Loading...
2010.08.24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2010 INDEX Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian and Eustacia Sander 1. Tax Map No. 278.-2-29, 30 Site Plan No. 50-2010 Eamonn Hobbs 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-1.1 Site Plan No. 52-2010 John & Sandy Lambrechts 4. RECOMMEND TO ZBA Tax Map No. 239.08-1-4 Subdivision No. 7-2009 Ernest Burnell 7. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 271.-1-21 FWW 4-2010 RECOMMEND TO ZBA Subdivision No. 7-2010 Meredith Kerr 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 6-2009 Linda Dator 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 48-2010 Paul Derby & Lorraine Stein 22. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-9 Subdivision No. 12-2010 Devin Dickinson 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.13-1-4.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 49-2010 Warren County Airport 31. Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4 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 08/24/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEVEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, August 24, 2010. Our first item on the agenda is a tabling resolution. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SUBDIVISION 3-2009: CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t have a date that we’re tabling it. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do we know why? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they had to re-design the access to that subdivision, based on existing conditions. They finally put the road together as designed. There are some issues with sight distances. So they have to reduce it to one entrance at this point. What the Planning th Department is looking for is a September 28 tabling resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-So you have all the materials? MR. OBORNE-I have all the materials. They are in the queue and ready to go. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We would like to table this to the September 28 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item is an item on for Expedited Review. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 50-2010 SEQR TYPE II EAMONN HOBBS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 3 HERON HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING DOCK TO REBUILD NEW DOCK WITH BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 8//11/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE: 0.43 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-1.1 SECTION 179-5- 060 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone on the Board not feel that the expedited review is appropriate for this project? Okay. Any questions, comments of the Board for the applicant? MR. SIPP-I’d like to commend him on the buffer zone that he has naturally built there. They left some good looking trees and filled it in. It’s a show place. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me, and I represent the applicant, and with me is Matt Cifone who is the builder for the dock or re-builder of the dock. I’d just state that for the record. We appreciate the fact that you’re considering doing this on Expedited Review. I have some pictures of the buffer that’s in place, that they intend to leave in place, except as they have to disturb it in order to change the entranceway up to the dock. Exactly, the cribs are going to remain as they are. It actually is a little reduction of the deck surface. It’s a simplification of the walkways to get to the deck and to the dock. The only real reason I think that we’re here is, and that we didn’t fall under the exemption that says you don’t need a permit if you re-build an existing dock as is, is that the new dock is going to be a foot four inches or a foot six inches taller. It’s still going to be within the limitations and that’s basically it. We have a Lake George Park Commission permit at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this item. I thought Expedited Review we usually don’t? MR. OBORNE-It still requires a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Sir, did you want to address the Board? Okay. I would ask that you speak your name for the record. We do record the meeting for the purpose of transcribing minutes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SCOTT HAMMOND MR. HAMMOND-Scott Hammond, speaking on behalf of the Buckley family, who lives at 38 Hillman, which is directly south to the Hobbs’ residence. A few concerns that I have with reviewing the prints, just in the prints, I did see two different lengths that the dock was going out. Is the dock going to be the exact same length? That’s one concern I had. I saw a 40 foot length an another length of 42. Which is the correct length? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAMMOND-Another one, what is the purpose of going up a foot and a half higher? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have concerns about a block in your view? MR. HAMMOND-Yes, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Was there anything else? MR. HAMMOND-And one thing, could this stay open? As I speak to my wife’s uncle, who’s executor of our property, he might have some comments on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAMMOND-Will this be open for a few days, or after tonight is this closed? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, typically, especially for an item that’s on Expedited Review, we would typically act on it the night of the meeting. Yes, we would typically act on it this evening. MR. HAMMOND-Okay. Is there, could we ask to have it open for a few more days for some more comments for family members that couldn’t be here? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s up to the Board to make that determination. Is there anything else? MR. HAMMOND-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HAMMOND-Thank you. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. August 23, 2010, Eamonn Hobbs Site Plan 50-2010. “Dear Sir: As neighbors of Eamonn Hobbs, we would like to say that we are in agreement with the plans for Eamonn Hobbs to remove his existing dock and rebuild a new one. We have found Eamonn and his wife to be a wonderful addition to our neighborhood who respect the laws of Queensbury. Any changes he is planning to make will add to the quality of our neighborhood. We thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, Tom and Joan Moynihan 21 Heron Hollow” MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-And that’s it. MR. O’CONNOR-I take it that the speaker that just spoke is, if you look at Sheet B-A1, is associated with the neighbor’s dock that is totally encroaching upon the frontage of Mr. Hobbs’ property, and there is a little bit of a dispute going on there, and I think that colors some of the presentation. The dock is being raised a foot to allow better head room, as you get off the dock surface into boats that are inside the crib. It’s well within the 16 foot limitation. The dock ends up being 14 feet in height. I’m not sure where he picked up a 42 foot measurement on the dock itself. The dock itself is 39 feet two inches, and that is actually measured from the connection or the nexus with the shore, which includes some distance, which we didn’t try to break out, which is above the mean high water mark. So the actual extension into the water isn’t even the full 40 feet that’s allowed. We went through the whole process with the Lake George Park Commission and they didn’t believe a variance is required. You’re allowed 40 feet extension into the lake, I guess from the mean low water mark. The only place where I see a distance different than that is the distance that is shown for the overhang of the deck, which is permitted. That can extend further, but again, we didn’t discount for the portion of the dock that is upland of the mean high water mark. We didn’t discount it for either figuring out what the decking was, which is the decking of the dock level is 656 feet. It’ll remain 656 feet. In truth it’s less than 656 feet because, again, you’re entitled to a discount, and the decking of the roof is actually being changed from 707 to 675. It’s being reduced by 32 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? I typically say that if it were up to me, there would be no boathouses on the lake, but they are allowed. What’s the will of the Board? Are people comfortable moving forward? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d say we go forward. MRS. STEFFAN-If it meets the requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II SEQRA. If there are no further questions of the applicant. If anyone would like to introduce a motion, and we’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to vote on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would someone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SITE PLAN NO. 50-2010 EAMONN HOBBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Now, Keith, the only question I have, I didn’t see it on the application package, but on the motion it says that waivers were requested for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. Those were appropriate. Is the Planning Board okay with granting those waivers? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I am. MR. KREBS-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have no problem with that, no. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2010 EAMONN HOBBS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of existing dock to rebuild new dock with boathouse. Boathouse in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/24/10; 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. 50-2010 EAMONN HOBBS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four F, we grant the waivers identified for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting. 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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 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)This is approved with the following condition: 1.That the applicant will keep the existing natural vegetation as is, with the exception of the clearing associated with the new dock. