The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.05.17 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2011 INDEX Page No. 1)Approval of Minutes a)Administrative Items 1 b)Engineer Introduction 1 c)Subdivision 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA 2 d)Site Plan 80-2010 Hayes & Hayes 4 2)Planning Board Recommendation to ZBA a)Site Plan 31-2001-Andrew West [239.19-1-8] 7 b)Site Plan 32-2011-Andrew West [239.19-1-8, 9] 14 c)Site Plan 33-2011-NSB Hospitality [288.-1-56] 17 d)Site Plan 09-2011-Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings [296.12-1-27.2] 19 3)Tabled Items a)Site Plan 16-2011-John Shine / Larry Cleveland [227.13-2-39] 24 b)Site Plan 20-2011-Lawrence Unrein [226.16-1-16] 30 c)Site Plan 53-2007-Provident Batavia [239.7-1-14] 34 4)New Business a)Site Plan 34-2011-East Slope Holdings [307.-1-29] 38 0 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER, VICE CHARIMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, May 17, 2011. For those members of the audience that are attending welcome. On the back table there are copies of the agenda if you did not see it. There is also aa handout for the public hearing, most of our items do have a public hearing scheduled and those will be announced but the handout is to give you a sense of how the thnd public hearings are handled. Our first on the agenda is approval of minutes from March 15, March 22 and th March 24. Would someone like to move them? APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 15, MARCH 22 & MARCH 24, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 17 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs Mr. Hunsinger: We have several administrative items this evening, the first one is Introduction of our Engineer. Keith did you want to handle that? Do you want me to handle that? Mr. Oborne: I think they are more than capable of handling it themselves. Welcome Chazen on board. Mr. Hunsinger: I think we all had an opportunity to meet you before the meeting started. Mr. Round: Good evening. Chris Round from the Chazen Companies, with me is Sean Doty. I am not an engineer, I am a planner with the Chazen Companies and we were happy to interview and be selected by the Town Board. I know Chis participated in the review process. We just wanted to make introductions, we’ve already started reviewing projects, Sean is the senior project engineer, will be doing the reviews, he’s already interacted with a number of the applicants and their engineers. We think we’re off to a good start and we hope we will meet your expectations or exceed those and we look forward to serving the Planning Board. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Any questions from Board members? Board members: Welcome aboard, happy to have you. Mr. Traver: We’re trying to operate very kind of a team process so from time to time we’ll have workshops and hopefully you’ll have feedback for us and certainly we’ll have for you so as we move forward we’ll continue to refine the process. Mr. Doty: Great, looking forward to it. Mr. Round: We do take our direction from the staff and it’s been pretty good so far, no complaints, so we try to tailor the review to the needs of the project and the needs of the staff. And I mentioned to a couple of the 1 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 members earlier we do have being a full service engineering and planning firm we do have planners, landscape architects, biologists, wetland scientists, transportation traffic engineers on staff so we can tailor a project team to meet the technical needs of the project and do so in a timely fashion. Mrs. Steffan: I think I can speak for the whole Planning Board when we we’d like to have a presence, a physical presence at the meeting more often than not, over the last couple of years we ceased that practice of having an engineer here and we would think we would benefit from it by the having the engineer here more often. We’ll be working through staff but you’ll probably be requested to come to our meetings more often. Mr. Round: Keith and Craig have both let us know that, they just need to let us know in advance we’ll make that work. Mr. Hunsinger: Great. Mr. Oborne: I do have one more thing to add. One thing I’d like to schedule here soon and we don’t have to talk about that it right now would be a briefing on the new stormwater infrastructure changes that have come down the pike as of March 1 which is green infrastructure. I think the Board would benefit from the knowledge, especially Sean in this case, and it would be highly beneficial moving forward with site plan review. We can discuss maybe later in the meeting towards the end and set up a workshop for that. Mr. Hunsinger: Greats, thanks Keith. Our next item on the meeting is Subdivision 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA. It was tabled to this evening and was it the applicant that has requested that it be tabled again? Mr. Oborne: No the applicant has not submitted any new materials. I was hoping there would be someone here representing the applicant, oh, please, if you could give an update. There has been some movement. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh good. Mr. Hayes: Mickie Hayes with the HOA of Mountain Hollow. I just wanted to give you an update of what has happened. I had a meeting on Friday with the county engineer, as we talked about with the Emergency Action Plan, West Mountain Road is a county road, so they’re involved with the process here. Mr. Stec was there representing I guess Queensbury, but the county, we went through a long process with the county and they recommend they want to see the feasibility of a potential boring just a sleeve of pipes underneath the road potentially. So that’s where they originally wanted some ramps if you did temporary piping or whatever so what happened is that they want us to go ahead and try to design something which Tom Nace did the preliminary and he liked the preliminary design, actually bore underneath under the road, then work with Glens Falls to see if they will accept any water in case we had to pump across. All the other criteria has been met from the county as far as all they wanted-perc tests, locations of x, y & z that’s all done so it’s a question of the road thing and they prefer, of course, we would have to pay for it if we bore it, the county will take no responsibility as far as that’s concerned, it’s up now to Tom Nace and Mr. Tennyson, I believe that’s what his name is to work out the details of that design if that’s what they want to do. They own the road so it’s totally up to them as to what they want to do. Mr. Hunsinger: How feasible is it? Mr. Hayes: It’s actually very easy, it’s not a big deal, the situation being that Glens Falls being the recipient of potential water, It’s all potential because the environment between Queensbury and Glens Falls is not great at the moment so it took us six months to a year to get a response from Glens Falls, there’s a lot of, they’re putting a certain value to their land, they want to subdivide, they have a lot of plans potentially in Glens Falls so they’re not exactly wanting to do anything back and forth between the two townships so it’s not that easy at the moment. Mr. Hunsinger: So would a July tabling date be realistic? Mr. Hayes: I think so, I think the plans should be done as far as the county is concerned within two weeks actually, I think all the details have been all worked out except that and the boring has got to be done by certified people that are approved by the state to do the borings so the details for that are all set. Mr. Oborne: The board has received the update on the subdivision plans through my staff notes, so hopefully those can be addressed prior to the July meeting. Mr. Traver: One of the issues, we did conduct another a site visit last weekend actually and there were a number of issues we know you are in the process of addressing that were revealed by Code Compliance and so on. One of them that was particularly alarming on the southern perimeter of the pond there were a number of areas that where sinkholes were opening and I mean of a size and diameter that were 2 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 unfathomable depths. Also at the time that we were doing the site visit we witnessed young children playing in that immediate area. One of us, I don’t want to mention Gretchen’s name; one of us almost fell into one of these things that was literally collapsing under her feet. An extremely dangerous situation that I know you don’t want a problem with that. I think that it might be wise to wrap some kind of warning tape or something to keep people particularly children away from that area, because I can assure you that someone is going to seriously injured if not killed by these opening sinkholes. I know a number of the other board members witnessed this as well. I mean we’re not talking about, you know. Mr. Hayes: I understand, sure. Mr. Schonewolf: Not only the fact they might only walk onto it and fall into it, but you know 6, 7 or 8 year old little boys just love to fall down into a hole and Mr. Traver: In all seriousness we were all very alarmed and there is nothing to indicate until you’re coming upon these, and we counted at least 3 or 4 of them there, there are countless others and some yet that will probably give way when you step on them. Mr. Hayes: I’m sure, there are ones you can see and I’m sure there are ones you can’t see. Mr. Traver: I just wanted to get that on record and bring that to your attention if unprotected that is going to be subject to some very serious injury. Mr. Hayes: Absolutely, because they do, the residents use the heck out of the pond for fishing and kayaking, and Mr. Traver: Yes, we actually saw a small mouthed bass. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, they use it a ton. Mr. Hunsinger: We had asked the Code Compliance officer for a report. Did the applicant get a copy of that? Mr. Hayes: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: Some of those issues, they are contained in that report that we had asked for from Bruce Frank. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, sure. Mrs. Steffan: Well and certainly when you come back you need to speak to all of those items that are in the Code Compliance officer’s report and we’d love to see them satisfied or remedied in some way. So are we th ready to table this to the July 19 meeting. Mr. Hayes: Yes, no problem. Resolution to Table Modification to Subdivision 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/20, 9/28, 11/16/10; 1/20/11, tabled to 3/15/11 public hearing re-advertised, tabled to 5/17/2011 with a submission of deadline of 4/15/2011; and The materials submitted were incomplete; and MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Application tabled to the July 19, 2011 Planning Board meeting. Any submission of new materials should be submitted to the Planning Office by June 15, 2011. th Duly adopted this 17 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger 3 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Okay our next item on the agenda is a resolution for Site Plan 80-2010 Hayes & Hayes. I think everyone on the board had received a copy of the resolution via e-mail. I don’t know if anyone had any questions or comments they wanted to raise at this point? I mentioned, Gretchen and I were talking before the meeting opened. I had picked up on one of the conditions and I guess some comments had already been made on item 10 on page 2, number c which is the berm. I actually had in my notes 2 foot high, the draft resolution says 5 foot high so it is something we need to talk about. I don’t know what the recollection of the other board members were. Mr. Traver: I don’t have a specific recollection but it seems like 5 feet high would be, I mean, considering the purpose and the reason that we wanted it there. Mr. Oborne: I will say, I’m sorry Steve, one of the concerns that I have with something that long, the base of it, you’re only asking for a one on two, that’s difficult to stabilize, if you wanted to expand that to one on three you’d want to go 15 feet as a base, so at 5 foott so on and so forth if you want gradually go out, now keep in mind there are existing flora there so Mr. Traver: Right, good point. Mr. Hunsinger: Did you want to comment on that? Mr. Center: I did get a drawing when we got a copy of the draft resolution, and in talking with Keith I’m not sure if anyone’s received that. I tried to get something out yesterday that does show I can fit a two foot high berm the 220 feet along that we talked about with a it’s 10 feet wide at the top so there is plenty of room to get plants and the growth in there on top of the berm. We did change the pines to cedars, we’ve shown those at a staggered pattern in between the red maples and we also did a site visit and we found that along the property line the lands of Monthie to the north there is approximately 23 spruce trees that are right along the property line that are already 8 to 10 feet high, they go from the corner of Dalton all the way almost 20 feet from the lands of Monthie. I have shown them on the drawing we have no issue with, they kind of straddle the property line, they’re really close to being one side or the other, we have no problem adding a note on there saying existing buffer to remain-23 +/- 8 to 10 foot high trees that are along that property line. So there’s also a buffer beyond the end of the berm going towards Dixon Road on that parcel. Mr. Sipp: Are these white spruce? Mr. Center: I believe so. Mr. Sipp: How tall are they? Mr. Center: Approximately 8 to 10 feet. Mr. Sipp: Are they growing? Mr. Center: They are still growing up and they are growing into each other. Mr. Sipp: The only thing I would comment on here is that the berm should be seeded, before the tree roots take hold, they need some grass on there to hold. Mr. Center: You’d rather have it seeded than mulched? Mr. Sipp: Yeah. Mr. Center: Okay. Mrs. Steffan: We talked about wanting it mulched last time. Mr. Hunsinger: There are a couple of three blanks to be filled in, I don’t know if anyone had any recommendations or thoughts on those three blanks on item 10. Mr. Steffan: Well I think that the posted sign-50 feet, I don’t know does that sound reasonable-50 or 75 feet? Mr. Hayes: 50 or 25, whatever the board’s pleasure is, and we’ll probably put something as you drive in to the facility not out by the road but as you get halfway down just to let everyone know that and in their leases though it specifically says that too, that they can’t use those any devices. 4 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mrs. Steffan: Okay. We’ll do 25 feet. Tom, when you put the plan together did you actually formulate how many cedar trees and red maples would be on there? Mr. Center: Yes mam, we have 16 cedars and five red maples. Mr. Oborne: I wish to make sure that the applicant is aware of exactly where you want the berm, I think that should clarified at this point. Mrs. Steffan: Well can we see the . . Mr. Center: I can give you copies. Mr. Hunsinger: We actually received this from staff. Mrs. Steffan: But it doesn’t have the . . Mr. Center: This one will show the berm, I’ve also added on this one the approved … map noise, unable to hear conversation. Mrs. Steffan: It’s not on there. Mr. Center: The oval. Mrs. Steffan: That berm is supposed to go all the way to the road. Mr. Hunsinger: 220 feet. Mr. Center: That was one of the things that was mentioned at the meeting, they talked about berming to the road and we’d be taking down some existing buffer that’s already there, some existing brush, trees in order to construct the berm further. When we talked about this one we were specific about being 220 feet long centered on the road and it’s cut back in toward the houses and we are leaving those areas to not to be disturbed on the back side of the septic systems. Mr. Hunsinger: Is everyone in agreement? Are there any other comments or questions from the board members? Resolution? Resolution to Approve Site Plan 80-2010 Hayes & Hayes, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes seven (7) duplexes. Land disturbance in excess of 0.25 +/- acres in the NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/27/2011, 3/15/2011, and 4/26/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 80-2010 HAYES & HAYES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 4/26/2011; and 3) 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 4) 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 5) 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 5 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator-see Vision Engineering comments dated 5/13/2011; and 7) 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 8) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) 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. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 9) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) 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 b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 10) During deliberations on this Site Plan review, members of the Planning Board expressed concerns regarding drainage, seasonal high ground water, loss of mature trees and the visual impacts of the project on the neighborhood and the town. The Board heard similar concerns from neighbors located proximate to the proposed development. The Board also recognized that the proposed berm would provide related environmental benefits (including sound buffering, water absorption and visual buffering). In order to minimize and mitigate concerns about any potential detrimental effects of the project on the environment, the following special conditions shall apply to this approval: a) A prominent note shall be placed on the approved Site Plan, in the southernmost portion of the property as delineated on the Plan, stating that no further development, tree-cutting or land disturbance will be allowed within the boundaries of the area. An additional prominent note shall be placed within the same area on the Plan, stating that no motorized vehicles shall be allowed within the boundaries of the area. The applicant shall post signs, at intervals of not less than 25 feet, around the perimeter of the area, identifying it as restricted and stating that the use of motorized vehicles within the restricted area is prohibited. This section of the parcel serves as drainage for I- 87 (Adirondack Northway) and shall remain forested. b) Building color palette shall be earth tone. Siding shall be Georgia Pacific brand in one of two colors: Sage Brook or Olive. Trim colors and doors shall complement the color and design of the siding. c) Applicant shall install an earthen berm approximately 220 feet long, 10 feet wide and 2 feet high. That berm will be seeded. ? This berm shall be planted with a total of 16 White Cedar trees, each between 8 feet and 10 feet tall, alternated with a total of 5 Red Maple trees each with a caliper width no less than 2.5 to 3 inches. The trees shall be appropriately spaced, based upon their likely canopy sizes at full maturity. ? Any tree planted in the berm which later dies, or becomes so diseased that it must be removed, shall be replaced with a live tree of the same species and size as the dead or diseased /removed tree. ? The planted berm is depicted on Plan SP1 submitted on May 17, 2011. ? The existing wooded buffer will remain intact from the midpoint of the Monthie property to the midpoint of the Kinglsey property, where this buffer is met by the restricted area referred to in Condition # 10 a, above. d) Future construction or placement of any additional townhouse or other principal building on the same lot which is the subject of this Site Plan approval shall require a new or amended Site Plan review and approval. If the lot which is the subject of this Site Plan approval is further subdivided to create an undeveloped lot, the construction or placement of any townhouse or other principal building on such undeveloped lot shall be subject to applicable Town Code provisions in effect at that time. Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: 6 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Good luck. The next section of the Planning Board agenda is Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first one is Site Plan 31-2011. Mr. Oborne: This is recommendation to the ZBA. See staff notes: APPLICANT: Andrew West 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: 12 Joshua’s Rock Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/11 PARCEL HISTORY: AV 23-11: Pending SP 32-11: Pending BOH 2011: Absorption field setback Approved 5/16/11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes alteration/renovation and a 441 +/- sq. ft. expansion of an existing single family residence including a replacement wastewater system for a four bedroom house. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested for setback, height and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposal calls for the expansion of an existing 2,242 sq. ft. single family dwelling to 2,683 sq. ft. A new general purpose area to be constructed on the lower level with an eastern access from the outside as drawn, new kitchen and dining above the general purpose area, and new master bedroom with bath proposed for the top floor. Additionally, new decking is proposed for the southern portion of the home as well as a new front entrance to the west. The resulting boundary currently abuts the home on the northern portion of the parcel and it is noted that the bay window of the adjoining dwelling to the north is within the northern boundary of this parcel. Further, the existing boathouse straddles both the project property as well as the property to the south. It is understood that the resulting setback issues are the result of the family trust associated with the lands subdividing this property in the past. Please refer to Variance Request heading on Sheet V-1 for additional clarification of ownership and history. Nature of Area Variances: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Height – Request for 2.7 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height allowed in the WR zone. 2. North side setback – Request for 7 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed front porch. 3. North side setback – Request for 9 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new kitchen/general purpose area. 4. South side setback relief – Request for 8 feet of south side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new access stairs associated with the deck. 5. West rear setback – Request for 1 foot of west rear setback relief from the 30 foot minimum requirements of the WR zone. Plan Review: 1. E&S control should be offered for the home expansion in addition to the wastewater proposal. 2. Shoreline planting should be considered as per §179-8-040B. Additional Comments: 1. BOH resolution handout dated 5/16/2011 attached. 2. Water supplied from lake. Application Protocol: 5/17/11: Provide written recommendation to ZBA Pending 5/18/11: Zoning Board of Appeals review DecisionPending 6//11: PB review TBD 7 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Oborne: BOH resolution not ready as of this time, my understanding there is a condition of approval based on an ownership issue. I called all the way through the day, the resolution is not ready and my understanding it is to Counsel for review and with that I turn it over to the Board. Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening. Mr. MacElroy: Good evening Chris. My name is Dennis MacElroy with EDP representing the applicant and owners of this property at 12 Joshua Rock Road. This area of property is a basically a family compound, the Joshua’s Rock Corp. has holdings in this area but within those holdings are some individual lots that support a couple individual homes. Other homes are within common lands of the corporation, this particular lot is one that has been in existence since 1903, it’s an unusual configuration in that the lot line was configured to run down the building line of one portion of a structure to the south and then along the building line of an adjoining property to the north, hence we have an automatic nonconformity in terms of the side setbacks so when renovation is proposed we’re automatically in a condition where we’re making improvement or alterations to a nonconforming structure, that’s one of the variances. The side setback issues again come into play because of the proximity of that northerly boundary of this lot and this lot is about 300 feet deep and 49 feet wide, obviously predates zoning so we get that condition of nonconformity. The improvement alterations to the structure actually will result in there being less impervious area, they’ll be a smaller footprint. They’ll be more floor area because of the second story addition. So that’s important to note, it’s well within the floor area ratio component of the Queensbury standards for this total floor area. The height issue, we’re not exceeding the existing ridgeline of the house, but because of building and code standards of that second floor the ridgeline is proposed to be the same as the existing. Now the existing is slightly above the 28 foot standard but again this is a preexisting condition. The point of reference of building height is on the lake side, it’s slightly lower than the point of reference of the existing structure so therefore what was a 30 foot building height becomes a 30.7 foot building height. But again the physical height of the building is no greater than the existing ridgeline. What I think is referred to either as a front is it front Keith or rear setback of 29 feet where 30 feet is involved it is minimal standard but that’s involved with the reconfiguration of an entry to the structure. Again within this proposal is an upgrade of the wastewater system that involved a slight variance from a setback as well and that was issued with conditions last night at their board of health meeting. The issue regarding title will be readily resolved when the attorney has the time to review the materials. You have, within the project file, is the deed of the property. There has been quite a lengthy history of the title of the property that’s been researched by the owners, again this is a long standing family property. The transfer, the applicant of this proposal is within the family, is one of the family members, a further generation. That’s something they’ve certainly been aware of, the title and ownership, the existence of this lot since 1903. Mr. Hunsinger: So could you just briefly explain what exactly it is that you’re doing to the house itself. It looks like you’re tearing off that, the front porch. Mr. MacElroy: That’s correct, on the road side, that was, it was an interesting structure of historical significance, but that structure there is an old stone walled, four walled structure and at some point in time in the 20’s this addition was added which is on the roadside, and that will be removed. That currently houses a kitchen and bathroom. That’s kind of dilapidated, and that would be removed and a new entry would be added at that point on the front side there is a reconfiguration of a deck area, there’s a screen porch which currently exists that would be removed but reoccupied by more floor space and the second floor addition. I think if you look at the floor plan of both, all three levels, and the elevation drawings that the architect had prepared, I can walk you through that but I think it’s the red lines represent any of the existing that will be changed. Mrs. Steffan: The one note, when we were there on site visits there was a plaque, it is a historical building. Have you been in contact with SHPO or anything? Mr. MacElroy: That’s involved with the Owl’s Nest portion of that structure. That’s this portion of the structure that’s on the northerly parcel, not this parcel. Historically this building, this structure was part of Owl’s Nest, it was the library that was part of that home. Mr. Schonewolf: The main house? Mr. MacElroy: Correct. The main house, as I look at this, I hadn’t seen this before, but the main house Mr. Hunsinger: The placque was right on the Mr. MacElroy: The plaque is right on the walkway going on and that is on the land of the northerly parcel, remember the building line goes right down the, now this structure which is known as the Mellowstone, the family terminology, of all the different structures, that’s a separate structure, this designation was 1972, prior to that in the 20’s this portion of this structure, the library, was for lack of a better phrase, was compromised 8 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 which changed, it was modified to allow for to be an independent house itself. There were conversions and whatnot took placte that, so that it’s my understanding is that the historic landmark aspect of this is related to the Owl’s Nest structure, the northern parcel. Mr. Hunsinger: That wouldn’t surprise me, because I mean they are connected. Mr. MacElroy: They’re connected by the covered walkway. Mr. Hunsinger: When was the walkway constructed? Mr. MacElroy: When was the walkway constructed? I don’t know. Mr. Hunsinger: I mean if this house is listed on the national register then you would be eligible for historic preservation tax credits, so any of the improvement that you’re making to the property you can write off on, the owner could write off on their taxes but they have to do it following the historic character. Mr. MacElroy: Right, and Chris I’m not totally familiar with the element of it but I think if the owner is knowledgeable of it he’ll pursue as appropriate. I know I’ve had brief conversations with the architect regarding that, because as you saw the sign, and as I saw the sign, you ask the question, what bearing does that have on this structure. Mr. Hunsinger: And it is a criteria on SEQR as you well know and being listed on the national register does make it, I mean it’s nationally significant, not just locally significant so that even kicks it up a notch. Mrs. Steffan: Even if it’s a Type II? Does that change things? I just wondered. Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t think it can be a Type II if it’s a national register district or adjacent to one. Mr. Oborne: I don’t have that answer for you. Mr. Hunsinger: I think that kicks it into a long form. Mr. MacElroy: That’s a question for Mr. Schachner Mr. Hunsinger: I’m pretty sure that triggers a long form but I could be wrong. Mr. MacElroy: It’s easy to research it Mr. Schonewolf: The library property abuts it right? Mr. MacElroy: The library property is the property we’re speaking of, it’s the subject property. Mr. Schonewolf: Okay Mr. MacElroy: It abuts it yes because the covered walkway Chris speaks of connects two walls but it’s touching the other wall. Mr. Schonewolf: The other wall right. A couple of years ago it went through a larger discussion of that. Mr. Traver: We might want to clarify exactly what, I know you’re speaking of the lower all stone structure, SP 1 referenced by the historic landmark but if you look at the reference here it clearly depicts the house you’re proposing to renovate and in the subsequent photographs as well from the national register it shows both structures so I just think we need to clarify. They call it the main house in this article and it clearly shows Mr. MacElroy. Mr. West is one of the owners of the property and part of the Joshua’s Rock Corp. he perhaps clarify that better than I. Mr. West: Thank you, my name is Tom West. As Dennis said I am one of the current owners of the property, we inherited it with my cousins, after the life estate expired approximately twelve years ago and the property is in a real state of disrepair, in fact, it’s basically starting to fall down if you saw it. Dennis actually fell off the front porch when one of the pillars gave way so it’s we’re dealing with a real family problem here. It goes back to the fact that it was built as a family compound and then divided up over time so that the main house which is the Owl’s Nest is still a single family residence, the library which we call Mellowstone was built as a library for Edward Eggleston during his writing years, it wasn’t designed as a house, it has 12 to 13 foot ceilings in it, there is one room that you could call a bedroom but they put this appendage on the roadside 9 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 which was the kitchen and a bathroom and it is very dilapidated and it’s overgrown with vegetation and there is nothing historic about it. On the lakeside there was another sleeping porch put on, there was the stone porch that created the patio area and the workshop underneath. My grandfather lived in this house, now I’ve been through the historic register documents and they did catalog a number of the properties including the other house nearby called the Homestead which has been there over a hundred years as well. And I do believe, however, in looking . . . that’s the one that’s depicted there . . . I do believe that they photographed and cataloged all of these houses but the designation was given to the Owl’s Nest which is the single family residence on the north side of the property at issue. And it would be my interpretation that the Mellowstone property was not part of the designation because it probably didn’t qualify because quite frankly it was cobbed up; I think that would be a more technical term for what happened to it from a historic standpoint. You know, unfortunately, this is a situation, where you have a big family compound like this that goes down through the generations and they divide up the property and they don’t always do things well. That’s why we have funny lot lines, we’ll get to that issue with the lot line, it doesn’t include all of the dock and the boathouse as part of the next project but we’re here to try and salvage, actually my son is the one who stepped up to the plate he said he’d try and make this work, it’s taken him two years to negotiate a contract with our family to meet everybody’s satisfaction and I give him a lot of credit for that I didn’t have the patience to do it we tried to work things out for 10 years before that and couldn’t so he stepped up to the plate and has got a contract in place that will allow this to be restored. He’s also worked with an architect and he came up with some very beautiful and modest plans to put essentially a gable roof on the lakeside to try and turn this library into some living space. It’s some very low height attic and to try and get a couple of bedrooms there and a new bedroom in the new space but one of the reasons we have a height problem you’d say why don’t we bring the height down and make everything conforming because we have the high ceilings on the first floor there is no way to join those two without making the new addition as high as the old addition and even then there is going to be a step down on the second floor from the attic area. So I hope that gives you a little bit of understanding of what we’re trying to deal with here and so we’re dealt with a difficult hand. No real side yards, very little front yard in the sense that as this cobbed up kitchen and bathroom should come off and when this is done this is going to look much more like a historic building and it may be eligible to be added to the national register at that point because there will certainly improve and restore the looks to more to the original character with the exception of the little porchette that’s being added on to the front porch, to protect the front door, the front is being restored, I should say the roadside to its original character, sorry that’s a long winded explanation but the bottom line is we don’t believe this property is part of the Owl’s Nest designation, the historians who reviewed the property looked at all the adjacent structures as part of their review but they gave the designation to the Owl’s Nest. Mr. Traver: So do you have any documentation from the National Register to that affect? Mr. West: I just have the document, that is probably the same document that you have that you can print off the internet and I don’t have Mr. Hunsinger: With all due respect I don’t know how you can say that it’s not when they’re connected. Mr. Traver: I know a lot of folks have questions about the validity of some of the data in Wikipedia but there is a picture of the structure that you’re discussing, and you can see, apparently after that kitchen was added. Mr. West: That’s neither of the properties we’re talking about, that’s the one that across the dirt road slightly to the south, so that’s a completely different structure. I do have a different document that sort of catalogs what they went through and they did discuss the Mellowstone property but Mr. Hunsinger: But I mean there is a filing that’s required in order to be listed on the National Register, I mean if you have a copy of that filing and it clearly omits this building from that filing then I think you can make the argument that you’ve made. But again when the buildings are connected by a covered walkway I don’t see how you can say it has no impact on the other. Mr. West: If you go back and look at the picture of the walkway and if you look at the . . Mr. Oborne: You have to take the microphone with you. Mr. West: If you look at the section of the walkway that’s represented in that photograph the first section goes up the steps is clearly part of the Owl’s Nest structure, the next section is just a shed roof that I think you have a picture from the front, the lakeside, see that was it, go back one, that is just a shed roof that was added sometime after the original peaked roof that starts about halfway down of the Mellowstone property going toward Owl’s Nest and I don’t think that any part of this is historic. The historic designation was granted, they chose to put the plaque up on the shed roof but not on the peaked roof but there is clearly two distinct roof structures there, one with the original slate and one that I’m quite confident is part of the Owl’s Nest historic configuration, but the shed roof was added more recently and there is really not that much 10 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 historic about it, it’s not that much different than the kitchen area that was added to the front of the building. What I would suggest that we could do I’m happy to look into this issue further and consult with SHPO to see what they know about it and see if we can get to the bottom of whether the Mellowstone property is or is not part of the designation but is that something we can deal with as part of the final planning board review of this as opposed to resolving it because one of the other issues that we’re having, having taken 12 years to get to this point since my uncle passed away is we’re trying to get this property under construction this summer. My son is not in a position to be able to buy the property and have it stay vacant, he’s got all his financing lined up and is ready to go with the rehabilitation project this summer and if we don’t get this resolved expeditiously I think he’s going to have to defer the closing until next spring just because he needs to be in a position where has all his approvals, closes and moves forward and tries to put the property to productive use. He will have to rent it out to afford the mortgage payments and I really give him a lot of credit, he’s under 30 years old and I give him a lot of credit for stepping up to the plate to try and make this happen. We do need some consideration of what happened back in time prior to zoning to make this go forward. I deal with historic preservation issues all time, I’m happy to look into it, I’ll try to get to the bottom of it. If it’s part of the historic designation then as you say there may be tax credits available which I’m sure he’d be happy to take advantage of but I just wonder if we can get through the recommendation phase tonight and leave this as an open item for the final. Mr. Traver: One of the options we have as we form a recommendation is we list any potential concerns or items of discussion we have on this property and I understand that you have named this property Mellowstone and that you have made the determination you don’t believe it’s part of this historic landmark but I hope you can understand for us we would like the National Register’s opinion. That’s a designation that belongs to all of us, it’s not just something that this board can control so a simple letter from them but as far as the recommendations I thinks you know that can be at least potentially as we continue our discussions simply something we can point out. Mr. West: We’re happy to follow that course. I do note that in the documentation that I have that did identify it as Mellowstone so they knew it had a different designation and the designation is clearly for the Owl’s Nest. Mr. MacElroy: This I would question because the photos and the representation that they’re Owl’s Nest is a totally different structure. Mr. Traver: And I again I said before this is Wikipedia that I got this from, although this is the picture here which does show the property we’re discussing it says at the bottom NPS photo 1971 I’m assumomg that is National Park Service? I could be wrong about that. The letter and other board members can comment. It’s a pretty simple clarification. Mr. Hunsinger: Again it’s pretty simple, you go the National Park Service and get a copy of the original filing that was issued and that will tell you whether or not that this building is considered part of or was taken into consideration when the National Register was approved. Mr. West: I do have that form and it clearly discusses the Owl’s Nest and it discusses the Homestead which is where Edward Eggleston would stay and if I interpret this correctly the library may have been built first and the Owl’s Nest was added. But the Owl’s Nest is definitely distinct in this document from Mellowstone as is the Homestead and the designation came out for the Owl’s Nest but we’re happy to check into that. Mr. Traver: Yeah, I would think that would something as the Chairman pointed that can be clarified. Mr. Hunsinger: Here’s the issue that I have with moving forward this evening. It was designated as a Type II action. Mr. Oborne: I have issues too, but go ahead. Mr. Hunsinger: The definition in SEQR says that if it’s an unlisted action in occurring wholly partially or within or substantially contiguous any historic building including one that’s on the national register then it’s a Type I action. You’re nodding your head. Mr. Oborne: I agree and I’m remiss in not picking up on that. You said you couldn’t miss the plaque, I missed the plaque. Mr. Traver: Actually it certainly could be missed. Mr. Hunsinger: We had four people wandering around the property. 11 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Oborne: And I would be remiss in recommending that this even move forward at this point to be honest with you only because the application could potentially be deemed incomplete at this point. To protect yourself. Mr. Hunsinger: Right Mr. West: I’m happy to look at the SEQR issues and address those for the board. To the extent it is a Type I, it’s not fatal, it can still receive a negative declaration if that’s appropriate I couldn’t think of a set of circumstances that would be more justifying a negative declaration than this one. As Dennis pointed out the exterior footprint is actually being reduced and that was one of the goals in trying to come up with the plans was to take off the dilapidated front porch or the kitchen and dining porch and to take off the back porch, these appendages that were added on and to make this a more in keeping with its historic character the architect has gone to great lengths to try and capture that even reproducing the sunburst motif that is in the south facing view you’re seeing right there. It’s going to be unfortunate if this gets bogged down and it sounds like it may because it’s going to be very difficult for my son to be able to keep this project going. We’ll deal with the issues as best as we can. And I do think we do need to get the ZBA to hear the variances and make sure they’re on board with that because without those variances this project does not go forward and so if there is any way we can get the recommendation subject to the outstanding issues we know we’ll have to address the SEQR issues and I’m happy to take a look into that when I get into the office in the morning. I’ll be happy to talk to Mr. Schachner about it to. Mrs. Steffan: Other issues. Dennis there is a little note, I think one of the test pits, you have two test pits TP 1’s, I think one is supposed to be TP3. It’s just something you’ll want to change on your drawings. Mr. Hunsinger: Typically before we can make a recommendation we have to address SEQR so if by virtue of being on the National Register triggers this into a Type I. Mr. Oborne: You cannot go forward tonight that would be my recommendation to the board is to table this pending a completed application. You have to do SEQR, if it’s listed as a Type II, no public hearing so now you have to advertise it if it’s a Type I. Mr. Hunsinger: Are there any other concerns that the board has? I think we all appreciate what you’re trying to do with the property, it’s in desperate of some help. It’s a beautiful site. Mr. West: It’s amazing that the old stone structure is as sound as it is in contrast to the new stone that was added, the one that Dennis knocked over when he fell off the front porch. That was my grandfather’s doing, he was a great engineer, how he built that workshop area is a mystery to me. It’s got some engineering tied in with steel rods and the stone work was just . . , it’s just baffles me. Mrs. Steffan: I don’t have questions on this I have questions on the other, I wanted to hear the story about the boathouse. Mr. West: It would be good if there were any other concerns about the house or the boathouse if we could get them out tonight so we could address them rather than having them come up at a later date. I know the boathouse is a very unusual circumstance and if you would like me to address that I can. Mr. Hunsinger: We will in a second, let’s deal with the house first then. I guess the only other thought I have in terms of the historic district is it may require additional information on building materials, and that kind of thing on the addition. Stuff that we don’t typically get into on a regular basis. Mr. West: If it comes out that part of it has a historic designation then the plan is to take any stone that is taken out and reuse it. It’s not original stone but it’s an effort to match stone when the workshop area was added. According to Chris Crandall he said there will be ample stone to build the pillars that are comtemplated for the porch areas, but other than that the addition itself is modest, I think we were planning on using cedar something compatible with the existing. Mr. Hunsinger: Yeah the term that they frequently use is like kind material. Mr. West: Whatever they use is pretty good, the wood in intact given that it is an 1883 house, an 1883 library converted to a house. Mr. Oborne: They don’t build them like that anymore. Mr. Hunsinger: No. Anything else from the Board? What do you recommend we do? Should we table it to a specific date. 12 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Oborne: Well I think so I think that would be fair to the applicant and I feel maybe you should ask the applicant how quickly that process will take to get the information, to make the request. Mr. West: We’ll get right on it, we’ll deal with the SEQR issues, we’ll try to see what we can get from SHPO or from the National Parks Service. My understanding is that this program is unfunded so I’m not sure what we’re going to find at the national level but I do work with SHPO frequently so we can contact people down in Albany and see if they can unravel the mystery. I’ll get on that, I can’t do it tomorrow because I’ve to travel out of town but I get to it by Friday, whatever answer we can get which I don’t know at this point we’ll get quickly. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, SHPO can be slow, I’ve worked with them enough to know that. That doesn’t mean that they’ll be slow in your case. Mrs. Steffan: Is there any way that our local historian, Marilyn VanDyke could help? Mr. West: We have boxes of old of letters and everything that we’re going to get to the historical society to see if they can start cataloging them. I mean we found some very interesting things in the attic up there. Letters from Emma Willard for example, Mark Twain stayed there at one point. So this is something, we appreciate your concern over the historic issue and we’ll do what’s right but we want to try to keep the ball moving before mother nature gains any more ground. Mr. Hunsinger: And we appreciate that. Mr. MacElroy: So to answer your question though Chris is it possible to be back on in the June meetings, June st 21? Mr. Oborne: If the board is so accommodating, we certainly accommodate that, it’s up to the board. Mr. Traver: Do we have a third meeting yet for June? Mrs. Steffan: Again this is a ZBA recommendation and we’ll have to have further clarification on the SHPO piece, on the historic preservation piece to move it forward. Mr. Oborne: If the Board is amenable to maybe giving an extra half spot to the first agenda from what we have right now which is the typical six so basically it will be 6 ½. So that’s a call for the board. Mrs. Steffan: If we have them back on the first June meeting we’d have to give them a deadline for getting th any new materials, so when would be reasonable? We’re at the 17 we could do two full weeks. st Mr. MacElroy: 5 weeks from now to the meeting on the 21. Mrs. Steffan: So if we give them 3 weeks. Mr. West: Either date is fine with us, if there is an answer we’ll get it, I’m just concerned about whether there will be an answer. Mr. Oborne: You also could run it out again, again this is a recommendation, you’re not doing a site plan at this point, and that probably won’t be until July at the earliest at this point, site plan part. st Mr. MacElroy: Right if we get to the 21 we would hope to be on a ZBA after that. Mr. Oborne: I can attach any documentation to staff notes and send them out. th Mrs. Steffan: Do you want me to give them to the 16 Mr. Oborne: That’s fine. th Mr. Hunsinger: So you don’t think we can hear this again on the 28 assuming? Mr. Oborne: I don’t think so, not for site plan, we’ve got a lot of scheduled items on there. Again you’re the board. stndth Mr. MacElroy: The 21, 22 and the 28. 