I won’t go through Site Plan Review. The only issue that I have from the previous Site Plan Review would be the location of snow storage, and I don’t think that’s a big issue at all. Under additional comments, I do want to point out that the proposed 20 foot wide interconnect with the lands of Demas to the east should be denoted on the property line and not on the adjacent properties land. It’s not a big issue. As site flows one way, sign details should forthcoming, and build to line fencing location should be a little clearer on the plan to include length and location, and that’s really about it, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Michael Ringer on this application, and Mike Ringer is here with me as well. Again, I wasn’t involved with this at the last meeting. I believe that, subsequent to that now we are, I have, if you, in your file, I did submit three sheets, which would be an existing conditions plan. We went out and did a full survey of the property, instead of you just having the sketch. You know exactly what is there, and then the second sheet will be a proposed conditions, I believe with all the information that this Board had requested and Staff had suggested on there, and a third sheet that we had submitted is the sign detail and the sidewalk detail that was requested. The comment from the Staff, as far as going to the east, the proposed interconnect, we show that cross hatched area, and Keith is right. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) We’re not saying that’s where it has to be on the neighboring property, but even at 30 scale drawing, there’s not a lot of room on this drawing. So we can just put an arrow to that area. We’re just saying that, you know, we’re proposing an interconnect on our property, and we understand that there, you know, should be allowed, and that may necessary in the future. Moving on with the landscaping and the parking, we have shown the parking in the rear of the building. We’ve shown some parking, parallel parking on both sides of the building, with the traffic flow around. We did provide a one way interconnect out to Linda Avenue. We do show a 20 foot wide interconnect easement, right now with a 12 foot wide driveway, because it’s proposed to be one way, and we could widen that if necessary, but really the one way out of there, if you were coming in off Main Street, would allow you to either go either direction on Linda to get to Rozell Street or to Ryan Avenue. I guess a couple of the questions that arose from the previous meeting, it’s kind of new to us as well as to what’s going to happen with this Main Street corridor, once the construction is complete, and understanding that, we’re showing some landscaping to installed along the front and an aluminum wrought iron style fence, but, you know, to try and keep in conformance with what the Town’s Master Plan is for the Main Street corridor, but we’re looking at, we put down what we thought would be a good starting point, unless the Board has some comments on the landscaping and/or the fence. We’re open to suggestions on that. We want to stay in conformance, but, not knowing exactly where the new sidewalks are going to be in place, and not knowing exactly when the road is going to be complete and exactly where the edge of the asphalt’s going to be, it’s kind of tough to pin down anything in exact. There’s no question we want to supply sidewalk, fencing and landscaping, but to ask us to do that at this point, I believe you already know that we really can’t do that until the Main Street project is complete, and then we know where we’re placing this, and at that, I’ll leave it up to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-I have one. You’re calling this 104? It’s also 102, is it not? When I looked at it today, the one door says 102 on it. MIKE RINGER MR. RINGER-Well, it depends on however you look at it, okay. However NiMo wants to call it. We’ve got 101 and a half, we’ve got it up to 104. So it’s there, is that building. I don’t know exactly what they call it. MR. KREBS-Okay, but that part, my question is. MR. RINGER-But really it is called 104 Main Street. MR. KREBS-Right. Okay. My question was the 102 part is part of the. MR. RINGER-What there is, is there’s three apartments above it, and as a matter of fact, I’ve even tried to delegate addresses for these people, but it’s sort of tough. They kind of make up their own when they (lost words). MR. STEVES-Plus all these lots along Main Street back in the 40’s were 55 foot wide lots, and this is 110. So if you look at it there, you can see the dashed line. When they did addresses years ago, they put two numbers on the building, if they incorporated two of the original lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Or skip a number if it wasn’t. You drive down the road, you have 104 and then the next building is 108, and you wonder what’s going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? One of the concerns that I had, and I wanted to ask you this evening. On S-2, your proposed conditions, do you have any concerns about the mature trees with the installation of the driveways so close to the trunks? MR. STEVES-Yes. The one tree, the tree to the side on the west side, not a lot of concern because there’s been some traffic there already and they’ve held up. The 30 inch hickory in the back, we have some concerns on that, but we’re actually putting in a little bit of grading over the top, not digging down into the root systems. It should be fine with that large of a tree, but I mean, I can’t put any guarantees to it, except for the fact we’re going to try our best not to disturb the root system and I believe, when you drive around there, Mike has been doing a lot of work in that area, and he hasn’t cut up any of the roots yet. Tried to stay above that and not cut down into it to box it out for any type of 12 inch sub base or anything, just kind of work with what’s there, and I honestly think it’ll work okay. That’s a beautiful tree to try to leave there. It’s 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) an awkward spot to try to maintain the tree, but at the same time, the size of that tree, we would love to try to maintain it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then the Staff comment about snow storage. What’s your plan, just to push it to the south? MR. STEVES-Yes, push it to the south. We have room in the corner. We have some shrubs that are along the mobile home in the back, and we’re going to leave some gaps to push it into there, and store it to the far southeasterly corner of that parking area. As it is with all the Main Street businesses and stuff like that in this area, where you have smaller lots with buildings, and lots of times they end up having to cart some of it away. MR. RINGER-I do have a backhoe and dump truck. I do haul snow most of the winter, because it would go down to my shop on Western Avenue. MR. STEVES-And I know from my office right down the road, as much room as we have around there, there’s only so much you can push the snow, and then the banks start coming into you, and we’ve had to haul some stuff away from our own office before. So, I mean, it’s all part of it, and it’s doing business on Main Street in that area with confined spaces, you have to expect that. You have room to put a certain amount, and if you have a winter like we had this past winter, you’re not going to have a problem, but if you have a winter like you had two years ago, we’re going to be hauling snow. He’s going to be hauling snow. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any problems with putting the one way signs up? We had talked about that at the last meeting, actually. MR. STEVES-No, I have no problem with that. Mike, do you have a problem? MR. RINGER-No. MR. STEVES-We show the one way arrows, and we have no problem with the one way sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing that there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II action. So there’s no SEQR review required. Are there any outstanding concerns? MRS. STEFFAN-We will need to, in the motion we will need to identify all of these issues, the snow storage, the 20 foot wide interconnect correction, the one way signs, the build line fencing location. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, the applicant understands that they don’t have to install the landscaping, which includes the fencing right now, not until Main Street is done, and that would be just folly, to say the least. It just wasn’t, from my standards, too clear or demarcated. It works, it really does. MRS. STEFFAN-So if we say that we waive the requirement that a five foot landscape buffer be installed adjacent to the building as per 179-70-70A(4), then we waive that requirement, but because it’s on the plan that they’re putting that landscape strip in the front, that’s what they’ll be required to provide for landscaping. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes, upon the completion of Main Street absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, the site doesn’t lend itself to a five foot wide landscape walkway. I mean, so, even though it says it has to be done, it can’t be done. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So we will waive that part. MR. STEVES-You’re going to run into a lot of that on the Main Street with the existing buildings. MRS. STEFFAN-We have already. MR. STEVES-Because when you pull stuff into the back, which is the objective for parking, then you have to have some kind of traffic flow around the sides of the building so to create a strip across the front, it gets to be problematic. MR. FORD-Familiar challenge. MR. HUNSINGER-Those are the only issues, though. Anyone else, any other issues? MRS. STEFFAN-You closed the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2010 MIKE RINGER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 2,650 +/- sq. ft. commercial alteration for a Pain Management office with associated site work. Office in the Main Street zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/16/2010 & 6/15/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2010 MIKE RINGER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four G doesn’t apply. We’ll cover that under conditions. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-980], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.Type II, no further SEQRA 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 e provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e.If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f.The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g.Waiver requests: we’ll cover that under conditions. h.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; and 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) i.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j.If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. k.The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES permit prior to the start of any site work. 2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and l.The applicant must maintain on their project site for review by staff: 1. The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWAP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; 2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project; m.It is approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will denote the snow storage locations to the south of the lot on the plan. 2.The proposed 20 foot wide connect with the lands of Demas to the east should be denoted on the property line and not on the adjacent property land. Please make the changes, submit to Staff for review and acceptability. 3.As site flow is one way, sign details of one way to the west and do not enter to the east are required. The location of these signs should be denoted on the plan at the ingress and egress points and submitted to Staff for review and acceptability. 4.The build line fencing location should be clear on the plan, the length and location specifically. Please submit to Staff for review and acceptability. 5.The Planning Board recommends that the drywell shown in the stormwater report be installed as part of the project of expanding the parking area at the rear of the building. 6.The Planning Board waives the sediment control requirements for this project. 7.The Planning Board waives the requirement that a five foot landscaped buffer be installed adjacent to the building as per 179-7-040A(4). 8.That as part of this Site Plan, the Planning Board waives the one year requirement for development of the proposed landscaping on Main Street, until the completion of Main Street. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, do you think we need to say that it’s understood that the fence and front landscaping won’t be completed until after completion of the Main Street re-development? MR. OBORNE-I think that it should be a part of the resolution, and every resolution going forward until Main Street’s complete. Because in theory you won’t get your CO until. MR. RINGER-No, this project is going to be two years, and believe me, the only piece of pavement I’ve got left is about that far from the sidewalk, okay, and you don’t have a prayer. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then let me add Condition Eight. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE cc: Van Dusen & Steves 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 SEQR TYPE II IRENE MARSHALL AGENT(S) STEVE ALHEIM; ERIC & ERIC OWNER(S) DONALD MARSHALL ZONING WR LOCATION 101 FITZGERALD ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF STAIRS/DECK. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 216 SQ. FT. DECK ADJACENT TO SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE, REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 4-10; BP 06-572 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-28 SECTION 179-9-010 IRENE MARSHALL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Irene Marshall, Site Plan 3-2010. Irene Marshall is the applicant. Site Plan Review for hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Location: 101 Fitzgerald Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of existing stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. The project includes the removal of vegetation within 35 feet of the shoreline and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. Staff Comments: According to the applicant, the existing stairs and deck associated with the property are in disrepair and in need of replacement. The applicant intends to remove a total of approximately 176 square feet of access decking and stairs and install in its stead a total of approximately 265 square feet of access decking, stairs and stair landings. Further, the applicant proposes approximately 216 square feet of new decking attached to the dwelling adjacent to the shoreline. Site Plan Review, th basically what happened was Area Variance 4-2010 was approved by the ZBA on May 19. The resolution should be attached with your notes, and the parcel in question appears to have an antiquated wastewater system, and you may want to discuss that with the applicant. One more issue, that’s all I have right now. I can’t remember what the other issue is. Just to let you know, the Zoning Board was happy with the current vegetation along the shoreline as long as it’s not touched, and the applicant states that there’s no intention to touch it, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. MARSHALL-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MRS. MARSHALL-I’m Irene Marshall, the owner of the parcel in question. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MRS. MARSHALL-Just that I’ve been working with the Zoning Board since early in this year, and I’ve complied with all of their requests, including reducing the size of the deck twice, and I’m just hoping that you will rubberstamp their approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments on some of the comments offered by Staff, any response to the comments offered by Staff? MRS. MARSHALL-In terms of? MR. HUNSINGER-The existing shoreline buffer, specifically. Did you have anything else to add other than what’s been said? MRS. MARSHALL-No, I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I will open it up for questions or comments from member of the Board. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess the most important item in the outstanding items is the wastewater system. Could you give us some insight on that? If it hasn’t been touched in many years. MRS. MARSHALL-Well, I am in the process of investigating what needs to be done with that. I have contacted several different septic services to have it inspected, and have talked to people about what they call engineering it, but I’ve been getting estimates, but it’s been a busy month. I’ve been away for different family things and I haven’t actually done anything with that. It’s hard to get people to come out right away when you call them, but I am in the process of looking at that. MR. FORD-So you have not received any estimates at this point? MRS. MARSHALL-I have received a few estimates for just the inspections, but as far as what I would have to do, if I needed to replace the system, they can’t really tell me that until they take a look at it and see what needs to be done. It’s going to be a lot of money. MRS. STEFFAN-So where does that put us with, you know we have the opportunity, during Site Plan, review, to insure that the system is working and functional, but if we approve it without knowing that, then what recourse do we have? I don’t think we do. MR. OBORNE-It’s a decision that the Board obviously has to make. I will say the nature of the project that the applicant is proposing is not increasing anything on the inside of the structure. It’s on the outside of the structure. There’s no additional bathrooms or bedrooms proposed. It’s an existing, most likely an antiquated system, but I don’t know that for sure, and I don’t think Irene will know that until it’s inspected. That’s a supposition. With that said, it’s something the Board will certainly have to make a decision on. So, back at you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Again, with regard to the septic, you mentioned that you had received some estimates for engineering or upgrading the system. Have you had an evaluation of the functioning level of the current system? MRS. MARSHALL-No, I have not. MR. TRAVER-So how, upon what are the estimates based? MRS. MARSHALL-Just on what they normally do when they come out for an inspection. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the estimates that you’ve received are for an inspection? MRS. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I see, okay. MR. FORD-And none have been done to this point, no inspections? MRS. MARSHALL-No. MR. FORD-You only have estimates for what the inspection will cost, and no inspections have been completed? MRS. MARSHALL-No. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the range for an inspection like that? MRS. MARSHALL-So far it’s been from, well, some people won’t tell me because they have to look at it first, especially when they hear that it’s on Glen Lake and it’s on the side of a hill, but it ranges anywhere from $200 to $350, just to come out and look at it, and if I shovel it off myself it’s less money, which I might do. MRS. STEFFAN-All right, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay, and if you could, of course, identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Christine Mozal who owns the property immediately to the east, west and south of this property. She has concerns about the septic that’s on this property. At the time that she did her subdivision, Mr. Marshall came in and spoke about the fact that it was a very tender system and he was concerned about what would happen with her system, or her activities influencing his system, because it was within, I believe, 50 feet of the lake. As I understand it, if you look at their survey, there are two sets of stairs shown on there, and it is the, it’s right next to the staircase that’s nearest to the lake. So, if this is a scale map, it’s very, I guess the scale is one inch equals ten. It’s very, very close. This is a very small lot. Christine Mozal, when she went through the two lot subdivision with you, ended up spending perhaps about $10,000 to engineer a septic system at the top of the hill, which is behind this property, and well away from this property. You may very well end up with a holding tank on this piece of property, as being the only recourse that you have, and that’s going to be touch and go a little bit because of the difference in grade from where the house sits, and the actual road area is. We initially got involved in this because we were trying to straighten out boundary lines, and I don’t know if we’re going to be able to straighten out boundary lines, but a good chunk of this house is not actually on their lot. It’s on the Mozal lot, and the only flat area that’s behind that house is actually on the Mozal lot, it’s not on the Marshall lot. I have a survey map that Mrs. Marshall’s attorney from Vermont sent to me with a suggested swap of lands which was not acceptable to Mrs. Mozal. The triangular piece on here is the piece that is on the Mozal property by deed, and it’s outlined in yellow, and the oblong piece is the tail end of the Marshall piece that goes straight up the hill. It’s not a flat piece of land, and the suggestion was that the Mozal’s swap this parcel for the oblong parcel. That has not been concluded, and it was not acceptable to Mrs. Mozal. The deck itself is, that’s going to be built, is off the ground and may very well interfere with the view from the existing deck on the Mozal property. So we have some serious concerns about you going forward unless you have adequate information. I don’t think you have it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add relative to the comments from your neighbor? MRS. MARSHALL-Well, I had a little trouble hearing what he said. As far as the property line goes, we came to the meeting about the subdivision on the property and expressed our concern about the property line and it was not an issue at that meeting, and the subdivision was granted, then as you remember at this Planning Board meeting, I believe in January, this Board, I believe, said the property line is not our issue. That’s something that you have to resolve between yourselves, and we are working on resolving that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MARSHALL-I’m not sure what he said about the wastewater system. Maybe you can summarize that for me. MR. HUNSINGER-He just said that they had concerns about it. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I think, you know, I’m reluctant to let this go forward without having the information on the septic. It is a big issue. It’s a big issue with every project that we do on the lake, and if we allow, you know, we granted an approval without having that information, then I think we’d be remiss in fulfilling our responsibility. MR. FORD-Absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We should just table it until that’s resolved. MR. KREBS-Is this a year round residence? MRS. MARSHALL-No, we’re only there four months. MR. TRAVER-I think particularly in view of the comments regarding the age and potential problems with the septic, I think we’d be remiss going forward without additional information on its status. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other information that the Board would want to see? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-No. I think from my point of view the only outstanding issue is the shoreline protection, but the Zoning Board certainly made a recommendation that, as long as it wasn’t disturbed that, you know, we didn’t have to fortify it, and that actually supports my belief system that you shouldn’t mess with those things. So, it’s just, it’s the septic system that’s the big issue for me. MR. TRAVER-I had a question for the applicant. Your water supply, is it from a well, or do you draw your water from the lake? MRS. MARSHALL-From a well. MR. TRAVER-From a well. MR. SIPP-Where is the well in relation to the septic system? MRS. MARSHALL-It’s on the other side of the camp. MR. SIPP-The other side of the camp. I’m concerned about this deck and the shoreline erosion that’s going to take place underneath it. You’re not going to be able to grow very much underneath that deck to soak up anything. MRS. MARSHALL-There’s nothing growing there now because of the trees and the vegetation along the shoreline. MR. SIPP-There won’t be anything (lost words) when you put that deck up. You’ll be cutting off most of the sunlight anyway. MRS. MARSHALL-There’s not a lot of sunlight there because of all the vegetation in front of the camp. MR. SIPP-Well, without vegetation you’re going to have serious erosion. MRS. MARSHALL-I have more vegetation in front of my place than most of the places on Glen Lake, and I have no intentions on taking any of that down. MR. HUNSINGER-So, in terms of information on the septic, what exactly would we like to see? An inspection report from? MR. TRAVER-Yes, an inspection report indicating that, in fact, it’s functioning adequately, and without need of repairs or if it needs repairs, what those repairs might be, and that, I’m assuming, would be what they would be doing anyway, is they come out and evaluate. MR. KREBS-Just from my own experience, though, septic systems that are used only a portion of the year really get a long rest, in this case eight months a year, and they last a lot longer than the typical full use home septic system. MRS. MARSHALL-We have only been using the camp for four months for the last three summers, and for a long time prior to that, we would just use it very occasionally, and we have never experienced anything, to our knowledge, that indicates that there is a problem with the septic, because if we had, we would have had something done. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea you can have an inspection done? MRS. MARSHALL-I really have no idea. Nobody could come within the amount of time that I had asked them to. So I really don’t know. MR. FORD-And what was that span of time? MRS. MARSHALL-Well, like I said, I’ve been in and out of town because of family obligations and graduations and things they couldn’t fit it into my time slot. MRS. STEFFAN-Is functionality the appropriate word? MR. HUNSINGER-Operating, functioning, yes. MR. OBORNE-If I could recommend an August tabling, to give the applicant time and also we don’t have agenda room for July. It doesn’t matter because. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, you use the word functionality in the Staff Notes. Is that the appropriate terminology? MR. OBORNE-In my mind it is. As far as a functioning wastewater system would be more than adequate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/26, 5/20 and 6/15/2010; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Tabled to the August 17 Planning Board meeting, with an application deadline for submission th of new materials of July 15. So that the applicant can provide the Planning Board with an inspection report of current wastewater system, and specifically the functionality of the current system. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-Does that need to be performed by a licensed wastewater? MR. OBORNE-They’re the only ones that’ll do it. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s fine. I just didn’t know whether I needed to specify that. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-So you understand you need to have the test done and the report provided to th Staff by July 15. Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 PRELIMINARY STG. & SITE PLAN NO. 41-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT WING AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 145 & 159 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 19.9 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN [REDUCTION OF ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVED NURSERY] ALSO REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 52- 03; AV 21-10, SKETCH PLAN 3/23/10 LOT SIZE 19.9 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-60 SECTION CHAPTER A-183, § 179-9-010 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-The aforementioned application, subdivision, area variance and site plan are for Robert Wing. The requested action, I’m curious as to why this wasn’t put under recommendations. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it needs SEQRA review before it can go to the ZBA? MR. OBORNE-Thank you. Thank you very much. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. The location is 145 and 159 Sunnyside Road. The existing zoning is Rural Residential Three acre. This is, SEQRA 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) Status is unlisted for both subdivision and site plan, and Type II for area variance, and we’ll go through the SEQRA aspect of this in a bit. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 19.9 acre parcel into three lots of 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 acres. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to create 3 lots that fronts on both Sunnyside Road and East Road. For Lot 1, the applicant proposes to create a 0.66 acre parcel that has an existing single family residence fronting on Sunnyside Road. For Lot 2, the applicant proposes to subdivide an additional 1.86 acres to create a residential lot fronting on East Road. For Lot 3, the existing Nursery business will remain on the resulting 17.38 acre lot which has current access off of Sunnyside Road. The nature of the area variances. For Lot One, there are four lot size, lot width, road frontage, and side setbacks. Lot One is the smallest of the three lots. Lot Two, lot size and road frontage, and Lot Two is the culled lot to the north, or east of the, west of the existing nursery, and road frontage request for Lot Three of 217 feet from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirements. Additional comments: The applicant has requested waivers for Sketch and drainage. I believe that that’s already been taken care of. Concerning SEQRA, and I’d like to go over this with the Board. The site plan and subdivision are to be reviewed simultaneously for this project, if you’ll accept it that way, for expediency purposes. For SEQRA purpose, the subdivision proposal will require a Long Form. Whereas the site plan modification will require either a re-affirmation of the previous SEQRA findings, which was a Negative Dec, or a Short Form for the review, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing Robert Wing on this application. Again, we were in front of you a while back for the Sketch Plan. This is property located on the north side of Sunnyside Road and east side of East Road. This is his current landscape company, Volt Landscaping and Irrigation company. That particular usage went through a Site Plan, back in, I believe, 2003, if I’m not mistaken, Keith, and after we came in with Sketch, Keith and I decided and discovered that we really should get a modification to the approved Site Plan because of the fact we’re reducing the area that the original Site Plan incorporated. Meaning that we’re now reducing it by the 1.86 and the .60. So therefore in front of you first is the modification to the Site Plan. As Keith has stated, I don’t think there’s any changes to the SEQRA requirements from that Site Plan because we’re not making any changes to that Site Plan. The existing Lot One, or the proposed Lot One, I should say, contains an existing structure and home. The reason for that (lost words) it’s always been there. If anybody remembers this area, and I think he has it up there when it was the old motorcycle tracks out back, that house has been there since I believe the early 30’s or 40’s, and if you look, going to the west, it’s consistent with all the sizes of the parcels that are on that side of Sunnyside. The current occupant of that house that has been renting it every since Mr. Wing has bought the property, and had been there years before when the McDermott’s owned the property, now would like to acquire that property and purchase it. So the reason for the subdivision of Lot One is to let them purchase what they’ve been utilizing for years and occupying for years. The proposed Lot Two, Mr. Wing has decided that if he has to go through Site Plan modification and subdivision, he may as well have a lot that he can bank in the future to have a potential sale down the road if he ever needs to generate some cash, and it’s only good planning on his part. If you have a really slow year one year and you need some cash influx, you have a lot to sell. That’s the purpose for the one that fronts on east road. He has no immediate plans on selling that or immediate plans on building on it. It is to have something in the bank, since he’s going through this process. The topography that is shown is from the original Site Plan, with any changes that have been made after the Site Plan was completed. We’ve located the asphalt in the building, showed the stockpile material. There is some existing tree storage that is on proposed Lot Two . Obviously Mr. Wing owns it all. When and if he ever sells that lot, he’s going to re-locate that tree storage to the back of his existing building, as we show on the Site Plan. The soils in here are very deep sandy soils, again, fairly fast. So I believe Tom Hutchins, on the subdivision side of it, has designed a system that would have to have some modified soils, but then again there’s no problem with groundwater incurrence on this property whatsoever, and if anybody’s ever been over to this property, it is a meticulously maintained piece of property, so you can be assured that as it moves forward that it’s going to be. Obviously the owner is a landscape contractor. So if there was any planting information or details that the Board would like to see, that would not be an issue, and I’d open it up to any questions the Board might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you came through at Sketch, and we did talk about it quite a bit. It’s pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. STEVES-Again, like I said, I know it’s an awful small lot, .66 acres, but we’re not creating a new lot, outside of what’s not being used and has been used for a long, long time. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that we had talked about was the driveway into the newly created lot. Is there an easement? MR. STEVES-There isn’t, but there is in writing. We have, his attorney has worked up a writing to have a cross easement for that driveway, and actually on the plan you see where the crushed stone driveway is, and he was going to re-locate that to be centered on the property line, and the plan does show that re-located edge of drive so that the driveway is shared on the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-So we’re not proposing any new curb cuts. We’re actually going to just center it a little bit better. So in that proposal, if you look at the existing crushed stone, we’re going to relocate that to the property line, and come right into the existing line that is there next to the other structure. It actually helps out the other structure a little bit and gets that driveway so you have a little bit more green space on the corner lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And again, that is shown on the Site Plan modification and on the Subdivision plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. KREBS-It’s certainly not out of character with the rest of the lots in the area. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s the same size as everything over there. MR. STEVES-We wholeheartedly understand. Like I said at Sketch Plan, if we were proposing a new lot of that size without a structure on it, I wouldn’t even be here. MR. HUNSINGER-So, Keith, just so I understand, procedurally, what we’re doing this evening. The public hearing is only for SEQRA review? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So, after we hold the public hearing, we would close it for SEQRA, so that we could then do SEQRA and make the recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And then when they come back, assuming the Zoning Board approves everything, we would have then a new public hearing for Site Plan and Subdivision. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you may want to leave the public hearing open. You don’t necessarily have to close it because of SEQRA. You may just want to leave it open so then it doesn’t have to be re-advertised. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-The question I have there is, just so I’m on the same page, is that for the Subdivision or the Site Plan or both, or does the Site Plan get taken care of tonight. MR. OBORNE-Right. Specially, the Site Plan is not going to get taken care of tonight. The relief is associated with the Subdivision, not with the Site Plan. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. OBORNE-You’ll re-affirm, if you wish, once you approve the Site Plan. That’s just dealing with the 17 acre resulting lot. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it would probably be cleaner if we just did the Long Form on the Subdivision and then just do the Short Form on the other so that we’ve actually re-visited it, not just. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. OBORNE-Nothing precludes you from performing SEQRA. It just has to be performed before any approvals. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. STEVES-And I concur with that. MR. HUNSINGER-But that would be done after they go to the Zoning Board. MR. OBORNE-Right, the approval will be done after. MR. HUNSINGER-The Site Plan, that is correct. MR. STEVES-Just SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-We do both SEQRA’s tonight. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. I don’t think that’s an issue. MR. STEVES-Yes, we need the SEQRA to go to the Zoning Board. That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-And that’s on the assumption that the Planning, that the Zoning Board, it doesn’t matter. I’m not even going to go through with that thought. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I wanted to clarify that before I opened the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would open it and leave it open. That’s my recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will open the public hearing. Sir, did you want to make comments? I will open the public hearing. If you could identify yourself for the record, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD LUTHER MR. LUTHER-Luther, 185 Sunnyside Road, and quite frankly I wish you would increase the volume on your PA system. I don’t find it to be very effective, and I didn’t get a chance to look at the plans like I would like to, but I will ask what is the intended use for the two lots? I think this is basically a Rural Residential development and I think the people that live there want it to stay that way. So I’d like to respectfully ask what’s the purpose of the lot? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any other questions, sir? MR. LUTHER-And if it’s going to be a SEQRA review, who would be the Lead Agency, or hasn’t that been determined? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we would be. This Board would be the Lead Agent. MR. LUTHER-And would there be a comment period on this? MR. HUNSINGER-Not typically. That’s what the public hearing is for now. MR. LUTHER-Well, I think I’d like to know what the purpose of the subdivision is going to be. If it’s to create two additional lots, what’s the? MR. KREBS-Can I explain? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KREBS-I’ll show you the drawing. MR. LUTHER-Thank you. I didn’t see this earlier. MR. KREBS-See, this house exists today, and so what they want to do is make a lot, like a person in this house wants to buy this lot, and this was always, this whole piece was for the landscape organization, and what they want to do is take out and put another lot, which will not be used now, but some time in the future may be sold for a single family home, and that lot is 1.86 acres. The small one already has a house. This house exists on this lot, but it actually sits on this whole piece of property today. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. LUTHER-It’s (lost words) owner of this, is that it? MR. KREBS-No, no, no, he rents it. He rents it to somebody who’s rented it for many, many years, and so they’re going to. MR. LUTHER-The house has been there, yes. MR. KREBS-Yes, the house has been there, and so they’re creating this lot so that he can sell the house to the people who have rented it for many years, because he couldn’t sell this until he subdivides it because it’s now part of all of this property. So he’s going to create that lot so he can sell the house. He’s creating a second lot, which he eventually will have a house built on, but not immediately, and then the other 17.38 acres will continue to be used for his landscape business, but as you can see, these lot sizes are very similar to this. So this is not unusual. MR. LUTHER-No, that’s not. I would agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other questions, sir? MR. LUTHER-Except that I would say that I would be opposed to commercial development in this area, which I think is residential and the fact that it doesn’t have public sewer system. A residential development should be controlled. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Well, this is all part of a Site Plan, and we’re going to approve the reduction from 19 to 17 acres, but once the Site Plan is approved, it can only be used as a nursery. MR. LUTHER-I was under the opinion that it was going to be commercial development because there was a sign, hearing coming up tomorrow evening. MR. KREBS-That’s because it was coming to this Board, we put a sign up that notifies everybody that there’s going to be a change in the subdivision change. MR. HUNSINGER-And it will be before the Zoning Board tomorrow night. MR. KREBS-But there will be no new commercial development. This will remain the nursery it is. This will be a single family home. This will be a single family home. I hope that helps you. MR. LUTHER-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Just for the record, that was Richard Luther. I think he said 185 Sunnyside Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this project? Okay. As was suggested by Staff, we will keep the public hearing open for when we do Site Plan Review and the Subdivision review. Everyone ready for SEQRA? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So this is the SEQRA on Subdivision 4-2010. MR. HUNSINGER-This is SEQRA for the Subdivision, the Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. FORD-No. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-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. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT WING, 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 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of, June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So should we do the Short Form, next, Keith, or should we do the Recommendation next? MR. OBORNE-I think you should do the Short Form and then do the Recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. So we’re doing the Short Form. This would be on the Site Plan 41-2010. MRS. STEFFAN-Preliminary Site Plan 41-2010, which is really a modification. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Or a re-affirmation, but you’re going with the Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we should re-visit it at this time. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, “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. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) 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. 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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 41-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT WING, 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 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of, June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now the Zoning Board is looking for a recommendation, and do we have any input on, what kind of input do we want to give the Zoning Board of Appeals? We have two options, limited review, we’ve not identified any significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated by project change, or do we have some areas of concern? MR. TRAVER-I would say the former. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Agreed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2010 FOR ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2010 FOR ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - The Planning Board based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you for the help. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES AGENT(S) LITTLE & O’CONNOR; JARRETT ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ALAN GOLDSTEIN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,650 SQ. FT. OUTSIDE PATIO BANQUET AREA WITH COVERED BAR, SEATING AND SEASONAL TENT. PROJECT TO INCLUDE STORMWATER CONTROLS AND LANDSCAPING. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE UV 23-08; NOA 2-08 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER LG PARK CEA LOT SIZE 13.54 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-75.1 SECTION § 179-9-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith. MR. OBORNE-All right. For the record, Site Plan 34-2010, applicant is Capital Region Properties, doing business as Dunham Bay Resort. Requested action: Commercial expansion in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 2999 State Route 9L This is Rural Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 5,650 sq. ft. outside patio banquet area with covered bar, seating and seasonal tent. Project proposes stormwater controls and landscaping. Commercial expansion of an existing use requires Planning Board review and Approval. Staff Comments: Per §179-9-020(A), Site plan review is required involving a new use or expansion or change of a use noted in this chapter as requiring such Planning Board review. Construction, development, site preparation and/or the issuance of a building permit or zoning permit for any such use shall not be undertaken unless and until the Planning Board has approved, with or without conditions, the site plan for such use. No building permit for a use requiring site plan review shall be valid without site plan approval. Currently, outdoor events are being conducted on site without proper approval from the Town. The applicant’s agents have stated in both the Narrative and responses to the Requirements for Site Plan Approval that the proposed use is an existing use that took place on the tennis courts and this proposal is to “supplant” that use. Staff does not doubt the veracity of this comment; however, the use to be “supplanted” has never been reviewed and approved and as such is and was a non-conforming use. What follows is Site Plan Review, soils obviously, but Site Plan Review. I’m going to drop down to my additional comments, and I would just like to say, with the additional seating proposed, wastewater adequacy may need to be explored. What is the capacity of the existing system, and what, if any plans for upgrading are proposed. The applicant is requesting waivers from the following: Parking, traffic, sewage disposal, stormwater management, landscaping and lighting, and we do have Fire Marshal, Paragon Engineering, and the Director of Building and Codes comments attached. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Alan Goldstein, who is the principle of the applicant, and Tom Jarrett, who is the project engineer. Basically, what we are seeking approval of is the construction of a patio within the circle of the existing cabins that are up behind the main lodge, and the placement of a tent on there. Since we made this application, all kinds of things have come about. There’s all kinds of correspondence. I’m not sure what you have or you don’t have. Let me begin maybe first with, we had a number of discussions with Mike Palmer, the Fire Marshal, and I believe he is happy with what we have proposed at this point. If you take a look at Sheet C-1, in the upper right hand corner, we have recited all of the requirements for a tent that’s going to be occupied by more than 50 people, or is greater than 700 square feet, and basically what is shown on the diagram is actually larger than the tent that’s owned by Mr. Goldstein. The tent that is owned by him is 35 by 70, 30 by 75. I’m sorry, and what’s shown on here is a larger tent. A 30 by 75 tent actually is 2250 square feet. The patio won’t change in size. The stormwater was addressed to the patio as it’s sized on the plans that are before you, but the actual occupancy of the tent will be 150 people. Mr. Palmer tells me that his rules and regulations require 15 square feet per person that’s occupying a tent of this nature, and he is satisfied with the notes that when we set 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) up the tent for occupancy that we maintain table or aisle width of 36 inches, and that’s in compliance with this Fire Codes. We will, right now we don’t own any sides, and it’s an open sided tent on all four sides, but we will mark two, 72 inch wide areas for exits. We don’t propose to have any lighting, or any great deal of lighting in the tent. We may have some Christmas tree, those very small Christmas tree lights that will be strung on some of the ties that go across the. MR. FORD-Icicles? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I don’t think they’re icicles, Mr. Ford, but they’re close to it. They’re not a fire hazard, basically, and Mr. Palmer has agreed with that. There’ll be no cooking underneath the tent, and you can look at the notes. Basically he has taken that directly out of the Building and Construction Code. In the very last couple of days, we did get a letter, too, from Dave Hatin saying, Mr. Goldstein really looks upon this as being a substitute for the interior dining that presently is carried on on the premises, and when we got talking about septic and everything else, he suggested that, maybe just to cover all bases, and to do a belt and suspenders, that we would incorporate into the plan two deluxe handicap, I use the wrong term, port-a-johns. It’s a type of thing that’s got a mirror. It’s got a changing table. It’s going to have a wash station in it. It’s not this typical construction type thing that you see on a site. Some people will choose to use it. Some people won’t, but it will take some of that away from what normally goes into the structure. Now he has been using a tent on site for the last two, three years, but it’s been out, further out back, on the tennis courts. It’s the same tent, I believe, that was out there that is presently here, and when it was out there, those people would walk in and use the bathrooms that are off the pool area. This will change that to some degree, and hopefully, and they are going to be pumped. They will be pumped on an as needed basis, but after any main event that uses them. Now, I diverted a little bit. I said there was a lot that went on in the last couple of days. We got Dave Hatin’s letter that said we need, under the, I’m not sure if he said the State code or last night, I went to the Town Board meeting, workshop last night, and they said it was under the State code. Dave Hatin’s letter said it was under the Town Septic Code, that if you are going to use port-a-potties for any event, you need to get permission from the Town Board. The Town Board indicated that they would approve it. I spoke to Bob Hafner today. He asked me to confirm my request last night, and he said it would be a resolution and it’ll be on Monday’s agenda, and basically I wrote him a letter that said, pursuant to the letter of Dave Hatin, dated th June 8, please consider this letter application for approval of two port-a-john’s on the property of Dunham’s Bay Lodge for a period of 90 days. During that period of time, applicant will undertake a professional analysis of the wastewater design flow produced from all activities on site, and the current operating conditions of the existing wastewater treatment system. If a deficiency is determined, additional facilities will be designed and construction of same will be undertaken. In the meantime, the existing facility on the west side of the lodge will be pumped daily and disposed of off site when there is any type of use that contributes wastewater to those facilities, and I fully expect that the Town will give us approval to use the port-a-potties in conjunction with the tent for the next 90 days at the meeting on Monday. I also did an application for Special Events, because apparently you can get permission to do a tent based upon the Special Event application, which is approved by Craig Brown. I’ve had calls in to him. I haven’t talked to him since I did the application, but I think that that application would become moot if you do approve the use of the tent that we’re seeking. The existing septic systems, and I say systems. I am told that there are nine septic systems on this property. We believe that they are adequate to handle even this tent if it were a separate activity. You go back through the history of this property, and if you look at what the inside dimensions, or inside capabilities of the halls or the functions are, on the upper level they have dining for 150. In the bar area down below they have 40, and down below they have a banquet hall of 90, which is 280 dinners that could be served. Last week during Americade, which was a good week for them, they served 80 dinners. We talk about events, if we can, where we get 150 to it, and that’s a one day type thing. So I don’t know if the business isn’t there that was there at one time, or what not, or if there’s many other facilities that people go to, as opposed to all going to what used to be Dunham’s Bay, but we think that what we have is adequate, and Tom can address that to some degree. Within the last week, we have had a problem with the facility, or part of the septic system that is on the west side of the main lodge. We have entered into a contract with Cook’s Septic Service that they will pump that out as frequently as necessary to maintain the integrity of the leach field th grounds, and this was entered into on the 11 of June. It’s been pumped once since then. It was half full when it was pumped at that time. We believe that there is a, correct me if I’m wrong, Tom, 1500 gallon tank that was once a pump station apparently, and it’s followed in series by a 1,000 gallon septic tank. So you’ve got 2500 gallons of tankage for that particular system. That system does not take care of the cabins. It doesn’t take care of the bathrooms that are by the pool area. It doesn’t take care of the house that’s out in the front. We’ve got a map to show you all nine different septic systems and where their absorption areas are. It takes care of part of the main facility, but it’s not the principle, I don’t know if there is a principle system, but it’s not the principle system. We’ve had the Department of Health up there this past week. They are happy with what we are doing. We’ve had Dave Hatin up there for a while almost on a daily basis. We’ve had the Department of Environmental Conservation there, and 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) they are all in agreement with what we’re doing. There were four people there Monday, beginning the analysis of all the systems and Tom is going to follow through on that within the next two weeks. He is going to analyze all nine systems. He is going to also do a mapping out of what feeds those systems, what is the capacity of those systems, and give us a professional determination as to whether or not we need to do something. That’s part of our agreement with the Department of Health, with the Department of Environmental Conservation, and with Dave Hatin. There’s a full understanding of what we’re doing, and no one really has a real problem with that. I think our undertaking that task actually satisfies the letter that was floating around from the Water Keeper. That was one of his main concerns. MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t have that letter. MR. O'CONNOR-It was addressed to you, Chris. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that in the file, because I don’t think we got a copy of that. MR. OBORNE-Which letter? MRS. STEFFAN-The letter from the Water Keeper. MR. OBORNE-No, that’s public comment. It’s in the file. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I will say, Mike, I will read it into the record, though. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. Okay. We have asked for waivers for parking, and this is with construction of the patio and the tent, and the use of the tent. We’ve asked for waivers for parking, for traffic, for sewage disposal, which we now have gone beyond. We are going to, we’re asking for a waiver for going further with sewage disposal at this point, knowing full well that what we’re doing with our permit from the Town Board with the DEC, with the Department of Health, and everybody else that’s involved. We believe that we’ve submitted adequate planting which shows the stormwater management of the new hard surface area, and we’ve asked for a waiver of landscaping, although we showed quite a bit of landscaping on the plans, and I guess somebody has taken objection to this word may. The idea of may was that it just might be another choice, it might be another variety of the same shrubbery, but that shrubbery would be planted in each of those areas, and the lighting Tom says we’ve shown. Okay. MR. JARRETT-I don’t know if you heard my comment. We’ve shown you lighting, what we propose to provide, but we’re asking for a waiver from the formal lighting plan with the illumination patterns on it. MR. O'CONNOR-The only other comment that I’ll make to you, unless you have questions, will be on Page C-1, we show a 16 foot by 16 foot covered bar. You can eliminate that from the plans at this point, if it complicates issues. That area was included in the stormwater plan. I don’t know what other concerns you’d have. I think there was a question about, would there be bar seating, lighting, stormwater management. It was in the stormwater management. We hadn’t thought it all the way through yet to talk about bar seating. It’s very unlikely that it would be there this year at all. In fact, probably, we show the patio as having a concrete surface. That probably will be not installed until well after Labor Day, if at all this season, because what we’re going to concentrate on is upgrading any of the septic that needs to be upgraded. We fortunately didn’t know that getting permission to move the tent was going to as involved as it has become. We have booked events. That’s our problem, but we do ask you to consider it. This is somebody that is trying their best, and if you go up and look at the grounds and what not, they are very well maintained. We think that he’s doing a great job trying to revitalize that business, but that’s it. I would have Tom address the engineering comments, unless you have some comments or questions as to the parts that I did. I think I talked about the Fire Marshal’s comments and the Director of Building and Codes comments. I think we’ve addressed both of those, and I don’t know if Mike Palmer signed off on anything or not. MR. OBORNE-No, he has not. He’s awaiting that permit to come back, I believe, that permit application for a Special Event. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, because I’m waiting for Craig to tell me whether it’s necessary. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So you said you applied for a Special Event application? MR. O'CONNOR-I have the application. The application also calls for, this is the discussion I also had with Mike Palmer. The application called for $125 fee and a $500 deposit, and I had 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) put down two events. One was 6/10, for four hours, and in hindsight it turns out that we would not need a permit for that because we have less than 50 people, but we do have an event on 6/26 for six hours, and Mike didn’t know whether or not they would require the fees or not, and that’s the question I’ve got out to Craig. If it is, we will submit it. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the intention, in terms of the tent being up, the length of time? MR. O’CONNOR-We would leave it up for the summer months. MR. HUNSINGER-So when would you take it down? MR. O'CONNOR-In the Fall. ALAN GOLDSTEIN MR. GOLDSTEIN-Right after Labor Day. Probably Labor Day or later in September. It gets too cold otherwise. MRS. STEFFAN-So are there other events, like wedding events or whatever, that you have scheduled post June, like for July, August, and September? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. GOLDSTEIN-The philosophy behind this was, we talked about a front patio a long time ago, and the comments were too much noise in the bay and music and stuff like that. So we thought we would take it to the courtyard. We were in a tennis court, and there’s neighbors behind us. So the courtyard’s probably the, we’re moving our banquet people from either the tennis court or inside the dining room to this banquet area. I think Michael said it earlier, I don’t think the business is there in that area. I don’t know if it’s the drinking laws that changed that people go out less for dinner and for bars and stuff like that, but we’ve worked hard to keep the place up. The project, Mike alluded to withdrawing the bar, the project right now for the banquet area is probably three to four times what we estimated it to be. I never dreamt that we needed Fire Marshal’s and engineering for, I call it an open canopy. A tent, to me, has sides. This is open. The septic, the septic system, we did a repair to engineer’s specs back, I think it was two or three weeks ago, and up onto two weeks ago, I said we don’t have a problem, we don’t have a problem. We saw it. Our neighbor reported it. Our neighbor would have reported last year if there was a problem. I think one of the pipes in there right now has failed, and, you know, we’re going to fix it. I just said to Tom Jarrett, is it possible, will the Town and all the authorities allow us just to open the ground up and see if something failed right there. That’s a one day deal with Cook’s. Cook’s septic did it. So, you know, we’re asking for this courtesy. The expense, right now, is getting out of hand for that specific business, and I think everybody knows what shape the hospitality business is in right now. So we need some of the Town’s approvals here to move ahead with it. If we don’t, if we don’t have the canopy or the tent, it really takes the function out of the banquets. You’ll have the sun, and the food and the drink and stuff just won’t work in the hot degrees. I think everybody understands that. MR. JARRETT-We received engineering comments on Friday. I assume you all have a copy of them. I consider them pretty minor. I could address them if you wish to take up a discussion on them. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Tom. MR. OBORNE-Just to make it clear, the Planning Board is accepting this? MRS. STEFFAN-Are we? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there’s a couple of things here in the Staff Notes, and in the Fire Marshal’s letter, that I don’t think are too clear, at least maybe the applicant is not aware of it, but it should be noted, what he says in his letter, the Fire Code, he’s talking about New York State Fire Code, and requires an inspection for each use. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that’s for your protection more than anything else, but when you are going to have another event up there, when you’re going to have an event, the normal course of action is, what he’s saying, I think, in his letter, is he has to be notified, and he goes up and writes out that it’s approved. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. GOLDSTEIN-That’s not a problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just so you know, because if something ever happened, the insurance company would probably come down on you for that, but he doesn’t make it very clear in his letter. That’s why I mentioned that. th MR. O'CONNOR-He did give us a letter, May 5, which basically, we’ve talked about this a number of times with him. This is why we asked him for some. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m looking at his June 7 letter. th MR. O'CONNOR-He said, on May 5 he said, and this is the conversation I’ve had. I could show you the letter just to verify the conversation. Additionally, my office is not set up to be able to go to this location on a frequent basis to do the tent inspections and verify all components of this Chapter. That’s why we asked him to give us a generic type dimension that we would be able to abide by, because each event, you have to imagine that one bride wants to have the head table at the side of the tent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That isn’t what he cares about. He’s just looking at the material to make sure it’s not damaged, the fireproofing is still in place. MR. O'CONNOR-We gave him the certification as to the fireproofing, and he did not indicate that we would have to re-submit that at all. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he says that in his letter of June 7, I think. Maybe I read it wrong, but it says the Fire Code requires a detailed site and floor plan along with an inspection for each use. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what the Code says. That’s what the Code says. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’ve got the Code right here as to what it says. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So whether that means he’s going to come out and look at it, that’s why I’m bringing it up to you, because I don’t know. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. We will work out something with him so that he’s satisfied. I would like to have him come every time, but part of the problem is, you don’t set up for the event until say the morning of the event, or maybe the night before the event, and a lot of these events are on weekends, and this fellow is a five day, I think, maybe I’m wrong, Keith, he works five days a week, like most Town employees. MR. OBORNE-In the capacity of Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal. MR. O’CONNOR-And he’s not available to do the weekend on site inspections. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I didn’t say he had to be available the day of the event, but he’s just got, if th you say you’re going to have an event on June 26, he’s probably going to come out one of the weekdays and take a look at it, just as close to the event as he can. MR. GOLDSTEIN-As you mentioned, which is a great conversation, is the validity of the legal aspect of it. I’m concerned about that. The Fire Marshal, we’ve put up, or we’re going to put up, I’m not sure if that got done yet, fire extinguishers, exit signs, certificate on the tent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Capacity. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Capacity, 36 inch aisles, we need aisles anyway to serve. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We’re aware of those guidelines, and the liability is big. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s why I mentioned it, because the liability on tents is, you know, ten times more than it is on hard structure. MR. GOLDSTEIN-I totally agree. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. O'CONNOR-Was there another point? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now, in the Staff Notes, Keith, it talks about parking, which is always a problem at this site, as I know because I’ve been to a lot of functions there and a lot of big functions. The room just doesn’t exist up there for the parking places. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, I think the site certainly has the potential for it, because they do have overflow parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you’re talking about 48 additional parking spaces. MR. OBORNE-Well, that is what the Code requires. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, and I don’t know if these guys are aware of that. MR. O'CONNOR-We are, and if you look at C-2, we’ve shown where they are available. MR. JARRETT-On our Plan C-2, there’s overflow parking shown. MRS. STEFFAN-Are there times when you will have a tent event and an indoor banquet? Because you laid out and talked about the capacity of the area? MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes, that should happen. MRS. STEFFAN-Because parking may become an issue if you’ve got banquets going in multiple places. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We’ve had fundraisers that we’ve had 200 people inside. We park them around, I don’t know if the Board likes to hear this, but sometimes we valet and do it bumper to bumper, and then pull keys and move them around, but parking there, we also have another 130 acres right behind there with the tennis court and stuff. We can go off on the grass, but that particular site, the 13 acres, we’ve never had a parking problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Did you get that C-2 with the parking? MR. FORD-Yes. th MR. OBORNE-The one dated June 9? MR. JARRETT-The plan we provided tonight also shows that. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned a difficulty with the, one of the septic systems, I think you indicated to the west. You had it opened up and looked at, and when they did so, it was half full, I think you said. MR. O'CONNOR-That is the one that we’ve put on daily pump, or as needed, and we’ve had it th pumped once since June 11, and the two tanks, the 1500 gallon and the 1,000 gallon receptacles, were half full. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Earlier you mentioned that you had a problem of some sort, and in response to that, they came out, and when they looked at it, it was half full. Am I understanding that? MR. O'CONNOR-The problem was it was daylighting at the absorption bed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So they’ve lined that. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Lime on it and some soil, as Dave Hatin and the excavator (lost word). MR. O'CONNOR-They’ve put some dirt on it, and the next thing to do is to open up the distribution box and see if there’s something broken in the distribution box, and see what’s there. We don’t know that. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. TRAVER-You also mentioned a number of folks from the Town, from the State and so on, that have been out there and looked at your proposal and what you’ve been doing and so on. Do you have any documentation of that, of any approvals or any opinions, anything that? MR. O'CONNOR-I have directions to us from each as to what we should be doing, which is what we’re doing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I see the parking on. This is the one you just handed out. We didn’t have that before. MR. JARRETT-Yes. There was actually Revision C that was provided roughly two weeks ago, probably last week, and then the one I provided tonight is Revision D, and that’s where the parking, those two are. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you’ve got to come in on the north side and come around the back, or east side, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and basically what this parking plan shows is what you described, park on the lawn. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, right. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know if you have these in your file. I have a copy of a Notice of Violation. Let me read them, I guess, is the best way to do it, a copy of Notice of Violation, Order to Remedy, dated 6/11, and this is from Dave Hatin. The following corrective measures should be taken no later than 6/11 or court action may be commenced. I think secure use of system, barricade of area, install new septic design by engineer ASAP, which is what is underway or what will be underway. There’s a complaint, and I think that was the complaint. MRS. STEFFAN-Who filed the complaint, the neighbor? MR. O'CONNOR-One of the neighbors. MRS. STEFFAN-John Shriner, Robert Gray? MR. O'CONNOR-This is John Salvador, I think. I can’t really read it. It looks like John Salvador, Alexy Lane, possible failed septic failure. That’s Dave Hatin’s letter. The New York State Department of Health, sewage on ground surface, directed to manager Mark Childe to fence the area off with three foot construction fence, lime area with calcium hypochlorite, get contract for services from certified septic hauler to maintain and pump septic tank to prevent sewage on ground surface until the repair is completed under the supervision of a design professional licensed in New York State. th MR. GOLDSTEIN-May in interrupt you for a second? That’s Friday the 11? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HATIN-Dave Hatin stopped Monday and said, fine, it’s dry, you’re doing a good job. So even with the other authorities, EnCon and DEC checking. He didn’t give us anything for Monday. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have EnCon? I don’t have EnCon. I know they were there. Basically, the area has been fenced with construction fencing. It has been lined. It has had soil put on it, and we’re pumping so that the flow doesn’t get there. It says Notice of Violation, and they had a Notice of Violation for failure to report discharge within 24 hours, and that’s basically it, and a Notice of Violation prohibited discharge of sewage, and we aren’t necessarily 100% sure, I don’t think anybody is, whether it was gray water or sewage or what it was, but there was liquid that was coming out of the ground, and it’s been treated with a liming, and we’re pumping that system. That’s one of the nine systems on the site. MR. TRAVER-So the effluent that was coming out of the ground was clearly coming from the septic system? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So how can there be any doubt as to its source? I mean, you’re saying you’re not sure. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. O’CONNOR-What the nature of the liquid was. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-The cause of the problem we’re not sure of. MR. TRAVER-I understand that, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a wash area. You did table cloths. There was a washing machine for table clothes and what not that emptied into that area, as well as two bathrooms. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Lower bathroom, men’s and ladies room, a washing machine. We do bed spreads and some chair covers. I didn’t think so two weeks ago when we spent four guys all day Monday, the upper bar and lower bar goes into it, and one other small bathroom. MR. O'CONNOR-And the ice machine goes into it. An ice machine produces an awful lot of water. MR. TRAVER-Really? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’m totally amazed that they do. MR. GOLDSTEIN-What happened, about two weeks ago, we were told that, I was told that there’s a problem there, and I said, there’s no problem there, and, you know, we watched that. We watch everything, and as I alluded to, the fact that I had no problem there last year, and I think the repair was ’07. MR. TRAVER-Who told you you had a problem, most recently? MR. GOLDSTEIN-Well, it really came from Tom told by the septic guy. So I said Dan, Dan Cook, what kind of problem have we got? So he said you’ve got a septic problem. I said, impossible, impossible. We found a water tap, we call it the Crow’s Nest, there’s a bathroom and a changing area. The faucet was on full blast. Now we’ve got, as Michael said twice, we’ve got a 1500 gallon holding tank, and we’ve got a 1,000 gallon holding tank, and I said to Dan, I said is it possible that tap water could fill this? He said, yes. We shut the tap water down and it dried up, and then all of a sudden this appeared. So basically, I said to Tom today, the distribution box, I don’t know a whole lot about septics, but the distribution box sends out, I believe by pipes or by whatever system, into the leach field the fluids, and I said is it possible something clogged that up and can we just have Cook’s open that up and take a peek, so maybe we can remedy that like ASAP, and then go into a final design on it. I was under the impression that we had fixed that to engineering specs. Even though it was called temporary, and the years went by, we didn’t have a problem with it, and if we had had a problem with it, it would have been reported by the neighbor. I mean, that’s like clockwork. MR. TRAVER-You indicated that the tent, this outside area that you’re proposing, has a capacity of 150. MR. O'CONNOR-The tent does. MR. TRAVER-What’s the capacity of the inside of your lodge? MR. O’CONNOR-Two eighty, something like that. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Two eighty. One fifty up and one thirty down. MR. TRAVER-And you also were talking about the Americade, which I think we all acknowledge is a pretty large activity for this area, and how many dinners did you say you served during that? MR. O'CONNOR-Eighty. MR. TRAVER-Eighty. MR. FORD-That was for the week? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. GOLDSTEIN-I don’t think for the week. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MARK CHILDE MR. CHILDE-The biggest two nights of Americade are Friday and Saturday night. MR. O'CONNOR-If I misstated. MR. CHILDE-Mark Childe. MR. TRAVER-My question is, even if all eighty of those people had come at once, you would have still had room for entertaining 200 people in the lodge, correct? MR. FORD-Additional people. MR. TRAVER-Which is larger than the 150 additional people with all these septic issues that you’re asking for outside. Why not just carry on your activities in the Lodge until these technical issues are resolved? It sounds like you have adequate capacity to do this. MR. O’CONNOR-But the Lodge area is the capacity, just to tell you what the capacity of the various septic systems are, rooms are broken up differently, and the people can’t gather in one room or one setting like they typically would for a banquet. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So there is, there’s a real distinct difference. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-We could go back and try and put the tent back out on the tennis courts. That’s just going to make the people walk further, really. We don’t think the tent itself, although it’s gotten very much involved in the septic, adds anything to the septic issue or not. MR. JARRETT-Actually we think the tent would relieve some of the pressure on the system that has currently failed. MR. TRAVER-Because of the port-a-johns? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JARRETT-No, actually the bathrooms that tend to be used by the people using the, in the tent, would be the rear of the Lodge. Where this system has failed is in front of the Lodge. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I also have a letter here. MR. JARRETT-So at least temporarily we think it would relieve that pressure. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I also have a letter here, and I apologize, I don’t have it right. I’ll get it for you before the night’s over. After Mr. Cook had the conversation with Tom saying that there may be a problem there, we have a letter from Cook saying I think I found the source of it. We turned off this faucet that was malfunctioning and you don’t have a problem anymore. It wasn’t th something that was totally, okay, I’m sorry, you’ve got it. June 8 he gave us a letter saying that, in the Spring of this year, 2010, due to a faucet running constantly in a broom closet, which no one was aware of, the septic system leach field overflowed. Once the plumbing to the faucet was repaired and the flow to the system was normalized, the leach field returned to proper functioning, and it’s a few days later that we have another problem. MR. TRAVER-And that leach field, you mentioned that there are nine, and understand, my expertise is certainly not in septic design either, but just to clarify, you indicated that there were nine septic systems, I think, on the property. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And this leach field, does it serve all of them? MR. O’CONNOR-No, serves one of them. MR. JARRETT-There’s nine separate leaching devices, as we understand it. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the issue with this one system appears to be resolved. Is this the same system that you had serviced like three years ago or something that you mentioned? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s not fully resolved. MR. GOLDSTEIN-It was resolved for the three years. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s resolved now, which is typical of the Health Department and the DEC because we pump it. They’ve converted the septic system basically to a holding system while we’re analyzing what repairs are necessary and making the repairs. MR. TRAVER-And there’s no indication that the other eight systems are endanger of being overloaded or malfunctioning? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. GOLDSTEIN-What we do is when we pump one, we pump them all. I think Cook’s just charges us on volume, and why have the headache, we just pump them all. I think part of your question, a few questions ago, was why not have it inside, I think that was part of your question. MR. TRAVER-No. It’s part of my, I guess part of my thinking what the options are, and while we have these unresolved issues, and I understand the difference between being out in an open tent and having a banquet as opposed to being in a dining room with different levels and so on. I understand that. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Well, to answer that just a little bit is the neighbors come in, and we want all the neighbors, they want the window viewing Dunham’s Bay. They want to be there. You claim your seat. I go into a restaurant, I frequent the same spots, they give me my chair, I’ve got my seat. I begin to think I own that seat. Now you walk in, and we can’t give you that seat, we have a wedding right there, you can go downstairs, and we’re not keeping the locals like that. Now, what’ll happen also is, during the daytime, let’s say, they can come swimming in our place, we have an indoor pool. So they now have a spot to sit outside and take a swim and it just, it builds up business, but the locals, I’ve talked to a lot of them and they said, Al, we come in, but we’ve got our night planned and you’ve got a banquet there and it’s just not good for it. We’re kind of turning more into a banquet house as opposed to a walk-in, and we want to be both. The locals create the banquets, and we also are getting into catering. So that’s the people we cater for. MR. TRAVER-I understand. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-I’d like to jump in on the question regarding septic. Three years ago that system that’s exhibiting problems right now, when we dug it up, we found an elbow that had blown off, and that’s where wastewater was erupting to the ground surface. We repaired that. We also upgraded some other portions of the system that are old, and the system appeared to be functioning fine after that. So we assessed it as being more of a structural failure than a leaching system failure, and I’m very interested in hearing what that faucet was running here, that has great import on assessing the system. So we will be looking at that, and that may be a large portion, if not the entire problem. MR. FORD-But that’s been turned off and there continues to be a problem two days later, however. So that’s not the total problem. MR. JARRETT-Well, once you’ve saturated a system, once you’ve saturated a leaching system, it takes a while to remediate it, to get it back functioning. I’d like to watch it for the next few weeks and see what it does. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Also when, and maybe, Mark, you and I spoke, is we had a heavy duty rain. This is a flat grass area, and we had some pretty strong rain. I’m not sure what day you and I were talking, but that helps to wet the field down pretty good. MR. SIPP-Could we get a map here of where the septic system is, and can we get a plot of where the test holes were done and the perc tests done? I find them, I don’t find any of this on these maps. MR. JARRETT-We have a very, very crude map right now, and once we’ve done an assessment of the system, we can give you a better map. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see the stormwater. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. GOLDSTEIN-Monday we had Cook and three guys, three of our guys in our maintenance crew, go up there and they spent the whole day and (lost words) but they took and checked everything in that place to see where it all flows. MR. SIPP-Are all these cabins on a separate system? MR. O'CONNOR-There’s three or four systems for the cabins. Of the nine, all the cabins aren’t on the same system. You have to look. MR. JARRETT-I’ll pass that around, and then if you look at our Plan C-1, you’ll see the subsurface investigation that we did for this particular patio. MR. FORD-The original C-1, or the one you passed out tonight? MR. JARRETT-It’ll be on the latest one, too. MR. O'CONNOR-They have also discontinued doing the laundry, or using that laundry that fed into this system that is questionable, while it’s under repair, or while it’s being analyzed. MR. JARRETT-Over on the right margin you’ll see the actual test pit data. The locations are shown on the plan itself, and the margins show the logs from the test pit and the perc test. MR. TRAVER-Tom, in this map that you showed me with the septic systems laid out numerically, which one is the one that you’re having most recent difficulty with? Number Three, okay. MR. JARRETT-And bear in mind that the dots on this plan or where the septic tanks are, not the leaching devices. MR. TRAVER-Right. The leach field must be over in here somewhere. MR. JARRETT-The leach field is just down, yes, in this field. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The leaching device is just above Alexy Lane, if you look at the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess comment is that this is so convoluted it’s hard to know what we’re supposed to be doing or what we can do. I certainly understand that you have a business and you’ve got commitments to banquet customers that you need to fulfill, but from another point of view, septic dysfunctions along the lake are obviously not acceptable to us, and we need to have some data and assurances that the lake is being protected. There’s so many outstanding issues here, it’s hard to go through. I’m trying to clarify a clear cut path that we need to take, and that there’s no clear cut path. So I’m trying to identify the things that we have to address. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me address just the septic issue, which I would think would be your main concern. We have one system that serves a portion of the facility, the front portion of the facility, not the back portion of the facility where the tent is going to go. That is now considered by the authorities as being pretty much a holding tank, and we are pumping that. So that is not a system that’s in failure. It’s not a system that’s contributing in any way to pollution of the lake or the environment. What it in fact probably that system is better than the other systems that are in the ground because whatever goes into that system goes down the highway. So I don’t think, I know it’s very difficult. We’ve given you as much information as we have, but I don’t think it really is a system that is in failure. We think that the area in the back and support even the banquet under the tent, and just to be sure, with the belt and suspenders, we put in these two very nice port-a-johns that some of the people are going to use, and we’re going to pump those after each event. We have a contract with Cook, which we can make part of the record that says that they will pump them on a regular basis. They’re not construction type port-a-johns. They are full event type port-a-johns. If you’ve been to, maybe, for example, if you’ve been to a PGA Golf Tournaments, or things of that nature, that’s what they use. I’m trying to think of some place else. MR. KREBS-If you’ve ever played Equinox, down in Manchester, they have two of them. They’re beautiful, you know, a men’s and a woman’s, and you go inside and it’s spotless, and it looks like a regular bathroom, but it’s a port-a-john. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. O'CONNOR-I think we asked the question, I think the holding capacity on those is close to 1,000 gallons. I don’t know if we got a direct answer. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Well, he said, I believe he said 220 pumps. I don’t know what that’s in gallons. Flushes, I don’t know what, and there’s two of them. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. GOLDSTEIN-So you’re all of 500 maybe about. MR. O'CONNOR-Our permission, at this point, to have the port-a-johns, is 90 days from st Monday, with the Town Board approval. Mr. Goldstein has indicated that after September 1 he would not be using the tent. By that time we certainly are going to have everything to everyone’s satisfaction with an engineered system, so that we don’t have any issues that are going to hang out after that. We’re probably going to have most of that done within a month. So I think that’s one of the big issues. I think the tent issues we’ve taken care of with Mike Palmer. I’ve been involved with tents before, even with this Board. I mean, we put, the church down there down there on Dix Avenue, we put tents there for two summers now. I never knew that you had all these rules with tents, to be honest with you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re State rules. MR. O'CONNOR-But that’s a tent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. The insurance company usually tells you. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t disagree with them, but I mean, we’re learning all kinds of little things here as we uncover rock after rock, but I think we could address head on the septic issue. The parking issue I think we’ve got 13 acres there, much of which is not used. We have more room for overflow parking. We could park all of North Queensbury up there if we wanted to, but we wouldn’t have septic for them. I understand what you just said, Tom. I don’t know what other, you know, main issues that you would have. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I was going to suggest that maybe we give approval with a time limit, so that, th you know, they can use it this summer until September 15. They’re going to fix that one septic system anyway, and the tent is not on the septic system that has a problem. So, but I think everybody feels uncomfortable, on a long term basis, of approving this without some kind of knowledge that the septic systems are finished. So what I was thinking is if we approved it until st September 1, then they would have to come back next year, and we could be assured that the septic systems were then taken care of, on a long term basis. MRS. STEFFAN-Or, will the Special Event application process provide them with what they need right now. I mean, they obviously had a septic problem, and the agencies have been involved, and that’s being remedied at this point. The Special Event application will help them, from now until September, to be able to have their events under an open tent, and then once the septic systems are mapped, and many of these situations are remediated, or remedied, then we can do a Site Plan Review with all of the data that we need. MR. FORD-I like that idea. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I’d make it September 30, though, because you’ve got a couple of big, you know, the Balloon Festival and a few other things during the month you might want to use it for. You don’t want to come back and ask. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if we can do that many special events. That’s the issue. That doesn’t seem to fall within the definition of. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s a lot of balls up in the air. MR. HUNSINGER-How many special events can you do in a year, or a summer, do you know? MR. OBORNE-I do not know. MR. TRAVER-Well, and how many special events have to be outdoors, as opposed to using the Lodge? And I understand everything that you said before. This is a difficult situation. I mean, you know, if it were me, I would, suppose, take a look at the events that I had booked and try to 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) make the best use of the facilities I could and make application for those that needed to be outside. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s kind of like a public golf course, though, you know, you always have trouble getting your loyal local customers if without notice you kick them off the course, and I think that’s a big part of what they’re trying to develop is some local dining business, and all of a sudden, sorry, the dining rooms are taken up with an event, and it’s a closed operation. MR. TRAVER-Well, this is a temporary situation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why is there a limit on special events? MR. TRAVER-I mean, it’s a temporary situation, I understand, and I’m sure that these loyal customers that you have involved are going to be supportive of your efforts to clean up these issues and, you know, get the business operating normally. You have a 280 capacity, you know, inside. Not all of these events are going to require every room of the facility, I’m assuming, and that’s not including the special permits you can get for the outside activity. So, I mean, I understand it’s inconvenient, but, I mean, we have to come up with a plan here that’s going to work. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and part of the other problem is here we’re, you know, we’re trying to, we’re shooting at a moving target. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Now that the covered bar was part of the program, and that’s not part of the program now. You’ve asked for waivers on some things. We have to identify whether we want to grant waivers, and if we grant waivers, then some of the issues that have been pointed out in Staff Notes will become moot points, and, you know, I’m just, there’s an awful lot of gray here. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We removed the covered bar to prevent the gray areas. There’s not a lot of gray here. We’ve got design after design. We’ve got engineers. We’ve got the septic covered. We’ve got every agency on this checking it. I mean, as Michael said, these tanks are clean. We’re probably cleaner than anybody approved because we have agencies on the site. There’s no gray areas here. MR. OBORNE-I tend to disagree with that statement, to be honest with you. I think there’s a lot of gray area. I have not seen anything from DEC. I have not seen anything from Dave Hatin, from a planning perspective. There are a lot of outstanding issues. MR. FORD-We’ve seen a violation. MR. OBORNE-And we’re here for Site Plan Review, not for Special Use. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Well, while we’re trying to figure out how to sort this out this evening, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I know at least Mr. Salvador would wish to speak. You know the drill, but I would ask you to address any questions, comments to the Board, and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in the neighborhood of Dunham’s Bay Resort. Before I address my comments, I’d like to clarify a few matters that were mentioned here earlier. The wastewater system that is failing happens to be about 100 years old, okay. It was put in when that original Fielding residence was built, and it’s composed of, it was composed of, simply a drain pipe from the building into a cess pool which is in the parking lot now, which they think is a septic tank, and it is not. It has an open bottom. It’s a cess pool. We inherited that system in 1973, and I took the liberty to install a 1,000 gallon holding tank before that cess pool, and I put a baffle in the cess pool so then we couldn’t get any, we shouldn’t get any solids carrying over into this leach field. The primary problem they have with this failure is they’re dumping all of the stormwater runoff from that parking lot right on top of this infiltration device. It’s all going right onto, it can’t handle both. The soils are spent. They’ve been there for years. So much for that system. On your notice of public hearing, you have a cross reference here of UV 23-08 and NOA 2-08. Both of those are non-existent. They were filed. They were not pursued. They were withdrawn, and they’ve been vacated. They do not exist. The impression you get here is that they have some kind of previous approvals, and that’s poor. I’d like to offer in its place, as a cross reference a subdivision plat that my wife and I 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) brought about in 1999, and with the help of this Planning Board and the Town Staff, we were able to foresee these problems, and it’s provided for in this subdivision plat. If I can use that, I have copies here if you’d like to take a look at it. I’ll pass it out later. First of all, we were required to map on here all nine of those septic systems that are referred to. I think there are eight, okay. They’re on this map, located, septic tanks and leach fields. This area, this vacant land, has a notation on this subdivision plat, area available for waste and stormwater management. We were able to foresee these problems and reserve enough land in our subdivision to provide for it. Also, I think you heard Mr. Goldstein speak to the use that he is proposing for his facility. This subdivision plat has a note, Dunham’s Bay Lodge is a full service resort, consisting of 54 lodging units, no mention of a restaurant. No mention of banquet facilities, a resort, a seasonal resort, catering to vacationing people interested in outdoor recreation. That’s what we were selling. So, as a cross reference, I would like to offer this. A couple of other things. I think as you get into this project and review it, you’ll find that it is not an Unlisted action. It qualifies as a Type I SEQRA action. More on that later. The Ordinance section that is listed here as being referenced is simply 179-9-010. That is a rhetorical outline of what a site plan is supposed to include, whereas it’s the whole of Article 9, Site Plan Review, that includes the procedures and the specifications of what’s required in the Site Plan, and that should be referenced here. Nowhere in this notice is there mention that construction has started without a building permit. Nowhere is it mentioned that the use has been in effect without a CO. These are all after the fact permits that are being asked for. Now the last time they came in looking for that permit, that Use Variance, it involved alterations to the main lodge building, and to the swimming pool area that they put in. I don’t know if they’re using them. They’re not supposed to be using them. I have no idea if they’re in use, and if they are being used, it could be the reason for this overload. When we operated that, on the day we sold it, the dining room, upper level, had a seating capacity of 78 people. Since then they have moved that seating capacity around and included the front lounge and the office area and put a big bar in that upper area, but no increase in use. The upper, what we call the upper dining room, what they call the upper dining room, was our conference room. We had conference tables in there, not dining room tables. People came there if they were at the conference, that’s where they had their meeting. It was not dining space. Downstairs we had a cocktail lounge, and adjacent to that we had what we called the night club. Tables, chairs, and a dance floor. No dining. No food service down there at all. So, the use of the facility is changing. It is changing, and that has to be recognized. It’s the not the same use, and the burden on the utilities is beginning to show. This is a small point, but it’s worth mentioning. When we went for our approval for that swimming pool complex, there was a big discussion as to whether or not we were allowed to site that pool in that location because it was thought to be in the side yard. It was thought that the resort fronted on Alexy Lane, rather than 9L, and I had to go through a lot of paces to convince the Planning Board at that time, the Zoning Board at that time, that our business fronted on 9L and not Alexy Lane because of that side entrance. Now these folks have changed that, and they are, in fact, using that side entrance as the main entrance. Now their facility fronts on Alexy Lane, and they’ve converted the entrance that we had to an entrance to the restaurant, not the main resort. Small point. Also, somebody has got to begin to understand that the discharge from this facility is what we call commercial. It’s not residential, and Chapter 136 and Mr. Hatin have absolutely no jurisdiction. These wastewater systems have always been under the purview of the Health Department and the DEC. That’s where we got our permits. That’s where we got our permit to operate, and we’re involved with commercial. They’re using, they have a laundry facility on site. You’re talking chemicals, okay, detergents, soaps. We didn’t have that. We had a linen service. These are small things, but they make a difference on this wastewater treatment. Okay. Let’s see, okay. This project has been noticed as an expansion of a commercial use on a 13.58 acre lot of land in a Rural 3 Acre zoning district. Common to the same residential district, and bordering the Dunham’s Bay Resort, is a residential subdivision approved by Queensbury Town Board in 1960, which is known as the Alexy subdivision, and you see that there in the yellow. These residentially used lots are each about one acre in size. Six of these ten lots have been developed, each with its own on site drinking water source, as well as on site wastewater and stormwater management systems. I mention that because we share the same aquifer, and we don’t want to overburden it, and I’m not sure it’s not being overburdened. Notice of Public Hearing I received by mail a week ago summarizes the scope of the approval which the Dunham Bay Resort is seeking from this Board is that of a Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, for the expansion of a commercial use in a Rural Residential 3 Acre zone. Portions of the 13.54 acre site fall within the Lake George Park Commission designated CEA. MR. HUNSINGER-How many pages do you have there, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just trying to understand how much longer you’re going to take. MR. SALVADOR-Ten minutes. Fair enough? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-No. You’ve already had ten. MR. SALVADOR-This is a very, very complicated project. MR. HUNSINGER-So we realize. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. We need some balance here, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. I mean, if you have information that you want to present, that’s fine. I mean, maybe the better forum to do that would be something in writing to the Board. MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe the better way to do this would be something in writing to the Board. MR. SALVADOR-Write to the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Something in writing. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I’ll continue. I’ll do that. Commercial uses enumerated in Chapter 179, do not include an outdoor patio banquet area. It’s not listed as a use, as the applicant has proposed, and there’s no definition for such a facility, and there’s no layout criteria and there’s no criteria for dimensions, design criteria, nothing in our Ordinance. Okay. This is a brand new use. The most offensive aspect of any outdoor facility is noise, and we haven’t even touched upon it, and noise from a wedding reception that goes on into the evening hours is something that has to be addressed. This is the biggest complaint. We can pull the shades and not see this. That doesn’t bother us, but you can’t drive out the noise. Without knowing which commercial use is being expanded, it is not possible to determine whether or not a Use Variance is required. This Board is reminded that from the beginning of time this and other neighboring Dunham Bay commercial properties have been zoned in one form or another as residential. It’s a residential neighborhood. This is a nonconforming use, a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and we’re trying to expand it without a Use Variance. Let’s see. An outdoor banquet area has never been known to be one of those and therefore cannot be expanded without first obtaining a Use Variance. The applicant has requested a number of waivers, including wastewater, stormwater and parking. These three waivers should be categorically denied for the following reasons. The current state of affairs with regard to wastewater management on this site is that there is currently a failure of an onsite wastewater system. The Resort has been cited by both the Town of Queensbury and the DEC, for the second time in two years. I understand that there’s a meeting tomorrow on site to determine what’s going to be th done about this system. Mr. Hatin’s determination on June 8 that a port-a-john, that port-a- johns are not allowed, per Section 136-35 of Town Code stands until an appeal overturns that determination, notwithstanding yesterday’s Town Board meeting. He made a determination it’s not allowed. If the applicant doesn’t like that determination, they can appeal it. They can appeal his determination to the Town Board, where the Town Board will hold a public hearing on the matter. Now there’s a long history to why we don’t allow holding tanks in the Town of Queensbury, and I don’t know if you’re familiar with it. MR. HUNSINGER-We are. I would ask, Mr. Salvador, you conclude your comments. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-The Town Building and Code Enforcement Officer has failed to respond or properly investigate an ongoing investigation involving a Town Code Chapter 146, Storm Sewer System discharges. This involves the MS-4, a violation to the MS-4 Code. I mentioned this to the DEC because Mr. Hatin refuses to do anything about it, and tomorrow I’m assured that they’re going to look at into this. MR. HUNSINGER-I would ask that you conclude your comments, please, respectfully. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The Fire Marshal. MR. HUNSINGER-Come on, Mr. Salvador, really. I’ve given you over 15 minutes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Let me. I have one more. MR. HUNSINGER-One more comment. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. SALVADOR-The Fire Marshal, Mr. Schonewolf would be interested in this. The Fire Marshal has written a letter, it’s before you. In the letter he refers to Chapter 22. That’s in error. It should be Chapter 24. In the letter he refers to Section 2403.5 as referencing construction documents. That’s in error. It should be Section 2401.6. 2403.5 which he mentions, however, deals with fire breaks, fire breaks, and the Code says this about fire breaks, an unobstructed fire break passageway or fire road not less than 12 feet wide and free from any guy ropes or other obstructions shall be maintained on all sides of all tents, air supported, air inflated or tension membrane structures. I don’t think the plans before you provide for the 12 foot wide unobstructed fire break. That’s the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-And no Notice of Appeal has been filed on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I have copies of that subdivision plat. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to see that, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, we have two written comments. Okay. This is dated 6/12 of this year, public comment, Planning Board members. “My name is John Schriner. I have a camp on land that borders the Lodge property on Dunham’s Bay. I am against any outside patio banquet area with a bar. The noise that will come from this outdoor patio will be unbearable for my family and the other neighbors. I’m also concerned about the sewage from all these people getting into my well and the lake. Thank you. John Schriner” There’s one more from the Water Keeper. Would you like me to read this into the record, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-How long is it? MR. OBORNE-It’s about two paragraphs, three paragraphs, maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, please. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Dated June 8, 2010, Mr. Chris Hunsinger, Chairman, Dunham’s Bay Resort, Route 9L, “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: The above referenced Site Plan Review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer, and the Lake George Water Keeper. I would like to offer the following for the Board. No information regarding the wastewater treatment system that would service the proposed banquet facility has been submitted. The application should require the submission of the current wastewater treatment system servicing the banquet facility, including design flows. Records in indicate there is a SPDES Permit for the discharge permit for the discharge of wastewater for the 4 three-unit cabins. It is not clear if the system would service the proposed banquet facility or if another system is present on the property that would accommodate the flows. At a minimum, the following information should be provided. Information should be provided for the wastewater system(s) that would treat the flows from the proposed banquet facility accommodating 200 people and replacing the existing facility on the Resort. If the existing banquet facility will remain, it should be determined if the wastewater system(s) will now have the ability to accommodate two banquet functions at the same time. If this is not the case, the existing banquet facilities should be removed. The Resort has dining accommodations that can be used by non-guests. However, no information has been included regarding wastewater treatment associated with dining facilities. Existing wastewater treatment systems should be evaluated for design flows and the current operating condition. As previously detailed, it is not clear where all existing wastewater systems are for the resort. Therefore, current systems should be evaluated to determine design flows and the condition of system components. The existing impervious tennis court provided for banquet facilities should be removed with the construction of the new facility to reduce stormwater runoff. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the following to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board: 1) The applicant should be required to provide information on the wastewater treatment systems that currently service the banquet facility; 2) The applicant should be required to calculate total design flows based on all sources of wastewater generated at the resort; 3) Existing wastewater treatment systems design flows and components should be evaluated; and 4) The existing impervious cover accommodating banquets should be removed to reduce stormwater runoff. The Lake George Water Keeper Program looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper” And that’s it. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. What’s the will of the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to make a comment for the record as to some of the comments that Mr. Salvador made, even though I don’t think they’re too germane to the application that’s before you. The Zoning Administrator, when he reviewed the application, makes a finding, indirectly or directly, that the requested use is a permitted use. There has been a change of use on the site, and there were some applications that last year were withdrawn or maybe even the year before were withdrawn, and the reason that they were withdrawn is that we were advised that the Town Board was going to change the zoning on the property, which it did, which allowed us to do the expansion without Use Variances. So I don’t think there’s any issue that what we’ve asked for is a permitted use. We have more than enough acreage to have the expansion that we are asking for, if it’s considered an outright expansion, although we say it’s a substitution for part of the existing use. I’m a little surprised, the concern about noise, because basically we’re taking the tent that is immediately behind Mr. Salvador’s property, his residence, I believe, or maybe a rental property, I’m not sure, and moving it further away inside the ring of cabins that we have, that will make it less noticeable to anyone else that adjoins us, in any event. If you’ve been up there, I think you’ve looked at it. I’m not sure what he’s talking about saying that Dave Hatin doesn’t have jurisdiction. We’ve acknowledged that we’re going to abide by what Mr. Hatin has asked us to do. We are attempting to do it. We’re not arguing that. He cites the letter of Mr. Hatin saying that port-a-potties or port-a-johns are not permitted under Section 136, whatever it is, except upon permission of the Town Board. He forgets to tell you that second part. We’ve applied to the Town Board for permission. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you had mentioned that earlier this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-The letter that he gives you quotes the section. It quotes that the Town Board has the authority to do it. If you’ve got that letter in your file, if you don’t, I’ll supply it to you, so we’ve followed that and tried to attempt to do what we’re trying to do. I could go through a lot of the other comments, but I think those were the only ones I thought were of any substance. The letter, the Water Keeper we knew. We had a copy of it. We think that by doing this analysis of the septic system we are in compliance with what his request is. The only part of his letter that we objected was he said that if we did get permission to move the tent to the new area for the patio, we ought to remove the impervious area of the tennis courts. I don’t know, that’s not something that we agree to. Tennis courts are used by people when the tent’s not out there, and probably will continue to be used by people that are at the Resort. The waivers that we’ve requested, I think you can address, so that we know what you’re doing, or what we need to do to go forward. We requested, basically, a waiver on showing any additional parking except to the extent that we’ve shown it. We’ve shown that we have ample area for parking, even if we had a tent larger than what we actually have on site. The tent calculation was based upon, I think, 200 people, and we’re talking that the tent that we have on site by Fire Marshal rules is for 150. So that’s. MR. TRAVER-Plus the 280 in the structure. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but I think what the comment was, the Staff comment was, show additional parking for what you’re going to put under the tent. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think we’ve done that and actually we showed it for the 200, although we’re only going to have 150, which would cover any additional staff that we might have or not have on the site. The other comment was made that we now have a laundry on the site. They still use a linen service, Morgan Linen. The laundry that’s on site is just incidentals. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We addressed stormwater runoff as soon as we bought the place. The building might be 200 foot long. The roof comes down and drains on the driveway, and some of the curbs were open to dump down. We’ve put gutters on the top of that, and I think if an engineer did a calculation, that’s probably 75% of the water shed. I think one good point our neighbor made is he couldn’t complain about the other septic fields, other than saying that they were old and may be overpowered. I do have some, I believe I have some old menus from the prior ownership for that place. As he said, Morgan Linen, we do our bed spreads, Morgan Linen does not do bed spreads, and we do some chair covers, which we stopped this week. We don’t run a laundry there. Addressing noise, I’ve not had a verbal or written complaint since I’ve owned that place from the Town to come in to use. I’ve not had a complaint, and somebody should maybe make me aware of it if I’ve had. Sometimes I’m not on site. Mark (lost words) is in charge. Two times cited in two years, you’ve got to bring me up to speed on that one. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. TRAVER-I think when you, earlier this evening when you began your presentation, you mentioned something about people complaining about noise. MR. GOLDSTEIN-No. What I said is we’d remove the noise from the back neighborhood to the center court that was said by Michael here, too. Michael said that you would think the neighbors would rather have it up further. The tennis court, just to add to what Michael said, has to be 200 feet away or more, and it’s basically grass and woods in that area that he said would be a good leach field. I’m a little confused about using that side path, and it’s probably a sarcastic remark because I’m probably blocked by cars from that marina blocking the road that doesn’t have sufficient parking spots to get out of (lost word). I think that’s all I’ve got for comments. So, sorry about the last comment. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We were asking for specific waivers for parking. We were asking for a specific waiver for any further study of traffic internal to the site. We don’t think that the proposal that we have changes the traffic flows in any significant way, and we shouldn’t have to, I don’t know what further would be required, but we’re asking for a waiver for that. The sewage disposal system, I think we’re going to undertake the study of that. The stormwater management, other than that from the tent or patio surface, we were asking for a waiver for the existing structures, the existing site. That waiver, we have provided you with a full stormwater management plan for what is new to the site. So I don’t think we should be required to go back and do stormwater on the balance of the site. We don’t know of a particular problem, and as Alan has indicated, he did address a great deal of that when they did take over, by diverting the stormwater from the roofs. Landscaping plans, we are willing to take out the word may as it’s sprinkled throughout the plans. We’ve shown you landscaping. If that landscaping was satisfactory, we’d take out the word may, which I think responds to something that the Staff asked, and we’ve asked for a specific waiver as to lighting. Lighting external of the banquet tent is existing and minimal. It’s 60 watt yard carriage lamp. If you were up there, you saw them. They’ve been there. They were there before the tent was, that area was graded for the tent. I think we are adding one or two. MR. JARRETT-There’s three around the front, or four. MR. O'CONNOR-So those are, I think, waivers that are reasonable, the request for those are reasonable, and then we see where we go with the rest of this. I’m not sure, you know, aside from the fact that the Town regulations says we pay $150 for every time we want to use the tent, if it’s going to be a special event, could get kind of onerous, particularly if we have people that wanted to come up and get a cocktail go out and sit underneath the tent while they’re enjoying the pool, or something of that nature. I don’t know how, what the enforcement on that would be, but we obviously have people that like to make calls, on everything and anything that goes on up there. I also don’t know of any meeting on the site tomorrow. I asked Alan and I asked Mark and I asked Tom. We have no meeting set up with anybody on the site. So I don’t know what Mr. Salvador was talking about. MRS. STEFFAN-Just a question. The tent capacity is 192 seats? MR. O'CONNOR-150. MRS. STEFFAN-150 seats. MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. Steffan, you have to have 15 square feet for each person under the tent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it stays up all the time. You’re not taking it down and putting it back up. It’s just up for the season? MR. O’CONNOR-Right. Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So then he would probably just have to do one inspection when you put it up. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, probably. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the way that usually works. MRS. STEFFAN-You identify that you have some events upcoming, you know, one’s a small event for 50. The other one might be a wedding reception. What happens if it’s going to be inclement weather, and the weather’s going to be bad, and you’ve got a wedding reception scheduled for the tent? You said you won’t. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We can move them inside. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and that’s what your intent would be, you wouldn’t put sides on the tent, in that situation? MR. GOLDSTEIN-No. Just on one comment, just so I don’t forget it. The Schriner letter, John Schriner, I don’t know where John lives, but heading towards Cleverdale, if John is that way, he’s got to be 1,000 feet from us. There’s no houses by us there. MRS. STEFFAN-According to the map, he’s on the northeast side, right near, on Route 9L, according to the land map you’ve provided us. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Not on Alexy Lane. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, no. He’s on 9L. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s on 9L. MRS. STEFFAN-He’s on 9L. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. What Alan is saying, because this distance between the tent that we proposed and Alan’s boundary line, and the location of any improvements on the Schriner property, that’s quite a distance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is, yes, that’s right. MR. O'CONNOR-And also you’ve got two cabins that directly block it, going that direction. MR. KREBS-Keith, I’ve got Hatin’s letter here again, and I’ve re-read it, and I’ve read the article, and I’m not sure that the Town Board can give you permission to locate portable toilets, because it says such other public places, and public places, yours is not a public place. Yours is a private piece of property. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s open to the public. It’s a licensed premise. The Town Board went through that a little bit and determined that it was a public place. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I wasn’t privy to the conversation last night, obviously, so I don’t know the particulars of it. The Town Board, obviously, can do anything they want with the Town Code to a certain extent, and they certainly can approve this, at least the Town Counsel believes they can. MR. O'CONNOR-We can’t, I don’t know how you say it. That’s part of our license requirement t that it’s open to the public. MR. KREBS-But the way it’s defined in the Article, and they’re talking about Town owned temporary festivals, etc., and other public places, doesn’t sound like. MR. O'CONNOR-In truth, I don’t think anybody has read that section before this thing, and only because there’s a daily visitor to this building, it hasn’t been read. MR. OBORNE-I would say Dave Hatin probably has read it. MR. O'CONNOR-Before this? MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. I mean, I asked him. MR. O'CONNOR-But he also has a daily visitor. MR. HUNSINGER-So what do we want to do this evening here, folks? MRS. STEFFAN-I just, you know, I started to construct some comments, and, you know, I’m just one person. This is very convoluted, in my mind, still, and there are issues of, I think, zoning and land use things that need to be investigated, clarified, and/or resolved. I think that we need a stormwater plan that identifies the septic locations on the property and the functionalities of those systems, before we approve anything. We would do that for any other project that comes before us. So why wouldn’t we do it for this one? There plans need to be revised to satisfy Staff Note questions raised and Paragon Engineering comments. Mr. Jarrett has provided us with that feedback, but we did get it tonight. It has to be reviewed by Staff as well as we need a little more time to digest that, and then the other issue is that, you know, I think that it’s important for us to get the documentation trail. Mr. O’Connor has presented a couple of documents, talked about a couple of documents that he has received, and I’m sure it was probably in the last week, 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) but we don’t have those, and so in order for us to take an action to move forward, I think we need that documentation trail or chronology of Town Board actions on site and also any of the, you know, Building Code Enforcement documentation or Fire Marshal documentation that exist, and so those are the four things that I’ve identified in our conversation. I don’t know what else anybody else on the Planning Board is interested in hearing, but I’m not ready to make a recommendation to approve this Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-I think that that, I think that you’ve summarized the concerns that I have, as well, and I think the, moving forward with the applicant getting permission to conduct special events while this follow up takes place, with the goal of having a Site Plan Review with this information in hand, as a long range goal, I think is appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MR. SIPP-I think there’s too many loose ends here that we’re not a privy to. I cannot see us moving forward with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. FORD-Too many unknowns, and I’ve listened hard, and I’ve still got too many areas that I’m concerned with. It’s an obvious expansion. I’m not sure that the site can accommodate the expansion. I’m not convinced that it can. I can be convinced that it can, with the appropriate documentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Some of the information that we’re still looking for, how quickly can you get that in? MR. O'CONNOR-We hope to have an analysis of the septic system within the next two weeks, capacity and what we have. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don’t think, I mean, if that’s the case, we’d really be looking at something in. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have a special meeting on the 24. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s next week. I mean, we’d be looking at an August meeting, submission in July. MR. KREBS-If this application had come before us, and they hadn’t had a septic failure, would you have approved this expansion of the tent? MRS. STEFFAN-It would have raised less questions. MR. KREBS-Right. So. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s purely hypothetical. MR. O'CONNOR-But if we’ve converted the problematic system, which serves a percentage, some place between maybe 10 and 20% of that whole facility, to a holding tank facility, as opposed to, there’s no further pollution from that system. So in all honesty, I, and I’d ask Tom professionally, that should answer the question that you have lingering in the back of your mind, do we have a septic failure. We had a septic failure, agreed on a temporary basis. MR. TRAVER-Right, and you’ve explained the action that you’ve taken. It certainly sounds appropriate, and I think when you have an opportunity to give us the documentation from the various agencies that you’ve interacted with in an attempt to resolve this situation, I think we’ll be much better informed, but right now you’re coming and you’re saying, well, we’ve done this and we’ve done that and Dave Hatin has signed off on this, but we don’t have any of that record. MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s also a commercial property that we have been told has eight septic systems on it, and so, you know, just like tonight, there’ve been other applications before us, and we’ve asked those folks to come back. We’ve sent them away and we’ve asked them to come back to tell us the functionality, to have a certified wastewater professional tell us whether those systems were functioning properly. MR. O’CONNOR-How are we impacting those systems? They serve, like they serve say six out of those eight systems serves specific cabin structures. If you look at this development, or the house that’s down by the front road. This tent in the back has no impact on that system of any 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) nature. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I also want to understand what we’re going to come back and. MR. TRAVER-Well, another way to look at that, the comment that you just made, is that this commercial property has, in fact, fewer supportive septic systems because you’re saying that some of them are not dedicated to this commercial use but rather are used for these cabins. I mean, it would be my preference that all eight of them were somehow tied into the commercial use. So that, in a way, raises even more questions in my mind. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because it’s a potential of 150 plus 280, that’s a lot of capacity, and I understand that you’re looking to put some port-a-johns in to satisfy the load that would be put on this system by the tent, but still, we have a Site Plan in front of us, and you’re looking for approval, and if we approve it, before we have the documentation, it could be a long time before we have the opportunity to make sure it all works. MR. O'CONNOR-At this point, without really asking Mr. Goldstein, but he’s here, but I would understand the best that we might get is some type of temporary approval, come back with everything proven, but go ahead and let us operate. We’ve got enough people watching. We’re not going to pollute anything in the next two months. MR. OBORNE-Could I offer something? It may help. I don’t think it’s under the auspices of this Board to temporarily approve this at all. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don’t think we can do that. MR. OBORNE-But I think, in your tabling resolution, if you don’t have an issue whit the tent being erected, you may want to have that thought presented to the Fire Marshal and to Craig. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can’t you issue a special, forget the other problems, because they’re real, but can’t you issue a Special Use Permit for like a 75 day period for a tent? MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t think so. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me, is Staff saying you can’t put a time limitation on a Site Plan approval? MR. OBORNE-I’m saying, what I’m saying is you’re not here for that. MR. O'CONNOR-No, we’re here for full approval, and certainly the Board can condition that approval in any manner that is appropriate. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-And if one of those manners that is appropriate is by limiting in a time span, that is within the discretion and authority of this Board. So I don’t want you to tell the Board they can’t approve it for 90 days, 20 days, 60 days. MR. OBORNE-I cannot disagree with you. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Let’s not get the record crazy. You can approve it for 60 days. You can approve it for 90 days. You can approve it for 30 days. MR. OBORNE-You can’t approve it partially. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. I was just focusing on the tent, not the system and not how it fits into what’s up there. Just saying, because they’re saying they’re going to use the port-a- potties in conjunction with the tent. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I just said I’ve seen other occasions, and I’d hate to keep going back to other places, but where we’ve issued a Special Use Permit for a specified time period for a tent, like you issue one for selling vegetables. MR. OBORNE-You did it for Pastor Randy. Okay. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. KREBS-And there’s a condition here because if they’re going to use the port-a-potties, then that’s a condition for the tent. That means the Town Board has to approve that, because that’s what the Ordinance says. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not trying to dance, and not trying to present a total file for you, okay, but I just have a real problem trying to operate on a special event or special events throughout the whole summer, and I can see the vicious circle. I’m going to go to Craig, who hasn’t come back to me yet, and he knows what I’m looking for, and say, well, I don’t know if I can do that, and we’re into July. There’s only a short season here. MR. OBORNE-And I understand that, but we’ve been talking about this for months now, and we just got the application in. In fact, you weren’t even eligible to go on the agenda, yet you got on the agenda, because the application is incomplete. So we’re here for Site Plan Review at this point, and as far as you not getting in contact with Craig, I can’t speak for that. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think, too, that we’re not focusing on all possible activity at this site. We’re just talking about the outdoor activity with this expanded, proposed expansion. So, you know, you certainly can continue to operate your facility indoors or whatever here, and/or apply for this special activity permit or whatever. I mean, we’re not talking about your entire operation. We’re talking about this proposed expansion. I think we need to keep that in mind as well. MR. O'CONNOR-It seems like a poor way to do business. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Just to answer what you just said, the majority of our business is banquets, and the banquets are generally in the warm weather, for a reason. It’s a hard time supporting this place. If this place goes down, I don’t know who would buy it or what they’d use it for. They couldn’t afford to do anything, and that, you know, we’ve spent a considerable amount of money on this place and never went the cheaper route. Everything in there is premium, and, as I said, if somebody can bring me up some complaints, I haven’t had a verbal or written complaint, so how do you change things when you don’t get complaints, you think you’re doing okay. MR. FORD-You certainly have had complaints from the Town. There’ve been violations cited and so forth. So there are some issues. MR. KREBS-Yes, but they aren’t relative to the tent. MR. GOLDSTEIN-I’m not so sure what we’ve had from the Town, other than. MR. KREBS-Right? There’s no citations because of the tent, right? MR. O'CONNOR-The directions we’ve had with regard to the tent is that we need to get a Site Plan approval of it, and it’s the same thing that they do with everybody. Please bring yourself into compliance, and the tent’s been there for three years, four years, used on a regular basis. There were conversations with Staff, three to four years ago, and there was no indication that a permit was needed to put the tent up. We moved the location of the tent, and now we’re into the permitting process, and sometimes those conversations are good. Sometimes those conversations are bad, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I can certainly understand and appreciate your frustration with that. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not pointing fingers. We’re trying to comply, and he’s hired, you know, professional staff to prove that we have complied, and he’s gone to the point, I’ve got a contract that says it’s going to be pumped on a daily basis, and that’s satisfactory to the Department of Health and the Department of, or DEC. If Salvador is right, which I doubt he is, Hatin doesn’t even have a part in this thing. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Mr. Ford, here, I don’t believe, somebody can refresh me, Mark, maybe, but we don’t have Town complaints, other than the septic and maybe once in a while we put a sign on the lawn that we’re open or we have a special, but I don’t think we’ve had Town complaints. The fire department has been great back and forth with the whole group over there. So you’d have to refresh me on Town complaints. MR. FORD-I’m just quoting what we were told in the presentation, that there had been violations cited. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at all the letters, they all start, the comments and the letters, all start th about June 8, long after this application was filed. This application was filed, I think, in April, and it was deemed to be incomplete because of all the narrative, which doesn’t add anything to the application, with due respect. You’ve got an 11 page narrative saying that we think we’re in 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) compliance with the Town Master Plan. We think that we aren’t going to create any issues, and that’s all that 11 page of narrative answers. I don’t know if you’re getting those 11 pages on every Site Plan, but it makes the application look very fancy, but there’s not much meat in that. MR. OBORNE-In my Department’s defense, I had brought that issue up immediately upon my completion review, and there was no response. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not complaining. I’ll tell you, we’ve had good response from Dave Hatin. We’ve had good response from Mike Palmer. I’ve had good conversations with Keith. This is a time sensitive thing. I had good response from the Town Board to work us into a workshop meeting last night without being on an agenda, and agreeing to put a resolution on their meeting Monday night. MR. TRAVER-It really, it does sound as though there are proposed solutions, or solutions to the issues that you have run into in putting this together. It’s just that we don’t have a, it’s not in a cohesive package. We don’t have all the documentation that you talk about. I think much of the issue is really that. As you point out, a lot of this has happened just in the very recent time. MR. O'CONNOR-If you want us to document it and present it, we can get it here by the end of business on Monday, that business. I can’t get the analysis of the septic system, but I can get all the letters that we’ve talked about that I thought would be informative for you, and have those on your table. That I can tell you I can do that. We can go through this, when we had this letter, what the response was, everything else, maybe, might even get Palmer to sign off by then. I thought he was going to write a letter, and if that’s an issue. I don’t know if that’s still an issue or not. We put all his information on the map, and he was happy, and I don’t know if you have a place that you can stick us. If you have an opening that’s available. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the problem is we have policies and procedures for reasons, you know, and we start to make exceptions and then it’s like where do we draw the line. MR. O’CONNOR-I do respectfully think, though, that you’ve got to recognize that there are certain applications that are more time sensitive than others, particularly if they are seasonal operations. I mean, I told you to go ahead and kick off the Sherwood Acres thing, you know, that doesn’t make a difference when we get that done. Eventually we’ll get it done, but that’s not time sensitive. MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, we can’t control when you submit your application. MR. O'CONNOR-No, but I can tell you that I can document what I’ve spoken of tonight, by close of business on Tuesday. MR. SIPP-Is there anything that we can come to agreement on on what we need to know, to put this into the special meeting we’re having next week on Thursday? MRS. STEFFAN-That special meeting, that agenda, there was supposed to be one item and there’s like seven items on that agenda. That night’s all jammed up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we filled the night. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s no capacity in that night, and the first item on the agenda is the Gurney Lane Schermerhorn project. So that’s the first of six or seven items. MR. SIPP-I realize that, but. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I know one of the major items on our list, I believe, is an analysis of the septic capacity, particularly if we know, now, that much of that capacity is only used when people are staying in those cabins. So now we have fewer systems handling a bigger load. MR. FORD-And do we really know what comprises the system? MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a lot of systems, but how do they work. MR. FORD-There are many different components to it, apparently. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the, I think, most complicated thing, really, in terms of time. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve only had one system that’s shown any signs of failure in the last four years, and that system we have turned into a holding tank. I don’t know why that, in and of itself, wouldn’t be satisfactory on a short term basis. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think we have anything in front of us that says it’s being operated as a holding tank. MR. JARRETT-Mike’s on the record as saying that we can put it on the writing by next week. MR. O'CONNOR-Make it a condition. I can do that tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the problem is Site Plan Review really isn’t designed for short term, temporary kind of issues. It’s designed to be long term, more permanent, and we just, I mean, I understand, you know, your issues. I think, I mean, we’ve been deliberating this for over two hours. I mean, obviously we’re, you know, we’re trying to be as accommodating as we can be, but we just kind of get to a point where you’re trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, and it just doesn’t fit, and I think, knowing that there is an ability to get a special event permit, I mean, you know, we don’t know how many events you’ve scheduled so far. Maybe we can hear your project again in July. MR. O'CONNOR-Tent or similar structure may be erected and maintained for a maximum of seven consecutive days and no more than twice in any year. I just read it. I apologize. I should have read it before. This is the application for. MR. HUNSINGER-Special permit, special event. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, a Special Use Permit would have been a more appropriate scenario. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s not what we have. We have a Site Plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Isn’t that what I asked a half an hour ago? MR. O'CONNOR-How many times you can get them, and I didn’t know that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don’t get them here. This would be the first one I’ve ever heard of here, but it’s fairly common in other places. MR. O'CONNOR-You talk about the tent with Pastor Randy. I don’t think we actually did anything. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t think we gave them. MR. O’CONNOR-You gave him the permission to use the tent for the summer. MR. OBORNE-That was upon Site Plan approval, though. MR. O'CONNOR-What was included in there for septic? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think we need to debate Pastor Randy’s Site Plan, to be honest with you. MR. O'CONNOR-I always feel very elevated when I come in here with him, because he seems to do well. MR. JARRETT-If we had just move the tent from the tennis courts to the lawn with no other improvements, what would have happened? MR. OBORNE-It’s not an allowable use. It’s not an allowable use. That’s why you’re here for Site Plan. Even if it was used before, it wasn’t an allowable use. MRS. STEFFAN-There are outlet businesses that apply for special use permits every year, for their tent sales, and we’ve limited those, and it’s a restriction. They have like a 30 day window from, you know, put up to take down, and they use a special permit process, but you’re not here for a special use permit. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t think that that will help us. MR. HUNSINGER-How many events do you have scheduled between now and July? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. CHILDE-There’s a potential of up to seven. Now, once again you asked earlier if it’s inclement weather, they would come inside. We’re not planning to have events happening inside and outside. We’re just trying to get the people out to where they can see the lake and enjoy the outdoors and enjoy the beautiful area that we have. MR. HUNSINGER-So those events aren’t scheduled specifically to be in the tent, or are they? MR. CHILDE-They are if it’s nice weather. That’s where the people ideally would want to be. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We do a lot of weddings. I’m kind of repetitive, but they get married on the beach. They come up, this is prior to the (lost words), they come up to the swimming pool, have their cocktail there, then they go up on the tennis court and they have the reception So that kind of ties in with the wedding. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there’s five weekends between now and July 20. th MR. KREBS-Well, why don’t we give them permission until July 20? MR. HUNSINGER-Can we do that? MR. KREBS-I think we have the right to condition. What we can condition is that we can give thth them until July 20 with the condition that on July 20 they will show up here with the proper engineering documentation to satisfy our concerns about the septic systems. Are there other concerns? Is noise a concern? Then we need to ask them to do that. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think for Site Plan we can approve something on a time limited basis. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, you can. I think Keith said you could. MR. KREBS-Our Town Attorney said last week, or the time before, that we could condition almost anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And we’re not going to object to it. MR. KREBS-Right. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then the issue becomes, okay, we come back July 20, what if we still don’t have everything. th MR. KREBS-Well, then we’re only giving him permission until July 20. MR. FORD-But with the unknowns that we have right now on the table, what can you imagine that in the future we couldn’t also conditionally approve? Look at the questions that we have unanswered right now. How can we proceed with a conditional approval? MR. TRAVER-Your concern is setting a precedent? MR. FORD-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-But the Town Attorney told us, two meetings ago, that we could condition almost anything, and that you could re-condition that at a future meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-What are the conditions, or concerns that you have that are unanswered, other than the septic? MR. SIPP-Stormwater. MR. O’CONNOR-Stormwater is provided. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I don’t see any, what are you doing with it? I see no diagram showing me where the stormwater is going. MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry, we should have gotten into that, because there’s a whole system on the west side of our patio. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that’s another issue. We’re talking about a tent. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. GOLDSTEIN-It actually improves what we have now. There’s nothing now, other than. MR. JARRETT-We have a total stormwater retention system and infiltration system on the west side of the tent. MR. SIPP-Where is it on the? MR. JARRETT-It’s on plans, the plans in your package on page, shown on Plan C-1, and detailed on D-1. It takes into account all the impervious area out there. MR. SIPP-Where is it going? But I don’t see it. You’re telling me, and there probably is, but I don’t see it. I don’t see any infiltration. MR. JARRETT-Yes, the chambers are there along the west boundary. MR. SIPP-Yes, the chambers, but what do these chambers look like? What are they? Where’s the groundwater? MR. JARRETT-Well, okay, let’s go through this real quickly. On Drawing C-1, if you look at the left side of the patio, you’ll see those chambers that are labeled storm tech units, and in that same diagram it shows test pits and perc tests which are documented over in the right margin of the drawing. MR. SIPP-Are we talking about the new one you passed out today? MR. JARRETT-That was on the original one as well, but it’s on the new one tonight, and then you’ll see that on the plan view, there’s a section number three, which is on Drawing D-1. If you look at the top of Page D-1, it shows the patio surface and a tent, and then to the left, there are storm tech chambers that are below grade, where we store and infiltrate stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-So when I went up there today, what was the PVC pipe that I saw sticking out of the wall? MR. JARRETT-Those are the under drains I think you were looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Above the retaining wall. MR. JARRETT-They probably were the under drains, that haven’t been connected yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-They can only do this for 12 days twice. MR. SIPP-This is why I think we need some perc tests. MR. JARRETT-They’re on the plan. They’re on C-1 MR. SIPP-Where was it taken? MR. JARRETT-If you look at C-1, they’re right in the area where those chambers are. MR. SIPP-Yes, but where? MR. JARRETT-Let me show you. See these dots right there, those are the test locations. MR. FORD-You’ve got two 12 day approval periods. MR. KREBS-That Craig Brown can do, I think he can. MR. FORD-Administrative, yes, doesn’t require us. MR. KREBS-Just make a motion recommending it, and then he’s stuck with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Make a motion recommending? MR. KREBS-Make a motion recommending two 12 day permits, and it can be issued by the Administrator. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but he can only issue two per year. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. KREBS-He can only issue two for a total of 12 times 2, that’s right, but you said you wanted to bring this up again at the July meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-That gets them through June. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. KREBS-So they don’t lose revenue on things that were already booked. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what we initially said. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Actually the 12 days don’t have to touch either. You can have some time th in between them. They could have a 12 day permit starting June 26, and another 12 day permit starting in July. So it would get you in to a meeting. This is just the tent, now. We’re just talking about the tent. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you comfortable with the waivers that I talked about, other than the septic? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you’ve already shown the parking there. So we can’t argue with you about that. The Fire Marshal’s already said that it has to meet the State. So he’s got to do that. MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t sound like lighting is going to be an issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Lighting doesn’t appear to be an issue. MR. O'CONNOR-How about landscaping? We’ll take out the may, and we will put in what we show. MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t heard any concerns about that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I haven’t heard any concerns. I mean, we’re going to want to be apprised of it for Site Plan, but I can’t see any emergency. MR. O'CONNOR-Satisfy engineering comments by then. MRS. STEFFAN-See, I don’t know where you guys are going, but I’m kind of like, we’re talking about waivers, when. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we’re talking about a Special Use Permit issued by the Administrator. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Don’t use that language because it’s not a Special Use Permit. It’s a special event application. Because a Special Use Permit is something they apply to us for, which is very different. MR. O'CONNOR-We won’t. MR. HUNSINGER-How do you get around the point that you can’t have a tent up for more than seven consecutive days? MR. FORD-Seven days. It says tent or similar structure may be erected and maintained for a maximum of seven consecutive days. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How long has it been there? MR. JARRETT-Six point nine. MR. O'CONNOR-Three years, on site, four years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what we’re trying to do is make it legal before you put any more people in it. In case something goes wrong. I don’t know. That’s the only solution I can think of. MRS. STEFFAN-This is not going to work. MR. HUNSINGER-Good try, yes. Everyone’s okay with a waiver on lighting, lighting plan? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, lighting is not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a little dark up there at night. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s atmosphere. MR. HUNSINGER-I know. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. This is what I’ve got. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2010 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, 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 5,650 sq. ft. outside patio banquet area with covered bar, seating and seasonal tent. Project to include stormwater controls and landscaping. Commercial Expansion in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/15/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2010 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Doing business as Dunham’s Bay Resort. This is tabled to the July 20 Planning Board th meeting. We are extending the submission deadline for the applicant to Monday, June 28, so that the applicant can meet the following conditions: 1.Issues of zoning and land use will need to be investigated and clarified and/or resolved, i.e. specifically zoning versus use. 2.The Planning Board requests a property wide wastewater management plan that identifies septic locations and functionalities of those systems, compared to the proposed uses and capacity demands. This includes any impact from stormwater runoff. 3.The plans need to be revised to satisfy Staff Note questions raised and Paragon Engineering comments. 4.The Planning Board requests a documentation trail or chronology on Town Board actions on this site, i.e. zoning changes, building code enforcement actions and Fire Marshal actions. 5.The Planning Board grants the applicant the permission to use the proposed tent th until the July 20 Planning Board meeting. 6.The Planning Board will grant a waiver on the lighting plan. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MR. JARRETT-Could I interrupt for a second? Do you mean stormwater plan or wastewater plan? MR. O'CONNOR-She said stormwater. MRS. STEFFAN-Stormwater plan includes wastewater. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-I think what she said is a stormwater plan that shows where the septic is. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re looking for a site wide analysis of the wastewater systems and their functionality. Is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-But we also want to take into consideration the comments that were made earlier, that it’s stormwater that’s flooding in. MR. JARRETT-Understandable. I will address that at the same time. MR. FORD-Well, that’s the thing, we’ve got to take care of both. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s more than just wastewater. MR. JARRETT-I included that as part of the wastewater analysis, but I understand what you’re driving at, but it’s not a formal stormwater plan for the whole property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not? MR. SIPP-Why not? MR. JARRETT-We’re providing a stormwater plan for the new impervious area hat we’re constructing, but the remainder of the site we’re proposing to leave as is, there’s no problems with it. MR. SIPP-You have on the east side of that present building, where’s the wastewater? MR. JARRETT-No, no, stormwater, we’re asking for a waiver on. MR. SIPP-Stormwater. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would we re-open that? MR. SIPP-You’re going to get to that extra parking lot, you’re going to get a lot of water there, if it’s not taken away. MR. JARRETT-We’re not touching the rest of the property at all. All we’re doing is putting in a new impervious patio which we’ve provided stormwater management for. MR. SIPP-All the whole patio drains to that west side? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But one of the things that we were looking at in the discussion that came up was that we’ve got several septic systems on the property, and we don’t know how they function. Then we got a report that there’s wastewater coming off a parking lot. MR. JARRETT-Stormwater. MR. FORD-Stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater. MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry, we have stormwater coming off a parking lot, on top of a wastewater system. MR. JARRETT-Affecting one of the systems, and I will assess that. I will go on the record right now, I will assess that particular issue, but that’s not a stormwater management plan for the entire property and all the impervious surfaces. Two separate animals. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And if I don’t mention it, then you can’t be held. MR. JARRETT-We will address that particular problem that was raised tonight as a concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. JARRETT-The parking lot runoff onto that failing wastewater system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I’m not sure that we want to limit it that much. I think if it’s impacted it in one area, what’s to say. MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t you just say property wide wastewater study, including any impact on same by stormwater. MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s a fair statement. For clarification, that’s still not a new stormwater plan for all the impervious areas on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-They understand what we’re asking. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but the motion has to be specific, otherwise Keith can’t do his work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So the Planning Board is requesting a property wastewater. MR. HUNSINGER-Wastewater management plan. MRS. STEFFAN-That identifies septic locations and functionalities of those systems compared to the proposed uses and capacity demands, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And we can say, and that includes any impact from stormwater. MR. JARRETT-Exactly. That works. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re okay with the parking waiver request? MR. TRAVER-With the extra excess parking reflected on the plan. MR. OBORNE-I just want to inform the Board that I haven’t reviewed the parking for compliance. It came in last week. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Somebody did. They said we needed 44 places. MR. OBORNE-Well, plus staff and additional, now they’re removing the, they’re truncating the amount of seats available now down from 196 or 192 to 150. So that changes the parking. So it’s just nebulous. Just for the record, I don’t have an issue, too much, with parking. I feel there’s plenty of parking on the site. It just needs to be put on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It just needs to be put on the plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. That’s what they did, the second plan, we just saw it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m starting over, Maria. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a couple of questions? Your point one was probably in response to John Salvador’s ramble about whether this was a permitted use or not. I’m presuming that Craig and Staff have already signed off on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then you don’t need to worry about that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay, but what am I going to present is my question. You’re telling me what I need to present for that meeting. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. OBORNE-The way I look at it, tomorrow, once that resolution has been drafted, Number One is stating, I don’t think they’re necessarily directing you to do that. I think they just want clarification from us. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-From the Staff. That’s something the Staff can do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have no problem with that. MRS. STEFFAN-The Planning Board need s the documentation to weigh and consider the information against what was presented earlier. This was presented as a commercial establishment doing business in a Rural Residential area, and so we need some clarification of that. MR. OBORNE-I’ll just state it’s an allowable use. MR. O'CONNOR-This type of establishment, commercial be it, is allowed in the Rural Residential zone. Because we fought hard to get the Use Schedule changed to allow it. Okay. And one other question. You want a chronological understanding of Town Board Fire Marshal action. MRS. STEFFAN-And Building Code Enforcement. MR. O'CONNOR-And Building Code Enforcement MRS. STEFFAN-Because you have documents and letters that we do not have. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The recent correspondence. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I can give the Town Board, I think we can ask, jointly, the Fire Marshal if he’s satisfied and get a signoff like you would for any other project, and I don’t think you need all that history that’s going to confuse the world. I mean, I’ve gotten 10 e-mails back and forth with regulations and like Mr. Schonewolf said in one letter he tells me he isn’t going to go up and look at it, each site, and then he has another letter later which says it’s our obligation to do it. I just want to have him say he’s satisfied with what we put on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. I mean, the final correspondence, I think, is okay. Right? Or do you want the whole trail, every back and forth with the Department of Health? MR. KREBS-No, no, just the final approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. In due respect, I can give you copies of what I have from DEC and Department of Health, but they’re not making your decision, you’re not making their decision. I don’t think that really should be part of the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-If the correspondence covers the respective agency’s responsibility with regards to your site, I think we’ll be satisfied. MRS. STEFFAN-Documentation trail and chronology in mind provides an executive board, like the Planning Board, with an understanding of how you’ve gotten to this point in time, because th what you’re going to be asking for when you come back on July 20 is for us to approve your Site Plan, and so we need as much information, in my mind, to make an intelligent decision. You will identify what we need to make that decision. MR. JARRETT-I hate to say this, but I’ll attempt to do it for the wastewater system and leave Mike to do the Fire Marshal and the zoning. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I understood what you said, Mrs. Steffan. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other discussion? MR. JARRETT-We’ll certainly try to make it clear. MRS. STEFFAN-The motion’s clear. We’ve had some discussion on the motion, and are we ready to vote on it? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your patience. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you next month. MR. GOLDSTEIN-I appreciate everybody staying this late. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 62