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. Can I collect your plans that you’re not going to use any further? Because we can submit them as the copies, because there are no changes to them. RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS AV 44-10: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, EXPANSION ND OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SP 52-2010: 692 SQ. FT. 2 STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 52-2010, Area Variance 44-2010, applicants are John and Sandy Lambrechts. Requested action, 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. Location: 21 Russell Harris Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. SEQRA Status is Type II for this. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 692 sq. ft. second floor residential addition on an existing 1,819 square foot single family home located adjacent to Harris Bay. Staff Comments: Proposal to include the retro-fit of existing wastewater system to accommodate an additional bedroom and an enhancement to existing infiltrator trenches on site. This property was before this Board in March of 2009 for shoreline stabilization and was subsequently approved. Two Board of Health variances have been approved and both dealt with minimum property line setback relief. The Nature of the Variance are as follows: Applicant requests 8 feet of shoreline relief for that portion of the expansion within the 50 foot setback. Two, Applicant requests 18.2 feet of north sideline setback relief and 2.0 feet of south sideline setback relief for the second story addition, and ultimately, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Quick review which follows. Just let the Board know that the Board of Health, also known as the Town Board of Queensbury, approved BOH 18-2010, which dealt with the setback issues for the septic, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design Partnership, representing the owners and applicants, John and Sandy Lambrechts. John is with me here tonight and Sandy is in the audience. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MR. MAC ELROY-No. I mean, the application before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which you’re acting on a recommendation, as Keith has outlined. I would just note that the expansion of the structure is a vertical expansion. There’s no change to any footprint of the building site, no real disturbance. We do plan to add to the stormwater management system of the house, during that construction, as well as expanding the wastewater treatment system as indicated by Keith to allow for a third bedroom. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Just that there were a couple of comments by Staff. One was that the silt fence should be installed perpendicular to the slope, not perpendicular to the slope, but on the contour of the slope. MR. MAC ELROY-All right. Well, if you see that on the plan, it certainly is that in the down gradient side of the house, we just wrapped it up around, along the property line to serve sort of as an indicator of the boundary. I don’t think that’s a major comment, but I noted that the Town Engineer also made that comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable moving forward on SEQRA? MRS. STEFFAN-There is a question from Staff on the infiltration trench, current conditions requiring enhancement, and then the proposed additional planting as denoted on plan should be qualified and quantified. Before we do SEQRA, could you just address those two questions for us? MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. The drip edge infiltration that’s proposed will be enhanced. There actually is something there to an extent now. We will, we’ve provided a detail for a standard infiltration trench of one foot wide, two feet deep. That will provide a certain capacity of storage for stormwater management. Again, we’re not increasing any impervious area due to this project, but this is a form of addressing what currently exists, as far as impervious area. The planting was an effort to add to, to supplement to the planting buffer that currently exists, in recognition of the Ordinance is tending to encourage that or require that perhaps. Again, we’re not increasing impervious area of the project, but this supplements the planting in that area. I think you’ll find, if you’ve seen the site, it’s relatively level area, down gradient of the house. I don’t, from my opinion, my observation, my knowledge of that, I don’t think there’s a significant stormwater situation there, where we capture the runoff from the house roof areas with these 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) infiltration trenches. The buffering will, you know, be supplemented to, again, address the spirit of the Ordinance. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? This is an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. It didn’t say on the agenda, Keith, if a public hearing was scheduled for this. MR. OBORNE-Not for recommendations. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-You should open up the public hearing, obviously, so we don’t have to re- advertise it. You do want to have a public hearing when you’re dealing with SEQRA, though. So I’m surprised it wasn’t advertised as such. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because the next one we did schedule a public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t catch that difference until just now. Do you know if notifications went to neighbors? MR. OBORNE-I do not. That could be an issue. MR. MAC ELROY-For the planning, or the Site Plan application? Or for the? MR. OBORNE-For SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-For SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Not so much for the recommendation itself. MR. MAC ELROY-When we’re back before this Board, if we are successful with the Zoning Board, that will be subject to public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-You know why, Keith? It’s a Type II action. MR. OBORNE-Right, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s mislabeled. Yes. It’s a Type II action. MR. OBORNE-We came to the same conclusion at the same time. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-So there is no SEQRA involved with this. I apologize for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why there was no public hearing scheduled? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So would we hold the public hearing, then, when we do Site Plan Review? Okay. All right. Now that we have that straightened out, would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Based on the comment, or the lack thereof, I’ll introduce a resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2010 FOR JOHN AND SANDY LAMBRECHTS, 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 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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. 44-2010 FOR JOHN AND SANDY LAMBRECHTS, 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 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 PRELIMINARY STAGE FRESHWATER WETLAND 4-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ERNEST BURNELL AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 419 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.22 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 4 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.0 TO 21.06 +/- 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 43- 10, SKETCH PLAN 12/15/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 34.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 271.-1-21 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 7-2009, Area Variance 43-2010, Freshwater Wetlands 4-2010. Ernest Burnell is the applicant. Again, 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. Location: 419 State Route 149. Existing zoning is RR-3A. This is an Unlisted. Long Form is required. You accomplished Sketch Plan back in December of ’09. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 acre parcel into four residential lots ranging in sizes from 3.0 to 21.26 +/- acres. Staff Comments: The parcel proposed for subdivision has approximately 750 feet of frontage on the north side of State Route 149. The parcel has an existing single family dwelling on site and will be included in the proposed subdivision. The parcel has many steep slopes and wetlands as noticed on the survey. The applicant does not propose any clearing or grading within 100 feet of the identified wetlands. The parcel is predominantly wooded; however, there does appear to a have been some logging on the parcel in recent years. The Nature of the Variance is applicant requests lot width relief for lots 1 and 3 only, not 4. I want to make that clear that 4 is not part of this relief, as per Section 179-3-040. Specifically the request is for 154 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement for lot 1 and 110 feet from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement for lot 3. What follows is soils. We can obviously come back for some of these issues here, if we can get through SEQRA tonight, that would be fine. We do have Fire Marshal comments attached. I would recommend that the applicant consult with Bay Ridge Fire Company for any potential emergency access issues, and eventually, once we get down the road, the Site Plan Review will be required for Lots 2 and 4, as currently proposed, due to the location of dwellings within a 50 foot radius of slopes equal to or greater than 15%. That can be placed as a condition of approval on the final mylar, and with that, I shall turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. CENTER-My name is Tom Center with Nace Engineering and this is Mr. Ernest Burnell, owner of the parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything that you wanted to add? MR. CENTER-I believe Staff’s comments have addressed the project that we have presented before you. We will note that, based on the recommendations at Sketch, we have shown the entrance to come off the existing driveway, and then enter into the shared driveway, to access all the parcels. So there is no new curb cut at 149. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Without comment from Bay Ridge, would that have an impact, I’m just wondering if that might have an impact, I guess that would impact on SEQRA, potential emergency, or problem accessing the property for emergency situations. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, I think it’s the kind of thing, it’s in the Staff Notes, and I certainly think that the Zoning Board will take a look at it, and the Planning Board would be concerned about it, because if we approve the subdivision, if we approve it knowing that there’s problems, then that’s inappropriate. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s kind of what, yes. I mean, I wasn’t really sure if it’s a SEQRA issue, but certainly raises a red flag, yes. I mean, looking at the plan, I didn’t see any issues with the roads, in terms of width or, I mean, there didn’t seem to be any glaring issues that would. MR. CENTER-And there is hammerhead turn around at the very end, and certainly I did speak with one of the Assistant Chiefs this morning, we have no problems sitting down to talk with them. I think their main concern is that the main driveway can take the weight of their trucks, which, if you’re going to be constructing back here, that road’s going to have to take tandem axel tractor trailers, construction equipment, to access that. So whether it’s, you know, a gravel finished road or, you know, with the intent, in the final, to pave the entire road. It would handle their vehicles. As far as anything else, you know, turning radius or a pull off, I believe that was one of the things they had at one of the other projects. I spoke with Chip Mellon this morning, and he had talked about some turn offs. So I have no problem working with them to see, you know, if there’s something we could locate. There’s plenty of area to locate a turn off for them to get their vehicle back there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’ve verbally consulted with them. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You don’t have any documentation of anything? MR. CENTER-No, I haven’t. We just received the Staff comments on Friday. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, the other issue, you know, we were talking about Bay Ridge’s recommendation on emergency access, there’s another comment on Sheet S-3 that was made by Staff, the proposed contours are not labeled on the drawing, and so. MR. CENTER-The new contours are labeled at every five feet, 270, 265, you can see down there. It does get closer. I can show them, because this is a larger scale drawing, sometimes it’s more difficult to do that, to try to show the grading at a heavier line weight, to differentiate new versus existing. Certainly by the time we come back before the Board, we can add the contour lines. It would be similar to the Poirier’s subdivision that we had. These lots are larger lots. We’ve located the house in the spot best located we believe. That certainly could change. I don’t think there’s any problem with requiring the three lots to come back before the Board on Site Plan Review. If two of them have to come back, you might as well make all three of them come back, just in case somebody’s not locked into one specific location. Then they have to come back anyway. So that way they come back for Site Plan Review. You’ll have the contours. You’ll have that lot, in particular lot, designed to what the folks that are going to hopefully purchase and build there are going to do. We tried to show, the house locations and the septic locations are the best locations on these lots, but the house locations can move, which is going to change some of the grading. MR. HUNSINGER-And there was a similar comment on the shared driveway, where it exceeds three to one. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CENTER-So we could look at that slope and flatten it out. We were trying to limit the disturbance back in that back area since you’re going to the last house, and the road is there. I mean, I’ve driven my truck down the road. So you’re just basically trying to get the grading and the contouring as close as possible for a little bit of the extension of the road. The road itself isn’t built on that three to one slope. It’s just the edge of that driveway, tying back into that area down in that corner, come back around to get to that level for the house to stay away from the stream and the wetland that’s been delineated. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? This one we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board, we leave the public hearing open for when they come back for the subdivision review. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will leave the public hearing open, and if there’s no other questions or comments, are members comfortable moving on with SEQRA? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Long Form. It’s a subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Mitigated by Site Plan Review. Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone okay with that? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-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. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-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. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-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. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. TRAVER-No. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Based on your input, and the fact that Question One is a small to moderate impact that can be remediated by project change, I will make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2009 & FWW 4-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ERNEST BURNELL, 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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 24 day of, August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So there’s two things that we talked about that we’ll want to mention to the Zoning Board, in my mind. We talked about emergency access. However, with future input from Bay Ridge, it may not be an issue, but we should bring it up, and the other one is that the Planning Board would likely require Site Plan Review on lot development once we approve it. So we should tell them that so that they understand that. Okay. So those are the two issues. MR. KREBS-I would say will require Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-I put will likely, but then on the bottom, if approved, so that it’s kind of, not that it’s a slam dunk. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2010 FOR ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 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. 43-2010 FOR ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1.Emergency access. However, with future input from Bay Ridge, it may not be an issue. 2.The Planning Board will likely require Site Plan Review on lot development if approved. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in September. You go to the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night and then you’ll come back to the Planning Board in September. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m going to go off the agenda for a second, with the approval of the Board. Last week we had a representative from the Pilarinos, Queensbury Diner before us, and we said that we would hear from them again this week to talk about whether or not we would hold a Special Meeting. Staff has also passed out a list of the current projects that are in the queue with recommendation, if you will, for September meetings. So I bring that up. They really go together. We are able to fit the Pilarinos into our September queue, but there are three items that do get bumped until October. Keith, would you like to mention the issue with the Zoning Board next month? st MR. OBORNE-Yes. What the issue is, is the 1 of the month fell on a Wednesday, and every time that happens, the Zoning Board of Appeals goes first. So, that kind of disrupts the flow of the recommendations that are required from the Planning Board, which basically kicks all those recommendation items to October, when, in theory, and the way it’s supposed to work, we’d like to get them done in that two week cycle, and Staff is requesting a third meeting to cover those, at that point. Is that what you’re looking for? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it would. MR. OBORNE-I did take the liberty of determining what dates work better for the, to have this building. Any dates prior to the Zoning Board meetings do not work. rdth MR. HUNSINGER-So the 23 or 30? MR. OBORNE-Correct. thnd MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Zoning Board meets the 15 and the 22. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, and the first Planning Board meeting falls on. st MR. HUNSINGER-The 21. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why on the draft agenda you see all of the Zoning Board st recommendations on September 21. MR. OBORNE-Correct. th MR. HUNSINGER-And nothing on the 28. Thoughts, comments by Board members? rd MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not available on the 23. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I may not be either, I’m not sure. MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to have a Special Meeting in September, Keith, how many items would there be, just those three? MR. OBORNE-No, a Special Meeting, an additional meeting? It would be all the ones that are on the bottom of the page. MRS. STEFFAN-The pending ZBA decisions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. Okay. st MR. OBORNE-As far as Queensbury Diner goes, it is in the queue for a September 21 meeting. It’s eligible for that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It’s the first available meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have the applicant’s agent here. Are there any questions or comments of the applicant? st MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, what you’re saying is this application will be on for September 21, and then you want another meeting for all the Zoning Board recommendations? MR. OBORNE-Yes, the extra meeting really is, it’s not having to deal at all with the diner. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I just want to clear that whole backlog. MR. HUNSINGER-I was kind of putting them together because, you know, there was the request for the Special Meeting. MR. OBORNE-One thing that it will do, I will say, it’ll give a little bit more flexibility while I’m developing the agenda tomorrow, to actually have a little bit more time for the diner, if that is the case. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m assuming that your client would be okay coming before the Board st on the 21 of September? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-The answer is I’m here with an olive branch, which is the only thing appropriate for a Greek diner, and I’d just like to work it out. Their timing issue is just that everybody wants the motel knocked down, and they’d like to get the diner going, and I just want to try and work out the site issues, and we’ve certainly presented a compromise, and I just would like to get back as soon as possible, obviously the sooner the better. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments from the Board? st MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s the 21. st MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s the 21, and, you know, I don’t know about anybody else, but I’ll fully rd booked on the 23, right into the evening. So I couldn’t make a meeting, but I could make the th 30, if you want the extra meeting. MR. OBORNE-And, quite frankly, that would work better for Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion, propose a motion for a special th meeting on September 30 at 7 p.m.? MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADD AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL MEETING FOR TH SEPTEMBER, ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE st MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ll hear the diner on the 21, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, there was an item, and I didn’t look through the whole package, there was an item that was outstanding as of last week. Did that come in? MR. OBORNE-That was received. The application is complete. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it came in on time. It was on Pam’s desk and I didn’t realize it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So is there anything else that we need from the applicant at this point? MR. OBORNE-Not at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-The application is deemed complete. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. KREBS-The only thing I didn’t see is do they have a rendering with the stonework? MR. LAPPER-What I submitted was, it’s there, but it’s not large, so we’ll bring in a larger one for the meeting. MR. KREBS-Okay. Good. It would be helpful. MR. LAPPER-It was just to get it done. It was a PDF. We printed. MR. KREBS-Other than that, I thought with the right turn lane, I see no problem with it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Jon. st MR. LAPPER-See you on the 21. 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 MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m looking for a tabling resolution for this. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not approve this application, and they seemed to appear to be not wanting to approve the application. So at this point, at the request of the applicant at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last week, they tabled it, pending notification from the applicant, either to move forward or to withdraw. So at this point, I’d be looking for any time in October. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. thth MR. OBORNE-Which would be either the 19 or the 26. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn’t they table theirs to October, the ZBA? th MR. OBORNE-Yes. Yes, I do believe you are correct. So we’d go for the 26. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we make a motion, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on the project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing will be tabled until the next meeting as well. I’m sorry. Go ahead. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 & AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: th This is tabled to the October 26 Planning Board meeting, at the request of the applicant. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE N/A LINDA DATOR AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 2583 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.66 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.66 & 2.0 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-09, SKETCH PLAN 7/15/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS L G CEA LOT SIZE 3.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-30 SECTION A-183 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 6-2009, Preliminary and Final Stage review. Linda Dator is the applicant. Requested action. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 2583 State Route 9L. Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted. Long Form is required. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.66 acre parcel into two lots of 1.67 and 1.99 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant has received an area variance concerning lot size and road frontage relief on July 15, 2009. The applicant has been directed to make lot one a compliant 2 acre lot and reduce the remaining lot from 1.67 to 1.66 acres. What follows is plan review. I think what you need to pay the most attention to would be the Town Engineer’s comments on stormwater, and I’m sure that the applicant’s agent will discuss that. I will say, and this is for Tom’s edification also, that we’re proactive and we did try to contact Molly Gallagher, and we did not get a response. So, with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and with me tonight is Bill Dator and Linda Dator is in the audience. You have seen this subdivision before at Sketch Plan, and we sought several variances from the Zoning Board and received those. We’re back tonight for Preliminary and Final approval of this two lot subdivision. If you recall it’s a parent lot. The Dators have owned a residence on the original lot for a number of years. They bought some additional property several years ago and it was merged with their parent lot, and now they need to subdivide it off for their children, build a house for their children. I believe we’ve addressed all the concerns and questions of the Board. As Keith says, the Town Engineer comments we received yesterday address largely stormwater and if you wish we can walk through those quickly. I do have some responses to those comments I can pass out to you. I think they’re relatively easily resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a policy to not accept new information. If you want to walk us through. MR. JARRETT-I’d be glad to walk you through. Would you like this to look at, at least, or not? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s up to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-We decided we wouldn’t do that. MR. JARRETT-All right. The first item was regarding the disturbance limits, the amount of disturbance limits and we discovered, upon checking, the Town Engineer noticed our label that said .37 acres, which would require a Major Stormwater permit, and actually we had mislabeled the plan, and we were actually disturbing 15,300, not over 16,000, and by modifying the outlet swale of our rain garden, we’re below 15,000 now. So we don’t need a Major permit. What Keith was alluding to a few minutes ago is that the Park Commission policy is to not include wastewater and stormwater systems in their disturbance limits. We did include stormwater systems in our disturbance limits. So if that policy is upheld by the Town, we would be even lower than the limits we’re quoting now. That has not been resolved as of tonight. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that has not been resolved, and obviously the Town’s Chapter 147 would hold sway in this case. MR. JARRETT-Item Number Two is a drainage report would be required if we were under a Major project characterization, and we are not. So that’s no longer germane. If you jump over to Sheet C-1, Item Number One, again, we’re less than 15,000 now, so we don’t need to do Major project calculations. Item Number Two on Sheet C-1, the existing and proposed contours were not provided. Now we discussed this with this Board, back when we were here for Sketch Plan Review, and at that time you were comfortable with waiving the topographic survey in favor of a section through the site, which we did provide to you. That’s in your package. We’re hoping that you will maintain that waiver and grant that waiver for Preliminary and Final as well. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. OBORNE-If I could interject on that. I did review the minutes of that, and that is, I can corroborate that unequivocally that you did have issues, not having the topographic contours, yet you were comfortable with that cross section. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-If we jump to Sheet D-2, the Town Engineer is suggesting that we change our stone spec to a DOT specification for light stone fill. We’ve actually changed our spec. We would not like to go to a DOT specification for a residential project of this nature. We think it’s cost prohibitive. We’d rather give the option for native rock, or local rock for this application. Although his comment is correct for many applications, especially commercial and municipal. Item Number Two, he’s saying our calculations are not correct, although we went back and checked them and they are correct, and they’re labeled on the plan for the minimize size required for this house and driveway. Now remember this is a subdivision application. This is only a theoretical house and driveway. The applicant could come back with modifications, a different footprint, a different driveway, and at that time the calculations would have to be updated. If you go to Sheet ECP, Number One is again topographic information, and Number Two, the test pit data does not adequately show proper separation from a stormwater management facility to seasonal high groundwater as required. We had done hand excavations for our subsurface test pits, because we didn’t want to bring a machine in and tear up the woodlands, and we were only able to get down to about roughly 28 to 30 inches at best in the cobble. So in deference to his comment, we’ve raised our rain garden to be compliant, so that the shallowest elevation that we use is at grade. If, at the time of construction, we can prove groundwater is deeper than 28 inches, then we could go deeper with our rain gardens, and even our wastewater systems, but we are approving a buildable lot at this stage. So, depending on what you do tonight, we would turn these responses in to the office tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Anything else? MR. JARRETT-Anything you’d like to add? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-My only comment is, at the time they bought this property, it was a one acre requirement, not a two acre requirement. MR. JARRETT-A number of projects have gotten caught in that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and they did get ZBA approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and they certainly seem to have addressed the engineering comments. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So if we got an engineering signoff as a condition. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The only real issue is, and correct me if I’m wrong, you did your calculations based on 1.5 gallons per square foot of new impervious, and the only thing that the major does is that I think you have to, it’s around a 20 and 50 year storm? MR. JARRETT-Ten to twenty-five. MR. OBORNE-Ten to twenty-five, and run those numbers, and I’m not an engineer, but I kind of know stormwater a little bit, and I’ll just leave it at that, because I know Craig will say something about that, but a lot of times the one and a half is actually above what those numbers will be run. So, just keep that in mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no questions, comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and seeing that there are no commentors, I will close the public hearing. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a SEQRA Long Form. Are members ready to move forward with SEQRA? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I just had a question. Keith, on your Preliminary conference, you talked about documentation of endangered species. Is that still an issue? MR. JARRETT-I don’t believe so. MR. OBORNE-Hang on a sec. It’s on my comments? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Page Six of the Preliminary Stage application. The Pre-submission Conference. MR. OBORNE-On the application itself? Okay. Did you submit any endangered species? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you. Let me verify. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that letter from DEC, Keith? MR. OBORNE-It’s from Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. MR. JARRETT-They named a number of species of plant and animal species that are adjacent to the site in the Warner Bay/Dunham’s Bay wetland complex. None on the property. MR. OBORNE-It’s not in the file because these records typically are sealed, because of the endangered species aspect of it. MR. JARRETT-They’re not supposed to be released to the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Would anybody care to see it? MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll trust you on that one. MRS. STEFFAN-If it’s okay with him, it’s okay with us. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s what we pay Staff for. Okay. We have a SEQRA Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to go with Steve’s yes from the last one. Small to moderate that’s mitigated by project review. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LINDA DATOR, 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 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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 24 day of, August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr . Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary subdivision approval? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 LINDA DATOR, 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 subdivision of a 3.66 acre parcel into two lots of 1.66 & 2.0 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 LINDA DATOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion for Final Stage subdivision approval? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 LINDA DATOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.66 acre parcel into two lots of 1.66 & 2.0 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 LINDA DATOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four D, waiver requests for topography and grading are granted. 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 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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: Topography and grading 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)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. g)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 h)This is approved with the following condition: 1. That the applicant will obtain an engineering signoff. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Very good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you need any of these back? MR. JARRETT-We’ll take them back. SITE PLAN 48-2010 SEQR TYPE II PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 86 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES 754 +/- SQ. FT. A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 35-10, BP 2000-65 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/11/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.57 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-9 SECTION 179-9 PAUL DERBY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 48-2010 for Paul Derby and Lorraine Stein. Site Plan Review for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA is why this is before you. 86 Ash Drive, Waterfront Residential, Glen Lake. SEQRA Status is a Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 754 +/- square foot residential addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. This project is adjacent to Glen Lake, a Town designated critical environmental area. 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. Soils follows. I will say that the applicant has received, th no, there’s a recommendation to the ZBA, and on the 18, the ZBA did approve the Area Variance, and the applicant is now before you for his final stage of his expansion. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. DERBY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. DERBY-Yes. I’m Paul Derby, and just a little background on the project. There are two reasons that we want to make these changes to the house. The first has to do with a stairway which is very narrow and very steep into the existing second story, and I have a photo of it if you want to see it and pass it around. MR. HUNSINGER-Start down at that end. MR. DERBY-And the second reason is that the back portion of the home, that’s the portion on the road side, away from the lake, was an add on. It was the mud room part of our kitchen and existing bathroom, which was built on a slab/up on concrete blocks, down on the dirt, and it’s deteriorating away. It’s starting to fall away. So we brought in some builders and tried to find the most feasible way to correct these two problems, and the best way to do that, we feel, would be to square off this back portion of the home, put a second story in. There’s already a first story there. So it’s an addition of about 50 square feet to the footprint, and then to move the stairway to the back northeast corner, have a landing going up also into the basement, also putting in a foundation under there, because there’s not one there now. So no new rooms are proposed, will be added. We plan to manage stormwater to make it better than it is now. Right now this water comes off the roof, both sides. We plan on guttering that, moving the stormwater back away from the house to the northeast corner into a rain garden. So it’ll actually be better than it is now. During the construction phase, it will be more, it meets all the setbacks. It’s more than 105 feet from the lake, any of the construction, side setbacks, height, floor area ratio, permeability, those are all being met. So, we think the project will actually improve the environment on this site. I am a strong advocate for the ecological health of Glen Lake. So we try to improve it, and we feel that since we’ve been there we’ve been doing that, and this should carry that on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I just wanted to commend you, again, as we did last week, for putting together such a good application. MR. DERBY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-It really was thorough, and easy to follow, most importantly. MR. OBORNE-I echo that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No questions and comments from the Board. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show that there were no comments, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA, so no further SEQRA review is required. So unless there’s any other questions or comments, I will entertain a motion for approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I will make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2010 PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 754 +/- sq. ft. a residential addition. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/24/10; and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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. 48-2010 PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four F, waivers 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)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; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 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; and g)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. h)This is approved with the following conditions: a. That any disturbed area or stockpiles of soil or substratum will be immediately stabilized with annual or perennial rye grass and straw if the project will commence in early summer or Fall, or with winter rye if the project will commence in late Fall or early winter, using no fertilizer, please. b. The applicant will please denote the rain garden on the final plans. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. DERBY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. KREBS-Paul, would you like these? MRS. STEFFAN-Do you need any of them back? MR. DERBY-Yes, please. NEW BUSINESS: 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DEVIN DICKINSON AGENT(S) ERIN DICKENSON OWNER(S) ARTHUR HULL ZONING MDR LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 108 +/- ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 5 & 103 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AD 1-09 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI & DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 108 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.13-1-4.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 JOHN WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 12-2010, Preliminary and Final Stage review for Devin Dickinson. Requested action, a waiver from Sketch Plan is requested. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. West Mountain Road is the location. It’s Moderate Density Residential. Type is Unlisted. Long Form is required. Parcel History, quickly, Administrative Subdivision 1-2009, which was approved back in September of ’09. Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 108 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 5.0 & 103 +/- acres. Staff Comments: The applicant has requested to have both the Preliminary and Final subdivision review accomplished during one meeting. This parcel has had an administrative subdivision action in 2009 that subdivided a 6 acre parcel from the main lot. The applicant has provided stormwater details for both lots and the limits of clearing are denoted. Soils are the ubiquitous Oakville Loamy fine sands. Additional comments: The Planning Board may wish to ascertain if the owners of the property plan any further subdivisions in the future. Segmentation with regards to SEQR may be an issue at this time. This did go to the engineer and he did have some comments, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WEBSTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. WEBSTER-I’m John Webster. I’m the contractor for Erin Dickinson. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything that you wanted to add? MR. WEBSTER-No. We think we’ve met with everything, and we were wondering if there was any problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess the biggest issue that jumps out is the segmentation issue, and are there any further plans for development of the property? MR. WEBSTER-Not that I know of, no. MR. HUNSINGER-I see the owner shaking his head. ERIN DICKENSON MS. DICKENSON-Hi. I’m Erin Dickenson. No, there’s no further plans for development. MR. HUNSINGER-You understand why we asked the question? MS. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. It looked pretty straightforward. Hearing no questions or comments from the Board, okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I will open the public hearing, and if you could identify yourself for the record and make sure you speak into the microphone, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE BULLOCK 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. BULLOCK-I’m Dave Bullock. I live in that area, and I know we’re not supposed to ask questions, but this subdivision doesn’t tell us anything about where the two lots are going to be, and that was just what we were curious about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BULLOCK-So that we knew what was being subdivided, what was being left, and what the plans were for the two subdivisions. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s certainly fair to ask questions of the Board. In fact, Keith will show you. Was there anything else? MR. BULLOCK-No. That’s all. Okay. No questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BULLOCK-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, but I do have, not an issue. I don’t want to say it’s an issue, Mr. Webster is not on the application as an agent. So as a condition of approval, if we can get some type of letter with their final subdivision, if you are to approve it, that actually states that he is an agent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Just for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, what about the engineering comments? We’ve got outstanding engineering comments on Sheet Two. MS. DICKENSON-I’m sorry. I talked to Devin and he said there were a few minor changes that the engineer suggested. We do have a new copy of the survey that shows those changes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And those changes, in your opinion, bring the plans into compliance with what the engineer is looking for? MS. DICKINSON-As far as I understood, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-They certainly didn’t seem like big issues. MR. KREBS-No, they’re not. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I will say that, just for the record, Chapter 147 is really based on two parts, one for the Lake George Drainage Basin and one for the whole Town. When you’re dealing with any properties outside of the Lake George Drainage Basin, there is no minor or major associated with it at all. That’s only specific to the Lake George Drainage Basin. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So 1.5 gallons is fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Is I guess what I’m getting at. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are people comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? MR. KREBS-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s a Long Form. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, I suppose. Mitigated by, small to moderate, mitigated by the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. KREBS-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. KREBS-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. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DEVIN DICKINSON, 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 24 day of, August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move approval for Preliminary Stage subdivision? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2010 DEVIN DICKINSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 108 +/- acres into two lots of 5 & 103 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; and 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2010 DEVIN DICKINSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion to approve Final Stage. You did close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did, yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2010 DEVIN DICKINSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 108 +/- acres into two lots of 5 & 103 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; and 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/10; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2010 DEVIN DICKINSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, Negative Declaration. 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 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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 e)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 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 h)This is approved with the following two conditions: 1.That the applicant will obtain an engineering signoff. 2.That the applicant will submit a letter to the Town regarding the agent of record, John Webster. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. DICKENSON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you want a copy of these plans? MR. HUNSINGER-I think they’ve got to change them, right? MR. KREBS-He’s coming to get the plans. SITE PLAN 49-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MGMT. ZONING CLI LOCATION QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 8 ACRE CLEAR CUT ON PRIVATE LANDS SOUTHWEST OF THE FLOYD BENNETT MEMORIAL AIRPORT ADJACENT TO THE FINAL APPROACH PATH FOR THE AIRPORT’S PRIMARY RUNWAY. EXTENSIVE CLEARING AND VEGETATION AND/OR GRADING OVER AN AREA OF LAND GREATER THAN ONE-QUARTER ACRE THAT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/11/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI & DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 83.86 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4 SECTION 179-9; 179-6-010 DON DE GRAW, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 49-2010, Warren County Airport. Requested action is Site Plan Review for extensive clearing of vegetation and/or grading over a land area greater than one quarter of an acre that is not associated with site development, does require Site Plan Review. The location is Queensbury Avenue. This is in a CLI zone. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Parcel History, there’s none found. It is a vacant parcel that is not owned by Warren County Airport. It’s owned by Forest Enterprises, also known as VMJR. Project Description: Applicant proposes an 8 acre clear cut on private lands southwest of the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport adjacent to the final approach path for the airport’s primary runway. The lands are characterized by gently sloping topography. Proposed activity will be overseen by the BOCES Environmental Conservation and Forestry Program under the Direction of Ronald Frisbee, Forester. The plan proposes to utilize forestry best management practices with regards to erosion and sediment control, see forest management plan. Harvest is proposed during the fall and winter of 2010. What follows are soils, Staff comments: With the project under the direction of a professional forester, Staff has minimal concerns with this proposal. However, the following should be considered during review of this project. Harvest operations should be suspended during wet weather and/or thaw. It should be noted that the proposal for a fall and Winter Harvest is 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) optimal. Again, as referenced before, the Best Management Practices for water quality BMP Field Guide should be utilized. This guide does allow for flexibility for professional discretion and decision making in the field. Any wetlands on the site should be noted and protected. The location of the silt fences, within harvesting operations near any wetlands should be noted on the plan, and I’m sure Don will speak to the long term management plan for the property, and permanent vegetative control and/or critical plantings should be discussed in more detail. The engineer for the Town did have a review on this, and before you is an e-mail from Mr. Lupo from DEC Region V explaining why the SEQRA form is not necessarily appropriate for this, as far as, I’m sorry, a SWPPP is not necessarily appropriate for this, and obviously if you have concerns, you can dictate any conditions you need to dictate. With that said, I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DE GRAW-Good evening. My name is Don DeGraw. I’m the Airport Manager, Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport. I work for Warren County Department of Public Works. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. DE GRAW-This is a tree cutting project with existing tree penetrations for a primary approach on Runway One. The trees on this piece of property are on Mr. Macri’s property, and he has granted us permission, using BOCES forces, to go on there and cut the tall trees that are penetrating our protected air space. So we’re going through the permit process here to get your approval. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could indulge the Board for a second, this just dawned on me. I just became a Warren County employee on Friday. So I should probably recuse myself from any further discussion on this application. I haven’t started work yet, and I didn’t think about it until just now. MR. OBORNE-Well, if you feel that you can make a judicious judgment, I don’t think it’s all that necessary, but if you feel comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Yes, once I start work and collect a pay check, that will be different. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, once you get paid. MR. SIPP-I used to work for BOCES there, but that doesn’t mean anything, either. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the questions that I have is that on this nice drawing that was presented, you’ve got this red highlight here that’s denoting the clearing area, and yet there’s a very large patch of vegetation between the potential cleared spot and the runway. MR. DE GRAW-If you notice on the drawings, all the areas in yellow, outlined in yellow, are the existing tree penetration areas. The only areas that aren’t on Warren County property are the areas donated, or shown in red, and that’s the area we’re trying to get on to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So eventually you’ll take the others down some time? MR. DE GRAW-Yes. BOCES has been working on the Warren County property, starting at the bottom of the page, kind of working around the fenced area, slowing taking out the large trees in that area, and eventually that will all be down. MR. HUNSINGER-So the area in yellow is the area that is to be harvested? MR. DE GRAW-Yes, ultimately. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now it makes more sense. MR. SIPP-Where did they establish the landing? MR. DE GRAW-Well, the landing’s established down, if you notice where the power lines are, farther south on the map you can see the power lines. We have an existing road in there that comes in along parallel to the power lines and Warren County property, and the log landing is established about halfway down that road. So, they’ve established some arteries up through the woods to take the logs out. The entrance for that road is down near where the power, if you can picture where the power utility area is on Queensbury down there. You’ve got that large power station. It’s almost directly across the road is where that log. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. SIPP-Are there dynamite shacks still out there? MR. DE GRAW-They’re on Mr. Macri’s property, yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s right where the hand is right here, Don. Is that the power station? MR. DE GRAW-Yes, and then right, yes. I could show it to you. The road comes in here, the landing is here, and the arteries kind of come up and, this was Mr. Power’s property, and we recently purchased that. MRS. STEFFAN-Now this property that’s being cleared, this can never be developed because it’s in the flight path? MR. DE GRAW-We are currently working to obtain an easement on that property so that is the case, but it would be up to the discretion of the Board, of the Town what type of development would occur there, with input from me of what would and would not be appropriate there, as far as heights and what have you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. DE GRAW-But the FAA doesn’t regulate that. That’s a local issue. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I asked that question, there’s been some discussion about the development of that particular area. So that’s why I asked. MR. DE GRAW-Yes, we’re very concerned about that for the current and future operations of the Airport. So we are trying to obtain an easement on that, or even acquire that property, but we’re in the beginning stages of those negotiations. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns it now? MR. KREBS-Forest Enterprises, Vic Macri. MRS. STEFFAN-Victor Macri. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DE GRAW-From the perspective of the Airport and BOCES, we certainly plan on being very respectful to the environment. We plan on only operating up there with equipment during dry periods and during frozen ground. BOCES doesn’t cut at all during the summer. We won’t cut during the Spring, and because they’re not a commercial operation, they’re not worried about time or money. They can be very respectful of going in and out of there with the students. MR. SIPP-When are they going to start? Are they going to start this Fall? MR. DE GRAW-I hope, you know, with your approval, I would hope that they’d start in the Fall, yes. MR. SIPP-What are you going to do with the pulp and the lumber you get out of there? MR. DE GRAW-They’re going to sell it, yes, for stumpage value. Yes. MR. OBORNE-There’s a break down of what they plan on doing with it, and I think that there’s some firewood aspect to it. Having walked the property, I’m sorry, Don, it’s not high quality wood, by any stretch of the imagination. MR. DE GRAW-Yes. It’s a very low quality area. So that’s one of the reasons it would be hard to get a logger to go up in there because there’s not enough in there, but it’s perfect for BOCES. MR. HUNSINGER-So reading this e-mail from Bill Lupo, is it the intention to leave the stumps? MR. DE GRAW-Yes. We’re going to cut the trees. We’re going to leave a low vegetation and all the stumps in place. MR. HUNSINGER-How do you define low vegetation? MR. D E GRAW-Define low vegetation? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DE GRAW-Well, any shrubs and small saplings that we don’t need to cut to get the big trees we’re just going to leave there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DE GRAW-And there is a lot there. It’s like a little jungle you have to pick your way through. So I think there’ll be a substantial amount of low vegetation that will keep everything stabilized up there. MR. SIPP-You pick a certain (lost word) and then anything above that you cut. Everything below you leave, diameter. MR. OBORNE-No, they’re clear cutting it. MR. DE GRAW-Yes. We’re taking all the substantial trees out of there, but the small saplings, two or three inches, would stay, you know, four inches. MR. SIPP-I mean, five inch, well, four inch I guess you’d make it, a pulp wood, they like it a little bigger. MR. DE GRAW-Yes. We’re basically leaving the small stuff and taking the big stuff that’s really tall, penetrating the, I’m just worried about getting those trees out of there. MR. SIPP-What are you going to do with the branches, just leave them there? MR. DE GRAW-I don’t know what he has planned for the branches, actually. Whatever they normally do, maybe they just stay on site. MR. SIPP-Well, you should cut them down so they’re below three feet, or two and a half, depending upon (lost words) for the snow, the first winter will rot them out so they won’t be a fire hazard. MR. DE GRAW-I’m sure whatever the standard logging practice is for that area, that’s what they would do. MRS. STEFFAN-So the Staff comment number five, the long term management plan for the property should be explored, and what does the County employ to maintain the critical safety zone. What I heard was that you’re trying to acquire property that is not owned by the Airport, not owned by Warren County. MR. DE GRAW-We’re trying to either acquire it or obtain an easement over it to have some control over what’s done in the future over it. At this point, it’s private property, other than making comments for its future use to the entities governing it for future development, we don’t have any control over it at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess part of the question, in my mind, is that private enterprise owns that property, and if Warren County and the BOCES, you know, with their help you’re going to clear that property, then if that individual wanted to develop it, you cleared it for them. MR. DE GRAW-Well, we’re clearing a very narrow area of, he has 80 acres there, and I’m sure he has substantial plans for it. So are we helping? Yes, that’s probably why he’s letting us on there, but by the same token, it’s also a critical safety hazard that’s currently in place for our existing runway. So it does behoove us to get those trees down. So I think it’s mutually beneficial at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Let the record show that there’ no one left in attendance. Were there any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will open the public hearing, and seeing that there is no one to comment, we will close the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Well, I guess if I may, I should read in the Lupo, if that’s necessary? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I would agree, put it in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, to me it’s kind of like a correspondence from someone at the Town. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s the Board that needs to be satisfied. It is part of the record, just by the fact that it’s in the file. So it depends on what you want to do. MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn’t hurt to read it. MR. OBORNE-Do you want me to read it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Okay. “I just spoke to Don DeGraw about tree clearing. I informed him that the basis for needing (or not needing) coverage under the SPDES general permit for construction stormwater comes down to soil disturbance. Cutting trees but leaving the stumps in place in and of itself does not generate a soil disturbance. However, if heavy equipment (i.e., skidders, shears, etc.) exposes soil in the process then that would be jurisdictional. So, with some operational BMPs (like doing the work on frozen soil or during an extended dry period like the one that just ended on Saturday) they could accomplish their mission without needing the permit.” This is from Bill Lupo, sent Monday, August 23, 2010 at 11:29 a.m. to Craig Brown, and Clark R. Wilkinson, and the subject is Warren County Airport. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is an Unlisted action. They submitted a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I did. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 49-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT, 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. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 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 24 day of, August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-The engineering comments that there was evidence on this plan that there are other areas of tree encroachment into the Runway End Siting surface area. If there are any plans for removal of any other trees necessary under the FAA regulations, then for SEQRA purposes, they should be included in 1 plan and 1 action. MR. TRAVER-Evidently it’s under local jurisdiction. I think the applicant stated that the FAA was not the officiating body, but rather the County. Did I understand that correctly? MR. DE GRAW-For future development on private property. That’s correct. The FAA regulations are in place, and it’s up to the local jurisdiction to interpret them and act accordingly. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the other question, though, is related to the actual removal and clearing. You’re going to use the same practices for the property that’s before us, as for anything else that you’re going to clear? MR. DE GRAW-It’s, the only, there’s two properties that we need clearing on. One is Warren County property, and the other is Vic Macri property. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re going to use the same logging practices? MR. DE GRAW-Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Policies and procedures for logging. MR. DE GRAW-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was asking. I think that’s really the issue. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So, do we need to have engineering sign off on this? MR. KREBS-I don’t think so. MRS. STEFFAN-This is recommendations, the Notice of Intent to be filed. We’ve got the DEC letter. So we don’t need that part. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That covers the majority of his issues, that’s for sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KREBS-And I wonder if he didn’t understand, too. I didn’t understand all the yellow lines for all the cutting that they’re already doing. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I didn’t, either. MR. KREBS-And the other property was just Vic’s property. MR. OBORNE-And I understand where he’s going with this. Obviously, it’s not quite a segmentation issue, but if you’re going to have a plan, and you’re going to have two separate properties, that’s fine, if they’re both private properties, but one is County property. We can’t 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) really ask them for that plan. I mean, we could ask them for that plan, but they’re already executing on it anyway, at this point. It makes perfect sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the County doesn’t have to come to the Town for Site Plan Review, but the County would still have to comply with SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-That is true. MR. HUNSINGER-So the County must have done, taken a SEQRA action. MR. OBORNE-I cannot speak to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know? MR. DE GRAW-I believe that we did do a SEQRA for this, in consultation with my consultants, C & S Engineers, and their environmental experts. They assured me that we have all the environmental documentation in place to do that on the County, and then I came to the Town and I wanted to see if we had to do anything through the Town of Queensbury, and the answer was no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, not on the County property. MR. DE GRAW-Right, exactly. So I’m almost positive, I don’t have it with me tonight, but I’m almost positive we did a SEQRA, and because we’ve done environmental assessments for the FAA on all of our property, we’ve got a lot documented. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If the Board feels comfortable with the engineering sign off, by all means, require that as a condition of approval. If not, then no. MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Board feel, do we need it? MR. KREBS-I don’t feel we need it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the Staff comments about the harvest operation should be suspended during wet weather, New York State Forestry best management practices for water quality should be utilized. MR. TRAVER-I think the applicant has represented that they stipulate to those policies. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then any wetlands on the site should be noted and protected, and then location of the silt fence associated with it. Those are the four items from Staff comments that I thought should be included. MR. SIPP-I think if it’s a policy held still by BOCES, as it was before, there was a caveat in BOCES agreements that if a mistake is made, it’s not, you won’t be penalized, because you’ve got a bunch of kids out there with chainsaws, and that was something we had written into. It’s just like working on a car down there at BOCES. If somebody gets in and drops hydraulic fluid on the driver’s seat, BOCES is not held responsible, that they will do what they can to clean it up, but they’re not going to pay. You sign a little thing when you take anything in there to be repaired. MRS. STEFFAN-So, do we want to put those elements from Staff comments in the motion, the four that I mentioned? MR. SIPP-They may have changed policy since I’ve been there. MR. OBORNE-At the very minimum, the usage of the BMP field guide is paramount. He’s a forester, he’s using them, but to protect yourselves and that, absolutely put that in as a condition of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-And we reviewed that guide pretty thoroughly on a prior project. MR. OBORNE-And you will be reviewing that again imminently. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) MRS. STEFFAN-I wondered how long that would take, because we haven’t seen it in a while. So, I will make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2010 WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT, 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 an 8 acre clear cut on private lands southwest of the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport adjacent to the final approach path for the airport’s primary runway. Extensive clearing and vegetation and/or grading over an area of land greater than one- quarter acre that is not associated with site development for an approved subdivision or site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/24/10; 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. 49-2010 WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, Negative. Paragraph Four G, waivers 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 c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 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; and i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and j)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and k)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. 2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and l) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/10) 1.The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. j) This is approved with the following conditions: 1. Harvest operation should be suspended during wet weather and/or a thaw. 2.New York State Forestry best management practices for water quality BMP Field Guide should be utilized. 3.Any wetlands on the site should be noted and protected. 4.The location of the silt fence associated with harvesting operations near any wetlands should be denoted on the plan. Silt fence to be installed along contours, not perpendicular. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. DE GRAW-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before this illustrious Board this evening? MR. SIPP-I move we adjourn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d like to congratulate our Chairman on his new position. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-I asked Keith if he’d get me a new copy of the Zoning, and I don’t know about any of the rest of you, but since they’ve changed the zoning, where we were talking about today at Dators. That was one acre, and on my map it says one acre in that area. It’s now two acres. I don’t have an updated map. I just wanted to make people aware. MR. OBORNE-We shall get you an updated zoning map. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2010, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 40