13 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Oborne: That would be great wouldn’t it? That’s up to the Board, that’s assuming you get through the ZBA. Mrs. Steffan: We already said we’d only have one thing on that agenda. Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t think they’re asking for anything that’s outrageous. Mr. Oborne: I think we’re being quite accommodating. Especially if this is a Type I SEQR. That’s going to take a good 15 minutes. Mr. Hunsinger: Good point. And if it is a Type I who else we’d have to give 30 days notice. You’ll know that th answer in a couple of days. And if that’s the case we know we won’t be able to hear it on the 28 for the site plan. Mr. Oborne: You’ll have to seek lead agency. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion: Area Variance 22-2011 / Site Plan 31-2011 Andrew West The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Alteration/renovation and a 441 +/- sq. ft. expansion of an existing single family residence including a replacement wastewater system for a four bedroom house. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested for setback, height and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 31-2011 AND AREA VARIANCE 22-2011 FOR ANDREW WEST: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and Tabled to the June 21, 2011 Planning Board meeting, submission for any new materials is Thursday, June 16, 2011. This is tabled so that the applicant can submit a completed application which includes any historic landmark classification data. Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Okay the next one is Site Plan 33-2011 for Andrew West. This is for the boathouse. Mr. Oborne: I’ll read this into the record. I think we know what the issues are at this point. APPLICATION: Site Plan 32-2011 / Area Variance 23-2011 APPLICANT: Andrew West 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: 12 Joshua’s Rock Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/11 PARCEL HISTORY: AV 22-11 Pending SP 31-2011 Pending PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes reconstruction of an existing 484 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse to include a 527 +/- sq. ft. new boathouse with a 53 +/- sq. ft. reduction of existing 537 +/- sq. ft. dock. Project located along the shoreline of two separate parcels of land. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from side property line setback. Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 14 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 STAFF COMMENTS: Nature of Area Variances: Area variance for this proposal is as follows: 1.South property line setback – Request for 20 feet relief from the minimum 20 foot setback requirement as per §179-5-060A(7). The determination of setbacks for docks and boathouses are per §179-5-060A(7) and is as follows: ? Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs onshore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, whichever results in the greater setback. Plan Review: 1.Additional shoreline planting as per §179-8-040B may be considered. Additional comments 1.The agent for the project has communicated that the existing piers for the boathouse will be reused for this project. 2.This application to be reviewed in conjunction with S.P. 31-2011 which concerns to the home renovation and expansion on parcel. Application Protocol: 5/17/11: Provide written recommendation to ZBA Pending 5/18/11: Zoning Board of Appeals review Decision Pending 6//11: PB review TBD Mr. MacElroy: This deals with the renovation and improvements of the existing boathouse and dock. The unique situation here is that the property line as it was created in the 1903 deed more or less bisects the dock as it exists now. I’m not really sure when the dock was constructed, before or after that but nonetheless the property line as it exists the southerly line hits the shoreline at a point within the dock so therefore the setback requirements for a dock where you do this magical interpretation of the perpendicular to the shoreline tangency you need to have 20 feet, we’re obviously far from that in terms of its compliance of its interpretation of its projection of the property line. We’ve indicated in the application we are seeking2 23 feet of relief from that 0 lot line requirement in fact so that’s the situation. Co-applicant to this application is the Joshua’s Rock Corp. therefore supportive of the plan to renovate the dock. They recognize the dock partially fronts on the common land that exists, there is a letter of support from Joshua’s Rock Corp., the president of Joshua’s Rock Corp. has written a letter and again they are co-applicant’s so that shows their support in that of itself. But by this sort of unique situation with the shoreline of property line we’ve got that added variance condition. All other aspects of the dock construction comply with Queensbury and Park Commission standards for the boat dock. It’s not a large dock, it’s rehabbing what’s existing. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have any old pictures of what the old boathouse looks like. Mr. West: I don’t believe we do. I can tell you that the dock and boathouse in its current form was there when I grew up there as a child and to the north of that there was another boathouse that was actually on the land that was more of a canoe shed, where we used to pull up the canoes. And I can’t for the life of me figure how this happened. I have to say my ancestors were better writers than they were surveyors and how they configured these buildings which are not square to the lake like most people would build, if you look at the library building and the Owl’s nest they’re both kind of cocked both in a funny way and the only thing I could figure is that were trying to take advantage of the morning sun and the southern exposure and trying to maximize that as it came up over the bay because it’s the fact that the buildings are not square to the lake and the boundary line that would be created to the two lots which goes down the sides of both buildings the common boundary line, is what created the one lot line and then the other lot line parallels it and so it leaves it in the middle of this dock. Now that’s sort of the historical history of how we got into this mess. The good news is the Joshua’s Rock Corp. is not only a co-applicant but they’ve signed the contract my son has been negotiating over the last two years with all the family members so in reality the JR has said that our property serves to support this application process and they give up some of their rights in terms of setbacks that would be allowable if they came in for another dock. So that’s kind of the way I look at it. The goal here is to restore the existing dock, the existing dock part of it is built with old logs, the same logs that I used to swim around in, snorkel in looking for the snakes and everything else that lives around there when I was a kid. So I suspect that this boathouse goes back 70 or 80 years turn of the century. For now it’s very short it won’t accommodate most boats. We’re going to replicate the existing piers making them slightly narrower to get some additional width in the boathouse and bring the boathouse back to a modern height that will accommodate a normal boat, but it’s not the intent to make it bigger for the sake of making it bigger. In fact one of the issues the family debated long and hard because the original proposal was to put a flat top roof and 15 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 even though what I call the northern Lake George flat top roof which has a partial peak and then a little sitting area in the middle of it and none of that was acceptable to the family, they wanted it replicated the way it is. So that’s what my son agreed to do but he just needs to make it slightly more accommodating for a modern vessel. Mr. Hunsinger: I commend your family for their good taste. That’s only my opinion. Is there any issues that anyone sees other than the obvious? Mr. Traver: I think it’s the only time I’ve ever seen a 20 feet relief from a 20 foot setback. Mr. Hunsinger: So you think we need to wait on this as well? Mr. Oborne: I do, I think both of these applications need to be piggybacked. Mr. Hunsinger: Yyeah, I think so to Mr. Oborne: There may be issues with this as a result of the previous conversation. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s why I asked if there were photographs, because of the historic issues they might say well you know. I mean probably the way it’s seen now. Mr. West: We’ll look and see if we have any historical photographs and if so we’ll submit them as part of the th June 16 submission. Mr. Hunsinger: We’re caught up in the same SEQR process is what the issue is. Mr. West: We understand, they’re related projects, they have to be considered together. We don’t dispute that, we’ll look at the SEQR Type I we’ll get a long form EAF, submit it, we’ll have a supporting narrative explaining the reduction in the footprint and the attempt to actually restore the character of the house and the maintain character of the boathouse. Mr. Oborne: And we certainly supply you with that with that determination ASAP. I suggest you put that in your resolution if you could, to direct staff to research the SEQR status of the project. That just gives me another reminder. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay. Any other comments concerns from the Board? Mr. Ford: I think we’re on track. Mr. Traver: The information for the applicant as well when we saw the plaque I just sort of went on-line and started looking into this there were other references as well. Quite honestly I didn’t have time to do a lot of research on this; just the Wikipedia thing but there may be some resources on-line that could help with this as well. Mr. West: Yeah, we’ll go right to both agencies and get some sort of clarification. But I don’t think we’re going to eliminate the fact that we’re adjacent to an historic structure. The Owl’s Nest is designated properly, which I believe it is. We’re adjacent to it so we’ll have to deal with the SEQR issues; that’s not going to go away. The Mellowstone property and I certainly don’t think the boathouse is part of that designation. Mr. Ford: Good recognition. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to table Site Plan 32-2011-see below Planning Board Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals-Area Variance 23-2011 / Site Plan 32-2011 Andrew West The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Reconstruction of an existing 484 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse to include a 527 +/- sq. ft. new boathouse with a 53 +/- sq. ft. reduction of existing 537 +/- sq. ft. dock. Project located along the shoreline of two separate parcels of land. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from side property line setback. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 32-2011 AND AREA VARIANCE 23-2011 FOR ANDREW WEST: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and Tabled to the June 21, 2011 Planning Board meeting; submission for any new materials is Thursday, June 16, 2011. This is tabled so that the applicant can research the historic landmark designation on the property. It 16 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 is also tabled so that the staff can appropriately identify the SEQRA Type on this particular application as well as the application before it. Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Good luck, see you next month. The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 33-2011 NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn. Mr. Oborne: Again this is a recommendation to the ZBA. Staff Notes below APPLICATION: Site Plan 33-2011 / Area Variance 24-2011 APPLICANT: NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn 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: 1449 State Route 149 EXISTING ZONING: CI-Commercial Intensive SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/11 PARCEL HISTORY: AV 24-11: Pending SP 19-09: Motel expansion Approved 5/28/11 AV 14-09: Front, Travel corridor, FAR, Permeability relief Approved 3/25/09 SP 19-05: Deck Approved 4/26/05 AV 22-05: Side Setback Relief Approved 3/25/05 BP 05-855: 1,072 sq. ft. residential alteration Approved 2/20/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 942 +/- sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 +/- sq. ft. handicapped ramp and 80 +/- sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 +/- sq. ft. of decks and landings to existing motel building. Expansion of a Motel in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes two distinct expansions to the property. The first involves expansion to the office/lobby and the second to what is designated motel building 3 to the rear of the parcel. Waivers requested from stormwater, landscaping and grading requirements, please see narrative. This basic application was approved on March 25, 2009 with the subsequent site plan application approved on May 28, 2009. The applicant did not submit for a building permit within the one year time frame from nor did the applicant request an extension for the area variance and site plan approvals for this project resulting in the lapse of approvals. Please note that the zoning requirements have changed since the initial approval, specifically front setback requirements went from 50 feet to 75 feet. Nature of Area Variances: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Front Setback – Request for 54.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the proposed handicap ramp. 2.Front Setback – Request for 24.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the proposed office addition. 3.Travel Corridor – Request for both the quantified and qualified expansions listed above from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the upper Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay District. 17 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 4.Side Setback – Request for 7.1 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement for the proposed northern deck expansion to the motel. 5.FAR – Request for 3,076 sq. ft. or 7.0% increase from the 30% requirement for all proposed expansions qualifying as floor area ration. 6.Permeability – Request for an additional 1,196 sq. ft. of impermeability or a total of 77.4 % impermeable from the 70% allowable for the CI zone. Note: The amount of permeability relief is based on the greatest amount of relief requested, in this case 1,196 additional square feet. 7.Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Plan Review: Site Plan Page 1 1.Landscaping is required and should be conditioned as per §179-8-050. 2.Parking associated with the front of the parcel may need to be discussed. Existing configuration not tenable. 3.Parking space #1 access is interfered with by proposed 10x8 canopy. Reconfiguration may be necessary. 4.Lawn appears to be offered in place of existing macadam north and east of freestanding sign. This would affect permeability calculations, please quantify change to permeability and adjust calculation prior to ZBA meeting. 5.Permeability denoted on site plan does not correspond to permeability denoted under Site Development Data, page 3 of application. Please clarify and correct. Note: The amount of permeability relief is based on the greatest amount of relief requested, in this case 1,196 additional square feet. Pages 2-8 1.No immediate issues. Application Protocol: 5/17/11: Provide written recommendation to ZBA Pending 5/18/11: Zoning Board of Appeals review Decision Pending 6//11: PB review TBD Mr. Oborne: With that I ‘ll turn it over the to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay thank you. Good evening Mr. Hughes: Good evening, my name is Gary Hughes and I’m the agent for Sam Bhatti of NSB Hospitality Corp. and I’m here to answer any questions you might have on the project. It basically, Keith went over what we’re looking for relief for and I’m here to try and answer any questions or concerns you might have. Mr. Hunsinger: Any questions from the Board? Mr. Krebs: We had mentioned when we were on site we remembered being there before and it’s pretty much exactly the same thing we were there for before. Mr. Traver: The clock ran out on it. Mr. Hughes: Yeah, I think the economy put the kabash to it and since then he has entered into the corporation and hopefully it will move things along this time. Mrs. Steffan: The only question I had was that on the short SEQR you submitted you had identified that you wanted a new sign tower but I didn’t see any details on any sign tower or signage. Mr. Hughes: You have the plan? It starts out with a plot plan and then on page 2 front elevation, basically it’s incorporated it’s a porch scenario with an attic space over it, approximately a 3 x 5 foot unlighted sign on that tower, there is one similar right across the street at one of the retail operations there, they are kind of common. Mrs. Steffan: Okay that sign you have out near the road at the pylon that’s going away? Mr. Hughes: That’s coming down. 18 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mrs. Steffan: Okay. I looked at the SEQR as a sign tower so that a tower in my mind would have replaced the sign that was there. We’re a little sensitive to signage. Mr. Oborne: For the record it’s still considered a wall sign though, it’s not a freestanding sign. Mr. Hughes: It’s a little more low key. Mrs. Steffan: We like that. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, any other questions from the board? Anyone like to put forward a recommendation? I guess the question is has anyone identified significant adverse impacts? So I guess we could select that? Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below. Planning Board Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals-Area Variance 24-2011 / Site Plan 33-2011 NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn The applicant proposes: Site Plan: 942 +/- sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 +/- sq. ft. handicapped ramp and 80 +/- sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 +/- sq. ft. of decks and landings to existing motel building. Expansion of a Motel in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure; and 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 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 The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested 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 ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2011 AND SITE PLAN 33-2011 FOR NSB HOSPITALITY: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: one Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set. Mrs. Steffan: Good luck with the ZBA Mr. Hughes: I think we’ll get it through this time. Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 9-2011 and Area Variance 34-2011 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings. Mr. Oborne: I believe the board is familiar with this project. See staff notes below nd APPLICATION: Site Plan 9-2011 / Area Variance 31-2011 [2 variance request] APPLICANT: Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings 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 19 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 neighborhood and surrounding community. LOCATION: South side of Willowbrook Road EXISTING ZONING: Office SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted WARREN CO. PB: 2/9/11-No County Impact ENGINEERING REVIEW: 2/18/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: AV 10-11 Parking relief Pending Sub 9-2000 16 Lot subdivision Approved 12/20/02 Multiple applications since 2002 (Baybrook Office Park) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 49,590 +/- sq. ft. 35 unit 45 foot tall three story senior apartment building. Apartment Complex proposed in an O [Office] zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from the 40 foot maximum height requirement of the office zone. Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. ST STAFF NOTES FROM PREVIOUS SPR & 1 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PARKING RELIEF STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant had proposed a reduction of 24 parking spaces from the 79 spaces required per the code and was granted this relief on February 23, 2011. The plan now calls for 42 spaces instead of the 55 spaces granted with the area variance previously; this change should be discussed at site plan review in the future. The applicant currently requests relief from the 40 foot maximum height requirement for the Office zone as a result in grade due to in part the proposal to install permeable pavement on site. Nature of Area Variances: Area variance for this proposal is as follows: 1.Building Height – Relief requested for 5 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum allowable building height in the Office zone as per §179-4-030. Plan Review: Application: 1.Page 2/Setback Requirements – Shoreline requirements not denoted. Please revise when appropriate. 2.Short EAF- States 37 units, plan calls for 35. Please clarify. Stormwater Management Report and SWPPP: 1.See Vision Engineering Comments. Page SP-1 1.The Planning Board must waive the 10 foot buffer requirement between the parking lot and front property line as per §179-8-050B(1) or require the buffer be installed. 2.The Planning Board must waive the requirement that all parking in the Office Zone shall be at the rear of the building as per §179-7-060A(2) or require parking be designed for the rear of the project. 3.Sidewalks should be considered by the Planning Board. Note: The initial Park Subdivision did not require sidewalks; however, intensive residential proposals as opposed to the intended office uses have been approved and are currently proposed without any pedestrian provisions. Page SP-2 1.Walking Trails, outside recreation, communal gardens and covered gathering areas might be considered for quality of life purposes. 2.Snow storage locations must be considered as per §179-9-100 3.Bike racks required as per §179-4-090N. 4.Dumpster enclosure details to include materials to be used clarified. Page SP-3 1.See Vision Engineering Comments if applicable. Page SP-4 1.See Vision Engineering Comments if applicable. Page SP-5 1.Parking lot landscaping minimal. Please refer to §179-8-050 for additional guidance if required. Page SP-6 1.Illuminance calculations for the SL-2 designated lighting fixtures located adjacent to the structure not on plan. Please revise. 20 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 2.Build entrances appear excessive when reviewed against the code. Code states a maximum illuminance of 5.0 footcandles for entrances, plan calls for up to 18.4 footcandles. Please refer to §179- 6-020 for overall guidance. 3.Parking lot lighting appears minimally excessive when reviewed against the code. Code states a maximum 2.5 footcandles for multifamily parking, plan calls for up to 5.8 footcandles. Please refer to §179-6-020 for overall guidance. 4.Statistics schedule denotes a front canopy illuminance that is not located on lighting plan; specifically, the average and maximum readings. Please clarify. Page SP-7 1.Monument sign height not denoted. Please place overall height under letter H. Page SP-8 1.See Vision Engineering comments. Additional Comments: 1.The applicant is proposing to not encroach into or disturb any land within the 100 foot wetland setback. As the building footprint is within 4 feet of the setback, eave trench and eastern parking area abuts the setback line, disturbance appears highly likely. What assurance can be given that disturbance does not take place in order to avoid a Freshwater Wetlands Permit? 2.The applicant has taken great pains to avoid the 100 foot wetland buffer at the cost of a plan that is short on practicality. Stormwater basins are located adjacent to a public road, fire access issues are prevalent, pedestrian access is extremely limited, landscaping is devoid in the rear, parking lot landscaping minimal at best, and quality of life issues not incorporated. This plan could be markedly improved with a minimum of disturbance to the 100 foot wetland setback. 