Loading...
2010.08.17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 2-2010 Irene Marshall 1. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 6. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 48-2010 Paul Derby & Lorraine Stein 12. Recommendation to ZBA Tax Map No. 289.17-1-9 Subdivision No. 7-2010 Meredith Kerr 14. PRELIMINARY STG. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1 FINAL STG. Subdivision No. 1-2010 Paul Poirier 18. PRELIMINARY STG. Tax Map No. 209.14-1-46 Freshwater Wetlands 3-2010 Site Plan No. 12-2010 William Crowell 34. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-59 Subdivision No. 4-2010 Robert Wing 45. FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60 Site Plan No. 41-2010 Subdivision No. 9-2010 Greg Garafalo 47. PRELIMINARY STG. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-49 FINAL STG. Site Plan No. 47-2010 Hazel Rockefeller 49. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-1 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 08/17/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I will call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for our first regular meeting in August, Tuesday, August 17, 2010. Our first item on the agenda is approval thnd of minutes from June 15 and June 22, as well as June 24, 2010. Would anyone like to make a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 15, 2010 June 22, 2010 June 24, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 15, JUNE 22, AND JUNE 24, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the audience, we do have copies of the agenda on the back table. There is also a copy of a public information. Most of our agenda items this evening we do have public hearings scheduled, and if you wish to speak during the public hearing, it might be useful to take a look at that information there. Our next item on the agenda is Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-And there is a draft motion in your package. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, what’s the situation on that? MR. OBORNE-She’s still ascertaining if, in fact, she’s going to go ahead with the new septic. She’s still gathering information. At this point I would recommend a tabling to some date in October. MR. HUNSINGER-Would that be the first or second meeting? th MR. OBORNE-That’s up to the Board. The first is fine. That would be the 19. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move that? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: 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; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/26, 5/20 and 6/15/10; the application was tabled to 8/17/10 pending submission of revised information by 7/15/10; 3)No new information has been submitted to date, therefore, let it be resolved, 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’re going to table that to the October 1 thth 19 meeting. So the submission deadline for new materials would be September 15. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And our next item under Administrative Items, even though it’s not on the agenda, we have received a letter from the Pilarinos regarding the proposed Queensbury Diner. In that letter they have asked for a special meeting to be held in, they said the first two weeks in August. In an e-mail that I sent to the Board, I did outline the policies and procedures. In order to call a special meeting, it has to be done during a regular meeting. So tonight is the first opportunity that we would have to consider that request, and that’s the item that’s before us this evening. Ms. Bitter, I don’t know if you had anything else to add, other than what was in the letter. STEFANIE BITTER MS. BITTER-I’m not sure, right, because I’m not sure if all the Board members received the th August 6 submission that was presented by the applicants. At that time, they indicated some of the concessions that they were willing to make regarding the concerns that were addressed at the last meeting, particularly those with regards to the façade. I can go through them very quickly, but one of the things that they were willing to do is to soften the façade by adding stone to provide somewhat of an element of an Adirondack design. Those drawings were submitted yesterday for the submission deadline, and in addition they also said that they were willing to provide a right turn lane if in fact, in the future, DOT was recommending that, and also an approval of this project would not in any way deter or prevent any connector road that Pyramid might have in the future for any future development. Those are a number of the things, but the main thing that we provided in the submission, too, is that we had retained Creighton Manning to do a traffic analysis. With that traffic analysis, they determined that the peak trip generation would be 62, which would be a total of 38 new vehicles in the morning peak time and 36 new vehicles in the evening peak time, which would only represent 1.5% of the total traffic in that area. I wasn’t present at the July meeting, but it’s my understanding that traffic was a concern, and what this document demonstrated is it would really be a very small portion of the traffic that would actually be in that area. I think a big factor to that was because we’re proposing a smaller building than what is there today, as well as a use that isn’t a very huge traffic generator. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we didn’t get an additional packet of new information? MS. BITTER-Right. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, really what I wanted to discuss tonight was the protocol and the procedures for a special meeting. There was also some discussion in various circles about whether or not the applicant had actually withdrawn his application. I wasn’t here either. So I didn’t have the benefit of being here, which is why I really needed to bring this back to the whole Board and the whole Board needed to make a decision about any consideration for a special meeting, but I’d leave it up to the Board to discuss. MS. BITTER-Right. The applicants were looking more toward the fact that the community also feels that this site is in need of an upgrade, and obviously I think everyone wants to see that upgrade happen as soon as possible. The sooner that the Board can hear this application again obviously the sooner that all the parties can come to the table and discuss it. Their hope would be is to start construction and have it completed by the end of the year. That’s why we’re really looking for some sort of expedited review, meaning that we can be heard by this Board at a sooner time rather than just be put in the queue and be heard maybe when the next available meeting comes up. MR. OBORNE-If I could respond just real quick. As far as the application submission, it is incomplete at this point. We do not have elevation drawings. I do have a PDF by an e-mail, but I do not have elevation drawings submitted with this application. MS. BITTER-It was my understanding that Hutchins delivered those with the additional SEQRA form yesterday and put them in the application. MR. OBORNE-That’s not my understanding. MS. BITTER-Well, I can determine that tomorrow. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s a big issue, to be honest with you. I think the application will get complete in the very near future. MR. FORD-So it’s a new application? MR. OBORNE-It’s a new application, that is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And as one Planning Board member, I just feel that I’m not in favor of having a special meeting. The applicant withdrew the application and my feeling is they need to go back in the queue and submit their materials and start again. That’s my feeling. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with that. In fact, the attorney made that point, that the application was withdrawn. Your law firm made that point, the application was withdrawn. The person that wanted to build the diner, in anger, said it was withdrawn. I understand what the word withdrawn means. So get back in line and come back if you want to do it. I’m interested, because of what I read in the paper. Are you representing the people that want to put the diner in or are you representing the owner of the Mall? MS. BITTER-Well, we do represent both in different capacities. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which one are you representing in this case? MS. BITTER-In this case I’m here on behalf of the Pilarinos, which is the applicant. Jon Lapper obviously is the person that represents all these people and was before this Board last time. So to distinguish for your specific question, but obviously I’m here on behalf of the applicant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it was my indication from Jon Lapper that the person that was, had hired you was the person that owns the Mall. MS. BITTER-I’m not sure of the exact details of the representation, but I know that the Pilarinos are the applicants in this matter. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, was the letter from the applicant distributed to the Board members? Because I have not seen it, and with the tenor with which the applicant left the meeting, I would be, I mean, I’d like an opportunity to study the letter that, the tenor of the letter with which they’re now asking. MR. OBORNE-Well, we treat this, the Planning Department treats this as a withdrawn application, and proper protocols are being followed as far as that’s concerned. Once a meeting is set for them, those will be distributed. If it’s a special meeting, those will be distributed. If it’s during the regular queue, it’ll be distributed through proper protocols, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Board. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) th MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize. I thought everyone on the Board had a copy of the July 28 letter where the applicant requested a special meeting. I mean, I printed off a copy for myself and I did get the original in the mail, which I gave to Keith for the file. MR. TRAVER-And I understand what Staff is saying as far as the process is concerned. I have no problem with that. I mean, in principle I don’t have a problem with a special meeting either, but I think before we can make that decision, we need to evaluate sort of where the applicant is at this point, and I don’t have an idea of really where that is. MR. OBORNE-Well, I will corroborate what counsel is saying as far as the traffic study goes. That certainly has been submitted by Creighton Manning. New elevation drawings have been submitted and there is language, absolutely, on the access to the ring road submitted. As far as a review, I have not done a review on it. I have not completed the review. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I would almost think we would need to do that and then take up the issue of whether we wanted to do a special meeting, which, I mean, in principle I don’t have a problem with that any more than any other applicant. MR. FORD-Might we have more information a week from tonight? MS. BITTER-Right, if they could have this packet distributed to them. MR. OBORNE-If the Planning Board directs me to do so, absolutely. th MS. BITTER-I mean, this was the August 6 submission that I was speaking of, and then that way you can obviously have the elevation drawings and I’ll get the right size, if that’s necessary. MR. FORD-I’m not saying to have that be the special meeting, but at least we will have updated information at that time. MS. BITTER-Right, to re-visit it next week. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that’s what I’m getting at. Talking about a special meeting is getting a little bit ahead of the game. I think if we could see, if we could get a better, at least, again, speaking for myself, if I could have a better handle on what the applicant is feeling now about the project, I mean, certainly they were very clear, and we were all very, those of use that were there that night were very disappointed that they didn’t want to work with us to move forward with this. So if that’s now changed, for me, that’s a factor. I would like to see what is in their letter, and have Staff have an opportunity to take a look at what, in fact, is being presented, to see, for example, when, in fact, it might even be feasible to have a special meeting, based on what needs to be provided. Again, I’m only speaking for myself. MR. OBORNE-Well, it seems to me, and this is just knowing the process, that that might create problems for the applicant as far as additional time. You’re going to need to digest this, so I’m going to need to get it to you. It’s not a problem, I could drop them, hand deliver them tomorrow. I don’t have a problem with that, but then you’re going to have to wait until the next meeting to set, at another meeting, do you want to try to squeeze this applicant into the September cycle? That would be the obvious choice that you would make in order to expedite this in a fair manner, or, apropos of that, would be a special meeting. Do you necessarily need those documents to make that choice? I don’t know if you do. That’s just coming from me as Staff, that either way you’re going to get them. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there room in the September agendas for additional items? Are there vacancies? MR. OBORNE-There are not vacancies, no, we’re full. We’re bumping. MRS. STEFFAN-So in order to put them on the agenda, we would have to move somebody else out. MR. OBORNE-Possibly, or you add it as an additional item. MR. TRAVER-Or have a special meeting next month. MR. OBORNE-Or have a special meeting, correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, since they’re starting from scratch, if they’ve got all their th materials submitted, and they have them submitted by the 15 then they’ve made the deadline for September. So if someone drops off, then they could fill a slot. As far as a special meeting, you know, I’m not going to be here for a good part of September, so I can’t really comment on that at this point. MR. OBORNE-I will say that the final agenda meeting, when the agenda is set, will be on August th 27. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think sometime, too, you need to tell us whether you represent Mr. Congel or you represent the ones who want to put up the diner, because there’s a conflict there. I’m not going to get into it. MS. BITTER-I can make sure that Jon Lapper distinguishes that for you when he returns, but I will make sure he’s aware of that and bring that to his attention. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the direction I was looking for from the Board is an up or down vote on whether or not you want to hold a special meeting in August? I’ve heard at least three people say they would prefer not to do that. Because I think that’s really what the applicant requested. If that’s not the case then, you know, they’ll be in the queue. MR. TRAVER-Sure. I mean, to me it’s not a preference at this point. I don’t see how it would be feasible without an opportunity to examine what, the new information that’s been submitted thus far, and to allow Staff to look at that. I mean, it’s not a matter of not wanting to. It’s a matter of it just doesn’t, I don’t see how it can happen. MS. BITTER-Well, as opposed to just denying a special meeting in its entirety, I would prefer that if you want to look at the materials and this possibly get revisited on next Tuesday’s agenda, as a discussion item, to see if, now that you understand the concessions that the applicants’ willing to make, if we could at least put it in a September queue as opposed to waiting until October. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, the difficulty in my mind is that, you know, I understand, Stefanie, what you’re talking about concessions, but when the applicant withdrew the application, I tossed all my materials, and I had volumes and notes on this particular application. So I’d be starting from scratch, and that’s hours of extra work. MS. BITTER-I appreciate that. MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, I’m just, you know, it’s frustrating from my point of view, you know, to be where we are right now, and so, you know, it’s going to take a lot of time for me, and I can only talk about myself, you know, to go through all that material again, and so, you know, I’d really rather not look at it next week. I’d rather look at it in September when it comes in as a new application. MS. BITTER-Right, and you know part of that, we’d obviously rather it be fresh in everybody’s mind and then starting from scratch in October, because as we all can imagine, October’s pretty far away, and that’s going to put them in a position that building it would definitely be put off with the approvals, because we’re going to be getting into the winter months. MR. OBORNE-Let me make it clear. The application, at this point, is deemed complete. We are waiting for the elevation drawings, but that’s the only thing we’re waiting for, and I probably would not hold that up, as far as it not being complete. They are aware we usually give applicants two to three days, once I do my completion review, to actually complete their application, but they keep their spot in the queue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So that means if an item drops off September, they come in in September. MR. OBORNE-Well, I haven’t built, again, I haven’t built the agenda yet. It is kind of an odd month this month also, with the Zoning Board going first, besides the Planning Board going first. So you do have recommendations, so, I mean, it’s going to be a juggle, but it’s not impossible at all. Where they are in the queue, I don’t know where they are in the queue right now. They 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) might even be eligible right now for it. I just, I can’t get that information to you. I do not have staff right now. Staff is out. Not that that’s an excuse, but it’s a fact. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just to wrap it up for this evening’s discussion, the request was for a special meeting in August, which I guess what I’m hearing is not really feasible. So, I guess we can just convey to the applicant whether or not they’ll be in the queue for September, at some point. MR. OBORNE-I certainly can get a preliminary sense for that tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And convey that to the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board and the applicant? MS. BITTER-No, not at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ACCESSED BY HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 26- 2010, AV 68-08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-5-060 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. BITTER-I have one more thing. I also represent the Inwalds who are later on in the agenda. I submitted the letter to Staff that I don’t think they received because it was after hours, but requesting to table that matter, due to the recent decision of the Zoning Administrator that further variances are going to be necessary for that application, so that we can make the necessary submissions to get to the Planning Board or return to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board on that project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Did you give us a date to which you’d like to table that to? MS. BITTER-We were hoping to table it to the second meeting in September, with the hope that maybe we’d be able to get on the Zoning Board’s agenda. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What project is that? I don’t see it on here. MS. BITTER-Inwald. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the first item under tabled items, under number four. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO .39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, 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 to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/2010 & 8/17/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) 4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO .39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Table that to the September 28 meeting. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And we will, of course, table the public hearing until that date as well. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. OBORNE-I’m curious if you still require the services of counsel? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’re all set. Thanks, Mike, I appreciate it. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I noticed that Irene Marshall did come in, while the diner was being discussed. I think maybe we may want to inform her that she was tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. OBORNE-And, Irene, you were tabled to October 19. I don’t know whether you want to have her speak or not. IRENE MARSHALL MRS. MARSHALL-Can I just ask one question? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes, come on. We’ll need to get you on the mic, though. Thanks, Keith. I didn’t see her come in. MRS. MARSHALL-First, I apologize for being late. I had to work tonight. So I tried to get here as soon as I could. I didn’t realize I would be first on the agenda. I just have a question about, we tabled it so that I could get a septic service to say t hat there was no obvious evidence of any failure of my septic system, and I am unable to get someone to say that. I’ve had three people look, Dan from Sanitary Sewer, Jay from Queensbury Sewer, and Tom Center who’s the septic engineer, and while they don’t see any evidence of it not functioning, they don’t want to say that it’s working or not working. So, now I’m at, I don’t know what to do now, and I’m asking you what do you want me to do now? I also got an estimate to replace the system. The first estimate I got was between $29,000 and $35,000. Because of where it’s located on the hill, it would have to be pumped up and I’d have to have two holding tanks with heavy equipment to dig a hole in the road. I wasn’t, I didn’t know that this little project of a deck and some stairs was going to be contingent upon whether or not I had a functioning septic system, and if I had been informed of that, I think it would have colored my decision to move forward on this project. I didn’t think that the septic was technically taken into consideration if you just had an external project. I thought that was only if you were expanding the internal property. I need a set of safe stairs for my family. I don’t know what else to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have the tank pumped? MRS. MARSHALL-Right now there’s nothing in the tank. We haven’t used it since last summer. MR. HUNSINGER-But you didn’t have anyone come over to visually inspect it? MRS. MARSHALL-Well, we dug it out, and we’ve had three people just visually look at it, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and they weren’t willing to say that there was no apparent flaws with the system, that it was functioning properly? MRS. MARSHALL-What they said is that they don’t see that there’s any evidence that it’s not functioning, but because it’s antiquated, and it doesn’t meet today’s standard. They weren’t willing to also say that it was functioning, and we haven’t been up there this summer. So it would be hard to say that anyway. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, any thoughts, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, if the applicant has had a professional examine it and they’re prepared to state that they do not see any evidence that it’s malfunctioning, I mean, that would be sufficient for me, if they put that in writing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-I tend to disagree, because it’s not been caused to function or not function in a year. So we really can’t back into a decision as to whether it’s functioning or will function because nobody’s tested it. MR. TRAVER-Well, my thought was, Tom, that someone from the industry would, that there would be symptoms that a professional would recognize if there was evidence of failure. I could be wrong about that, but I’m, I guess, making an assumption that if they say, you know, we don’t see any problem, you know, certainly we’ve seen cases where there is a problem and there’s usually massive evidence. We’ve had recent applications where we’ve had problems. So I agree that it’s not, it’s certainly not an engineering comment, but I think it is a professional comment. MR. FORD-At best they could say we find no evidence that the last time anyone used it, that there’s any evidence remaining more than a year later, that it didn’t function properly, and I don’t feel very satisfied with that. MR. TRAVER-I understand. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, has the house ever been rented? MRS. MARSHALL-Many years ago. MR. JACKOSKI-And did you have any concerns or complaints about the system functioning properly then? MRS. MARSHALL-Not at all. We had a teacher and somebody in the service who rented it for a length of time, for a couple of years, but that was a long time ago, too, but my husband and I have lived there for the last three summers. We spent three to four months there, and there hasn’t been any evidence that there’s anything wrong with the system. MR. FORD-And the last time you had it pumped was? MRS. MARSHALL-That was several years ago, too. I’m not sure. It was quite a long time ago. MR. FORD-Like five years, ten years? MRS. MARSHALL-Probably more like ten. MR. JACKOSKI-Have you participated at all in the Glen Lake program that allows for a reimbursement of, I don’t remember how much it is, but probably maybe Paul Derby knows, because I know he’s in the audience. We do have a program along the lake. MRS. MARSHALL-Yes. We were notified of that, and I put in a request to have our septic looked at and I never got any results from that. Nobody ever contacted me or anything. I know we were contacted, and I said I would be interested, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. My instinct is, we’re all stewards of the lake, and I’m a lake owner, property owner on Glen Lake and a property owner on Lake George. This Board and the Town spends a lot of effort in protecting the resources, and I’m struggling with three professionals not willing to put their necks on the line, which tells me that they, too, know or are concerned that this is an antiquated system and it really should be addressed. It’s an antiquated system, and, you know, it’s been used this many years. You got this many years out of it, but it just seems to me that we need to address the health of the lake, and that could be the best system, if they’re not willing to do it now, what are they going to say in five years, when you won’t be back in front of us again? I just think we need to address it. It’s a very steep lot. It’s very difficult. MRS. MARSHALL-And I don’t have a problem with addressing it. In fact, you know, I feel that it obviously needs to be done. Unfortunately, there is a property line problem. I don’t know if you are aware of that or remember that was an issue, and I’ve asked Tom Center, who’s a septic engineer, if he would draw plans for a new system, and he can’t do that until the property line 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) problem is resolved. I’ve retained a lawyer to resolve the property line problem, and as you know, that takes time as well. So in the meantime all of this continues to delay this little project with my stairs and deck, and I’m wondering if there’s some way that I could assure you that I am looking at dealing with the septic but could we move on with the other project? Maybe a letter from Tom Center that he’s under contract with me to design a new plan. I just don’t know what else to do, and I’ve been dealing with this for, actually for several years now. Been coming to meetings since January. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m certainly encouraged that you acknowledge that you’re going to resolve your boundary line dispute, that you think that it’s appropriate to put in a new septic system. I think that that’s certainly encouraging, from my end. The problem is, if we go ahead with the project and approve it, and you can never get to a solution on your boundary line adjustment, I don’t have anything to know that that septic system’s going to get corrected. I’m only one person on this Board, but septic systems around the lake, especially when they’re antiquated, it’s a concern for me. MRS. MARSHALL-So do I just withdraw my application and just say, you know, and my family has to use these stairs that are dangerous? MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, they can repair the stairs, correct? MRS. MARSHALL-Do I need to get a variance to repair the stairs? MR. JACKOSKI-Maintenance. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the way it’s drawn, and I certainly, obviously you would need to talk to Craig about that, and I think you have been in conversations with Craig about that. If it’s any change or expansion to what’s existing, it’s going to be hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, in a CEA, which requires Site Plan Review, and an Area Variance. She’s already received her variances. Variances are not the issue right now. It’s Site Plan Review, at this point. As far as going forward with those stairs, I mean, I concur, there’s definitely a safety concern. I think that goes without saying, but if it’s an in situ type change of one step for one step, and everything is the same, that is something that I can’t answer but it would seem to me it would be a logical course of action, to at least ask the Zoning Administrator if you can do that. I can’t make that decision. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it would only seem logical that you could repair your stairs. People do it every day, but, as he’s telling you, if you get beyond that and start building something additional, then we have to take a look at everything. MRS. MARSHALL-Well, the stairs, there are 25 stairs, steps, very steep, straight down to the camp. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve been there. I wouldn’t walk down them. MRS. MARSHALL-So repairing them, you’re going to change the structure. We wanted to put a few landings in so that it wasn’t so steep straight down. So, it’s not going to be step for step. I’m going to be changing the structure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it’s not going to be step for step. It’s going to be a few steps and then a large step, and a few steps and a large step. MRS. MARSHALL-Right. So am I allowed to do that? MRS. STEFFAN-No. According to what Keith just said, if you replace exactly what you have with just, you know, new materials, then, you know, if you talked to the Zoning Administrator about it, it’s unlikely that you would have to go through the Site Plan Review, but if you’re going to put landings in, if you’re going to change the dimensions of what you have, then, yes, it triggers the Site Plan Review because you’re increasing the surface of your stairs, and it’s unfortunate, but that is the reality of the situation. MR. TRAVER-Keith, what about, getting back to the septic functioning issue again, aren’t there things like fluorescence dye tests and stuff that that can be conducted? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask that, too. MR. OBORNE-Of course, yes. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-To test the system. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Beyond just digging down to the hatch and sort of looking in with a flashlight? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-And would there be folks in the office that might know of firms that would be prepared and willing to conduct such tests that the applicant could? MR. OBORNE-I’m sure they would know. I don’t know if they’re allowed to make a recommendation on that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know what Building and Codes protocols are for that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you could give her a list. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A list. MR. TRAVER-A list. MR. HUNSINGER-Or direct her to. MR. OBORNE-Well, any, that you can get out of the Yellow Pages. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I would think. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Center is going to make a comment. TOM CENTER MR. CENTER-Tom Center from Nace Engineering. I did look at Mrs. Marshall’s project. I’m not under contract. We’ve spoken in regards to what the Board was looking for. I read the meeting minutes. In regards to certifying that the system is working properly, without seeing something constructed, without having, unquestionably being able to dig up one end or the other, or the bottom, I can’t say if it’s working properly. Because of the age of the system, if I say today it’s working fine, and she goes and starts to use it and it fails, our liability, now our insurance carrier says, you know, this is outside the parameters because you can’t get enough environmental information to make a logical case that this system is functioning properly, because of the location, you know, our separation from the lake isn’t there. It’s a hole in the ground. There’s a cover. I can look down in it. Do I know exactly how much stone’s underneath it? Do I know if there’s pipes going back alongside the grade? There’s (lost words) growing up. MR. TRAVER-Right. You can’t describe how well it functions. I understand that, but can you attest to the fact that it’s not malfunctioning? MR. CENTER-I don’t know how you can do one and not do the other. MR. TRAVER-Well, there is a difference, at least in my mind. I’m not an engineer, I admit. MR. CENTER-From, we’ve kind of looked at this, knew this was coming, and talked to our liability carrier, and it’s just something that, you know, again when you get into geotechnics and stuff underneath the ground and hydrology, you know, basic commonsense says, you know, we know what the soil is on Glen Lake along that slope. We know it’s highly permeable soil. It will take the water, but can I tell you if it’s coming out down at the water line, below the water line, that it’s functioning properly? I cannot. MR. TRAVER-Would something like a fluorescence dye test reveal that kind of a problem? MR. CENTER-I think Mr. Sweet might have mentioned, you know, talked to the applicant about that. I’m not sure, and it’s one of those very difficult things. If he drops fluorescence in there and all of a sudden you’ve got, it could come out anywhere, or into the lake. I think there’s a concern there, or could not come out at all. That doesn’t mean that it’s working properly. That just means it dissipated somewhere within the ground. I think there’s some very serious concerns with the, you know, we know where the pit it. There’s a pipe going into a hole, a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) concrete pit in the ground. Not knowing anything other than that, not having any design drawings from when the house was built, what was there. MR. TRAVER-So that doesn’t even really sound like a system, a pipe going into a concrete. MR. CENTER-There’s a pipe going into a concrete tank. That’s what I can visually see and tell you is there, the day that I looked at it, straight from the house into that, and we have spoken about other, you know, other ways to solve the problem, i.e. holding tank system would be the only option, and I think that’s what Mrs. Marshall’s looking in regards to, as far as her Site Plan, is that the direction the Board is looking for her to go in, because you know, we had, you know, both the other installers, they called me out there to look at it with them, and we both had the same, you know, we can’t certify it. It’s not something that we can do, without having drawings and being able to say there’s this length of pipe at this end and we’re able to use a probe and locate it and look at the surface of the ground and say that it’s not failing. Those would be the things that we would need to do. MR. TRAVER-I understand. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Center, could you tell me, do you think it is just a holding tank now? MR. CENTER-I don’t believe so, because she hasn’t had it pumped out. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, she’s not using it. MR. CENTER-Well, she’s not using it, but where would, if it’s a holding tank, where would the water go? Many of these things, they broke the bottom out. They just poured, with this instance, being as the age of it, they might have just poured four walls and had stone bottom. It’s very difficult to see. You’re not going to get in, it’s a hazard to get into the tank and try to do any kind of inspection. So it could be four poured walls. It’s a very difficult site, like everybody’s been there. I don’t know how they would have constructed it 30 years ago. It could be a pre- cast tank. It’s a different cover than I’ve seen. I’ve been doing it for seven, eight years now, with Mr. Nace, and it’s something, a cover that I haven’t seen before. It’s a two piece cover, I believe, and it’s not your typical standard pre-cast that we’ve seen, you know, as in a septic tank, per se. MR. JACKOSKI-Mrs. Marshall mentioned that she might not be able to put another septic system on that current lot until she deals with the boundary line issue. Is that what you’re thinking, too? Is that if she isn’t able to, whatever this boundary line issue is, modify that boundary line, there is nowhere for her to? MR. CENTER-I believe she has some legal issues in regards to the parcel and the location of her existing residence, the building on there. We would have to go back to the Town Board for any work we would do. Holding tanks is the only viable option. We’d have to go back to the Town Board. I don’t know how the Town feels about granting variances when there’s outstanding legal issues. I don’t know how the neighbors would feel, because a lot of the variances, when you do go to, you know, present a variance to any of the Boards, if there’s other, you know, legal issues, certainly we’re going to be crossing property lines, you know, coming down the easement with vehicles to install this system. It will be on her property, but it won’t be within conformance to the setback limits because of the small lot size. So there’s going to be some issues there, and it’s just a much better way to do things, to solve that property line issue first, before we go forward. Because that’ll also impact the dimensions for the sideline setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-I think your final comments basically summarizes where I’m coming from on it. Mrs. Marshall, I believe, as we own property, frequently we have challenges, and in this case here you’ve got a safety issue. You’ve got a questionable septic system, but logically, about the first thing you need to address, I believe, is this issue of the property, the property line, and you’ve already got an attorney working on that. So hopefully that can be resolved and the rest of these things, the rest of these issues should be able to fall into place, not on the timeline that any of us perhaps would like, but sometimes that’s out of our control. MRS. MARSHALL-I’ve been trying to resolve the property line since my children were little, and they’re in their 30’s. So then I need to, how long can you continue to table my application? If I, you know, if I come back to you next year and say all of this has been resolved, can we then move on from there? I’m really not sure what else I need to do here. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, if you don’t think it’s going to be resolved any time soon, you know, it may make sense for you to withdraw it, or, I mean, we just scheduled it for October. I mean, like for example this evening’s meeting. If you know you’re not going to have any new information, we’re not holding a spot in the meeting agenda for you, if we know we’re going to table it, but at some point it might make sense to withdraw it. I mean, I can’t really answer that question directly. I mean, if there’s no end date in sight, then it might make sense to do that. MRS. MARSHALL-So if I withdraw the applicant, does that then mean that I can’t do, fix my stairs? MRS. STEFFAN-You can fix your stairs. You just can’t change them in any way. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And you’ll have to talk to the Zoning Administrator about withdrawing it, because I believe, I don’t have the plan in front of me, but I think you were expanding the deck area. There was a landing. So that’s, a deck, so if you were going to modify what exists currently, then you would have to have Site Plan Review for that, but if you were going to just fix what was there and replace it identically, just with new materials, it’s likely you wouldn’t need Site Plan Review. MR. CENTER-Keith, is the variance still valid? MR. OBORNE-Their variance is valid. It has been approved. MR. CENTER-And that’s valid for one year? MR. OBORNE-It’s valid for one year, and it can be extended. MR. CENTER-Okay. Just one second. If we were to table this application, is it possible to table it to the December meeting, in order to attempt to solve the legal issue, get something in to the Town Board of Health for a septic variance, and then come back in line to the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we just tabled it to October. MR. CENTER-Right. October may be unachievable. Engineering wise, for the information that I need to gather, to go to the Town Board and get their approval, I’d like to try to have all those, if Mrs. Marshall wishes, you know, that’s probably the best way to do this, if we could table it to December, for the first December meeting. MR. OBORNE-I think, this is for tracking purposes, I think that if you keep it at the current tabling, we can get an update in October, and if need be table it until December, or to January, at that point, if need be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that sounds reasonable. MR. CENTER-I might not be able to be here for the October meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If we know ahead of time, as we did this evening, that you don’t have new information, then, you know, a phone call, or a letter. MR. OBORNE-And Mrs. Marshall does have my phone number, and we have conversed in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. It sounds reasonable. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN: AV 35-2010: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SP 48-2010: 754 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) PAUL DERBY, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-The 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. The location is 86 Ash Drive. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. It’s a Type II SEQRA for both applications. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 754 +/- sq. ft. residential addition. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: This project is adjacent to Glen Lake, a Town designated critical environmental area (CEA). The applicant proposes a two story addition to the northeast corner of a single family home. According to the applicant, the proposal calls for all new impervious surface stormwater to be directed by gutter and overland flow to the northeast to a rain garden for water quality purposes. The nature of the variance is as follows: Relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do have a soils description, and people are pretty aware of what the soils are on this side of the lake. They are a hinckly, cobbly sandy loam, eight to fifteen percent slopes. The area where the construction is taking place is relatively level. Site Plan Review. Staff does recommend that any disturbed areas and/or stockpiles of soil or substratum be immediately stabilized with annual or perennial rye grass and straw if project to commence in the summer/early Fall, or with winter rye if project to comment in late Fall, early Winter. Use no fertilizer, and location of the proposed rain garden may need to be denoted on plans. We are looking for a recommendation and this point. There’s no SEQRA aspect to it, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Is there anything else you wanted to add? MR. DERBY-Good evening. Well, I’m not sure we need it at this point, because I’m coming back next week for Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DERBY-I don’t know if you want me to tell you the reasoning behind the renovation/addition at this point? MRS. STEFFAN-I think your narrative was very complete. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was. MRS. STEFFAN-With, you know, what you were looking to do and what you’ve done on the property, and in my mind I don’t have any concerns to voice to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I’m not sure about anybody else. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I would echo those comments. It’s a very well put together application. MR. DERBY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-It really was. MR. OBORNE-It is a model application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. In fact, you heard us comment to Mrs. Marshall, I wasn’t even aware of that Glen Lake septic program. MR. DERBY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I can’t tell you how many Site Plans we’ve reviewed on Glen Lake. I mean probably hundreds, certainly dozens. MR. DERBY-Actually I do have a comment. I don’t know if she’s still here or not. MR. FORD-She’s right outside. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. DERBY-Maybe I can catch her on the way, but that program’s coming to an end. It’s through Warren County Soil and Water. So still I can give her a phone number to track that down if she’d like. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else anyone wants to add? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2010 FOR PAUL DERBY AND LORRAINE STEIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 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. 35-2010 FOR PAUL DERBY AND LORRAINE STEIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. DERBY-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Paul. SUBDIVISION 7-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED 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. PLANNING BOARD TO CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32-10, 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, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-This application may be familiar to the Board. This is Subdivision 7-2010 Meredith Kerr. Again, recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as potential impact of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. The location is 212 Sherman Ave. This is in the Neighborhood Residential zoning district of Queensbury. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Long Form has been submitted. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 0.49 acre parcel into two lots of 0.23 & 0.26 acres respectively. The nature of the Area Variance is lot size relief required for both proposed lots. Specifically, proposed Lot A requires 0.24 acres or 10,454 square feet of lot size relief and proposed Lot B requires 0.27 acres or 11,761 square feet of lot size relief as per Section 179-3-040. The applicant is seeking waivers from topography, which have been granted, and the 500 feet of subdivision boundary line, they’re 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) looking for that waiver also, and that has been granted. Application protocol follows, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves, representing Meredith Kerr. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. Just, the same project that was before you. Nothing has changed. I’m just looking for now at the Preliminary Stage to go through SEQRA so that we can get a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. JACKOSKI-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So the procedure would be to do the Long Form before the recommendation? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MEREDITH KERR, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 17 day of, August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if you could, please open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. OBORNE-I apologize. You should have done that before SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no comments received. Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So no one has any comments on this? Okay. Then I’ll put forward a resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR, 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. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’re welcome. Good luck. SUBDIVISION 1-2010 PRELIMINARY STAGE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2010 PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION RIVERSIDE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 18.50 ACRE LOT INTO FIVE LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.0 TO 8.13 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. PLANNING BOARD TO CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32-10, SB 6-06 SKETCH PLAN 1/19/10 APA, CEA, OTHER WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A NWI WETLANDS, DEC STREAM CROSSING PERMIT LOT SIZE 18.1150 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 209.14-1-46 SECTION CHAPTER A- 183, CHAPTER 94 MATT STEVES & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-I’d like to read a memorandum into the record, concerning Poirier’s SEQRA status. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Which is before each Board member. The Staff Notes sent out with this project incorrectly reference the subdivision as a Type I Realty subdivision. Upon consultation with Mike Shaw from the Department of Health in Glens Falls, it has been ascertained that the subdivision is not a Type I Realty subdivision as one of the lots is in excess of five acres. The definition of a realty subdivision is as follows: Five or more lots at five acres or less within any consecutive three year period. With the proposed Lot Five proposed to be 8.13 acres, the subdivision is to be reviewed as an Unlisted SEQRA, with the accompanying Long Form, and 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) will not require the Planning Board to seek Lead Agency status for this project as a coordinated review is not necessary. I’ll continue with the notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Disregard that large bold heading on the top of the notes, please. Subdivision 1- 2010, Area Variance 34-2010 and Freshwater Wetlands 3-2010 for Paul Poirier. 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 to be accomplished at a later date. That’s not true. It’s to be accomplished right now. I’m reading what’s pretty much on the teleprompter right here. So I apologize one more time. The location is Riverside Drive. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. SEQRA Status for the Area Variance is Type II. SEQRA Status obviously for the subdivision is Unlisted. Project Description: Subdivision of an 18.56 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots ranging in size from 2.0 acres to 6.96 acres. That needs to be updated also. I apologize for this, Board, that’s 2.0 acres to 8.13 acres. Soils follow. Staff Comments: The parcel has no access to the Hudson River. Access to the river must be accomplished through easements with Brookfield Renewable Power Incorporated. These easements should be formalized prior to subdivision approval if necessary. Currently Riverside Drive ends in a paper cul-de-sac. The southeastern portion of the proposed cul-de-sac is utilized as a driveway for access to the lands of Rozelle. The applicant proposes to extend Riverside Drive at its current terminus as denoted on S-1. The total length of the additional new Town road is approximately 120 linear feet. Access to Lot Five and other lots on that portion of the property is accomplished by the use of an easement through Island View Drive, a private road. The applicant will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for road frontage if this access is to be realized. Please be aware that this access drive is located partially in the 100 year floodplain for the Hudson River. Buffers are required if necessary. What follows is review. There seems to be some outstanding issues that both the engineer and myself have. We believe they’re needed for this application. I will say there may be an access issue off of Island View Drive. That certainly needs to be clarified, and we do have the surveyor here for this project. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess before you start to summarize the project, I had a question. Between Sketch Plan and Preliminary, the design changed. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe you could explain why during your presentation. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. For the record, Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves and Tom Center with Nace Engineering, representing Paul Poirier on this project. I could probably let Tom speak to the change, I believe, and you saw the conceptual plan. It was for a road extension of Riverside Drive into a cul-de-sac. Subsequent to, we were here at Preliminary, or at Sketch Plan, I should say. That’s when the engineers got involved and did their test pits and soil investigations and determined, by looking at the topography, what would be the best suited areas for septic system, and with the ravines and such there, it just got to be problematic, and as far as impacting the property by trying to put a Town road in there, a lot less impact with the private drives. So it really accomplishes basically the same number of lots without the environmental impact of putting in a Town road with a 50 foot right of way and 28 foot drive lanes and all the associated stuff that would go with a Town road, but I can let Tom speak to that at further length. MR. CENTER-Basically, as Matt said, we looked at it from the standpoint of disturbance. In order to build that Town road crossing the ravines, would have been, would have impacted the property greatly. Would have taken out a lot of wooded area. This avenue to go down is much less disturbance. You’ve got 12 foot wide driveways, shared drives. Certainly nothing that hasn’t been done before in the Town, coming off of Riverside Drive and Island View Drive, knowing that the, and Mr. Steves can speak to the access point off Island View Drive in regards to, from a surveyor’s standpoint, and we felt that this was much less of a disturbance to the land, in order to get these houses situated on the best soil that was out there on the lots, after doing our soils investigation and looking at the ravines and trying to come up with some construction details and what kind of impact would be on those ravines. Kind of leaving the natural feature and the buffer to the riverside of the parcel and kind of move the houses further back. In order to bring that cul-de-sac in, you would have been coming up closer to that stream, closer to the riverside. It would have had more of an impact from the river looking in as opposed to this is 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) leaving it predominantly wooded and you’re cutting your path in for your roads, for your driveways and access points. MR. STEVES-There was also a comment made by the Board at Sketch Plan as far as a possible interconnect to the property to the north. In looking at that with another stream that comes through there and the topography going north into that site that is currently owned by I believe O’Connor construction, this wasn’t a feasible alternative to even look at that for an interconnect. So therefore there was a lot of reasons backing in, along with the engineering issues, to go back to private drives. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my first thought about the new design, if you will, is if you’re coming in from both ends, it seems like it would make sense to put a connection in there somewhere. MR. STEVES-We’re trying to, the Riverside Drive is pretty much, even though the cul-de-sac is there on paper, it is not there built, and the Island View Drive are both very remote areas, very quiet neighborhood areas, and we’re trying not to create an interconnect through there, because even if you put an interconnect through, you’re inviting traffic through on a private road that is not a Town road. So we understand both sides of that coin. Would love to have an interconnect for emergency vehicles, but at the same time, it’s on a private road that we really don’t have authority to grant that right of way across. The private drive does abut our property. So we just wanted to come off of that private drive and access those lots on the western portion of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re talking about the Island View Drive? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have the right to use that? MR. STEVES-That’s being researched by the title company. There is an easement that is there, that, as you can see the other properties, that so called Island View Drive, the private drive, there is a right of way associated with that that borders our property. I mean, you know, you have a private road that borders your property and actually portions of that driveway extend onto our property now, onto the client’s property now. So the title company is looking into that. As far as we are aware, yes, we have rights to use that. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Island Road, you said it’s a private drive. So that means it’s not maintained by the Town. MR. STEVES-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Or hasn’t been accepted by the Town. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess one of the things that certainly jumps out for me is construction in an area that’s got floodplain on it, and I know it’s done all over the country, but Lot One for example, goes, you know, there’s a stream that runs through there, and according to the plan, isn’t there a culvert that has to go over the, you have to get a DEC permit and you have to get a culvert to go over that. Is that correct? MR. CENTER-That would be for Lot Four and Five, coming off of Riverside Drive, is where the culverts would be, the access points would be, off of Riverside Drive. Island View Drive would be just an extension. MR. STEVES-The road’s already there with the culvert. MR. CENTER-The road’s already there with the culvert. That’s an existing culvert. None of our construction, except for the two culverts for the Island View Drive, or, I’m sorry, the Riverside Drive extension, which was also looked at by Soil and Water Conservation, and we’re going to modify our design in accordance with some information that they had to a previous owner, put in 60 inch culverts. Mr. Wick, and I’ll provide this in the submission, in the answer to the engineering comments, Mr. Wick has done a study, and stated in here that, you know, 60 inch culvert should be more than enough, based on the area, and I actually, I’ve walked back across the property lines and walked the area to try to figure out where the next upstream culvert was, and there is none, and actually the water comes out of the side of the hill, I believe, this is Murray Ave. up above. It comes out of the side of the hill, basically, and flows down through 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) some channels and then out and splits a couple of different ways and comes in, you know, to a, finally down to this main stream. So this is kind of a unique flow. You can’t really, you know, you can look upstream, but it comes out of the side of the hill. It’s nothing that comes out of the storm pipe from, I thought it might have been a storm pipe from Main Street, and that’s what I was looking to, I was hoping to find so that I could size my culvert off of that, and there was nothing. I talked to a resident up at the top of the hill, and she said, no, it’s come out like this for the 70 years that she’s lived there, and just kind of flowed down and kids have dammed it up and put fish in there at one point in time, but it’s just a flowing, and it literally comes out probably three different spots. It’s pretty neat. Tough to find, but that’s where we found the water coming out was right out of the side of the hill in two or three places. MR. STEVES-And your comment as far as your flood zones or your, those type of areas, understood, just like it is with any, you know, Lake George has a flood zone of 321, and most of the houses are probably only two or three feet above that, and here you’re down at 280 for the river, and I think the flood zone is around 290, and all the houses are proposed above 310. Okay. It’s only because of the proximity to the river, obviously. Just like any water body property would be. You do have flood concerns, but again, the flood zone here is 290, and the closest house is at 310, and they’re extremely large lots. It’s a two acre zone. Being able to do it this way, your minimum lot is two acres, and I’ll accomplish the lot width and the lot size of the Code. It’s just that you don’t have road frontage by this mechanism of this type of a subdivision, but it allows, as Tom Center was saying earlier, a lot of more open space and a lot less clearing to develop these lots. These are nice, you know, waterfront lots if you want to call it that. There’s not many lots like this that would be available along the Hudson River corridor, and anybody that’s been down on this property, it’s just a beautiful piece of property when you get down in there, and, I mean. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that formerly owned by Rozelle? MR. STEVES-Rozelle owns a lot right next door. It was, years ago it may have been, and the Glens Falls National Bank had it and it was a different name back in ’83 when we originally surveyed the property. MR. OBORNE-I believe it was owned by the Smiths at one point. MR. STEVES-But getting back, we understand, and again, the frontage along the river, none of these properties, this entire property is not owned to the water. There is a 50 foot reservation for National Grid which. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we talked about that at Sketch Plan. MR. STEVES-That was, Niagara Mohawk, now National Grid owns a 50 foot strip from the mean high water. That was all part of that, during the, for the electrical generation along the Hudson River. So you have the benefit of being near the water, but you don’t own the water frontage. If anybody here wanted to try to, along these lots, there are other lots up and down that this National Grid strip does not effect, but this entire property it does. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I had never been down there, I mean, I went down to Riverside Drive when we did the Sketch Plan Review, but I’d never been down to Island View Drive before. It’s beautiful down there. MR. STEVES-Beautiful down there. Yes, and in looking at that and knowing the type of property, Mr. Poirier just wants to minimize the impact but yet have the nicest lots available, and a Town road, and like I said, we’ve looked at it. We’ve had lots of discussions back and forth with the engineers, and as we discussed before at Sketch, he just wants to go forward with this project in the best way he can, and being the most conscientious about the land, and this is what we came up with. MR. HUNSINGER-How difficult would it be, though, to put some sort of pass through in there, even if it was just a crash gate or something? MR. STEVES-Not that difficult up top. I mean, you could go along the back and put in an easement and get a path for that. We’d have to clear a little bit to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, just in terms of planning and interconnect, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan talks about interconnects and, I mean, for all intents and purposes, you know, all five lots are going to be at the end of a 2,000, 3,000 foot long dead end road. So there’s only one way in and one way out. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree, and the fact that you could do that, in the long run, it benefits everybody on both roads. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. STEVES-You just don’t want to, you don’t want to increase the traffic unnecessarily. You only want it, like you say, for emergencies. You don’t want to create an opening, a pass through to impact both neighborhoods. We don’t want to do that. If it was in some way stipulated or could be that it would interconnect, but it was only for emergency passage, I, personally, don’t have a problem with that. We could relay that to our client, but I don’t see an issue with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can put a gate on it with a key. That’s done in a lot of areas. The fire departments and the ambulance companies have the keys. MR. STEVES-I understand. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because a 12 foot driveway is, because as the Chairman says, they’re only going to be connected. Once you get one truck in there, you’re dead. You’re not going to get it out, and moving things around is tough, and these are going to be very expensive homes, I imagine, so, it might, you know, speak to the person that owns the property. I think it might be a good plan. It’s done in other towns. I’ve seen it. It works. MR. STEVES-Yes, you know, between two of the lots. MR. CENTER-Between Lots Three and Four. MR. STEVES-Just come across there with an access drive that you clear out and just leave a buffer on either side of it so you don’t create a road, per se, back through there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. You can’t use it as a road. MR. STEVES-Correct. Use it as a walking path until somebody’s got to go through the gate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that’s what people do. MR. STEVES-I have no problem with that. Engineering wise, I don’t think it’s a problem, either, because it’s flat enough up there. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the only issue, then, would be maintenance, but these are all private driveways anyway. So it’s not like you’re creating a maintenance issue that’s not already there. MR. STEVES-Well, once you clear that out and put just a little bit of gravel in there, you’d be able to drive it for a long, long time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other comments, concerns from the Board? Staff comments? MR. OBORNE-They’re in my Site Plan review. I do have issues, but obviously there’s a public hearing associated with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled with this project. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board? I would ask that you state your name for the record, because we do record the meeting, and then we transcribe literal minutes of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SARA PEARSALL MRS. PEARSALL-Okay. Sara Pearsall. I own Lot One on Riverside Drive. So I’m one of the drive by’s, I guess you would say, as people are accessing this. Many of you, as you’ve spoken of this land that’s here, have used the word beautiful. Please keep that in mind as you’re continuing this plan. So far it sounds, of all the use of the land, the best to have larger lots away from the river, keep in mind the historical nature of the land. Some of the brooks that Mr. Center walked up, he may have noticed they were a bit straighter than usual. That was my great- grandfather’s trout hatchery back in the Great Depression, and the streams that he noticed 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) coming out of the bank, one of them is named Peter’s Pond, and it’s a spring named after my dad. So when you are continuing this through, looking at the houses, looking at the access and the traffic, kind of, as it would go through, just keep in mind your word beautiful for that land. There is not that much development down in our area. We really do pride ourselves on taking care of the river, and have for years and years in my family, so please keep that in mind as you go. In terms of the access road, the Rozelle’s is the end lot on the way, and I know they share the same concerns as us. I have a small 16 month old daughter who’s eventually going to learn to ride her bike, hopefully, on Riverside Drive. An access road that allows much traffic to travel through from there to Island View Drive is really not something that we want to see develop, but I know in the master plan for recreation for the Town of Queensbury, they do have a potential bike path that goes along the river there, and if there was some sort of bike path, walkway that was going along the way across a gate that is gated for emergencies only, that might be something that you want to suggest to the Poirier’s to conclude in and look at the Town, overall, the future recreation that they want to do there. Because there’s an interesting little dotted line that goes right along the riverbank but it’s a 25, 30 foot very steep riverbank. So I don’t think they’re going to put a bike path there, but down Riverside and down this road through this development and out Island View might be a better option. So just things to think about and a voice from the road of where it’s going to (lost words). Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. JOANNE MC GUIRE MRS. MC GUIRE-Are you going to read our comments? MR. OBORNE-Would you like me to read it in, or would you rather read it in yourself? MRS. MC GUIRE-No, go ahead, you read it, and then I have two more. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, I’ll read this one in, if that’s okay, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-This is addressed to me. This is from Joanna Maguire. “It has come to our attention, belatedly for sure, that the proposed developments for Mr. Poirier’s plan access to the property from Island view Drive. We have some questions about the proposal. Has anyone involved in this exercise seen Island View Drive? It is a private drive, one way dirt track with grass growing in the middle that so far has had to deal with very little traffic. It is maintained by the resident, mainly the one with the truck and plow. There are no town/village/county services on the road. The school bus does not pick up the students – they are required to find a ride or walk up to Big Boom Road. We have had instances where deliveries wouldn’t be made, we had to meet a truck in the McDonald’s parking lot to pick up a leaf blower/shredder and bring it to Island View drive ourselves. Our heating oil supplier has to send their smaller truck to service our house. When we had a septic alteration two years ago, the company had to park their truck on East Branch and drive their little trench digger up the road. A cement truck driver said that he wouldn’t drive his cement truck fully loaded over the road across the brook. Would the road be improved to allow the heavy equipment necessary for building multiple buildings? I think at one time a resident was trying to hire a home health aide who wouldn’t take the job because she wouldn’t drive over the brook. On one occasion National Grid came to trim the tree branches over the power lines and we needed to get out to keep an appointment, and they had to move three trucks to let us out. Joanna McGuire.” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you have something else to add, ma’am? MRS. MC GUIRE-I’m Joanna McGuire. I live on Island View Drive, and you can come down and take a look at it any time you want. I don’t cook so you’ll have to bring your own coffee, but you’re welcome to come down and see it, but it is just a one track dirt road and it goes over a brook, and there’s some question about whether or not the culvert there would take, I assume there’s going to be trucks and trucks and heavy equipment going in there if you’re going to build houses, and we don’t know if the road can take the stress, and since they’ve been putting in all the construction up there at Exit 18, they came down from O’Connor property and dug a pond down there. Is that on Poirier’s property? MR. CENTER-No, ma’am. MRS. MC GUIRE-It isn’t? Who’s property is it? MR. STEVES-It’s on O’Connor’s piece, just north of our property. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MRS. MC GUIRE-Okay, because I understand that they expected some runoff. Is it there to catch any? MR. OBORNE-That’s a siltation basin. MRS. MC GUIRE-So we may be expecting some water down there, and you mentioned emergency vehicles up there, and I just have one anecdote. There was a woman who had an emergency and they called for an ambulance and they had to leave it down on East Branch, and the guy’s walked up with a stretcher and took her out of the next house up, and carried her down the road. So you’ve got some big plans to make if you’re going to use Island View Drive. I believe probably Mr. Poirier owns the other side of that, doesn’t he, of Island View Drive? MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure. That would be a question for the surveyor. I don’t think he does. MRS. MC GUIRE-We supposedly own the road with questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MC GUIRE-But really, you should come down and take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-I do have additional comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is from Mike Wynn, Poirier project. “Keith, Speaking for myself, Michael S. Wynn, and my wife Starlett D. Cook, we being the owners of the property located at 4 Island View Dr., tax map number 309.18-1-4, I wish to express our concerns regarding access using our private right of way, by Paul Poirier for his proposed subdivision of the property located at Riverside Dr., tax map number 209.14-1-46. We do not grant permission to Poirier, or to any future owners of Poirier’s property to cross our right of way. Thank you. Michael S. Wynn Starlett D. Cook” The property in question would be that property here, and that’s all I have for public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you want to come back to the table. I don’t know if you had any comments. I guess especially because of the last letter is really the one. MR. STEVES-The letter. I believe, if I’m not mistaken, Cook is the very last lot, and Island View Drive is actually not on his property. It’s north onto Mr. Poirier’s property, at that point. If you look on your map. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-I believe you have it right there. That portion of it is onto Mr. Poirier’s property. So we could branch off before that and not affect his at all. That’s not an issue. We would rather not because it’s already there on our property, but as far as the comment of improving the road, I’ll get back to what we said before at the beginning. We’re not trying to make this a thoroughfare. Understand, we do appreciate the concerns of the neighbors, and the property, and we would not have a problem maintaining, or installing an emergency access path through there. I believe like one resident has said, that the proposed bike path along the river is kind of non-feasible, but if you could use that as a walking path/bike path with an emergency gate to be able to go through, we have no issue with that. As far as the other comment from Mrs. McGuire, as far as improving the road, obviously, if we need to get in there and improve it and get in concrete trucks or whatever to build those houses, at the time that any of those houses on that side were developed, yes we would be the ones responsible for updating the culvert and/or the road to accommodate that, but we don’t want to make it into a highway. We just want to improve it enough that emergency access vehicles can get in there, and/or the construction equipment. So we would not have an issue with that. obviously, we’re the ones asking to build something back there, and somebody else already has, already has had issues with trying to get their equipment back there, what if they needed to have their septic system fixed and/or emergency vehicle, and/or a delivery truck not wanting to cross that culvert, it only benefits everybody for us to improve that section of the road, and we have no issue with that. We can look at that so Mr. Center can get some more details on that for you at the next level, but like I say, it’s an existing road. Yes, it’s not an extremely heavily traveled road, and we don’t want it to be that way, but we have no, again, no problems with improving that to be able to accommodate the emergency vehicle and/or larger equipment to get in and out for maintenance, but we don’t want it to become a thoroughfare. MR. OBORNE-Can I make a comment, please? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Wynn is that property there, and Miss Starlett Cook is the daughter of Mr. Cook who lives at the end. That’s my understanding, having visited the property today, and they’re under the impression that there’s no easement for access to those back properties, and that still needs to be ascertained at this point, and I believe that’s what you were alluding to early on? MR. STEVES-Correct, and I understand I alluded to that at the very beginning, but at the same time, then how do the Cooks get to their property, then, if there’s no access easement to get there? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-I’ll leave it at that, but the legalities of that we’ll look into, but I mean if there isn’t an access easement, does the acquiescence of it being there for so many years, you would now have an implied easement, irregardless. That’s just the way the law is written, but again, like I said, I’m not trying to push anybody. We understand, we don’t want it to be a thoroughfare, but there has to be some type of right of way there because the Cooks utilize it to get to their property now. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t really asked you to address any of the Staff or engineering comments. There are quite a few. MR. CENTER-I’ll start with, in regards to the concerns of wetlands. Having walked the parcel, knowing that the streams, of course there’s wetlands along the edge of the streams. Those are also in the 25% slope or greater, no build areas, and those have been highlighted. I did not see any plant life or areas of concern that would deem wetlands. With the power lines coming alongside, walking across, you can see where the cattails grow in the deep ravines, but there’s nothing up on the higher ground. It’s relatively flat. There’s some trenches along the property. Again, having walked them both in the Spring and in the Fall, you know, we’ve recognized where the soils are poor, and we’ve kept our development to the back of the lots where we had better soils, but we would not be opposed to having Charlie Maine or someone, a soil scientist come out and just confirm if there are any wetlands outside of those stream bank, beds, areas. I know, as Keith alluded to, the Town wetland map does show some green area along the edge of the power lines. I don’t know if that comes across the power lines. It’s notoriously not as accurate as it looks. It’s pretty close to that area, but again, I’ve walked that and there is no streams way in the back corner, there’s a steep slope that comes down, and then there’s a couple, you know, drainage ditches that run along there, but nothing that gets, you know, stream water or direct runoff that would be wetland type environment, but we certainly wouldn’t oppose, and we were going to contact a soil scientist to come out and walk the property and identify if there is or isn’t any wetlands of concern on our parcel. In regards to the Staff comments and the review of the drawings themselves, we understand that, you know, the work along those two culverts is going to require the DEC, Army Corps permits in order to put those culverts in, joint application for that would be provided. We’ve addressed the access in regard to Riverside Drive, the extension and Island View Drive at length already. The maintenance language would be a part of that, once the legal end is determined. We have no problem increasing the detail of the stream crossing. What we’re showing as schematic, in regards to the locations, are fixed for the stream crossing, but knowing when someone comes in to build these houses, these are large lots. We have no problem with coming back for Site Plan Review on all construction for individual lots. That’s probably the best way to do a project of this type, being that they are single family residential larger lots, at that time. The Paragon Engineering comments, we’ve reviewed them. We don’t see anything in there that we cannot comply with. We do understand that an NOI will need to be filed, and then applied individually as the houses are constructed, and in regards to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, we’ll certainly provide the details that are being asked for. I talked about, in regards to Sheet Three, with the size of the culverts, there was a Paragon Engineering comment in regards to further detail. We were going to provide the information from Soil and Water Conservation from Mr. Wick’s design, for 60 inch culverts for those crossings. We have no problem with changing the existing contour lines. It is relatively flat, and we’ll highlight those contours a little bit brighter so they can be seen. The wells were inadvertently not shown. There was a layer that was turned off. They will be shown. We have no issues with the size of the lots, of course, getting 100 feet of separation from any of the septic systems, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, again, will comply with Town Code for 147-8. As this being residential homes only and no Town infrastructure, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan basically is an erosion and sediment control plan for each individual resident’s construction. Because there’s no major road construction being done, our size doesn’t require us to provide the water quality calculations and things like that. Because it is a 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) residential use, private drives. There’s no Town major infrastructure being constructed, and I think that’s. MRS. STEFFAN-Can the roads be wider than 12 feet? I mean, we talked about that a couple of times, because, you know, with the emergency apparatus. I guess, Paul, what would be the ideal? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, 20 feet is the Code, but that’s only for a Town road. If you’ve got a private road, you can make it any size that you want gamble on that you can get a fire truck in there. You need at least 12 feet. MR. STEVES-Right. If you look at the municipal road and you have two lane road, most rural roads around here are about 22 feet wide. So about 11 feet of asphalt surface for each lane. That’s why you use 12 feet. That’s typically a one lane road. To be able to get passing and have adequate room for equipment, 16 feet is more than adequate. A lot of the roads up around Assembly Point are 16 and a half feet wide road. A lot of the roads up there are actually one rod roads which is 16 and a half feet, is all the Town owns in there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In Cleverdale they’re smaller. MR. STEVES-Cleverdale they’re even smaller, and there’s no problems, at that point, at 16 feet, is what I’m trying to say. If you’re wondering, you know, to be able to look at a road that has that width associated with it, most of them up in that area are 16 feet wide. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, that’s one of my concerns. A 12 foot wide road, you know, when we have a heavy snowfall, is going to get smaller, and you’re going to have to get either an oil trucks, or propane trucks in there, and it’s just kind of, or UPS truck, you know, and I can tell you that a UPS delivery to any of these driveways will be a nightmare, and they’ll probably have to park in the road and walk in. Because, you know, UPS they have to back out in many of these situations. So it’ll be very difficult to get a delivery in there with a 12 foot wide drive. MR. STEVES-You make it a 16 foot, and we can look at putting in some type of a turn out, you know, right near the, where the driveways meet, the shared driveways meet, somebody was to come in, they have a turn out to back out over there. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be more reasonable for deliveries. MR. STEVES-It is the best way to do it. Again, that’s why we’re here, but we’re trying to minimize the impact on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-And again, you know, we can show that in a subdivision plan, but as Mr. Center has addressed, each of these lots, we feel, should be coming back in front of you for Site Plan, because of the fact, as you’ve already discussed, and the size of these lots and their proximity to the water, these aren’t going to be little homes that are built here. So you want to be able to have the ability, at that point, to be able to see the driveway configuration, the size of the house, what they’re looking at, and then you can address even more of those down the road. Because if you just say, carte blanche, at the subdivision, go build your house, that’s fine on half acre lots, or one acre lots that you create a larger subdivision on, but in this instance, I really think that the best way to handle it is for you to look at it again, because if you were going to ask me what’s going to be placed on any of these lots, I know it’s not going to be a 1200 square foot home. MR. CENTER-And invariably whatever we show for these types, for these larger lots, somebody’s going to disagree with us, and we’ll be right back to coming back in front of the Board anyway. So it does make sense to require Site Plan Review, and that way we can flesh out some of the more specific, site specific details at that time. MR. STEVES-But at subdivision your concerns are, you know, we hear them and we can incorporate those into the subdivision by placing that information on the plan. Each lot must come back in for Site Plan Review. Each of the shared driveways must accommodate a 16 foot wide, must accommodate a turnaround or a turn out at some point. We could show them in Sketch, if you want to call that, on the subdivision plan, but you know where Driveway A is going to go, because coming off Riverside Drive, going through the culverts. Once it gets past there, depending on where they build their house, and they have a left hand garage, right hand garage, a circular drive, that’s when you can start playing with where these turnouts or turnarounds work the best, but, like I say, we should note that on the subdivision, that is it required, but not necessarily in the place where we show it. That’s where it comes back to you at Site Plan Review. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. OBORNE-It probably should be in the deed also. MR. STEVES-Right. It’ll be in both, but I’m just saying, you don’t want to lock, just getting back, we understand you need to have it. We just don’t want to lock it down until you know exactly what’s happening. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the same thing applies to clearing restrictions. MR. STEVES-You got it. MRS. STEFFAN-Those are things that are very hard to enforce. You put it in the deed, the subdivision, I bought a parcel in a subdivision and my neighbor didn’t pay any attention to the deed restriction on the one acre clearing, and what do you do? You can turn them in, but who do you turn them in to? MR. STEVES-Right, but if they come in for Site Plan Review, then at that point they have to show you the clearing plan that’s identified with each lot, and then you have, again, coming back to what we stated at the beginning, it is a beautiful piece of property, and you’re not just going to bulldoze in here and plop five houses and get out of here. It’s going to be, you know, nicer homes. People are going to be paying a serious dollar for these lots. So, coming back for Site Plan Review is not going to be a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel we have enough information to move forward on SEQRA and a Zoning Board recommendation? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think so. MR. OBORNE-You do have to conduct SEQRA. You have to be comfortable doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Everyone okay? I’ll leave the public hearing open, because they’re coming back. This is a Long Form, of course. I actually had a comment on the SEQRA. On Page Eight of Twenty-one, on your SEQRA form, it asks for the approvals required and you have Sketch for subdivision, 12/15/10. I think you mean ’09. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You also need to get Army Corps of Engineers on here, under Federal Agencies, Army Corps of Engineers. MR. HUNSINGER-Army Corps of Engineers. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, I have to ask you. How do we add that, because we’re not tabling this because this isn’t Site Plan Review, but we are doing SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Well, just make sure you’re comfortable moving forward when you’re doing SEQRA. That’s important. I certainly could have the applicant hand put this in here for the file at this point in time, if you’d feel more comfortable doing that. MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But we do not have, just leave it at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we have those two corrections on Page Eight. MR. FORD-Chris, is there a general feeling that we’ve got enough information to proceed with SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I asked you guys, what I asked the Board. MR. FORD-I’m not sure. MR. STEVES-I understand, but that’s why I said this is for the subdivision, and obviously, like the permit for putting in the culvert for the stream and Army Corps, you’ve already got a letter from Soil and Water saying they have no issues with it, and they even helped us spec the size of the pipe to move forward with that, and again, just letting you know that’s for the culvert. That’s for the subdivision only. Each lot is then subject to Site Plan Review. So you’re only looking at drawing the lines on the paper at this time, for your portion of SEQRA, and Site Plan Review, do you get a chance to look at SEQRA again for each one? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. OBORNE-I’d like to see what Dave has done, too. I mean, because that’s the third time I’ve heard Dave Wick’s name dropped here. Certainly we’re going to need an engineer to design it and not the Director of Soil and Water. MR. STEVES-No, we didn’t say he was going to design it. MR. OBORNE-I thought you said it was a Dave Wick design. MR. STEVES-He recommended sizes. MR. CENTER-I’m sorry. He’s recommended a size. He has some calculations to back it up and we’ve reviewed those, and are comfortable with that information. MR. OBORNE-He’s recommended. Okay. MR. STEVES-They went to them previously, before they got involved with us, the previous owner went to Soil and Water and just asked, and we’re just saying that it’s been reviewed by other people besides just the engineers. Soil and Water has also. We’re not saying he’s designing. MR. OBORNE-I heard design. That’s all. MR. STEVES-No, no. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s certainly not unusual for us to go through Preliminary and then have a list of items they need to come back for Final, but the question really is, are we comfortable with SEQRA, and then obviously the next step is the recommendation to the Zoning Board. I mean, there are some outstanding issues, like the status of the easement for the right of way, as well as, you know, a lot of the comments in the Staff and engineering comments. Some of those are just labeling the map, though. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But what other environmental issues do we have concerns with? We don’t really know where the wetlands are. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But we do know that there’s going to be an impact on the streams with the stream crossing of the driveway. So how you draw the wetland map, I mean, we understand they’re going to impact the wetland there. MR. STEVES-I don’t mean to interrupt, but any stream is a wetland. So any crossing impacts it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. STEVES-So that’s DEC permit. You do that regardless. It’s like the broad brush approach we brought in in the beginning, as far as the floodplain. Like Lake George they show a floodplain 75 feet back from the lake, whether you’re on the sandy plan down on Cleverdale or if you’re up on the cliffs up in Putnam. They still show that on the map as being 75 feet back. Seventy-five feet back from the edge of the water up at Putnam you might be two-hundred feet above the water, but again here, with the wetlands, (lost words) there is wetlands associated at the bottom of these ravines. When you’re 30 feet below where we are, and even with the 100 foot setback from those, we’re not going to be anywhere near those wetlands with any of the construction except for the crossing, which we need a DEC permit to do. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is the contours, in the engineering comments, talked about that the contours were not provided, are so light that our engineer couldn’t review them. That’s an issue for us, before we do SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the first question asks if there’s construction on slopes of 15% or greater or general slopes exceeding 10%. MR. CENTER-If you walk the site, it’s very flat except for where those ravines, where you can see the major contours along those ravines. Being that in the copying process the lines didn’t come out the same as the plotted drawings, we have no problem highlighting those for Preliminary, or after we get through zoning. Again, those issues can be addressed. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let’s proceed. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. Once we start construction, but you’re only subdividing. MR. OBORNE-Well, the action is subdivision, right. MR. HUNSINGER-So you have to assume. MR. FORD-You’re just drawing the lines on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you have to assume the construction of the five houses. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. TRAVER-So we’re talking about the ravines. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the driveways, the houses, the garages. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The examples, construction on slopes of 15% or greater or where the general slopes are projected to exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we have to say that, yes, it will result in a physical change to the project, just the nature of the development, subdivision for five house lots, but I think it’s small to minor and mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree, and I’d like to revise my response to, yes, mitigated by Site Plan Review. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So noted. MR. OBORNE-Excuse me. What was the language for the yes? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to say yes, and it’s a subdivision of five lots into five, a subdivision of five house lots, and the impact is small to moderate, and it mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’ve got streams that will be crossed. Mitigated by DEC approval and permeating process. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’ve got a small to moderate impact, but it can be mitigated by the project change, depending on what the DEC dictates. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Number Five, Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. FORD-It’s possible, but it seems like the plan will address that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it does say, one of the items identified, proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. MR. STEVES-We’re not proposing any development in the floodway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’ll be outside the floodway. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It’s above the floodway. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the answer to that is no. MR. FORD-Excuse me, wasn’t there a flow issue? You were talking about culverts. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The criteria here is will the proposed action alter drainage or flow patterns or surface water runoff, and examples. Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway or other impacts we can identify. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we addressed the stream crossing in the other one. MR. TRAVER-Right. We’re not proposing any amendments to the pattern. We’re just talking about infrastructure changes that are going to be monitored and mitigated by DEC approval. MR. FORD-I just wanted to seize the opportunity to make sure that we addressed it. If they ask the question three times, we have to be consistent. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So that’s a yes on Number Five? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a no. MR. OBORNE-That’s a no? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Seven, Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Question Eight, Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-Well, you don’t know that. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t have a certification. MR. FORD-It’s unknown. MR. OBORNE-That is one of the issues that Clark did bring up. There seems to be some flora, is that what he brought up, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes. The National Grid right of way, the site’s completely wooded. I mean, typically your Karner blue, or your habitat for your Karner blue or Frosted Elfin is along those National Grid right of ways and sandy soils, which we have not necessarily sandy soils in this area, but more gravel, right, Tom? MR. CENTER-There’s sandy soils to the Island View Drive side, but again, that’s all in the wooded. Our parcel, actually there’s another parcel in between us and the power lines, predominantly that small lands of Elmore, over there, and everything’s wooded. MR. STEVES-Right up to the power line. MR. CENTER-Right up to the power line. MR. OBORNE-If I could, just looking at what he states, no environmental report was received as required. The report must include documentation of all contacted agencies to verify the existence or non-existence of any rare, threatened or endangered species of plants and animals, and again, according to New York State DEC website interactive mapping, this site is indicated as an area of rare plants and rare animals within the natural community vicinity. So possibly you’re thinking Karner blue. MR. CENTER-It’s on the power lines area, not over, you know, when you look at the tax map and over the other one, it didn’t go over into this parcel. It was very confusing to look at and you have to kind of overlay the two. MR. OBORNE-I think, and again, I’m not trying to be difficult. That wasn’t submitted. I don’t have any record of that, and I don’t doubt anything that Mr. Center’s saying. MR. CENTER-That’s what I used to answer the question for the endangered species was the DEC website. MR. STEVES-They always, as anybody has, we’ve reviewed lots on different projects in the Queensbury area, and they always look at it, and they identify open corridors along the National Grid easements. I’ve never seen them not do that in Queensbury because of the fact that sandy soils and pine barrens with open corridors is a prime place for the Karner blue. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, even if the interactive map does show the National Grid corridor is being an area of significance. You’re adjacent to it. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, that would kind of lead me to believe that we’d want to see some kind of documentation. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It sounds like it. MR. FORD-We’ve had much smaller projects where we’ve required that. MRS. STEFFAN-So do we stop what we’re doing right now and? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can’t get through SEQRA, no. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, this is why, you know, sometimes it’s useful to actually start the review and then it, you know, triggers issues that we have to address. That’s part of the purpose. MR. OBORNE-You certainly can go forward. I mean, I don’t think there’s an issue with that. It’s just that you definitely want to direct the applicant to provide specific issues. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-We need documentation. Yes. MR. FORD-Well, and how do you answer the question yes or no? Without the documentation. MR. OBORNE-I again want to repeat that the Board has to be comfortable with giving a SEQRA Negative Declaration on this project. MR. FORD-I don’t. I don’t have the comfort level to proceed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, if there’s possible endangered species here, I mean, I think we need to clear that up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s the end of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other items that may require additional documentation? What about historic and archeological resources? MR. STEVES-It wasn’t listed on SHPO’s web. We’ll take a look at that again. It wasn’t identified anything in this area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think that’s probably the only issue. MR. STEVES-We will get a hold of Kathy O’Brien from DEC, but again, like I say, that’s the best solution, just give her a call and have her take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MC GUIRE-Can I ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, but we’ll need to get you on the record, on the microphone. MRS. MC GUIRE-I’ll make this a brief one. When he says the issue of the road and getting the equipment back and forth, he says we can take care of that. Who’s we? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the developer, the owner of the property. MRS. MC GUIRE-The developer. MR. HUNSINGER-How quickly do you think you could get that documentation? MR. STEVES-I know how quickly I can contact her office. I don’t, I can’t tell you. I will contact her office tomorrow. As far as my historic dealings with them, it’s usually a week or so before she gets back to me, but in this instance, if she looks at that on their web page and on the aerial, we had a similar one over on Luzerne Road where she looked at it because it’s all wooded and the same conclusion is that (lost word) didn’t have any concern because of the fact that the two endangered species in the area, the Frosted Elfin, again, and the Karner blue butterfly, have to have those open, sandy soils that would be associated with the corridor, and fortunately in this situation, that corridor does not run through our property, it runs adjacent to our property. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m thinking, in any event, I think we’d be looking to table this to October. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, Keith, you have the changes made to the SEQRA form that was submitted? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Tom did change the date and add Army Corps of Engineers, too. MRS. STEFFAN-On the Federal, okay. So we don’t have to mention that in any kind of tabling motion. MR. OBORNE-Right, and since it looks like you’re tabling it, I would suggest, as just a recommendation, obviously, that they do take care of any of the outstanding issues that are there and do the due diligence. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. STEVES-Do all that to come back to you so that we have that in place before, because we need that letter from DEC so that would give us ample time to address the other issues. MR. OBORNE-And if you could also comment on the access issue off of Island View Drive, because I think that may be an issue. MR. FORD-The impact on transportation needs to be addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-But what specifically are we looking for on Island View? Is it access or is it? MR. HUNSINGER-Access off Island View Drive. MR. OBORNE-Deeded access easement, I think it’s easement access. I mean, I know. I totally understand the argument. We just need to get some type of documentation, and, Tom, have you had any discussions with Mike Travis at all about extending the road? MR. CENTER-Not at this point. MR. OBORNE-He does have the plan. So he’s aware of what’s going on. You might want to give him a call. MR. STEVES-Question for the Board, you already asked, what’s the timeframe on getting a response back from them. Do you want, you know, to be tabled to the October meeting, do you th want all that information by September 15? I can’t guarantee I’m going to get a letter from her th by the 15. That’s, you know, I can try, but there’s no guarantee. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, our general guidelines, we don’t accept materials the night of the meeting, but if you had everything else complete, and then that letter came between the time you submitted materials, and between that time and the Planning Board meeting, you could certainly forward that to Staff, and if it made Staff Notes in time, would it, I’m assuming then it would come in our Staff Notes, it would be attached to our Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-The documentation, it would be, yes, I can definitely attach it to the Staff Notes. That certainly would be in the file, at the very least, and it would be commented on if it is a condition of your tabling resolution, as I go through my Staff Notes, which is pretty much typical. th MR. STEVES-Thank you. I’m going to request it by the 15 of September, but we’ll see what we can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Are you ready? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2010, AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2010, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the October 19 Planning Board meeting, with a submission deadline of th September 15 for new materials. So that the applicant can address Staff Notes, the applicant can address engineering comments, and that the applicant can provide the Planning Board with documentation on threatened or endangered species on this site. Also so that the applicant can provide documentation on deeded access easements for the Island View Road access. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for people in the audience, the public hearing was left open. So we th will take additional public comment on October 19, if you wish to comment again. MR. JACKOSKI-And to the neighbors, thank you for communicating so well tonight your concerns about the area. It was greatly appreciated how you handled your concerns. ALLEN ROZELLE 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. ROZELLE-Could we get one thing clarified about the end of Riverside? I don’t understand the access across the brook. Will Riverside be extended across the brook? Is that the idea? MR. STEVES-A driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-A driveway. MR. CENTER-Not the Town, but a driveway would extend off the very end of Riverside Drive, across the two brooks. MR. ROZELLE-Who will maintain that? MR. CENTER-That would be the property owner, the lot owner. MR. ROZELLE-What will they do with the snow bank that gets built up at the end of Riverside? MR. CENTER-That becomes an issue between, that’s why we have to meet with the Highway Superintendent, in regards to. MR. HUNSINGER-Our next application on the agenda was Inwald Enterprises. We earlier th tabled that. If there’s anyone here in the audience, we tabled that to September 28. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2010 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM CROWELL AGENT(S) BRIAN HOGAN OWNER(S) SAME 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 WRAP AROUND PORCH ON THE NORTH WEST SIDE OF HOME. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING WOODED 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 AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-2010 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER LG PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-59 SECTION § 179-9-010 BRIAN HOGAN & EILEEN CONSIDINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 12-2010 for William Crowell. Site Plan Review for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA is the requested action. Location is 20 Holly Lane. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. 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 the home. Further, applicant proposes to replace existing wooded 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 and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. I do believe that, let me do 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. What I’m going to go down is the motion to table and quickly go through that. On June 24, 2010, the following tabling motion was set forth by this Board. The applicant will provide Staff with the corrected application. That has been completed. That the applicant will provide a substantial buffer plan that is Code compliant. That has been addressed. Note, the ZBA condition of approval calls for two pines. Only one is denoted on the planting plan, yet three in the schedule. Three, that the applicant will provide documentation that the wastewater treatment system is certified for three bedrooms. That may be the prior zoning approval if it’s on record. That seems to have been addressed and complete with the submittal of the septic alteration Certificate of Occupancy from the Building and Codes Department. That the applicant will amend the drawings to indicate the change in the bilco door location. That’s complete with the revised submittal. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOGAN-Good evening. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. HOGAN-Well, my understanding is the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to address the three items we had outstanding. MRS. STEFFAN-Could you state your name for the record. MR. HOGAN-I’m sorry. Brian Hogan. The first item, we submitted the corrected application. I apologize for that. The other one we had was the Certificate of Occupancy for the septic system. That was provided. The last one was the, the other one was the location of the bilco door. I believe you guys had a question on that. It was kind of hard to read on our other plan. We included it on the planting diagram that you guys were given, and it’s shown on the southwest corner of the building. Everybody can see that, that’s where the bilco door is going to be located. The last one was the planting plan, revised was showing that the additional plantings, there was a question from the Staff about the number and location of the pines. The reason we show a discrepancy in here is we’re showing several eastern white pines. Only one of those pines is located directly on the subject property. It’s shown on the northeast corner, I believe it’s called P-25. That’s the one that’s directly on the property. The other two are off to the side, directly on the property line, but actually on the neighbor’s property. So most of the leaves hang over, at least 50% of the leaves hang over his property. In terms of additional pines, we have, I believe, PO3. I guess if you guys would call, we call spruces pines. Would you guys consider a spruce a pine? MR. FORD-I wouldn’t. A pine is a pine. A spruce is a spruce. MR. HOGAN-I look at a pine as something with needles on it. MR. FORD-You’ve got red pine and white pine. MR. OBORNE-It is an evergreen, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. It is an evergreen MR. HOGAN-That’s true. When we looked at it, when I was growing up, a pine was a spruce, too, but that’s what it, PO3. So you still, there’s a couple of those in there and there’s a couple of other spruces as well that are interspersed. So we met the conditions of what was to be shown for plantings. Okay. MR. SIPP-Where are the pines located now? MR. HOGAN-If you look at PO3, right there at the corner there’s one, you see where the round area is by the patio, where the? MR. SIPP-That’s not your pine, though. That’s not the applicant’s pine, is it? MR. HOGAN-That’s the spruce. That’s one of the spruces. There’s another spruce over to the south, right along the property line. Those two there. MR. SIPP-Is that his tree? MR. HOGAN-Yes. The other one, P-25, is the eastern white pine. That’s on the northern side. You see that one? MR. SIPP-Yes, I’ve got that one. MR. HOGAN-Okay, and that’s on his property. You can just see the needles from the other extremely large white pines that are on the other property line, but they’re actually located on the neighbors to the north. MR. SIPP-Zoning Board requires that you have three pine trees. MR. HOGAN-Two. P-25 counts as one. We have P03 and two additional ones denoted, P03, which actually gives us. MR. SIPP-Yes, but these are not as a buffer. These are along the property line, are they not? MR. HOGAN-They’re supposed to be located in the foreshore of the property, which means in between the building and the lake. MR. SIPP-Are they? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HOGAN-They are. MR. SIPP-The oak and the birch. MR. HOGAN-Let’s see, there’s two oaks. One is on the north side of the property, marked P-52. Do you see that? That’s right down by the water, and then there’s another one, if you see there’s a whole series of plantings on the south side of the property. Right in the middle of there is P-52. There’s two oaks there. As far as the birches are concerned, birches are denoted as P- 40. There’s a double birch being planted immediately to the north of the walkway, in between the lake and the retaining wall. You see that? That’s a double birch there, as well as several other birches that are being put on the property as well. As well as a boat load of herbaceous plants. MR. SIPP-You don’t have a bush in the whole bunch of them even. You don’t have a bush. Besides a ground cover, there’s no bush. You are required to have at least one tall tree and one bush. MR. HOGAN-Correct, and there’s several bushes in the property. I mean, if you look at. MR. SIPP-Are they a buffer between the land the? MR. HOGAN-Yes, absolutely. For instance, P-18, I believe, are Junipers. There’s several of those. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that’s a low growing Japanese. You’re talking about the Japanese Juniper. MRS. STEFFAN-Creeping Juniper. MR. HOGAN-Creeping Juniper. It’s a short bush, but, yes, it is a bush, and then we also have some little blue stem, 36 inches high. Then we have some, I don’t even know the names of all of these. This was gone through with an arborist who told us we met the requirements. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Put anymore out there, you won’t be able to see the lake. MR. HOGAN-Well, I think that’s some people’s intent. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the idea. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How can you buy a million dollar home at the lake, and then you see the back of trees. MR. HOGAN-Yes. We could get into a serious discussion about that and whether or not we’re running a Planning Board or a Homeowners Association. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re trying to keep all the nurseries in business in Town. MR. HOGAN-You guys are doing a heck of a job. Actually, believe it or not, you can’t even buy most of these plants in a regular nursery. They tend to be special order, which is kind of odd because they’re local. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. MR. SIPP-Now, in this drawing right here, are you complying with the 179-8-040? MR. HOGAN-Yes, where there’ X number of herbaceous plants per. MR. SIPP-I don’t see any 15 feet where there is at least one tall tree, one small tree, and some bush. You’ve got a lot of flowers in there, but. MR. HOGAN-They are. They’re very pretty, too. One tall tree is required within each 50 feet. Okay. One tall tree within each 50 feet of shorefront. Well, if you look on the north and the south, I have an oak to the north and an oak to the south, which are in excess of 75 feet tall. MR. SIPP-All right, but where’s the small tree? MR. HOGAN-Well, the small trees would be any of the spruces, the birches. The birch is denoted by P-40. That’s a small tree. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. SIPP-White birch? MR. HOGAN-White birch, yes. MR. SIPP-Is not on the list. MR. HOGAN-It’s not on the list? Yes, that’s kind of cool, considering an oak is not on the list either. MR. SIPP-Yes, it is. MR. HOGAN-No, it’s not. MR. SIPP-Yes, it is. MR. HOGAN-I read this thing several times. Larger trees I’ve got black spruce, black ash. I don’t actually see an oak tree in here. MR. OBORNE-Oak is on the tree list. MR. HOGAN-Is it on the tree list? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, white and charter. MR. OBORNE-178-8-030. MR. HOGAN-Okay. All right. Good, but anyway, we have the tall oak trees. MR. SIPP-What I’m getting at is that you’ve got a lot of flowers in there, but your low growing shallow root systems that do not do much for the protection of the lake. MR. HOGAN-I can’t dispute that. We’re trying to meet the needs of the property owner, as well as what the requirements of the Town are. We’ve met the requirements of what the Town requires, in terms of what I’m seeing here for shoreline buffers. MR. SIPP-In one case here you have a Japanese Yew, I believe, which is close to being an invasive species. Not really classified as such, but it’s not recommended. Most of these are small, flowering pretty little, plantation here, but not much in the way of filtering for stormwater, and you’ve got quite a slope there. MR. HOGAN-I don’t dispute that. We do have a stormwater system that’s treating 100% of the stormwater to the rear of the property. So the fact that we don’t have additional trees doing that, I mean, to answer your question, I mean, certainly we could design this. I could put a bunch of trees in there, which would make the house invisible from the lake, but. MR. SIPP-It wouldn’t make it invisible with the brush that you would put in there, some flowering dogwood, that goes five, six feet high. You’re up high enough for that bank you’ve got there to see over the top of it, and yet you persistently put in flowers here which are low growing. I don’t know how many kinds that are here, lilies. I think you need more. Spruce trees in a line right there. MR. HOGAN-I mean, I have four spruce trees that are, common spruce, the Norway Spruce. They’re supposed to grow to be four feet tall. MR. SIPP-Well, what are these hatch marked columns right here of six items? MR. HOGAN-Those are stepping stones. MR. SIPP-Those are stepping stones? MR. HOGAN-Yes. MR. SIPP-And you still have the solid walkway on the other side of the? MR. HOGAN-Yes, we do. MR. SIPP-And that goes right down to the lake? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HOGAN-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-From the back of the house, almost from the road? MR. HOGAN-Well, I mean, there’s at least two sets of steps between the house and the road. In the front of the shoreline where you’re looking at there there’s about 12 feet of walkway that there’s, with some steps right at the, at that retaining wall. MR. SIPP-I’m not trying to cause you any big problems, but I don’t see that this is enough to screen what you’ve got here. This solid walkway extends almost from the road down to the lake, almost to the road. It goes out behind the back of the house, almost to the road. MR. HOGAN-Yes. MR. SIPP-You’ve got it on one of your conceptual drawings. MR. HOGAN-Yes. Actually, it actually goes up and then it would tie back into the porch, and then it continues on from the back of the porch to the garage. MR. SIPP-Then you’re going to leave that as a solid way for the water to run down from the road down to the lake? MR. HOGAN-Yes. Well, the walkway’s not a culvert. It’s flat. So, I mean, some of the water is going to run down the walkway, but the bulk of it’s going to go off from side to side. MR. SIPP-Some of the water. How much? MR. HOGAN-Some of the water could get down towards the. MR. SIPP-I don’t think that’s acceptable. You’ve got a four foot wide, almost four foot wide walkway. MR. HOGAN-It’s about three feet wide, actually, about 36 inches across. MR. SIPP-Coming down that slope, which is going to carry any rain water? MR. HOGAN-Very little. MR. SIPP-Very little. Snow melt? MR. HOGAN-I mean, I couldn’t tell you how many gallons that would be, necessarily, but it’s a very small amount of water. Counsel has just advised me that smaller shrubs are only required to be anywhere two to six feet. EILEEN CONSIDINE MRS. CONSIDINE-Well, there are some shrubs on the list in the regulations, which I have in my hand, that are almost two feet tall. So that’s included in the smaller trees and larger shrubs. A meadow sweet, for example, grows from two feet to six feet, and there are others on here that are low shrubs that are included under the category of smaller trees and large shrubs under story. MR. SIPP-Where are they located? MRS. CONSIDINE-The Creeping Juniper will grow much taller than two feet, if untrimmed. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself. MRS. CONSIDINE-Eileen Considine. MR. HOGAN-Where are they located? I mean, those are called P-18. If you want to look at those, there’s six right along the shoreline. MR. SIPP-Right. What’s in back of them? This strip, this buffer strip is supposed to be 15 feet wide. MR. HOGAN-This buffer strip is approximately 18 feet wide. It’s in excess of the requirement. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. SIPP-Yes, but I don’t see it. MR. HOGAN-It’s18 feet between the wall, the sea wall. MR. SIPP-What ground cover do you have there underneath those shrubs? MR. HOGAN-I couldn’t even tell you. What is the name of those plants? P-26 we have a whole slew of, edging lobelia. MRS. CONSIDINE-Lobelia. MR. HOGAN-P O-5, astilbe. I know what those are. They have a kind of cool red flower on them. Those are really nice looking, too. MR. SIPP-Yes, they’re nice looking, but they’re not, I don’t see that they’re doing a heck of a lot of filtering. MR. HOGAN-I don’t see that the requirement is for filtering. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s what the buffer is supposed to do. MR. HOGAN-Well, are you talking about a filtered view or a filtering of stormwater? MR. SIPP-A filtering of water. MR. HOGAN-Well, these are all going to, I mean, you can’t cover the entire ground with plants. I mean, these plants tend to grow and will multiply on their own. So if you plant ten astible’s, in two or three years, I imagine you’re probably going to have twenty. MR. SIPP-Is that on the list? MR. HOGAN-Well, how can I, I can’t put them on the list, yes, they’re on the list, I mean, that plant is on the list, but I mean, you can’t plant a shoreline buffer of how it’s going to look ten years down the road. You can plant it and have it grow and it’s going to fill in over a given period of time. The same way we’re planting a birch tree. I’m not going to plant a 20 or 30 foot birch tree. You’re going to plant an eight, ten foot birch tree, and it’s going to grow on its own. MR. SIPP-Nobody asked you to. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have questions on the planting schedule? MR. SIPP-Sheet Number Five, where’s that walkway start and where does it end up? MR. HOGAN-Well, the walkway starts, I mean, effectively that walkway starts at the driveway and moves down, and then there’s a set of steps which will tie into the porch addition, and then it will come out from the porch addition and carry down to the lake, and most of that is existing now. MR. SIPP-It’s all downhill. MR. HOGAN-It is all downhill. That’s the way the property’s laid out. I understand your concerns, but if you look at the front page there, I mean, most of it right now is steps, and I think if you look at the way the steps are laid out, you’ll find that the water is going to go from side to side. It’s, you’re not, it doesn’t have an indentation in the middle, so we’re not catching the water and running it straight down the hill into the lake. A small amount of the water is going to come from each step and go down, but the bulk of the water is going to go from side to side and be absorbed by the astilbe’s. MRS. CONSIDINE-And the hundreds of other plants in the front of the property. MR. SIPP-I’d agree to that, but none of them are on the list. MRS. CONSIDINE-We checked with multiple landscapers in the area, and besides the plantings in the front coming in at $50,000. MR. SIPP-They wouldn’t come in at $50,000. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MRS. CONSIDINE-They’re going to with all the work that has to be done with the front of the property, and a lot of these have to be special ordered. We checked with multiple landscapers in the area. So they’re going to be very expensive. MR. HOGAN-Although the LGA is starting up a new nursery that’s going to have all natural plants in it. So maybe we’ll get a break on some of those. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I personally think the landscaping plan is quite fortified, and I think it’ll be lovely, personally. Public hearing maybe? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. I will open the public hearing. Whenever you’re ready. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We had concerns about the site plan in relation to the buffering, and to the shoreline setback on the proposed amendments. We do not have any problems with their expansion to their structure, and we have the following comments. We did have concern about the shoreline buffer. I feel that there has been good discussion on that. We felt that the Zoning Board wanted a substantial four tiered buffer. We do not know if that’s been reached yet, but we appreciate the discussion on that. Regarding the proposed patio within the shoreline setback, we feel that that needs a variance as defined by the Adirondack Park Agency. The Water Keeper raised that issue and requested a determination from the Town of Queensbury Zoning Administrator. Our interpretation was supported by the Adirondack Park Agency, who informed the Town of th Queensbury of the misinterpretation of its own Zoning Code, and that was in a July 27 letter to the Town. Basically summarizing, the Agency staff believes any patio greater than 100 square feet that is proposed within the shoreline setback, regardless of its degree of flushness with the ground, would require a variance, and we feel that that should be required to get a variance. Unfortunately I was given this evening a letter from Mr. Oborne that says basically the APA said that staff believed it was an oversight not to have included the patio in the variance approval, but in this situation they’ll defer to the ZBA decision. However, I feel that that’s misleading, because th the evening of, I think it was the 16 of June, that application was being discussed at the ZBA, rd no, the 23, and member Mr. Urrico raised a question about that, and he felt that regarding the variance, or regarding the patio, there needed to be more movement and at that point, and I think, Keith, you corrected and said that the patio did not require a variance. MR. OBORNE-Can I answer? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That was the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator. At this point, we made a mistake, and we are acquiescing to that fact. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. So I do think that that patio does need a variance because there was concern on Zoning Board members on that. Again, we feel that that is, that there are alternatives to the patio and they should be addressed. We did raise the question about the wastewater treatment system. We understand the certificate was submitted. We just did not know if that was certified for three bedrooms, and those are the comments that we had. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I’m just looking at the ZBA record of resolution now, and they certainly identify the patio in the resolution. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It was certainly an oversight as far as it not being quantified as part of the determination by Craig. We absolutely agree with what the Water Keeper is saying with that. We did send it to APA. We got the response back from APA that they deferred to the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. Moving forward, having discussed this with the Zoning Administrator, any patio over 100 square feet, from here on in, in the Park, and 120 square feet outside of the Park, are considered an accessory structure and will be treated as such. It was an oversight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-However, this is a done deal. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. OBORNE-What’s a done deal? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The ZBA has granted, and the APA has told them fine for now, but on the next one you can’t. MR. OBORNE-That’s our interpretation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there’s no reason to discuss it. It’s over with and let’s move on. MR. OBORNE-And that’s how we’re going to move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Outstanding concerns? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-This is a SEQRA Type II action. So if there are no further comments or concerns, I will entertain a motion. MR. OBORNE-Before a motion, either way you’re going to have to close the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, and our counsel has advised us to have formal votes on closing the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-I wasn’t here when he recommended that, but if that is something that you feel comfortable doing, then I suggest you continue to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I thought it was a little over the top, myself. Let me put it this way. Does anyone disagree with closing of the public hearing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing I need to address is that, in the prior tabling motion, there was the ZBA condition of approval calls for two pines, only one noted on the plan. Do we have to mention that, I mean, since the plan does not comply. On the schedule it does say that there’s three, and I understand what the applicant said that there are two pines that overhang the property from the neighbor’s property. Do I have to mention that, or do we just move forward? MR. OBORNE-I thought that you had addressed that and stated that there are two pines on the property? MR. HOGAN-There’s one eastern white pine, and then we’re adding spruce trees. MR. HUNSINGER-A spruce. MR. HOGAN-Now, my interpretation of pine is spruce, but I, you know, again. MR. OBORNE-That’s definitely a different species. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just say you’re adding a pine. MR. HOGAN-We’ll change out one of the. MR. OBORNE-Make that a condition of approval, and that would satisfy the Area Variance application. MR. HOGAN-Are you okay with that? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MRS. CONSIDINE-No, I’m not. MR. HOGAN-Okay. MRS. CONSIDINE-But I will agree to it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what are we agreeing to here? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there’s, on the plan, there’s two Alberta Spruce. MR. HOGAN-We’ll change one of the spruce’s to a, something that says pine on the end. MR. HUNSINGER-Eastern white pine. MR. HOGAN-I like eastern white pine. MRS. CONSIDINE-Can we say pine for now? MR. HOGAN-Change it to pine tree. MRS. STEFFAN-Does it have to be? MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t need to be, no. It wasn’t specific on what species. MR. FORD-I would comply with what the ZBA said. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, in my opinion, Tom said a spruce, a pine’s a pine. MR. TRAVER-Their intent was probably conifers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And I personally think that that’s, in the front of that deck, I think that the spruce is a much better idea. MR. HOGAN-It looks a lot better. If I was going to put a spruce, if you’re going to force me to put a pine, it’ll be the one to the south of the property. The definition of a pine is a coniferous tree in the genus pinus. So there’s probably. MR. OBORNE-My recommendation is to condition the approval that they add a pine. MR. HOGAN-And the evergreen is considered a pine. MR. OBORNE-That’s my recommendation. That is a condition of approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Instead of just swapping out a spruce for a pine. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t think you can make that call. MR. FORD-That would be overriding what they. MR. HUNSINGER-No, what I’m saying is what they have labeled as a spruce, make it a pine. MRS. CONSIDINE-The definition of a pine is any evergreen, coniferous tree, of the genus pinus having long needle-shaped leaves. I mean, it’s, what’s the pine family? MRS. STEFFAN-Pinus strobus actually is the genus and species of a pine. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that include spruce, though? MRS. STEFFAN-No. Spruce is a different genus. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HOGAN-It’s a genus sprucus? Well, then that’s not the same. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MRS. CONSIDINE-Any of the various similar coniferous trees is also under the definition of pine. Second definition after any evergreen of the pinus family, genus pinus, the second is any f various similar coniferous trees. That is, what definition is it from? MR. HOGAN-It’s an on-line dictionary. MRS. CONSIDINE-Dictionary.com. MR. HOGAN-And the Internet is always right. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless it’s Wikipedia, right? MR. HOGAN-Unless it’s Wikipedia. MRS. CONSIDINE-It’s not Wikipedia. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a bridge for you. MR. HOGAN-Yes, right. MRS. STEFFAN-So are we okay with the pine issue, and just leave it as it is? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I. MR. OBORNE-If Bruce signs off on it, then it’s just fine. MR. HOGAN-I have a bathroom issue. Not that I’ve been here that long or anything, but Mrs. Considine has asked me, if we modify the second story to have two bathrooms instead of one, does that affect anything? MR. OBORNE-As far as? MR. HOGAN-As far as if we change the floor plan? Just two bedrooms upstairs, a master bedroom. MR. OBORNE-Yes, unequivocally you’d have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, because what was approved at the Zoning Board of Appeals was what you presented to them as far as your floor plan goes. MR. HOGAN-Got you. So if we wanted to change it, we’d have to go back to them? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that affects your septic system. MR. OBORNE-They based their approval on what was part of the submittal. MR. HOGAN-Your septic is based on the number of bedrooms. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. FORD-Would that be finished in notty pine or tongue and groove? Sorry. MR. OBORNE-But, Brian, honestly, that is a question for Craig. That’s not a question that I can answer, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s going to say. MR. HOGAN-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I tend to agree with Keith, though. I think we have to be consistent with the ZBA approval, and whether you add one or swap out a spruce for a pine, it’s up to you. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I will make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2010 WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 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 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) replace existing wooded 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 and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/10 tabled to 8/17/10; 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. 12-2010 WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This is a Type II action. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b)This is Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit. f)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. g)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. h)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. i)This is approved with one condition: That the applicant will add one pine to comply with the Zoning Board of Appeals approval. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. HOGAN-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Brian, you’re going to receive a letter in the mail of direction. You may want to take some of these applications back. Unless you have more copies of what you submitted. You’re going to need to submit four copies of the Area Variance and four copies of the Site Plan. MRS. CONSIDINE-Also for the record, I want to note that all of the materials cited by the Water Keeper, the letters to and from the APA were not shared with the applicant. So I question the due process of the Water Keeper’s presentation. That’s just for the record. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the Water Keeper’s an advocacy group. So he can. MR. OBORNE-That’s public comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He can say anything he wants. MRS. CONSIDINE-Getting a letter from the APA, though, and not sharing it with the applicant before the night of the hearing is not necessarily. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don’t know if he got the letter or not. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 FINAL 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. 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-Robert Wing, Final subdivision and Site Plan modification for Planning Board review. 145 and 159 Sunnyside Road. Existing zoning is RR-3A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA, which I believe you’ve already accomplished. I’m just going to jump down. I think we’re pretty familiar with this application at this point, and for expediency, as far as my additional comments go, Preliminary subdivision approval on June 24, 2010. As far as SEQRA Neg Dec for both the Preliminary and the Site Plan was approved, and a formalized access easement between the two parcels should be considered. This was discussed. Staff recommends this be a condition of approval. That’s the only condition I would put on it, or recommend that you put on it, and that is that easement between Tax Map No. 290.05-1-47 and the proposed Lot One, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Robert Wing on this application. We have no problem with that comment. We’ve already made the modifications to the plan to show that driveway, and I’ll leave it at that. I think everybody’s seen this application enough, and just need to finish it up. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a formalized access agreement? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the only outstanding item really. We already closed the public hearing, so I think we’re ready to go to final approval, unless there’s anything else? MR. STEVES-I believe you have two approvals, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Two approvals. I’m sorry. Yes. Site Plan 41 and Subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, I just want to clarify. The formalized access easement goes on the subdivision or the modification? MR. OBORNE-At the subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 FINAL STAGE ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant 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. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) Modification to an approved site plan [reduction of acreage associated with approved nursery] also requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/24/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 FINAL STAGE ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A- 183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b. The Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 6/24/2010; and c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d. 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 e. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and f. If applicable, Item g to be combined with a letter of credit; and g. This is approved with the following condition: That the applicant will submit a formalized access easement between Tax Map No. 290.05-1-47 and proposed Lot One. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And would anyone like to make a motion for Site Plan modification 41-2010? MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to clarify, Keith. It says waivers. Did this ask for waivers on this modification? MR. OBORNE-On the, hang on a sec. Waiver for the modification to the Site Plan? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’re going to need to grant those waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping, and lighting plans. Because it is a modification. MR. STEVES-We reduced the size of it, but we didn’t change anything else in the Site Plan. MR. OBORNE-Didn’t change anything, exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Thank you. I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2010 ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) following: 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. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/15/20 & 8/17/10; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2010 ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: This is a modification to Site Plan No. 52-2003. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four D, waiver requests for stormwater, grading, landscaping, and lighting plans are granted. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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.Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and e.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 f.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. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you here for the next one, too? MR. STEVES-Yes, I am. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought so. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2010 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GREG GARAFALO AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION 375 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF A 3.48 +/- ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.74 +/- ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAN D 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 33-2010, AD SUB 3-06, BP 07- 333 LOT SIZE 3.48 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-49.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Since Keith stepped out, I’ll quickly summarize Staff Notes. This is subdivision of land on 375 Luzerne Road. Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 3.48 plus or minus acre parcel into two lots of 1.74 plus or minus acres. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes to create two lots. Shared access off of Luzerne Road is proposed, and all of the comments have been marked as complete. So without further adieu. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, my name is Matt Steves representing Greg Garafalo on this application. Real quickly, again, this is property on the south side of Luzerne Road. You saw it before you for Sketch Plan and then recommendation to the Zoning Board. Subsequently went to the Zoning Board and obtained that approval, and now we’re back here for the final subdivision approval, I should say Preliminary and Final. Again, like we had discussed before, we do have a letter from Kathy O’Brien on this one, because of the proximity to the power lines, again, in this area. She states that in the letter, but there’s no habitat and/or endangered species on this property, and I believe you already did the SEQRA on this one as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, in July. Keith, can I do a motion, or do I have to do two separate motions, one for Preliminary and one for Final, or can I just do them together? MR. OBORNE-Please do both. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Let the record show that there were no comments made. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. OBORNE-There’s nothing in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s nothing in the file. Therefore I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2010 GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre lot into two lots of 1.74+/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/20/2010 & 8/17/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2010 GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Final subdivision approval? MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2010 GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre lot into two lots of 1.74 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/20/2010 & 8/17/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2010 GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff, and Paragraph Four D, waiver requests have been granted for stormwater management, grading, landscaping, and lighting. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A- 183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans e. 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 f. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and g. If applicable, Item g to be combined with a letter of credit; and th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Do me a favor, I don’t know why you would need stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did have waivers. MR. OBORNE-Yes. If you could add that, just for clarity. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2010 SEQR TYPE II HAZEL ROCKEFELLER OWNER(S) SUSIE TYRER ZONING CI LOCATION 60 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 15 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) TO 20 SEAT CAFÉ. FOOD SERVICE IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 38-10, SP 43-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/11/2010 LOT SIZE 2.60 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-1 SECTION 179- 9 HAZEL ROCKEFELLER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 47-2010, Hazel Rockefeller. Requested action, food service in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. This is located at 60 Glenwood Avenue. CI is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: The applicant proposes a 15 to 20 seat Café located in Glenwood Manor. Staff comments: The applicant does not plan on changing the façade or parking configuration for this project. Required parking for Glenwood Manor, Sprinkles Ice Cream, Glenwood Dayhab and the proposed Thyme Café totals 61 spaces; existing parking provided is 72; snow removal to be provided by property owner. The applicant is requesting waiver for lighting, grading, topography and landscaping. I think, just some issues on the site plan that I don’t think are insurmountable, one being any signage associated with this project should definitely be Code compliant, and if not, you’ll have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Also handicap parking should be denoted on the plan, and pedestrian safety may be of concern for those patients crossing Glenwood Avenue. There is a crosswalk located to the east of the main parking lot, and it’s usage should be encouraged to the greatest extent practicable. I do have an addendum to Mike Shaw’s, Director of Wastewater, Town of Queensbury’s comments. That the proposed Café will need a grease trap. I believe before you is, you don’t have it there? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we do have it, it doesn’t need a grease trap. MR. OBORNE-Right. The update to that is that they do not need it, and with that, the Fire Marshal has no real issues with that, and I’ll turn it over to the Board for review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project? MS. ROCKEFELLER-Well, kitchen facilities are my forte and making food that’s on a healthy level, concerning people’s health, and I used to be at the Manor and went there in ’85 for five years, and the location that I’m in now, or project to be in, is where I wanted to be to begin with, for several reasons, easy access, handicap access, and just a larger area, working space. Serving breakfast and lunch, and we have deli cases as well for orders to go. MR. HUNSINGER-So what would be your hours of operation? MS. ROCKEFELLER-Eight to two. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that seven days a week? MS. ROCKEFELLER-Five and a half. Saturdays we’re only open until noon. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So which building is the restaurant going to be in? Where the ice cream? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the white one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The white one. MS. ROCKEFELLER-The white one. It’s in front of the ice cream shop. The end building. MR. OBORNE-It used to be the old quilt shop. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. ROCKEFELLER-Just going to make some good food. No grease. It’s all on a fresh scale. Fresh foods, yes. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’ll be great. MS. ROCKEFELLER-If you want a good pie, fellows, come on over. MR. HUNSINGER-So how many people would it seat? It looks like there’s five tables. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Twenty. MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty? MS. ROCKEFELLER-Yes, twenty. Yes, we discussed that before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The only question was the sign, and if we put a condition that it has to be Code compliant, then the applicant can deal with that going forward. MR. OBORNE-Was there any ideas what you’re going to do for the sign? I know we discussed it initially at our pre-submission meeting. MS. ROCKEFELLER-You mean the size? MR. OBORNE-Yes, the sign, the size, exactly. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Yes, two feet by two feet. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MS. ROCKEFELLER-There’s a pole already there. MR. TRAVER-Is it going to be a digital sign? MS. ROCKEFELLER-No. It’ll be done on wood. MR. OBORNE-Okay. You’re certainly going to want to talk to Craig about that. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Because it might not be in a compliant location, but I think your size might dictate some relief on his part, but I don’t know for sure, but certainly talk to him. Come in with a plan if you could. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Sure, no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-So this one picture you submitted where it shows the old sign pole, is that where the sign will go? MS. ROCKEFELLER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-There are real estate signs in Town bigger than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no kidding. MR. OBORNE-But as you know, the Zoning Administrator is a stickler for the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. It’s his job. We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Let the record show there’s no one left in the audience. Is there any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and seeing that there are no commentors, I will close the public hearing. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA. So no further SEQRA review is required, unless there’s an issue that we have identified. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2010 HAZEL ROCKEFELLER, 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 a 15 to 20 seat Café. Food Service in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/17/2010; 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. 47-2010 HAZEL ROCKEFELLER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four G, waiver requests are granted for stormwater, grading, landscaping, lighting and topography. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b.Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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; d.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; e.If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; f.The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; g.Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans & topography, and 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; i.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. j) The only condition on this application is that any signage must be Code compliant. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to specify hours of operation? MRS. STEFFAN-The antique store is open seven days a week. So that’s not really an issue for me. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. We’ll look forward to seeing you. st MS. ROCKEFELLER-Hopefully by September 1. MR. OBORNE-I do suggest that you pick up some applications because you’re going to need to submit four complete applications, and Board members have applications that they may or may not be willing to give back to you. So you don’t have to make copies again. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So, just a suggestion. MS. ROCKEFELLER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Chris, before we adjourn, we should take a look at that November calendar. We have a meeting on Tuesday and Thursday before Thanksgiving week. MRS. STEFFAN-That was Christmas, not Thanksgiving. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was Christmas. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because Tuesday before Thanksgiving is going to be tough. MRS. STEFFAN-I wondered about that. MR. HUNSINGER-What did we decide to do, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Last year, it was just the way Christmas fell, we did have two meetings in a row, but I looked at the calendar for December, and I didn’t think, I thought it worked out okay. I don’t know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thanksgiving is usually the tough one. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to think about moving the November 23 meeting to Thursday th the 18? I think that’s what we did last year. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it’s a good idea. It’s whatever the rest of the Board thinks. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t remember that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I do because I was gone. MRS. STEFFAN-But I think that that’s actually a great idea. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a great idea as well. Keith, could you check on the availability of th the room for November 18? MR. OBORNE-Yes. thth MR. HUNSINGER-And see if we can hold our November meetings on the 16 and the 18, thrd instead of the 16 and 23. MR. OBORNE-If you could, you’ll probably do that next week? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If the room’s available, we’ll make that resolution. st MRS. STEFFAN-Well, should we also look at the December situation? Because the 21 is Tuesday, and then we would have one between Christmas and New Years. So if we could thth move the meetings up to the 16. Have a meeting on the 16, which is a Thursday, and then st have the second Planning Board meeting on the 21, then we’d be done for the year. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2010) st MR. OBORNE-So change the 21, whoa, run that by me again? stth MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The December meetings were scheduled for the 21 and the 28. thstthst Could we do one on the 16 and the 21? The 16 is a Thursday, and the 21 is a Tuesday. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Unless somebody wanted to have a special meeting. thth MR. OBORNE-And the November 16 and the 18? thth MRS. STEFFAN-The November was the 16 and the 18. That’s the recommendation, and thst then December the 16 and the 21. rdth MR. OBORNE-So drop the 23 in November and the 28 in December. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Also check on Bellewood, will you, before I sign the papers. MR. OBORNE-On what? Excuse me, sir? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Bellewood. MR. OBORNE-Who’s Bellewood? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re not familiar with that? MR. OBORNE-Is that the duplexes? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. That’s the development up on Assembly Point where the guys had the Site Plan approved in the 80’s and he just put it up for sale. MR. OBORNE-Really? MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s talking about 11 homes, about an acre a piece, and he’s got the septic in. MR. OBORNE-You might want to talk to Craig about that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I didn’t, I’ve heard Craig’s told everybody that’s called there’s nothing the Town can do about it because it’s approved. That’s why I wondered if you’d heard about it. MR. OBORNE-No. I have not. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 54