3.Light pollution is of a concern in this area as there is a residential neighborhood abutting the office park to the north. Consideration for timers and/or a reduction of overall illuminance should be considered. 4.With the build-out of Baybrook Office Park nearing completion and development commencing for Fairfield Office Park located on the west side of Bay Road traffic mitigation at the intersection with Bay Road may need to be explored. 5.Fire Marshal comments previously attached. 6.Water and Sewer Department comments previously attached. Second Variance Request Protocol: 5/17/11 Provide written recommendation to ZBA 5/18/11 Zoning Board of Appeals review 6//11 PB review Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening Mr. Schermerhorn: Good evening, Rich Schermerhorn, Jonathan Lapper and Tom Nace. I need the height variance because we want to keep in conformance with the peaked roofs and it’s basically just because from the lowest existing grade we have to take our calculations for the height and I believe it’s 5 feet that I need to establish to get the peaked roof and again we took our measurements from the lowest point on the property. I mean if I took it half way in the middle of the property I would probably be fine but it’s just because of the regulations, and one other regulation that changed in September, they changed our stormwater regulations as far as height with height from mottling to ground water. Mr. Lapper: In order to comply with the new DEC we needed that extra separation really to raise it so this just seemed like the right way to go. The neighbors aren’t really going to notice 5 feet, there is nobody nearby. Mr. Schermerhorn: It’s the last lot on the right hand side of my cul-de-sac where I have the existing building now, the Willows, and the building is going to look just like it. There is 9.15 acres and I’m utilizing 1 ¾ acres of it and again I’ll be back to you but I don’t need any variances for relief of lot lines, wetlands or anything. I’m working all within the boundaries, the only thing I need is the height variance. Mr. Krebs: Certainly when we made our visit on Saturday none of us felt that the height differential is going to make any difference. Mr. Traver: We did have a conversation about the fact that it was 3 stories as opposed to two like some of the surrounding buildings but the location I think we decided mitigated that to some degree. It’s set quite aways off from the road. But that was the topic of some discussion. Mr. Krebs: But long term we also talked about the fact that three story buildings are much more efficient from green from maintenance, etc. so it’s a tradeoff. 21 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Schermerhorn: And the building will mirror the Willows that exists there now so landscaping, the maintenance that you see there, the trees, it’s actually going to be part of, we’re going to consider that part of that complex so they can share the facilities back and forth. Mr. Hunsinger: That was going to be my question. I didn’t really even think of it until this evening. Is there any compelling reason to have these as kind of stand along projects, would it make sense to have some kind of interconnect maybe they can share some parking and other features? Mr. Schermerhorn: We thought of that but when you go to the end of the cul-de-sac if you see the way things are kind of configured it’s kind of hard to make them be adjoining and I did think of that. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay. Mrs. Steffan: Talk to us about the parking spaces, staff notes identified that your parking numbers are down from what was approved. Mr. Lapper: What happened was that the Town code changed so we needed a variance because we were trying to get this thing in the ground and get it built. But the variance we asked for we wouldn’t need because the standards had reduced. Mrs. Steffan: Okay. Mr. Oborne: And also the Planning Board has been given the authority to increase or decrease as they see fit. Mr. Lapper: Rich always tries to come to you and build as few parking spaces as he needs on these sites, for seniors especially. Mr. Hunsinger: Well that would be another reason for the two projects to be. Mr. Lapper: Well because if you needed extra parking, there it is next door, it’ll still work that way. Mr. Traver: You mentioned landscaping and I know one of us, several of us commented that it was very well maintained, quite attractive when we were in there, which was quite nice. Mr. Hunsinger: The inside of the cul-de-sac is beautiful. You did a really nice job with that. Mr. Schermerhorn: Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other comments from the Board? I did have some site plan issues to talk about but nothing related to the variance request. Mrs. Steffan: As long as we’re okay on the height piece. Mr. Lapper: We’ll take your site plan comments if you want to tell us to think about anything before we come back to you. Mrs. Steffan: I actually like the staff comments on page SP2 about walking trails, recreation, the sidewalk comment. Of course I’m a fan of sidewalks, most people are not, I get that, but I just thought I would bring it up. Also the snow storage location you’ll probably deal with that anyway. Those are little things, but the walking trails, we talked about some of that on the Gurney Lane project. There are opportunities to do things outside, I’m not sure if you can address that on this plan. I know your setbacks are kind of limited. Mr. Schermerhorn: As far as walking trails I’m fine with that. The only thing I don’t believe I can add is a hard surface, I don’t believe I can add stone because it’s in within the buffer zone to the wetland, but what is popular which is what I have been doing is because pets are such are big part of people’s lives now I would say 50% of the people we rent to now all request to have pets and they’ll actually pay a pet fee and extra rent to be able to have these pets. So what I’ve done to accommodate people is because they all have to do their business we’ll mow mulch trails now, and that’s a perfect location to be able to mow because there is a lot of flat land, well there is 9 acres there and there is about 5 acres of it I can certainly mow trails. Wintertime would be a little more challenging but for a good part of the year I can do that, that’s not a problem. Mr. Krebs: And they do that at the Glen also and I see people out there walking their dogs or just walking themselves. 22 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Schermerhorn: And again a lot of the land isn’t wet lands but as you know Queensbury we have this 100 foot buffer zone from DEC and I guess we could use that land if we request a permit but I’m trying to do things without asking for permits. Mr. Oborne: And I’m trying to conjole the applicant to go into there just for planning issues, quality of life issues. I don’t know if that’s been obvious in my staff notes. Mrs. Steffan: We like that, and let’s face it, especially with the senior population and what’s happening. They are taking walks, their doctors are encouraging them to go out and walk and even when we did our site visits on Saturday folks were walking around and so that’s what they need. Even someone coming back from rehab with a walker and they are walking, doing laps around the parking lot. I mean that’s what they’re recommended to do. If we could make some, add some features to the site plan that will help with that I think that’s great. Mr. Schermerhorn: The complex as you know is kind of large, The Willows now. Even in the winter we do do maintain those parking lots, sand and salt them to keep them open, because they are elderly people and they do walk out in the winter so there is quite bit of walking. If you walk all the sidewalks around in the fire access road behind the building there is quite bit of walking there as it exists now. Mr. Hunsinger: Jon, you said you would take site plan comments too. I had two quick ones I’m not sure the location of the dumpster is the best location? And then I don’t know how else to describe it there is a hook in the parking lot layout on the southeast corner. Mr. Schermerhorn: Originally with Mike Palmer, the Fire Marshal, he sent it to Queensbury Central I think and they had some comments and they just wanted to be able to access with emergency vehicles and that was a request of theirs and we changed that as you’ll see there is a rear entrance out of the back of the building where there is a sidewalk that’s approximately 5 foot, that was a request of theirs and I Mr. Hunsinger: So they did that without question. Mr. Schermerhorn: They wanted to be able to pull a truck up because they don’t want the hoses to exceed more than 300 feet from either corner of the building and they can reach from Willowbrook Road midway in easily but they wanted to be able to pull a truck to the other far end if they ever had to get to the other end. Mr. Nace: Actually it’s part of the new fire code recent revisions to the NYS Fire Codes require a turnaround because of the length of that end access for the fire truck. Mr. Hunsinger: I was just thinking of you know car traffic, why would you put this hook in and have to come around the corner to park when you could just square it off, you’d have this many spaces. Mr. Nace: That’s a T turnaround or a Y turnaround for the truck. Mr. Oborne: You’re certainly compromised, absolutely with the fire issues, they did have some issues and they put the walk in and that seemed to satisfy with the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, any other comments from the board? Any concerns with the significant adverse impacts? Mrs. Steffan: Do we have to do SEQR, it’s a short form? Mr. Hunsinger: Do have to do SEQR before we make a recommendation? Mr. Oborne: Yes it’s a short form. SEQR RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE-SITE PLAN 9-2011 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS RESOLUTION NO. 9-2011 Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, 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, 23 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agencies appear to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved:NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE Mrs. Steffan: Okay I’ll put forth a recommendation from the Planning Board- Planning Board Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals-Area Variance 31-2011 / Site Plan 9-2011 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 49,590 +/- sq. ft. 35 unit 45 foot tall three story senior apartment building. Apartment Complex proposed in an O [Office] zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from the 40 foot maximum height requirement of the office zone. 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 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 The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested 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 ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2011 AND SITE PLAN 9-2011 FOR SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck Mr. Schermerhorn: Thank you. 24 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: Our next item on the agenda is the Tabled items, Site Plan 16-2011 for John Shine & Larry Cleveland. Keith whenever you’re ready. Keith: Staff notes-attached APPLICATION: Site Plan 16-2011 APPLICANT: John Shine / Larry Cleveland REQUESTED ACTION: Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR zone requires Planning Board review / approval LOCATION: 90 Rockhurst Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further review required WARREN CO. PB: 3/9/2011-No County Impact ENGINEERING REVIEW: 3/22/11 Revised information forwarded to Vision Engineering on 4/11/2011 Comments anticipated by 5/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: BOH 3-11 Leach-field setback Approved 2/7/11 SP 60-88: Renovation Approved 1/17/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes removal of existing 538 +/- sq. ft. seasonal camp and construction of a new 1,990 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling with new septic system and stormwater management controls on a 0.21 acres parcel on the east side of Rockhurst Road. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has received approval from the Town Board of Health for a wastewater variance associated with this parcel (previously attached]. Review: Page 49327-1 1.Clarification of the existing septic system plans for decommissioning should be forth coming. Page 49327-2 1.Please clarify purpose of the LOW POINT ELEVATION=338.5 statement located west of proposed front entrance. Complete with removal from plan. 2.What trees, besides the existing species within the proposed footprint of the structure, are to be removed? Care should be exercised to save any existing vegetation and trees on site as per §179-8- 040. Addressed. 3.Shoreline plantings as required per §179-8-020 apply to this project. Plantings to be quantified and qualified from approved list provided in Section 8 of the zoning code. Additional shoreline plantings not proposed. Although additional upland plantings are proposed staff feels this does not meet the intent of the Planning Board’s concerns with regards to the shoreline. Incomplete. Page 49327-3 1.See Vision Engineering comments Additional Comments: 1.Plans for construction waste and staging area should be qualified and located respectively for this project. Addressed and complete. 2.According to the applicant, approximately 70% (6,304 square feet) of the site to be disturbed. It should be noted that no land disturbance is proposed within 30 feet of shoreline. Acknowledged. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2011 JOHN SHINE/LARRY CLEVELAND, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: New comments in bold. 1.Provide decommissioning plans for the existing septic system and laterals. Addressed and complete. 2.So that the applicant can identify on the plan that shoreline buffering within 30 feet of the lake will be undisturbed. Addressed with the notation ‘NO SOIL DISTURBANCE’ in area of concern. 25 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 3.The applicant will submit plans for construction waste and the staging areas so that they are quantified and located respectively for the project. Addressed and complete. 4.That the applicant will address and satisfy VISION Engineering comments of March 22nd and obtain their signoff. See Vision comments. 5.That the applicant will add tree plantings to the northern property line. The trees that they will add will be a larger basal width, minimum of three inches. Complete. 6.The applicant will add an aggressive shoreline buffering plan, in addition to the existing undisturbed area, to compensate for the heavy deforestation of the site. Grass is proposed and/or existing in lieu of buffer plantings; Incomplete. 7.Regarding amending the soils of the rain garden to improve the treatment capabilities of the rain garden, the Planning Board would like VISION Engineering to review this particular issue and comment on whether the soils should be amended. See Vision Engineering. Mr. Oborne: And with that I turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening Mr. Dybas: Curtis Dybas. Mr. Center: Tom Center with Nace Engineering. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have anything you want to add? Mr. Center: I believe, drawing No. 4-493274 addresses the landscaping along the lakefront. It was my understanding when we left the last meeting we were not disturbing anything from the lake to that 30 foot mark leaving the existing buffers there. What we did talk about was trying to thicken up the area as you view from the lake across the deck looking up the parcel which we did add plantings. There are 3 Sweet Gales, 3 Ivy in front of the rain garden along with juniper and other rain garden plantings so we’ve added some viewscape that you’ll see some plantings as you look from the lake toward the house in that area and along that property line the western property line we’ve added 4 arborvitae and 2 yellow birch to replace the trees that we’ll be taking down. So we’ve added some plantings along the area where we talked about at the last meeting in particular landscaping wise that we looking to do. Mr. Hunsinger: Any questions or comments from the Board? Mrs. Steffan: There are a couple of outstanding Vision Engineering comments. Could you address those for us? Mr. Center: In regards to No. 1 I believe we are waiting to hear from the Zoning Administrator as far as the stormwater management, we’ve done the 10 and 25 year, he’s applying the stormwater design manual to a lot that is less than an acre and we feel we’ve met the intent of 147 so we can certainly work that out with the Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Steffan: No. 9 is the next one. Mr. Center: We’ll provide that, the area of disturbance on the drawing, we’ll add that note, No. 25 to show protection provided to the septic system along the road. Mrs. Steffan: Yeah, that is an issue that we all thought about when we did site plan drivearound. There is so little space. Mr. Center: We’re going to have some boulders that we are going to be taking out when they do dig the foundation so we can evenly space one or two, we have to be a little ways off the road but not yet in that swale that we’re taking stormwater from. We can certainly do something with the boulders that is out of way of the plows of the town and also protects the septic system. We’ll find something that works to provide protection and work that out with staff in the field. No. 29 we will relocate the existing water line to maintain the 10 feet of separation. It’ll be done within the disturbance limit that we’re already creating, I think that’s the only issue he is talking about. Mr. Hunsinger: We’ve got a note on another project related to that where he said it doesn’t apply. Do you have the same opinion Keith? Mr. Oborne: My understanding is as far as the suction line goes it’s a pump then it doesn’t matter. That’s per Dave. 26 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Center: Either way we can handle it by moving it out with staff or the building department. It’s in an area, it’s not going to cause any greater disturbance, it’s a one inch poly line, it’s not very large, we can handle relocating it within the disturbance limits, we can get it ten feet away. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay. Mr. Center: And we’ll provide a detail for the stone drip trenches on the plan Mr. Ford: On the plan. Mr. Center: Yes Mr. Hunsinger: Okay. Any other questions comments from the board? Mr. Sipp: You’ve got these gardens here, are they within 100 feet of the shoreline? Mr. Center: Yes sir they are. Mr. Sipp: And they’re considered an infiltration device? Mr. Center: We designed this pond sizing without infiltration. Mr. Sipp: Without infiltration? Mr. Center: We’ve designed it as a storage device, will water filter through the ground, yes. I believe that this is a continuing contention. We are trying to apply green management to these projects. This is a filtering device, providing the organic mulch within it to provide the filtering capacity. It’s also going through a shallow swale, grass swale so that’s going to take out any sediment traveling from above, whether it’s the asphalt or what’s coming across the existing road and then we design it for storage. Mr. Sipp: You’ve got a note a listing here of existing shoreline vegetation, what does that consist of? Mr. Center: There is existing shrubbery, and native plants that are along both sides of the parcel. Mr. Sipp: I think they should be named, there didn’t seem to be that much when I was out there. I think it’s kind of spaced out rather than being covering that area well. I mean you’ve got enough big trees located on the property but I think you need closer to the water you need to space out a lot of what you’ve got in there. As I say when I got there it didn’t seem to be that heavy. Mr. Center: We’re not going to disturb that area. We’re putting silt fence at the no disturbance limit. We’re not creating a new shoreline or doing any dock work. Mr. Sipp: You’ve got a fair slope there and you’ve got enough water coming down through there if those plants are not spaced properly or there are not enough of them. Mr. Center: We’re maintaining the 25 year design storm in the pond and reducing pre-developed rates that currently right now go down a steeper slope and directly into the lake. So we’ve actually taken the path and made it a little longer than it currently goes through, and we’ve taken that slope that was existing on the west side of the house and we’ve softened that slope as part of that, so that area is coming down to the rain garden to the west is actually a gentler slope that is going to be, it’s not eroded now, if it was going to erode it certainly would erode now when it’s steeper and absolutely no controls on it. I was up there this spring and checked it out just to make sure there any issues with stormwater coming off the road just to see if you know, I liked the calculations but I wanted to see what was going on. This spring was a good test and I did not find any of those issues. I actually went up during a rain storm once and you know I’d be more concerned if there was actual erosion, but there was none in that area so I think what we have in designing it for the storage time will be enough Mr. Sipp: I’d just like to have that area named such as you have in the. Mr. Center: I’d have to get a landscape guy out there. As it was I used Jim Miller to do the landscape design. We did denote it as, the surveyor denoted it on the plans as a buffer area and we continued that same delineation as existing, shoreline vegetation to remain. Mr. Oborne: Clarification on the infiltration devices in the 100 feet shoreline. That only applies when an application is deemed a major application, not for minor, this is minor. It has to do with the amount of land 27 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 disturbance you’re dealing with and it has not been deemed a major. So that and there is another caveat, any water coming off the road cannot go into an infiltration device regardless, but in this case there is no water coming off the road and this a minor stormwater management issue. I just wanted to make that clarification. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Mr. Ford: I believe this is a fine improvement and a good plan. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else from the board? Mr. Schonewolf: Is that house still vacant? Mr. Center: Yes Mr. Krebs. As we all know there have been other places they have worked on the lake right next to the water with backhoes, and front loaders, no one ever required site plan review. Mrs. Steffan: We don’t get to hear those. Mr. Hunsinger: We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. It there anyone in the audience that wants to address the board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Mr. Hunsinger: We have one taker. Will you come up to the table please? Ms. Bozony: Kathy Bozony, from the office of the Lake George Waterkeeper. I know this is a project that has gone through changes but I did review the March minutes and they keep reflecting the fact that the site needs to be flattened, that all the vegetation, and the majority of trees need to be removed and I was curious whether there was any thought about creating a single family dwelling to conforms to the existing 0.21 acre site leaving the existing vegetation in place. I know there was, one of the board members that spoke about it quite a bit, about building the house where the current clearing is already existing, low impact development on this site would have helped create a much different project. Again this is kind of after the fact but I had to say that. I had to say it because we have to start looking at these low impact projects that can make a better project. This is a large house for this small site. Over 70% of the property is being disturbed and you know we’re removing all the large trees on this property with the exception of just a couple and we’re replacing it with 2 yellow birches, and I love yellow birches, and a couple of arborvitaes. That’s it on this property. You know, the rain gardens have 6 of the shrubs, the holly, the winterberry and then just irises and very very short little short junipers. More substantial vegetation with a varied root depth would be really good for these rain gardens. Again the amended soils are potentially to slow down the infiltration and to create better microbial action. Vegetation is all about nutrient removal. We certainly we need as much as we can in this lake. One of the things that is good and bad is the fact there is no disturbing within 30 feet of the shoreline but when I looked at the site plan it looks like most of the shoreline buffer at least the way it’s drawn is about 4 feet wide. The southeast corner has a little bit more depth, honestly I don’t know this site, I have not been to it, but it’s a very small buffer. I don’t want to see the shoreline disturbed and clearing down there but there is no reason why as Mr. Sipp said more vegetation can’t be popped in all around that whole shoreline around that dock and the deck area. One of the things about limits of clearing is that for a while we were asking board to require orange snow fences and we kind of got away from it the past year and all of the sudden we keep seeing these projects that have all this excessive clearing and equipment riding over areas whether they are onsite wastewater treatment existing or future or any area that we want stormwater management to work properly so I don’t know is this site being the size it is, the amount of construction on it, the amount of clearing on it is appropriate but it is certainly worth a thought. You put some orange snow fences around and bulldozers don’t drive into them, it really blocks all kinds of equipment riding on the property. I guess that’s it. I guess I would like to see more amended soils in these rain gardens to get a little bit better infiltration and uptake, more vegetation, more substantial vegetation on the property. Again we’re taking down, and I just looked at the minutes and it was this big tree and this big tree that we all talked about in March and we’re not replacing any of those. This is one of those sites on Rockhurst that happens to have some vegetation and now we’re allowing it to be clear cut and it’s not the fault of the applicant but it would be great to see less disturbance than what’s already being proposed at this point. Thank you very much. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Hunsinger: Any written comments Keith? Is the board feeling that we have enough information to move forward? 28 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Ford: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: People comfortable closing the public hearing? Mr. Ford: Yes Mr. Hunsinger: Okay I’ll close the public hearing. It’s a Type II SEQR so no further SEQR review is required. Mrs. Steffan: So how do we feel about the buffering? Mr. Schonewolf: Well it’s there and I think if you want to add something to it, find. Mr. Krebs: But the problem though is that you get down next to the water and disturb that 30 feet that’s been reserved, it says right in our ordinance not to remove natural vegetation that is already there if you don’t have to so I think that gives you much more potential to polluting the lake than just leaving it as it is. Mrs. Steffan: But do we leave what’s there and add a little more? Because it was kind of scruffy. We don’t know what it is. Mr. Schonewolf: This time of year it is scruffy. Mr. Sipp: I think that’s my concern that we have more buffer there. Mr. Ford: I’m satisfied with it the way it’s proposed. Mr. Schonewolf: I am too; it’s a big improvement over what we’ve got there now. Mr. Traver: It is an improvement and they are not disturbing that shoreline area, it would be nice to have more there, no question. But if it’s not disturbed over time there will be more there and I question the wisdom of disturbing it in order to add more so it’s 6 of one ½ dozen of the other I guess. Mr. Hunsinger: Would anyone like to offer a motion? We do have a couple of outstanding engineering issues. Mrs. Steffan: We do need a Zoning Administrator determination on that one issue. Keith is it your opinion that Item 1 if we did a conditional approval that that could be worked out if we added a conditional approval that we needed an engineering sign-off before the sign-off could happen the Zoning Administrator would have to make a decision before Vision could sign-off. Mr. Oborne: Well I think if the Planning Board feels that this is minor stormwater issue we can move forward. I think that he would take direction from this board if you feel that way. He has not issued a proclamation by the simple fact that during the agenda building process and our review prior to putting it on the agenda for completion and for peer review that issue did not come up. He’s typically pretty adamant about forcing a major but I’m certain you can get a determination from him either way. If he says it’s major it’s coming back. How’s that for going in circles? I’m placing squarely in your lap. Mr. Hunsinger: You’re right though because if it’s major then they’ll have to amend the site plan. Mr. Ford: But he’s reviewed it and based upon that he is not. Mr. Oborne: Based on my knowledge of the process he did not state this by omission that it is not a major. And I think that in my opinion you table this approve this with the condition that he satisfy engineering notes that point will get satisfied at one point or another. Mr. Ford: Good, let’s proceed. Mr. Hunsinger: And if something changes they’ve got to come back, but that’s the risk they take. I think we can just do it with the condition on satisfying any engineering unless there was anything in staff notes we went them to address to. Mrs. Steffan: Well it was just the buffering, both comment 3 & 6 were related to shoreline plantings being proposed and then the shoreline buffering which was a condition that was not satisfied so those are both related in my mind. And if the PB doesn’t feel like we need to add it. It appears that the rest of the PB doesn’t feel we need to fortify the buffering. Mr. Oborne: Tom what is the approximate disturbance, I know it’s under 15,000 but. 29 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Center: It’s only 9,000 square foot lot, I believe it’s less than 7,000 square feet of disturbance. Because the area from the pond, from the rain gardens to the lake is 2500. Mr.Oborne: Just to let the board know it doesn’t have to be 15,000 sq. ft. it can be 7.000 sq. ft. and there’s other outstanding attributes on the site such as slopes, erodible soils, ledge, etc. Mr. Center: We have at the 10 & 25 LGPC criteria by the stormwater permit also so I think the issue is in regards NYS DEC stormwater design manual as opposed to LGPC which is what we’ve met. Mrs. Steffan: What about denoting the limits of clearing and orange fencing? Mr. Hunsinger: It’s not a bad idea really, it wouldn’t hurt anything. Mrs. Steffan: Well actually that’s right in the motion, the limits of clearing will constitute a no cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these items and field verified by Community Development. Mrs. Steffan: Motion to approve-see below. Resolution to Approve Site Plan 16-2011 John Shine / Larry Cleveland A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of existing 538 +/- sq. ft. camp and construction of a new 1,990 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling with new septic system and stormwater management controls. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011 tabled to 5/17/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2011 JOHN SHINE / LARRY CLEVELAND, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 9)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 10)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 11)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 12)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 13)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 14)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 15)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 16)This is approved with the following condition: The applicant will satisfy engineering comments and obtain an engineering sign-off; and th Duly adopted this 17 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None 30 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 ABSTAIN: Mr. Sipp Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set. Our next item is Site Plan 20-2011 Lawrence Unrein. Keith Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes below APPLICATION: Site Plan 20-2011 APPLICANT: Lawrence Unrein REQUESTED ACTION: Replacement of retaining wall along the shoreline and Hard Surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval LOCATION: 37 Mason Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further review required WARREN CO. PB: 3/9/2011 No County Impact ENGINEERING REVIEW: 3/23/2011 Revised information forwarded to Vision Engineering on 4/20/11 Comments anticipated by 5/13/2011 for 5/17/11 meeting PARCEL HISTORY: BP 2010-465 Boathouse/dock redecking 1/14/2011 SP 5-90 Interior reconfiguration Approved 1/16/90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to remove existing hard surfacing (patio, retaining walls and walkways) along the shoreline and replace with permeable surfacing, plantings and new upland retaining walls. Additional work described below. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has stated that site permeability will be increased from the existing 46% to a proposed 76% or a 3,523 square foot increase. The replacement of hard surfacing is also proposed for the upland portions of the property outside of the 50 foot setback and includes permeable paver installation on the asphalt driveway and parking area’s after the wastewater upgrade is complete. A phased approach to the project has been offered with work adjacent to the shoreline and inland to commence in the spring and wastewater upgrade with driveway conversion to permeable pavers on a yet to be determined time frame. Review: Application: 1.No immediate issues. Page S-1 Survey 1.No immediate issues. Page S-2 1.See Vision Engineering comments. Page S-3 1.Staff recommends the proposed permeable paver patio adjacent to the shoreline be pitched slightly to the east away from the shoreline as an additional stormwater control. Addressed and complete. 2.Any disturbance will need to be stabilized as soon as practicable due to the project location relative to the shoreline. Addressed and complete. Page S-4 1.See Vision Engineering comments. Additional Comments: 1.The applicant has requested waiver for grading, formal stormwater plan, and lighting. 2.The Planning Board may wish to discuss timeframes for all phases of the proposed project. Addressed during March meeting. 3.The proposal calls for no changes to existing structures. Existing FAR= 34%. 4.Please confirm if weep holes are necessary to relieve water buildup behind retaining walls; place in design if necessary. Addressed and complete. 5.Although the applicant states that site permeability will increase from 46% to 76% with the introduction of permeable materials this claim must be substantiated by industry data and vetted by 31 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 the town engineer. Simply adding permeable pavers is not an even or 1 to 1 exchange from an impermeable condition. Note: The use of permeable materials on-site is advocated by the town and should not be dissuaded. Acknowledged by applicant. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2011 LAWRENCE UNREIN , Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: We’re going to table this to the May 17th Planning Board meeting. So that the applicant can meet the following conditions (new comments in bold): 1. That the applicant will address the VISION Engineering comments, comment letter of March 23rd. See attached Vision Engineering comments. 2. So that the applicant can address the open items in Staff Notes. See above comments. 3. So that the applicant can ensure that all pavers used in the project will be permeable pavers. Complete. 4. That the applicant will have the opportunity to modify the landscaping plan to eliminate invasive species and to fortify the plan with additional plants. Complete. 5. The applicant will denote on the plan that the use of fertilizers on this property will be prohibited. Complete. Mr. Oborne: with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. Mr. Baker: Mike Baker, Baker Landscaping and I’m here to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll take questions or comments from the board. Mr. Sipp: Are these permeable pavers considered an infiltration device? Mr. Oborne: They would be considered an infiltration device. Let me back up from that We haven’t got a determination on that and I can’t make that determination but from my point of view it’s not a device per say. It could be considered a system but I’m not an engineer so I really can’t answer that question. That is a fabulous question that needs to be clarified. We getting permeable pavement now, we’re getting permeable situations going on. Mr. Sipp: If water is going to go through it then it’s seem by definition. Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree, is it infiltration or filtration, there are differences, keep in mind this a minor stormwater. Mr. Sipp: They’re not filtering anything they’re just letting the water go through. If the item is bigger than the hole yes Mr. Traver: But they’re either replacing soil which is obviously permeable or they’re replacing the hard surface which produces stomwater I don’t know how they can considered a device. Mr. Oborne: I agree, I don’t think they’re a device, that’s not for me to state. Mr. Krebs: And certainly they’re better that a slab of concrete that’s draining into the lake. Mr. Traver: With the pipe going through the concrete right out into the lake. Mr. Krebs: The pipe going into the lake but it’s also drains over the electrical lines. Mr. Sipp: I think you have to worry here about setting a precedent, is everybody going to rip up the shoreline putting in pavers and calling them, if you take that concrete out of there maybe the pavers are better ormaybe they’re not depending on how much water that can hold. Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree. In this case the applicant has not busted the permeability has not increased the non-compliant permeability that’s on the site too, so the fact it could be argued he is increasing the permeability. Mrs. Steffan: Yeah, I don’t know, you know every site plan is different. In this particular application there is a lot of blacktop and the walkway from the blacktop patio that goes down to the boathouse that’s blacktop so I’m sure if there was water running off that it would coming down there like a waterfall and then it goes on to a concrete slab. It’s all going into the lake, at high velocity I’m assuming and so I think the permeable pavers 32 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 are a good idea on this particular site so I don’t think it’s precedent setting, it’s kind of like the issue of the site plan that we just dealt with in that we didn’t require them to put in a shoreline buffer but in other cases we do. Every site plan is different. Mr. Schonewolf: We’d like to have those pavers up in Assembly Point. Mr. Oborne: I’m sure he’d be happy to install them for you. Mr. Baker: Give me a call. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions or comments from the Board? One of the questions that I had and you may or may not know the answer the boathouse that is under construction and there is an awful lot of electricity going in there and I can’t imagine that we approved that. Mr. Baker: I don’t know anything about that. Mr. Hunsinger: I’m directing it more at staff than anyone else. Mr. Oborne: That’s a building & codes issue sir, my understanding is that they are not replacing the piers and they are not replacing the cribs, they are replacing the planking and as such the determination has been made that that is not a replacement of the boathouse. I was out there before too and they were. Mr. Hunsinger: You saw the wiring. Mr. Oborne: Oh yeah Mr. Hunsinger: There’s probably 20 soffit lights involved and there is more wiring going up to the deck Mr. Traver: They are CFL’s though, so there are mercury as well. Mr. Oborne: It’s a vapor so it’s not. Mr. Hunsinger: We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who want to address this project. We do have one taker, if you’ll go up to the table please. Ms. Bozony: Kathy Bozony, office of the Lake George Waterkeeper. I did put in a letter as well. I’m not going to go through the whole thing. What I did want to do was recognize this applicant that they have demonstrated a commitment to good property stewardship and this should be the goal of all residents within the Lake George watershed. And one of the things they’ve done is that they’ve expanded their shoreline buffer, they’ve put some rain gardens in in strategic locations, I don’t know if the board wants to talk about any stormwater on main dwelling or not or if you are comfortable with that again this is a resurfacing of an existing parcel, taking out the asphalt putting in all permeable pavers throughout and good quality pavers that actually should work very well on this site. They are not disturbing the site, they are leaving all existing vegetation on the shoreline and going well beyond the large trees there and supplementing it with all kinds of needed vegetation which is a great thing. I just wanted to bring to the attention it was the applicant that is making this initiative but the onsite wastewater treatment system will be replaced test pits will be verified depth to groundwater and that I would like that to be a condition of this resurfacing and all this renovation to this property based on the number of bedrooms that are on site. One other thing that is on the plans which is something, it is the first that I’ve seen actually seen it this way, it’s noted right on the plan, 4-15-2011, the use of fertilizers and pesticides on lawn and garden area will be prohibited and this is a wonderful thing, because our lake cannot take any more of these chemicals that are going into it. So in conclusion the Lake George Waterkeeper is pleased that the applicant has modified the site plan to better address the shoreline protection and water quality by enforcing the shoreline buffer adding rain gardens utilizing permeable pavers on the entire site and constructing a compliant onsite wastewater treatment system. I’m hoping to use this as a great example for other people on the lake of what they can do to improve and we need to restore our water quality. Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Mr. Krebs: Restore and protect our existing water quality. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other comments from the public? Any written comments Keith? Does the board feel comfortable moving forward? We’ll close the public hearing, it’s a Type II SEQR. Are there any conditions we need to consider? 33 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mrs. Stefffan: Do we want to put any conditions about a compliant wastewater system? They would have get a permit to do that. Mr. Oborne: They’d have to get a permit through building and codes for that Mrs. Steffan: They would look at the bedrooms and they would have to the right size. Mr. Oborne: The applicant is on record that they are going to replace that wastewater system. I don’t think the board can force them to do that obviously they are not doing any expansion or anything along those lines. So I don’t how much teeth any of that would really have anyway to be honest with you. 75A is totally governed by Building & Codes. Mrs. Steffan: We have waiver requests for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting. I don’t see where they’ve asked for a landscaping waiver. Mr. Oborne: They are proposing landscaping, there is no waiver for that. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s why we were asking the question. It must have carried over from another one. Mrs. Steffan: I read these. Mr. Oborne: I’m not used to that. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to approve –see below RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 20-2011 LAWRENCE UNREIN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to remove existing hard surfacing [patio, retaining walls and walkways] along the shoreline and replace with permeable surfacing, plantings and new retaining walls. Replacement of an upland retaining wall and Hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/24/11 tabled to 5/17/11; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2011 LAWRENCE UNREIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)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 2)Type II, no further action necessary; and 3)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 4)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 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, & lighting plans; and 6)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 7)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 8)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 Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: 34 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set. Good luck. Our next item is Site Plan 53-2007 Modification for Provident Batavia, LLC. Keith whenever you’re ready to summarize staff notes. Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes APPLICATION: Site Plan 53-2007 Modification APPLICANT: Provident Batavia, LLC REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan Review for Major Stormwater Project LOCATION: 67 Knox Road EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted WARREN CO. PB: 1/12/2011-No action [meeting cancelled due to weather conditions] ENGINEERING REVIEW: 2/7/2011; 4/22/2011 Hand delivered to Vision Engineering on 4/26/11 Comments anticipated by 5/13/2011 for 5/17/11 meeting PARCEL HISTORY: NOA 4-09 Glandon Upheld appellant 11/28/09 NOA 11-07 Glandon Upheld appellant 5/21/08 BP 2006-271 SFD Issued 10/25/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by removing top floor living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access for neighboring parcel to the north. Further, site modifications to existing conditions proposed. This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; Planning Board review and approval is required. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted plans to reduce the height of the house. The ZBA resolution states the height of the house is measured from “the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site coverage by the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the highest point of the structure” (resolution previously attached). The applicant has revised the plans to now include a house no taller than 28 feet as measured from natural or cut grade. According to the applicant, further modifications include the removal of the entire top floor to include the living space over the garage. Additionally, changes to include the removal of the existing 9 foot wing walls to the north and south as well as proposed upgraded stormwater control measures. The applicant further proposes to install a retaining wall along the eastern portion of the proposed driveway in order to better site the proposed wastewater system. Staff visited the site on May 5, 2011. The shoreline and adjacent portions of the lot appear to have vegetative stabilization measures in place. One note of concern is the installed fabric erosion mats located on the slope parallel to the garage; they appear to have failed as witnessed during the December 2010 visit as well as the May 5, 2011 visit. Note: It is in this location that a proposed retaining wall is slated to be built and if approved it would appear to alleviate this concern. Site Plan Review (New comments in bold) Pages FAR, A-0 through A-5 1.No immediate issues Page A-6 1.Page Missing, please clarify. Addressed and complete. Page A-7 1.No immediate issues Page S-1, SB-1,SU-2, IP Pre 1.No immediate issues Page IP Post 35 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 1.Calculations concerning the permeability on the site should be updated to include changes to the driveway, retaining walls and rock steps not included. Impermeable surfaces cannot exceed 25% or 4,683 square feet in total. Currently the proposal calls for a permeability of 22.04% or 4,129 square feet. The Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval for final submittal. Complete. 2.Any work proposed in the Town of Queensbury R.O.W. on Knox Road will need to be reviewed and approved by the Highway Superintendent or delegated representative. Not addressed. 3.Location of previous wastewater system should be ascertained for environmental purposes. Plans do not show location and as such what, if any, remediation and/or decommissioning took place? Complete. Page DA-1 through SP3-A 1.No immediate issues Page SP-4 through WS-2 1.No immediate issues Additional comments: 1.Please see attached Vision Engineering comments. 2.Please see attached Dave Hatin e-mail correspondence concerning wastewater. 3.Additional shoreline plantings have been proposed, see page SP-4. 4.Any work proposed in the Town of Queensbury R.O.W. on Knox Road will need to be reviewed and approved by the Highway Superintendent or delegated representative. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 MODIFICATION TO PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This is tabled to the May 17 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials, the deadline for that thnd would be Friday, April 29. The applicant does have in hand a response to VISION Engineering’s April 22 letter, which they will submit to Keith in the Community Development Department. We are tabling this so that the applicant can satisfy VISION Engineering comments and obtain a signoff. We request that a th representative from VISION Engineering will be present at that Planning Board meeting on May 17 to represent the Town on this application. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford Mr. Oborne: And with that I’ll turn it over to the board Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening Ms. Buettner: Good evening, Karla Buettner from Bartlett Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes. I’m here with Nick Lafountain from Provident Development and Ed Espsito from Monarch Design. I echo everything Keith said and I’m happy to report we have a sign-off from Vision Engineering. We’re not going to go through the history with you folks, you’re well aware of it. Any questions you have we’re happy to respond otherwise whatever you’d like. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay thank you. Mr. Schonewolf: I asked it last time I still can’t tell from that drawing maybe because I can’t read drawings very, that driveway when it comes out does that exit on Knox Road or does it exit on the private driveway that goes around the bend there? Mr. Buettner: You did ask last time and it does exit onto Knox Road. Mr. Schonewolf: It doesn’t look that way on the drawing, Knox Road is here and the driveway it looks like it comes out there. But I understand, that’s what I thought. Because otherwise you’d have to get permission from the landowner to exit there. That would be a hassle. Ms. Buettner: That’s right, we’re trying to avoid all hassles at this point. Mr. Schonewolf: I don’t know why. 36 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mrs. Steffan: Now Keith on your additional comments any work proposed in the Town ROW on Knox Road will need to be reviewed and approved by the Highway superintendent or a delegated representative. Does that need to be a condition? Mr. Oborne: I think so, yes. Mr. Schonewolf: Yes because just from what I just said. Mr. Oborne: It’s a road by use. Mr. Schonewolf: It’s a road by use yes but it also at a point it stops and becomes Dennis MacElroy’s road and that’s an issue. Mr. Oborne: That’s farther down though. Ms. Buettner: It’s not in front of where they are coming out. Mr. Schonewolf: Because then you’d need permission to get emergency vehicles over it. Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the Board? Mr. Schonewolf: Not after 5 years. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, no kidding. Ms. Buettner: I was going to say I’m having another kid but it’s not happening. Mr. Hunsinger: If there are no more comments from the board we do have a public hearing scheduled. If there anyone who wants to address the board on this project? There are no takers. Any written comments that haven’t been previously read? Okay. Is the board comfortable moving forward? Then I will close the public hearing. It’s an Unlisted SEQR. Mr. Hunsinger: Why would this be Unlisted and all the others Type II. Mrs. Steffan: Because it’s a major project because of all the things that happened with the stormwater over time. Mr. Hunsinger: Unlisted is a long form, I wanted to make sure that’s what they submitted. Mrs. Steffan: This has been before the Planning Board almost as long as I’ve been on the Planning Board. Mr. Hunsinger: Actually, they submitted a short form. Mr. Oborne: Short form is fine, That’s okay this is something as staff that I would like you to do based on the nature of the project. With that said you have gone forward on the first point and you said there is going to be a change but it is going to mitigated by site plan review so What’s the question? I’m sorry. Mr. Hunsinger: We started a long form, they had submitted a short form. Mr. Oborne: Short’s fine. Mrs. Steffan: Let’s start the short form. SEQR RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC RESOLUTION NO. 53-2007 Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, 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 agencies appear to be involved. 37 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 2. The following agencies are involved:NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp Mr. Hunsinger: I think there is just the one condition. Mrs. Steffan: And so we are granting a waiver for lighting? Mr. Traver: Yes. Mrs. Steffan: Okay I’ll make a motion-see below RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes nd to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by removing 2 floor living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access for neighboring parcel to the north. This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; Planning Board review and approval is required; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/25/2011, 3/15/2011, 4/19/11, 4/26/11 tabled to 5/17/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)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 2)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 3)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 4)All outstanding engineering fees to date [Inv. 2-2011, 12-2011, 16-2011 = $1661.55] are to be paid prior to the Stop Work Order being lifted; and 5)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 38 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 6)Waiver request granted: lighting plans; and 7)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 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator-see letter dated May 16, 2011; and 9)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 10)This is approved with the following condition: that any work proposed in the Town of Queensbury Right Of Way on Knox Road will need to be reviewed and approved by the Highway Superintendent or delegated representative. Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp Mr. Hunsinger: Good luck. Our next item under new business is Site Plan 34-2010 East Slope Holding Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes APPLICATION: Site Plan 34-2011 APPLICANT: East Slope Holdings, LP REQUESTED ACTION: Proposed Amusement Center uses in the RC zone require Planning Board review / approval LOCATION: 59 West Mountain Road EXISTING ZONING: RC-Recreation Commercial SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted WARREN CO. PB: 5/11/2011 ENGINEERING REVIEW: 5/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 22-08 Additions totaling 2,000 sq. ft. to the main ski lodge and 1,230 sq. ft. new open deck. 6/17/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes the addition of a year round gravity propelled “Alpine Slide” and “Zip-Flyer” to the existing West Mountain facilities. Proposed Amusement Center uses in the RC zone require Planning Board review and approval. STAFF COMMENTS: Total ground disturbance for both the coaster and zip-flyer is approximately 1.28 acres. Soils are varied and for most areas proposed for disturbance slopes range from 15% to 40% (E slopes). It is these locations that care should be taken to stabilize the soil during both development and post development. The applicant has provided a Storm Water Pollution Preventative Plan (SWPPP) as well as a corresponding Erosion and Sedimentation plan. The Alpine Slide portion of the project is located on the southern portion of the Ski Area beginning at the 770 ft elevation and terminating at the 435 ft. elevation. The ride is gravity driven from the top with a mechanical pulley apparatus (drive terminals) moving the loaded coaster upslope from the cart storage area to the landing at the top elevation. Total down slope track length is 2,850 feet with an elevation drop of approximately 330 feet. Total proposed tree removal for the project is just shy of 1 acre (39,050 sq. ft.); total land disturbance, including stump removal and grading associated with the placement of the track supports is 0.66 acres (26,170 sq. ft.). The Zip-Flyer portion of the project is located to the north of the parcel beginning at the 1,366 ft elevation and terminating at the 488 foot elevation. This ride is also gravity induced from the top and is accessed by existing chairlift, trail and finally up 57 feet to the platform take-off assembly. Total length of the ride is just 39 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 over 3,300 feet with an elevation drop of approximately 900 feet. Total proposed tree removal for the project is 1.3 acres (56,570 sq. ft.) with total disturbance, including stump removal and platform placement approaching 0.62 acres (27,050 sq. ft.). Review: 1.As mentioned under staff notes, both projects are located within soils situated upon steep slopes. Extreme care and planning to reduce soil erosion must be incorporated. Any proposed road improvement to access these projects should be quantified and qualified to include type of practice to be employed to reduce soil erosion both during and post construction. 2.To promote a terraced effect for vegetative stabilization, to include hydro-seeding and/or RECM, any slope compaction to be performed by tracked equipment should be perpendicular to the slope and not parallel to slope. Please note on plan if required. 3.Page C-2 appears to show a break in the track at station 23+00. Please clarify purpose of break. 4.Any additional lighting associated with the loading and unloading areas of the rides should be discussed. If proposed, lighting must be compliant with §179-6-020. Additional comments: 1.Existing parking exceeds required parking by 292 spaces; 753 spaces available, 461 required. 2.Patron safety issues are under the auspices of the Department of Labor according to the Fire Marshal’s office. 3.Lighting as proposed for the alpine slide has illuminance calculations between 2.4 and 4.7 footcandles. Please note that there are no particular guidelines for thrill ride uses Mr. Oborne: With that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening everyone. Mr. Lapper: For the record Jonathan Lapper with Mike Barbone with East Slope Holdings, and Mark Tabor from the LA Group, a landscape architect. Let me give you the broad overview and then Mark can walk you through the site plan and Mike can answer all sorts of questions. I think all of us as residents of the town view West Mountain as a community resource. Certainly in the winter so many families use it the problem is in the summer it sits there pretty much empty they’re have been you know mountain biking, some minor uses over time but Mike has to pay for it all year long and this project is what we hope you will see as fairly minor impact but a way to be a destination for people who come to Lake George in the summer, tourists for people who fill up the motels and hotels and a project that requires very little additional infrastructure because the parking lot is there, Mike just did the renovation to the lodge and that’s there just sitting there all summer long, bathroom facilities, everything that you need is there and both of the rides, because they are gravity driven there are really low impact. This isn’t like putting the Great Escape on West Mountain, these are somewhat eco- friendly rides because it’s really just you sitting there with gravity and they are very popular at other ski mountains, some of the one in Vermont have it, more on the west coast. I’ve seen literature on Alaska where they’ve done this, but West Mountain works really well because the land where this is going it’s already been used for skiing this was just a way the engineers came up with to fit this in without much more disturbance and utilize those existing facilities. With that let me ask Mark to walk you through it and we’ll take all your questions. Mr. Tabor: Thanks Jon. The plan is a little smaller size on the screen, what I’d like to do is generally is to give you strategy, there is nothing up on the screen that is not included in the documentation you have before you what I would like to do it specifically go through our strategy in terms of how the rides themselves relate to proposed tree clearing, and touch slightly on erosion and sediment control. It’s essentially with the project specifically, well with both projects we are utilizing the ski areas that are already cleared. For the Zip Flyer we are running it parallel to an existing ski trail essentially right on the edge, there is some limited clearing associated with that towards the top, there is kind of an area where the vegetation kind of bumps out, we’ll need to do some clearing with but for the most part it follows the existing corridor of the ski trail. South side on the plan where this super coaster is proposed half of the super coaster is proposed where the existing tubing hill is located which is already cleared with trees. Then the upper portion itself there will be some limited clearing associated with it which I’ll get into in a little more detail. For a technical standpoint the Zipflyer to the north essentially is a pretty straightforward simple structure, a tower at the top, a tower at the bottom and a suspended cable that runs between the two. You ride the existing triple chair up, you walk from the top of the triple chair terminal to the loading tower, climb up to the top of the tower get in a chair you are essentially propelled via gravity down the mountain to the bottom. The width of the clearing in the areas that need to get cleared is about 40 feet. And because the ride itself is suspended above the ground, the cable itself, there is not a significant amount of earthwork or soil disturbance. What we propose to do is cut the trees using chain saws so on and so forth, leave the stumps in place so we can keep intact as much of the soil as possible. Limit the soil disturbance and only take the stumps out in the areas where we are doing the foundations for the tower at the top. So with that strategy we are able to keep our soil disturbance down and 40 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 that’s true in both areas. The lower tower here for Zipflyer will terminate in the existing parking lot that is right adjacent to the triple chair terminal essentially it’s not going to take up any space in the parking lot, it essentially comes right down to the edge of the parking lot which is obviously already cleared. On the south side of the super coaster it’s like I said it’s a similar concept the clearing that’s required for the track itself is very minimal and there’s some pictures in your documents because I know these are unique rides to help you get a feel for exactly the kind of disturbance that goes along with these rides. But essentially the track itself in most cases requires only 12 feet wide in clearing, the track itself is suspended or supported by these telescoping structures that essentially have pads on the feet and they sit right on the ground and our pinned to the ground with spikes or solid rebar depending on your soil conditions. That means no footings, and again, limits the soil disturbance. What that allows them to do then is to leave tree stumps in place for most part and only require the removal of stumps and soil disturbance in the areas where they’re doing a little more or significant engineering for the ride. That happens in essentially in two places. There are two areas where there is a 360 in the ride. Where that happens they put in a concrete foundations which would be similar to a light pole foundation and that helps support the ride. In those locations clearly because of the footing installation there will be soil disturbance and so that’s where the stumps will be removed. Those two 360’s one occurs in the on the upper portion that is currently vegetated and one occurs at the bottom in the existing clearing just as it comes out of the woods, so even though there is only two 360’s primarily most of the soil disturbance is associated with the one. The other things associated with the super coaster there is a cart storage barn, 20 x 40 barn at the bottom where the carts are stored overnight and there is also a deck similar to the one that’s built out there, it’s an open deck, it’s similar to a residential deck that serves as a loading platform for people to cue up and wait for the ride on. So we were actually quite pleased when we became more familiar with the rides and the construction level, the level of construction required again it allows us to protect the integrity of a lot of existing canopy and also minimize our soil disturbance and that speaks to obviously to the next area which is sediment and erosion control. The total disturbance again soil disturbance on the site is 1.2 acres that kicks us over the 1 acre threshold and requires a SWPPP to be filed with DEC. It is our opinion that the SWPPP requires only erosion and sediment control practices and no post construction stormwater management is required. I know there is a comment letter from the engineer and I’ve actually had some discussions with him this afternoon to clarify a couple of points and I think we can work through a lot of that with him. I think it’s us primarily it’s us providing him with a little bit more information on exactly what are assumptions are and how this whole thing works. Again it’s a unique scenario you know this ride here. So for erosion and sediment control because there is a SWPPP and to be honest even if there wasn’t standard practices which include a silt fence, Mr. Barbone here clearly does a lot of maintenance already and because the facilities are located within the context and within the structure of the existing ski area there are a lot of existing maintenance access roads that are already used to maintain the chairlifts that are directly adjacent so all of our construction access will come directly off of these roads. Any construction access that we have we will be installing water bars so on and so forth, silt fence as I mentioned, areas where there is soil disturbance will be re-vegetated, some of the steeper area will be re-vegetated with hydro seed and attack fire agents to make sure slopes hold and that everything is stabilized as soon as possible. In addition to that as part of the construction the trees that will have to be taken down and cut will be chipped and those chips will be used which is something DEC likes to see again for further stabilization so that when they cut an area take some trees down they can chip those trees or the brush immediately, spray it right back on to the site as they come out and essentially immediately stabilize the site as much as possible. There are a couple of seasonal drainages on site that we saw and we were very diligent and thorough in looking at them. They are protected during construction, there are temporary crossings that we employ on many of our projects throughout the Adirondacks and on sites that have way more sensitivity than this one does. And essentially it mandates that these during construction these seasonal drainages will be crossed with absolutely no impact whatsoever to bed and banks. There is a detail on the plans that further specifies additional silt fence and additional orange snow fence as protection to make sure these areas are protected. So that generally was our approach with regards to tree clearing and sediment and erosion control. And I guess I’d like to take any of your questions that you might have. Mr. Hunsinger: Questions comments from the Board? Mr. Ford: How close at its closest point will this be to any winter ski area? Mr. Barbone: To a ski trail. The Zipline you’ll be skiing underneath it. The super coaster you won’t be near it because there will be a tree buffer along the north side of the super coaster. Mr. Tabor: Specifically to answer your question there is for the zipline it literally, there is an existing ski trail the chairlift is on the left hand side of the ski trail if you’re looking up the mountain and the zipline runs right along the edge of the ski trail, so where the ski trail ends and the tree canopy starts that’s where we’ve located it and it follows that edge about ¾ of the way up. At the top the trail itself narrows down, it kind of bottlenecks and we’re clearing a swath right through that, that’s for the zipflyer. For the Alpine Coaster there is an adjacent ski trail and we were able to preserve, we want to preserve, we have about 15 feet of 41 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 vegetation that we’re preserving between where the super coaster comes up where people sit in the cart and are towed up the slope then we have 15 feet of vegetation and then the existing ski slope is right there. Mr. Lapper: So a 15 foot buffer. Mr. Hunsinger: So you don’t lose any of your ski trails but what you’re proposing? That was going to be my question too. Mr. Krebs: You just can’t use them in the summertime. Mr. Barbone: The only thing we eliminate is the one side of the tubing park which we won’t be making snow at all. Mr. Lapper: Tom was probably asking you if you were going to have a conflict with skiers skiing into the ride. Mr. Ford: Safety issue. Mr. Hunsinger: Right. Mr. Barbone: I think the state will pick that up. Mr. Lapper: But the 15 foot buffer on the one that’s on the ground and the other one is above ground. The other one is suspended, yeah. Mr. Ford: Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: This picture here which it’s labeled the Alpine Super Coaster imagery, I mean it looks like an existing super coaster, where is that? Mr. Tabor: I believe it’s New Hampshire, and it was great, they had just installed it I believe last year and it was perfect we were really able to get a feel for the type of construction. Mr. Barbone: They just put another one up at Okemo Mountain, that opened up at Christmas time. Mr. Hunsinger: How do you get the cars up the hill? Mr. Tabor: They are essentially towed via cable, so the side that is closest that goes straight someone would cue up on the deck they would get into the cart itself and then they will be towed essentially it that car is towed via a cable pulley system up a track to the top just like you would be towed up a roller coaster, it’s kind of the best analogy. Then once you get to the top you know you are clicked off and then you start your way down. Mr. Hunsinger: So what kind of a noise impact would there be? Mr. Tabor: The pulley system is extremely quiet there is no, it’s a small what was it a 30 horse motor and the only real noise since it’s a gravity operated ride is they have a little clicking sound that you hear when they come down because there is the little teeny gap in the track the wheels, you’ll hear them clicking every once in awhile and you know the vendors told that all you’ll hear is screaming of enjoyment and everything else that kids screaming in fear coming down but other than that it’s kind of quiet clicking sound coming down. Mr. Krebs: It could be a little funny, when I first looked at his picture this afternoon when I was reviewing this I thought maybe that Mike had designed this perfectly because it looked like this went right back around right back to the lodge right next to the bar I figured you know. Mr. Oborne: That might be an add on later on. Mr. Sipp: What stops it? Mr. Barbone: Magnetic fields on the ride itself and the chairs have a magnetic field so bump wise you could never bump anybody or it will automatically stop the car behind you. Mr. Ford: Reverse polarity. Mr. Barbone: The super coaster is almost in the same image of the coaster that Mr. Brandt had there in the mid early 70’s, it almost an identical track of it. 42 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Krebs: But this is much better than, they’re like the old roller coaster, they put cement on the ground and you roll them down through. Mr. Barbone: It sits on the identical track as a coaster, it sits onto 4 stainless steel pipes and they sit into rollers and it’s secure. Mr. Schonewolf: That’s what it looks like a roller coaster. Mr. Hunsinger: How fast do you go? Mr. Barbone: About 25 miles an hour. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, that’s all? Mr. Barbone: Because it turns, yes it’s not Mr. Tabor: The Zipflyer say can get up to 57 miles per hour so you start out with the coaster and you end with the zipflyer if you want to really scare yourself Mr. Hunginer: That’s the height that scares you. Mr. Tabor: Oh yeah. Mr. Traver: When we did our site visits you had a bunch of scouts up there doing a tent thing. We didn’t know it at the time and it turns out there was a camporee. Mr. Barbone: It was a camporee of about 300 kids for a 3 day event. Mr. Krebs: We knew they were young, they were running up the hill. Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the Board? Mr. Barbone: I think it will be a good fill in for a year round business at West Mountain. Mr. Ford: Yes. Mr. Barbone: I think it’s the time we need it. Mr. Traver: Will you operate either or both of these during the winter? Mr. Barbone: What I’m hearing from a lot of the operators since it’s already been operated during the winter, the zipline they tend to hold it steady for the summer operation, maybe if it’s warm enough they’ll open it up for holiday week, Christmas week, Presidents week. The coaster ride mimics the tubing park, it’s year round you can use it, the worst problem they had from all the people I spoke to that had the rides was the amount of snow we got this year. It was a real winter, they wound up having to shovel the ride out because it’s only, it’s not high off the ground, 4-5 feet high. Mr. Hunsinger: So they run it all year round. Mr. Barbone: All year round. Mr. Tabor: Mike brought up a good point, when we were on site and the fact that what some of the ski areas are doing is they’ll open up for special week-ends because he didn’t want to make it so that you’re over exposed to it and you get too much saturation if it’s open all the time you know, you want people to come in the summer, enjoy it in the summer, that’s when you really want it. But you might open it a little bit in the winter just to kind of keep the interest. Mr. Barbone: Especially the zipline especially if there is a good weather on Christmas week, hopefully it’s cold, and we’re making. But what this does is helps us out when it’s not cold and we can’t make snow and we can’t open up at Christmas time. The coaster ride is open year round which we don’t have to rely on making snow at the tubing park trying to get open for Christmas day you know if the weather permits us. Mr. Traver: What about lighting? Do you plan on operating at night? 43 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Bardone: You know, in the summertime it doesn’t get dark until 8:30 we have minimal amount of lighting on the zipline, the bottom and top you don’t need no lighting in the center, plus you would like to see the stars, the views from the top and taking the ziplline is going to be phenomenal, you can’t even fathom what the views are going to look like at night riding the zipline. Mr. Tabor: There is, for the zipline there is actually existing lights that they have for the ski trail right there so the plan is if there is a need for the ride the plan is to reuse those lights, flip those on and use those lights as needed for the zipline. For the coaster itself there is a photometric plan that was submitted where they proposed to have lighting on that and again I think you’re point was actually a good one that in the summer time you’re really not going to need a whole lot of actual light. Mr. Ford: I don’t know how good the view is going to be for those who close their eyes. Mr. Barbone: But just taking the chairlift up, the triple chair we’ll be utilizing that year round and having to be able to take that up on a nice quiet night the views are going to be phenomenal. Mr. Krebs: That trail once you get off that in the little beginning it’s very wide. Mr. Schonewolf: How high off the ground is the zipline? Mr. Barbone: The zipline cable, there was the cable, the angle Mr. Tabor: One was 30 feet at the lowest point, they have, I want to say between 15 and 30 feet is there kind of safety deflection, so when that cable suspends from the top it sags a little bit in the middle as it comes down they make sure they maintain I believe a minimum of I want to say 15 feet at the minimum. Mr. Barbone: Bromley Mt. has it, they had it installed two years ago, they installed two cables and then last summer they installed 4 and did the same exact thing that we’re doing, they have it sitting directly right in the center of a ski trail. Mr. Schonewolf: What happens if it gets hung up? Do you just let them down? Mr. Barbone: We are capable with the chairlift it’s not like we don’t know what to do, we have the capability of doing the same thing with chairlifts when one stops midstream so evac would be the same as if a chairlift had stopped and broke down. By law we’re going to have to have patrol there, something different than what we do in the winter compared to summer, don’t forget this is a ride the state’s got to approve. We’re not going to go in, turn the button on this ride, I’m sure the state is going to be on us just as hard as there are on us in the wintertime. Mr. Tabor: 23 feet to answer your question is the lowest point the cable gets closest to the ground. Mr. Barbone: We have double chairlifts if anybody has skied the double chairlift you come pretty close to the chairlift, even the groomer does, especially this year with the amount of snow we had, it’s nothing different of skiing under the double chair coming out onto the face. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else from the board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Are there members of the audience who would like to address the board, if you could give the table up please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Mr. Hunsinger: If you could identify yourself for the record and speak into the microphone, we do tape the meeting and then the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. MS. COUTOU: And I do appreciate that, I do read the minutes. I do want to thank all of your for your service. My name is Lisa Coutou and I live on Northwest Road across from the triple chair and I do have some questions, they are really points of clarification just to get some additional information. And so I am asking you to instruct me, do you want me to list them and then I’ll go back and sit down or do you want to go one by one? And they may be questions Mr. Barbone will have to answer. Mr. Hunsinger: Just go ahead and ask them. Ms. Coutou: Parking and the 240 additional customers at peak that are anticipated and I was just wondering if that is for each ride or total? Removal of vegetation-I was a little confused in the application where it was indicated that there was no mature forest would be removed so I was looking for a little bit of clarification about the vegetation that will be removed. I was also a little puzzled about the indication that the proposed 44 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 action would not result in any significant traffic increase over the present levels because as you all know this, it’s a dead end road, Northwest is a dead-end road and so for the zipline there would be, in my opinion, there would be significantly more traffic in the summertime with the ride in operation because of course there are no activities over there at all in the summertime. So I was just wondering if I could get some clarification on that. I was also wondering if the lodge is going to be open? And also just clarification on something that was just talked about a little bit a few minutes ago and that is when the zipline is going to be operating. It sounds like the plan is for it to be operating in the summertime and maybe occasionally at other times. I was wondering if I could get something more specific in terms of days and hours of operation. And then finally I was wondering also days and hours of construction and when that will take place and the reason I was wondering about that is because there has been logging over there that’s begun before 6 am in the morning and you’ve all been over there enough to know it’s very quiet over there so I was just wondering when the construction would be going on. Thank you very much. Mr. Hunsinger: Anyone else? Mr. Bardin: My name is Tim Bardin I live on Northwest Road, Lisa Coutou’s husband, the same thing mainly clarifications on some of the issues. There is a question about producing the operating noise exceeding ambient noise levels related to the super coaster, the clicking noise was mentioned on the descent is there large roaring and humming of wheels was mentioned, is that going to be controlled at all as far as noise ordinance versus what are the current levels and how loud is this ride going to be? Is that going to be monitored, or does take a complaint to say this is noisy and then you come back afterwards and try to address it? General question – if this project is approved does that open the door for other uses, summertime uses, or is it limited to the slide and the zipline. Use at nights. I like the idea of having the top and bottom lights lit for the ziplide as opposed to the whole trail. Related to the increased traffic on Northwest Road, which is currently minimal in the summer, and the hours of operation because it’s pretty quiet in the summer and if it’s expected to be popular then there is going to be a lot more traffic during the summertime, more cars parked across the street, probably more than what’s currently there in the winter, the winter the parking lot at Northwest Road isn’t as congested unless there is a ski race which is one or two days per week. So if there is going to five days more in the summer of a lot more cars over there we’re just questioning the congestion and parking. And then there is clarification on the definitions of how many acres of vegetation are going to be removed, it’s listed here at 2.43 and that’s versus the total land disturbance of 1.2 acres so do those numbers make sense or is the total land disturbance really 2.3 not really 1.8. I don’t understand that definition. I think that was it for my questions. Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Is there any written comments Keith? Mr. Oborne: No, I take that back I apologize. Mr. Hunsinger: Go ahead Keith. Mr. Oborne: Letter from Tina Croak-on file Mr. Lapper: We’re just through the questions that were asked. When I saw the letter from the neighbor about the lighting I didn’t realize there was a Chronicle article because they didn’t call they just looked at the application materials that were sent. It says that Mike Brandt still owns the ski mountain at the end of the article so if anybody sees that for the record it’s East Slope Holdings which is Mike Barbone. I was just surprised to see that and just wanted to point out that discrepancy. In terms of the questions the 240 cars is total both rides per day so this is not like the ski mountain where you just don’t, it just doesn’t generate that much business. So the 240 split up is at half and half probably more on the coaster than on the zipline. So in terms where the neighbors live on Northwest we’re talking about 100 cars during the whole day. Mr. Barbone: The winter if anyone’s skied on the triple chair how many cars park over there. If I could get three cars there on a weekend it’s a lot. I think that parking lot holds about 500 cars if you really look at it and we don’t even nearly touch that all winter long if you count on your hands how many cars park over at the triple. Traffic is very minimal. On a snow day maybe we’ll get a quarter of the parking lot if we’re lucky. I think the utilization of the other parking lot would be more. I think on the kid’s side of it, we’ll see more cars on the coaster than we will on the zipline. I think the zipline will be adults only, it’s that extreme ride so I don’t think we’ll see, I hope to see 240 cars a day, it means that it had worked out right. Mr. Lapper: Mark, the mature vegetation? Mr. Tabor: Sure, essentially the clarification on that is that especially in the area of the Alpine Coaster that area had a series of previous uses-one was a slide as Mike mentioned, and another was at one point there was a chairlift and they actually skied over there and it has since grown back so it’s since grown back so you’re 45 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 dealing with kind of new forest, you have a lot of saplings, a lot of 6 inch diameter and under tree canopy if that, so its’ relatively new forest that’s over there. The tree canopy is a little bit larger in some of the areas that we’re taking out. Near the top of the zipflyer but that area is really a condensed, that tower is one specific condensed spot and most of the vegetation that’s associated with the removal of that again is pioneer vegetation, it’s right on the edge of the existing ski trail and it’s saplings and smaller aspen and things like that. Mr. Lapper: Okay will the lodge be open in the summer and the answer to that is yes. That’s the goal to generate restaurant business and parties. Mr. Barbone: if anybody has seen that kids just totally trashed that building, it was unbelievable, the windows were all busted, it’s not, this past summer all the windows were busted because nobody was there, broken into several times, so I would like to have it open year round. Mr. Lapper: Hours of operation and hours of construction. What you had told me when we discussed this in anticipation of the meeting would be that you couldn’t see that it would go later than 10 at night. Mr. Barbone: I don’t believe that we would be operating later than 10 pm in the summertime that would be July and August would be the two busiest months of operating the zipline. I think on the coaster side, on birthday parties and stuff like that that we host same thing, I don’t think we’ll get the kids there that late at night, past 8 pm I would say would be adults after 8 pm on a Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Traver: When you talk about no later than 10 pm I’m assuming and correct me if I’m wrong but once you stop having people going down the actual ride itself you must have to police the area to make everyone is off the mountain, is that correct? Mr. Barbone: Yes, it’ll be the same system that the state requires us in the wintertime having to have some type of security or patrol which would be first aid. Mr. Traver: So what I’m getting at is, are we to understand that by 10 pm that activity would be concluded or you would have people going down the mountain until 10 and then sometime after that there would still be people up on the mountain. Mr. Barbone: I would say up on the mountain they would walking down the mountain by 10 pm closing shop, just inspectors would be done inspecting the cable because that’s what we do in the wintertime, nobody rides chairlifts in the wintertime we all walk down and inspect the chairs. It would the same way with the zipline. Mr. Traver: And that would be concluded by 10 pm Mr. Barbone: By 10 pm Mr. Traver: Okay thank you. Mr. Ford: Would it be a 7 day a week operation? Mr. Barbone: I don’t believe so. Mr. Ford: But it could be? Mr. Barbone: It could be but I don’t believe I’m going to get myself 12 months out of the year 7 days per week. I do that for 4 months, I don’t think I’m going to do that for another 8. So I think we’ll have some time off and expect the quiet times. We don’t know what the quiet times are right now, maybe that will be early part of the week, maybe we’ll open the latter part of the week. We’re not actually sure on the quiet times of the week right now, maybe we’ll just go after that Thursday through Sunday business and we don’t yet. Mr. Hunsinger: I’m not a skier so I don’t know how late the ski trails are open are they open til 10? Mr. Barbone: Yes, we’ve done the same thing with tubing, started 2 days a week, 5 days a week and then found ourselves a month later only operating a tubing park 3 days a week because that’s the only time we could afford to run that ride. So it’s going to be, it’s a new product out there for everybody so I’m sure in the beginning I’m sure we’ll see a huge spurt of people but I’m sure as the season goes on it we’ll get a downspell from it. Mr. Lapper: Hours of construction? Mr. Barbone: Hours of construction I can’t see myself starting no later than 8 am and ending at 4. 46 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Lapper: Are you willing to commit to that? Mr. Barbone: Yes absolutely and there will be no weekends. Mr. Hunsinger: I had asked earlier about noise, one of these neighbors commented to. Do you have any idea what the noise levels are? Mr. Barbone: I went for this ride, I had taken, there is a in Vermont where they manufacture the ride and they had a ride in installed inside a very large building and it was a steel building in Vermont and I rode that ride and you could not hear that coaster other than me talking to the person that was standing at the other side telling him how much fun this was. Mr. Lapper: Because of plastic wheels? Mr. Barbone: The plastic wheels, there is absolutely no noise other than me talking and having a good time on that ride. The only noise that you’ll actually hear is the electric motor and that electric motor will be on the top of the mountain where they’re actually existing and descending on the mountain. Mr. Lapper: Mark can you explain, I know what the answer is, but the total land disturbance versus the tree removal. Mr. Tabor: The land disturbance versus the tree removal was something that again we tried to clarify a little bit earlier. Essentially, yes we’re leaving stumps in place, the tree removal there is a total tree removal number and it is broken down into 2 pieces, most of the trees are removed essentially to the stump and the stump is left in place and there is small portion that are removed entirely which includes the stump and so you get a very large tree clearing number because you’re accommodating both situations. Mr. Lapper: That was 2.4 Mr. Tabor: Yeah, I don’t remember specifically I can look at the plans and find but I believe she said 2.4 so that would the overall tree clearing number, it’s on each plan, the soil disturbance number, the total land disturbance which I know is 1.28, that is essentially the areas where trees will be removed, stumps included is the area where there will be land disturbance plus the area where we have the cart storage barn plus the areas, there’s some small construction access areas we need to add to get to some of these places where we calculated that land disturbance as well. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else, any questions comments from the Board? Mr. Sipp: In that cutting of trees is there anything do you forsee much above 6 inches dbh? Mr. Lapper: Is there much over 6 inches? Mr. Tabor: Primarily, most of the material is pioneer material, there is, it’s likely there are a few trees that are larger than six inches that will need to be taken out but in terms of restricting that one way or another the clearing limit is essentially what we’ve said so whatever’s in that limit will be taken out. Mr. Sipp: Anything above that are you going to skid out? Mr. Lapper: No, everything get’s chipped. Mr. Tabor: To be honest, in some of these locations some of the material has been cut and stacked neatly right there in the woods and left. It’s a lot cheaper to do it that way. Mrs. Steffan: So I think based on your commentary the letter than came in regarding the light pollution, talking about there are lights on the top but there really won’t be any additional lights along the path of the rides? Okay. And then the only other question that I guess it’s not clear if this is approved what about other uses, other things that may come along the pipeline. I’m assuming you don’t have plans but Mr. Barbone: I have absolutely no other plans at this time. I hope this all works, I hope next year we’re all smiling about it, but it also could fail at the same time so it’s a huge risk right now we’re taking, we don’t know, it’s a new venture for everybody even the other ski areas it’s an expense we’ve got to pull out and hope that it works. Mr. Lapper: But it has been successful in Vermont? 47 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Barbone: It has been successful in Vermont. Everybody that I’ve spoke to that had just recently had put it up said it has been very successful. Mrs. Steffan: Well I’m certainly folks come up here on vacation and they are looking for fun stuff to do and I mean this is a great addition. Mr. Barbone: I think we’ll keep them here for the week instead of 3 days, they’ll be another place to go, the Great Escape, Lake George, you’ve got some golfing, you’ve got putt putt golf and you’ve got another place West Mountain. And we have the facility and it’s a nice one, so between the restaurant we can host and keep them here for another day. Mrs. Steffan: You know if you keep the lodge open you might be able to do something with activities or some theater thing or movies or something. Mr. Barbone: A lot of the ski areas are looking for that year round business now and I hope we can in two years down we can be sitting her two years from now saying it was a success and let’s do something else. Mr. Lapper: Like a theater. Mr. Barbone: Like a theater or some type of activity out there. Mr. Sipp: How many will this employ? Mr. Barbone: Some are staff for construction-25; and we look at possible 50 extra employees year round. I’ve taken the Grille from when I first purchased it in 2007 we had 4 full time employees, we have 26 now. So hopefully we can sustain that staff year round which would be real nice to keep some staff on year round. Mr. Krebs: Plus the fact if you go to the restaurant and you sit in the right place you’ll now have some more entertainment. Mrs. Steffan: And you’ll be inside and you won’t hear their screaming. Mrs. Steffan: Well I don’t know how does the rest of the board feel there is a lot of engineering comments that I think the applicant has to work out. Mr. Lapper: We didn’t seem them as a lot, they wanted some extra stuff about stormwater, some double silt fences, pretty easy stuff, there were two that were conceptual, but Mark talked to them today and just seemed like really wanted to put some more into the stormwater plan so that they could rely on it and so we have to beef that up but we view as something we’ll be able to get a sign-off letter from Chazen with a little more information. Mr. Hunsinger: The one that concerns me most is #8 regarding ACOE. Mr. Lapper: And we spent some time on that today with the biologist, wetland biologist from the LA Group. When we went out there and everything was melting and the engineer saw these channels we certainly looked at that and said do we have a wetland issue? And these are just seasonal drainage channels and they don’t go anywhere. So when Mark actually talked to Sean today from Chazen, he said he just wants us to report on that, that these are just seasonal so he something to rely on, we have a report now from the LA Group that we’ll get to him so we think that is just going to go away. There’s nothing there that’s a wetland. Mr. Hunsinger: There’s no. Mr. Lapper: If we had to do that we would have done that a month ago when we started, when we saw what was there. Mr. Oborne: I’d also add that we did walk the site and there are some vernal pools that are there which are just temporary areas that water collects basically and that’s all I saw. But then again I didn’t walk the whole site. Mr. Hunsinger: But it’s not there’s an outlet stream there. Mr. Lapper: So it’s isolated. Mr. Hunsinger: What’s the will of the Board? 48 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Schonewolf: It’s a great project for the town. Mr. Hunsinger: I’m just concerned that something like that would trip us up on SEQR. Mrs. Steffan: I’m just wondering and I know Keith that June is pretty well wrapped up but we do have 5 weeks between now and the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Oborne: Are you thinking the ACOE may be an issue or just the amount of Mrs. Steffan: just the amount as far as doing a conditional approval versus having them back. I think that we should probably get the engineering comments addressed before we entertain an approval. But that’s just me. Mr. Lapper: Mike would love to have a conditional approval. Mrs. Steffan: I know that’s why I was wondering if. Mr. Barbone: You know what happens now is that when we take another five weeks it will put me into the winter season. By September the coaster ride, it takes 8 weeks for the supplies to come in, so if it’s another 5 weeks, 5 more weeks will probably put us into late September, I’m sure it will. Mr. Ford: How long do you anticipate the construction period to be? Mr. Barbone: I hope to have it up by August. Mr. Ford: The length of time. Mr. Barbone: The length of time for construction, you know I would say 3 months for coaster ride, if I get my th approvals tonight for the zipline we could have the zipline up by the 4 of July. Mr. Schoneowolf: That could make a significant impact on your revenue. Mr. Barbone: The further we get into the fall season the rain, the weather, if we could get this done on the dry time of the season it would be even better. Mr. Ford: You think we’re going to have one? Mrs. Steffan: It would be great if you could have it in by September with the balloon festival, the foliage, Pico and those places, they do a great business in the fall with the slides they have there. That’s why I was trying to get in in June to see if could get you in sooner versus the normal process would be July. Mrs. Steffan: Chris identified the ACOE. Mr. Hunsinger: That was the only one that caused me concern. Mr. Barbone: Those runoffs are everywhere on the mountain, it’s just not that location, it’s just the mountain, you can see there is still snow on the mountain and if you walk up on top of the mountain you’ve got running water packs from those piles of snow right now. Mr. Oborne: Keep in mind if there are ACOE issues they are not doing anything until they get those permits. Mr. Lapper: We need the sign-off from Chazen. Mr. Oborne: You’re not going anywhere if there are ACOE issues. Mr. Hunsinger: Most of the comments are recommendations and you’re going to say no problem, we’ll put up the silt fence, we’ll put up the. Mr. Barbone: If you look at West Mountain and how we sustain the mountain and cut the grass there is no erosion there is nothing if anyone hiked West Mountain I think we’ve taken care of the mountain fairly well on erosion. Come spring time I guess this is the ultimate old fashioned winter, a lot of snow, then you get an early spring with a lot of rain. So there’s a lot of water coming off the mountain today from the rain we just had 49 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Krebs: I can understand worrying about that is we were disturbing a lot of soil but takes very little disturbance. Mr. Tabor: Our approach really was to be a very conservative one, the guys in our office, the biologists are way overly conservative by nature. But we took an conservative approach and we said okay we don’t believe these things are ACOE jurisdictional based on that’s what our experts are telling us in the office, but regardless we’re not going to impact what’s out there we have measures in place where we’re going to span all these th crossings we actually to be honest at the 11 hour reconfigured portions of this ride in order to be farther away from these drainage courses and in order to allow us to span them during construction with a temporary steel plate that goes over the top so that the bed and banks aren’t disturbed. We’re talking about probably anywhere from 4 to 6 maybe 10-12 inch areas so that this point there are no impacts proposed for any of those drainage channels. Mr. Oborne: I have up there the GIS for the town and I’m going to hit NWI wetlands, which is short for National Wetland Inventory. Mr. Tabor: I’ll cover for Keith in the meantime. We also have one thing that was not included as part of the initial submission was the DEC, the question typically comes up are there any mapped streams DEC mapped streams, when we ran that analysis there were none within the scale of the project we were looking at, we didn’t even can include that map however, since we had that comment we ran a map and I do have copies of that map that show that there are no mapped streams on the property at all, the nearest one I think is way up on the north end. Mrs. Steffan: On the staff notes there are a couple of items under review-see staff notes. Mr. Tabor: What we have on the site plan for stabilization is we have specified either rolled erosion control product, like an erosion control blanket, on any slopes greater than 3 on 1. Or as an alternative which I think I’ve discussed with Mike is to use a tac binding agent in the hydro seed mixer which more or less glues the soil in place until the vegetation has a chance to grow up so from a stabilization I don’t foresee any tracking at this point because I don’t think the areas of disturbance will be big enough from a dozer typically you do that so that and it’s a good point and typically you do that to make sure that you have the tracks don’t run parallel to the slope and facilitate concentrated flow, they run perpendicular so it slows things down and helps prevent erosion. That’s something we’d do on one of the construction roads that exists in order to just continually keep up with the maintenance but in terms of slope stabilization on the plans we specify in all areas that you have slopes greater than 3 on 1 you need to apply a erosion or astabilization product whether it’s the blanket or hydro seed. Mr. Oborne: We did discuss the tacifier when we were on site and it was after I produced the staff notes. It’s actually pretty slick stuff if you’ve ever seen it in action. You can get on slopes like this. Mrs. Steffan: How about lighting, it’s identified in the staff notes that we don’t have a standard for this kind of illuminance. Although I can’t imagine that it would be greater than what’s on. Mr. Oborne: I think they throw 2.4 to 4.7 so you’re talking a standard parking lot at this point, but again there are no standards for this particular use. Mr. Tabor: In my experience typically and I don’t know if this is exactly what Mike has based on his ski lights out there but typically ski lights can produce as high as a 1000 foot candles. Typically that is an athletic field specification baseball is a 1000 foot candles, that’s the horizontal maintained illuminance they want to provide on the field so that you can see. Conservatively if he was down 500 foot candles with his existing lighting it is clearly well below as you said and closer to parking. Mr. Schonewolf: Don points out that it looks worse in the winter because its reflecting off the snow. You’re not going to have that when you have vegetation, leaves on the trees, it’s going to be nonexistent. Mr. Oborne: NWI wetland mapping and there is a little spot in the parking lot as you can see and that seems to be that retention basin. Mr. Tabor: I believe we have that as well in the materials. Mr. Oborne: There is no stream flows, there is no DEC wetlands. Mrs. Steffan: In the evening do shut all the lights off on the mountain when everyone leaves and you do your inspections. 50 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mrs. Steffan: Okay folks what do we want to do? Mr. Schonewolf: I’d vote to approve it with the condition that Chris mentioned. Board members agreed. Mrs. Steffan: So we want a conditional approval addressing the Chazen comments, do we need to put in the conditions hours of operation and those things? It certainly sounds to me like it’s a work in process. Mr. Barbone: It’s a work in progress. I don’t know the unknown, for sure we’re not going to be operating past 10 pm at night. Mr. Ford: But we can put that in as a condition. Mr. Barbone: I can’t see us going 7 days a week I’m sure we’ll cut it down to a bare minimum. It also winds up putting us in a different employee wage scale difference because, overtime, in the ski industry we’re exempt from overtime because we are not open year round. Goes to x amount of hours per year and we don’t exceed that. So we do not pay overtime, making us go into a year round business puts us over those hours and we will have to pay overtime. So when you ask will the time be 8 to 4 construction will be 8 to 4 the rides we’ve got to be careful because we don’t want to exceed the overtime pay there is a lot to look at the whole system once we start really examining it. And that’s one of the reasons why it’s going to take more employees because of the overtime. On the whole mountain, it turns us even in the wintertime it’s going to change it, in the wintertime to on the overtime because we over exceed the hours. Mr. Hunsinger: Well based on the comments from the board I will close the public hearing. They’ve submitted the long form, so we need to do a SEQR long form. Mrs. Steffan: SEQR RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE- SITE PLAN 34- 2011 EAST SLOPE HOLDINGS LP RESOLUTION NO. 34-2011 Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for EAST SLOPE HOLDINGS, LP 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 agencies appear to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved:NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 51 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: So there are some staff notes though that the applicant though said they were going to do that aren’t necessarily in any of the written materials like the hydro seeding, and some comments we just talked about. I think that is really the only one. Mr. Tabor: I believe the hydro seed is actually on one of the details of the plans and I’m almost certain I can show that to you guys. Mr. Hunsinger: Then is the only condition to satisfy engineering comments? Mrs. Steffan: It appears so because the questions I asked everybody were the outstanding issues on lighting and foot candles. We’ve already addressed the parking spaces, any additional lighting, code compliant, but in this particular situation we don’t really have a code statute, and downcast is that reasonable? Mr. Hunsinger: Yes. Mrs. Steffan: And then the tract equipment is addressed on the drawings. I think the staff notes are covered but the engineering sign-off, I did have a question as far as the, because the WCPB said that they didn’t have information, they’ve taken no action. So if nothing happens within 30 days it’s an approval, so we don’t have to worry about that. Mr. Oborne: The no action, they’re done. Mrs. Steffan: Motion to approve-see below RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 34-2011 EAST SLOPE HOLDINGS, LP A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes the addition of a gravity propelled “Alpine Slide” and “ZipFlyer” to the existing West Mountain facilities. Proposed Amusement Center uses in the RC zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/17/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34 -2011 EAST SLOPE HOLDINGS, LP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)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 2)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 3)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 4)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 5)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 6)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 7)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a)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. b)The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 52 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 a)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 b)The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9) This is approved with the following condition: The applicant will address the engineering comments and obtain a sign-off Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck Mr. Barbone: Thank you. Mrs. Steffan: Do you need any of these copies, stormwater plans, pictures? Mr. Hunsinger: Before we adjourn Mr. Salvador has asked if he could have the floor for a few minutes to discuss something with the board. Mr. Schonewolf: When he’s done can I ask questions about Heron Hollow? Mr. Hunsinger: Absolutely, I had it on my list to. Mr. Oborne: I have a couple of concerns. Mr. Hunsinger: Mr. Salvador, the floor is yours. Mr. Salvador: I’d like to share with you some information I’ve obtained, it’s a publication put out by the Secretary of State’s office, NYS Secretary of State’s office, the office of community sustainability has published this. It’s entitled zoning enforcement. It talks about all the powers and duties of the Zoning Enforcement officer is what they term it here. It talks about him being the municipality’s representative in land use regulation and enforcement and further it talks about the zoning enforcement officer’s power it limited to enforcement of the law as it is written and the operative word here is written. We have two projects that have come about where I think we’ve overstepped the boundaries. One of them was the Schermerhorn project where the written word was office. And that was interpreted to be office building, we had office building in our code at one time but we dropped it out, we dropped it our entirely. But then, so we, stretched that to mean office. The most recent one here is the Hayes & Hayes project where the written word was duplex, in the singular. I can tell you no one ever dreamed that that would more than one duplex would be allowed on a single parcel of land. It defies logic, but anyway I wanted to share with you that the power is limited to enforcement of the law as it is written. What else could it be? Thank you. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Keith, you said you had a couple of items? Mr. Oborne: I have one it is a concern when board members are out doing their site visits you have to keep your conversations general, not specific. That’s important, because you’re on record as stating specific items off of a site plan tonight. So that’s a concern, you don’t want to discuss, that’s under the auspices of a public hearing. That’s all. Mr. Hunsinger: Point well taken. Mr. Oborne: Also you got your books tonight you will be getting updates from time to time, we’ll probably send those with staff packets, we’ll figure that out when it comes. The ordinance is constantly changing, constantly evolving so on and so forth. Mr. Husinger: Okay, Paul? Mr. Schoneowlf: This is kind of general. I have noticed in the last year or so that some of our enforcement activity is I don’t want to say haphazard but it’s not, it’s certainly not down the line that you’d expect. And it’s certainly not complete. And when I got back from vacation I started getting all these questions from people 53 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 about the project that’s on a road called Heron Hollow, Cleverdale. Are you familiar with that? And, uh, for the rest of the board. Mr. Husinger: He will tomorrow; I sent him an email on it. Mr. Schonewolf: Anyway a gentleman over there sold a house and I think it was the first quarter of last year, of 10, and, it was a 1,600 sq. ft. house. And another, the gentleman that bought it came in and got a permit to demolish the house the first week of December. And he proceeded to demolish it and I watched him do it and I didn’t anything wrong, I was sure he went through the proper channels and I imagine the asbestos abatement was checked but then three weeks later he got a building permit. And the project never came to us and he got a building permit to build a 5,000 sq. ft. house. And I went over there because all of the, as people were dribbling back they were saying what the hell is that, what do you know about that? Well I don’t know anything about it. So I went over and I just looked at it from what I could see and the back yard just goes zingo right into the lake, with no vegetation or nothing, so I guess there was no landscape plan and in fact they don’t even have the plastic fences around it. And I’m wondering how, is this possible that this would happen, it can’t be because we gave them a building permit. Mr. Oborne: I am not familiar with the project to be honest with you, the only response I can give is that the building and codes department does not require erosion and sedimentation as part of the plans, building plans which I think is a shame to begin with, if it is a compliant lot and it meets all the zoning regulations. Mr. Schonewolf: I don’t know if it does? Mr. Oborne: I don’t either; I’m not familiar with the project. Mr. Schonewolf: But when you come and build a 5,000 sq. ft. house on a lot that had a 1,600 sq. ft. house you might have some issues, but you still can’t, we raise hell with people, you just saw it again tonight about you can’t have a lawn going right into the lake. Mr. Oborne: You can’t clear within 50 feet of the shoreline either without site plan review. Mr. Schoneowolf: It may have been cleared, but even, at any rate I would think that when somebody builds something that big on the lake after all the imaginations we go through with people here and holding their feet to the fire and we ought to at least have a look at it. Mr. Oborne: Well I think there are members on this board that know that you have to file a formal complaint for anybody to look at anything in this town. Mr. Schoneowolf: I hate to do that because when you’re on a, a member of a board you shouldn’t have to do that. Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree with you. Mrs. Steffan: Has that changed? Is that a new policy? Mr. Oborne: No that’s, it’s been consistent since I’ve been here. Mrs. Steffan: So you have to file a formal complaint Mr. Oborne: You have to file a formal complaint. Mr. Hunsinger: What if we were to pass a resolution? Mr. Traver: Well I think we talked about discussing that at a workshop, issue of enforcement, because if we have an enforcement office and they are aware of a violation is there no obligation on part of the town to represent all of the citizens of the town in enforcing zoning or whatever? I guess that’s a question. You know, I know we’ve talked about discussing that at a workshop at some point to clarify those issues because I think it’s, Mr. Hunsinger: Well I also think it’s part of our I don’t want to overstate it, but I think it’s part of our duty as a member of the Planning Board that when somebody brings these to our attention I think we have an obligation to bring it up and discuss it. Mr. Krebs: Part of the problem is that you know in maybe I didn’t file a formal complaint but I sent an email to the Zoning Administrator about 44 Russell Harris Road. Gretchen and Chris later visited the site with me 54 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 and when I got no satisfaction from the Zoning Administrator I took it to the Town Supervisor. When I met with both of them the Zoning Administrator basically sat there and said absolutely nothing and the Supervisor gave me hell for walking on a property where I didn’t have permission to go on, there was no site plan review so I didn’t have the right to go there. That piece of property by the way today still has un-vegetated soil within 10 feet of the water and Chris and I measure and it was well over 500 sq. ft. that was disturbed. Mr. Hunsinger: We didn’t have to measure, you could tell just by looking. Mr. Krebs: But you know what happens is for us on the board it gets very difficult for me to institute having this person put in additional vegetation when somebody else takes a backhoe and runs it right up to the water’s edge and leaves the soil. They did finally put some bales across near the water but that’s all they’ve done so far and I brought to the Zoning Administrator four times and to the Town Supervisor so I don’t know what else as a member of the board you can do. Maybe there is a formal complaint we have to file. Mr. Oborne: I understand, I mean as a certified professional it disturbs me also but I have to focus on what my job it. Mr. Hunsinger: We’re not trying to put you on the spot Keith. Mr. Oborne: I know that, but I just want to state for the record I have to concentrate on my job when there are issues out in the field and I will say this, Bruce has no problem going up to a landowner and saying do something here, you know, but it’s a matter of being directed by the powers that be to go out and do that. Mr. Hunsinger: And we understand that there is not enough enforcement staff to be constantly patrolling every road in the town looking for violations. We’re just kind of saying when these things come to when they’re brought to our attention we’re not really sure how to handle them or what the process should be. Mr. Traver: Yeah it‘s one thing to expect people to be out patrolling but it’s another thing to expect our representative government to respond to a report of a potential threat to the town. Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree with you. Mrs. Steffan: And the other issue in my mind becomes enforcement. You know, we have code compliance officer, we’ve got a couple of them that do different things. But it’s very frustrating when you know we’ve looked at an application tonight that had a letter from our code enforcement person and there were 13 or so problems and there is no way for us as a town to enforce somebody’s obligations or there just doesn’t seem to be any teeth that we have we do stop work orders but what happens when a project is well under way. Mr. Oborne: I will say and in that particular case that the applicant has been before the judge and that’s the process we have to take. And again I’m not a code compliance officer, I don’t work for that department but with that said when they get before a judge that’s where the teeth is, there is really not a lot of teeth in our code, we can’t fine them any significant amount money. The judge can do that but the judge has been very lenient and. Mr. Hunsinger: But that’s where it’s falling apart, the judge is just giving people a walk. Mr. Schonewolf: Or he just dismisses it. Mr. Hunsinger: And we know there are others, there is one in particular case where the complainant has become friends with the judge and the judge is basically holding them off indefinitely and. Mr. Schonewolf: And we focus on the little thing, like you can’t fertilize your lawn, I think some day if that goes to court I don’t think a town employee can tell a citizen of this town whether he can fertilize his lawn or not but he can tell him that he can’t use phosphorus or something like that and probably make it stick. You know, we listen to these people who represent different groups and we just kind of fall into doing it and I don’t think we think about that. Mr. Oborne: I think baby steps, you know, anything this Board is obviously done at a local level, you’re not doing regional planning, you’re doing plan review is what you’re doing. And you’re doing in my estimation a very good job at that with the buffers and you know keeping the applicant’s feet to the fire as best as you can under whatever can do, but you’re a plan review board and that’s pretty much your power at this point and you condition things, it has to be reasonable or it’s not going to stand up in a court of law. 55 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Mr. Sipp: I probably shouldn’t say this but on one of these site plans that you approved tonight if that building gets sold to someone from New York City you’re going to have one hell of a mess on that piece of property because of what wasn’t done to cure the problem. Five years or not we didn’t cure the problem. Mr. Krebs: But how can you force this person who already has put a rain garden who has not the greatest natural buffer along the lake a sizeable stone pile leaving it to the lake when we have somebody else who is grading with a front loader one foot from the water and the town Zoning Administrator won’t do anything about it. Or somebody who says nothing. Or even worse than that is if you look at Assembly Point and I’ve covered this before the town is dumping water from the town road directly into the lake. Mr. Schonewolf: At a very fast rate this week. Mr. Krebs: And not only that but if you want to talk about slopes you can look at the houses along that road their paved driveways come downhill right down to the road and the road is tipped toward the highway. The State of New York has been dumping stormwater from Route 9 into Lake George through Westbrook for years, 25 to 30 years that I know of. If you go over on Pilot Knob Road, if you want to protect the lake there are six on the side of beginning on Pilot Knob Road there are six wells that water runs into that go into pipes that go directly under the road and then directly into the lake. Mr. Sipp: This has happened for so long that it’s become common place, and therefore we just, we know it’s there but we just ignore it. Mr. Schonewolf: Well they pay lip service to putting in a sewer to bring it down to the end of the road and yet we go in here and beat the living shit out of people, it’s not right. Mr. Sipp: Assembly Point has a community sewer. Mr. Krebs: Talk about Eastbrook that brings water from the northway. Mr. Oborne: Part of the problem that I see and I know you’re not asking my opinion, something that is disturbing to me is that we don’t have a stormwater management officer designated in this town, in fact we gave up, our department gave up our MS4 responsibilities to Warren County Soil & Water yesterday. And to me. Mr. Schonewolf: Did they do that; did they give that to Soil & Water? Mr. Oborne: Yeah, we do not have a designated SMO. Mr. Schonewolf: Another reason we need a Town engineer on staff. Mr. Oborne: Either that or designate somebody who’s qualified to review stormwater and MS4. Mr. Sipp: This town for its size is vastly understaffed. Mr. Krebs: We’ve got no infrastructure to handle stormwater at all, or almost none. Mr. Oborne: And what we have is not inspected on a yearly basis, so. Mr. Hunsinger: Well, Mr. Oborne: That will probably get me in trouble get me in trouble but oh well Mr. Hunsinger: Probably, anything else? Ms. Hemingway: You have to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Schonewolf: Oh you’ve got to turn it back on to adjourn. Ms. Hemingway: It’s been running, so whatever you’re saying is on the record. Mr. Schonewolf: Oh that’s great Mr. Hunsinger: Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn. 56 Queensbury Planning Board-May 17, 2011 Ms. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to adjourn; MOTION TO ADJOURN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan move for its adoption seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 17 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Meeting adjourned 57