Loading...
2011.07.26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-2011 Randy Gross 1. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 Site Plan No. 46-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 1. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Site Plan No. 47-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 3. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Site Plan No. 51-2011 Kubricky Construction Company 4. Tax Map No. 302.12-1-31 thru 35 Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 6. PRELIMINARY STAG E Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 Subdivision No. 4-2011 Patrick Geruso 19. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 301.20-1-37.2 Subdivision No. 14-2005 David Howard 20. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.6-2-18 Site Plan No. 43-2011 Tom & Pat Burke 39. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-15 Site Plan No. 44-2011 Glens Falls Eye Associates 41. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-33 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF WILLIAM MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 26, 2011. For members of the audience, there is a copy of the agenda on the back table if you want to pick one up. Several of the items do have public hearings scheduled. There’s also a handout on the public hearing procedures. Our first item on the agenda is an Administrative item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION-SITE PLAN 17-2011 RANDY GROSS MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any additional information, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Not much to report. The project engineer, Tom Hutchins, has submitted responses to Chazen issues with their modified Site Plan. At this point we’re waiting for that to th get to the signoff, and we’ll be presenting a plan to you on the 16, is it, Pam? MRS. WHITING-Yes. thth MR. OBORNE-On the 16 of August. So what I’m looking for is a tabling motion until the 16 of August. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 17-2011 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to August 16, 2011. Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 46-2011 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT HAS REMOVED AN APPROXIMATELY 376 +/- SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION ON A 450 +/- SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 47-11, AV 46-11, AV 45-11, BP 2011-140, 2011-141, 99-469, 98-785 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES 0.13 +/- ACRES PER RPS TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-6-010, 179-9 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance, and also what potential impacts of this project are on the neighborhood and surrounding community. This is 24 Brayton Road. This is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQR. Warren County Planning, on 7/13 of this year, produced a No County Impact for this parcel. Project Description: Applicant has removed an approximately 376 sq. ft. dock with a sundeck and commenced construction on a like sized dock with 450 sq. ft. sundeck. Staff Comments: The parcel has approximately 50 feet of shoreline. Although there are at least 2 large trees adjacent to the shoreline, vegetation should be considered. Again, that’s a variance issue, I mean, that’s a Site Plan issue. The nature of the variance specifically is a request for 19 feet of property line setback relief from the 20 foot requirement as per §179-5-060A7, and what follows are additional comments, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper on behalf of the Dufresnes. Simply what happened here is that they had rotting wood on the boathouse, and rotting wood on the deck along their house, and they hired a contractor and obviously they should have hired a lawyer, and they went to replace what was there, and the Building Department contacted them and issued a Stop Work Order, and they immediately stopped and they viewed this as maintenance because they were replacing what they had, but because this is all pre-existing, nonconforming, they shouldn’t have handled it that way, and if they had replaced a board at a time, over time, they wouldn’t have been in this situation, but what they did, they now need variances to get back to what they had, so they’ve stopped work and they’ve made the applications, and as Keith said, in consulting with him before we submitted the application, he suggested that make this a better application, some shoreline planting would be something that would be helpful. So the applicant retained Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and he’s preparing a landscape plan to augment the shoreline, and when we’re hopefully back before you for Site Plan Review, we’ll have some plantings for you to consider as a condition of this, but there’s not anything significantly different than what they had. The boathouse is slightly bigger. The deck is slightly smaller. It was the replacement in kind, but it requires relief. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-The existing sundeck, is that 376 square feet, or that’s the dock, that’s the square footage of the existing dock or previously existing dock? MR. OBORNE-Yes, the 376 was the, well, the previous dock and the existing dock. There really hasn’t been an expansion to the dock, only the sundeck. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding. MR. FORD-Jon, just a reminder that when that landscape architect, they will follow the 179-8- 040? MR. LAPPER-In terms of the plant types? MR. FORD-Yes. We’ve had other cases where we were told there would be a landscape architect that would come in with plans, and then the plans were non-compliant. Then we had to go round and round on that. So if they go right to the book. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, they went to Jim Miller and he knows what he’s doing. So I expect it’ll be a good plan. MR. FORD-I’m sure it will be. Just a reminder. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. LAPPER-Yes, sure. Thanks, Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Anyone like to move a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 46-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant has removed an approximately 376 +/- sq. ft. sundeck and commenced construction on a 450 +/- sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from side property line setback requirements. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2011/SITE PLAN 46-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp; and 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 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve got to do the deck. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2011 SEQR TYPE II AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN: APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 665 +/- SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 647 +/- SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46- 11, AV 46-11, AV 45-11, BP 2011-140, 2011-141, 99-469, 98-785 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES 0.13 +/- ACRES PER RPS TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Again, this is a recommendation for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Same location. Same zoning. This is a Type II SEQR once again. Warren County Planning did issue a No County Impact on 7/13, although it doesn’t show up on there. Project Description: Applicant has removed a 665 +/- sq. ft. deck and partially built a new 647 +/- sq. ft. deck in its place. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan Review. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes to remove the bump out area which is shown up on the overhead which was slated as a platform for the stairs on the western portion of the deck in order to not encroach further into the side setback. The following are the Area Variances, and they will be required to have review from the ZBA: Side setback – Request for 4.8 feet of side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement. Shoreline requirement request for 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) 18.5 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement, and again, expansion of a nonconforming structure requires approval of the ZBA, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-I think this one Keith explained pretty well. I do have a letter that went to the Building Department rather than Planning Department, from the neighbor to the north, which would be just on the other side of those trees, saying that they’re in support of this as long as they remove that bump out, which is part of the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-It seems fine. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no questions or comments, would anyone like to move a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION-AV 45-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant has removed a 665 /- sq. ft. deck and partially built a new 647 +/- sq. ft. deck in its place. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from shoreline and side setback requirements. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011/SITE PLAN 47-2011 FOR DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and 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 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2011 SEQR TYPE II KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI- COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 238 BAY ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE OF USE TO EXISTING CONSTRUCTION OFFICE/SHOP TO INCLUDE A RADIO STATION AND PERSONAL FITNESS CENTER; PORTION OF EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AS EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND SHOP. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE BAY ROAD TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. FURTHER RELIEF SOUGHT FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47- 11; AV 1-97; BP 96-771 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 LOT SIZE 1.78, 0.22, 0.13, 0.15, 0.56 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-31 THRU 35 SECTION 179-9, 179-13 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Once again this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Site Plan 51-2011, Area Variance 47-2011 for Kubricky Construction Company. Location is 238 Bay Road. Commercial Light Industrial is the zoning. Once again, this is a Type II SEQR. Warren County Planning on 7/13/2011 issued a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change of use to existing construction office/shop to include a radio station and personal fitness center; portion of existing building to remain as equipment storage and shop. Parking stripping and ingress/egress re-configuration is proposed. Current security gate associated with the southern entrance to be removed. Nature of the Area Variances as follows: Side Setback - Request for 10.6 feet of side setback relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the proposed handicap access, you’ll notice that is to the north portion of the building that these accesses in, and it’s basically where that second window is up there, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, and Jeff Cintuala representing D.A. Collins, which is the parent company of Kubricky. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. NACE-No, we don’t. We’d be glad to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The parking that exists out front won’t exist according to the plan? MR. NACE-It will not be lined off for signed parking, no. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. That’s really the only thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-There’s a handicap access area, and I did not note any railing thereon. MR. NACE-That would be in the actual building permit, the details of the ramp and the railings and all. We can add them to the Site Plan, if you’d like. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-How high is the ramp, the platform? MR. NACE-Not very high. JEFF CINTUALA MR. CINTUALA-It’s only about a foot and a half elevation between the finished floor. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Is this area going to be lighted? Are there going to be lights on this side of the building? MR. NACE-Yes. Just an over the door entrance light. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Anyone want to move a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION-AV 47-2011 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a change of use to existing construction office/shop to include a radio station and personal fitness 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) center; portion of existing building to remain as equipment storage and shop. Area Variance: Relief from side setback requirements and setback requirements of the Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay district. Further relief sought for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; 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; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2011/SITE PLAN 51-2011 FOR KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and 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 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. TABLED ITEM: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING, P.C. OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISE MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION QUAKER ROAD/QUEENSBURY AVENUE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.53 ACRES TO 29.91 ACRES WITH A SIXTH LOT OF 8.86 +/- ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. FURTHER, EXTENSION OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD TO ACCESS MAIN PARCEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS –[GREAT CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 SKETCH PLAN: 1/25/11 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39 & 84 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MARY BETH SLEVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, would you like to summarize Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Application Subdivision 1-2011, Preliminary Stage, and Freshwater Wetlands 1-2011 for VMJR Companies. This is a vacant parcel, due north of Quaker Ridge Boulevard. This is in the CLI zone. This is a Type I SEQR. Engineering review is ongoing at this point. I think all participants are aware of what the issues are on this parcel. I will add, for edification of the Board, that the applicant has submitted a 74-60 FAA form, and they have also completed deep hole test pits that were witnessed by the Town Engineer. What we are here today for basically is the discussion of the waiver request for the road that the Zoning Administrator made a determination on, and with that, I’d leave it to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MRS. SLEVIN-Good evening. Mary Beth Slevin here on behalf of VMJR and Forest Enterprises. Happy to be in front of the Board again. The specific issue that we would like to review with the Board and get a decision on this evening is the request for a waiver from the 1,000 foot limitation on a, what was characterized as a dead end road. I say characterized because the road that’s proposed for this subdivision is in fact a loop road, it has a double loop 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) in it, but the Zoning Administrator has indicated that it’s going to be characterized as a dead end road and therefore a waiver from the 1,000 foot limitation would be required in order to go forward with the development. We cannot advance the application any further until we do have a decision from the Board on this particular issue. It affects the ultimate design of the project, the stormwater analysis that we are still undergoing, most of which is complete, most of which would be reviewed by your engineers, but we really cannot move any further, particularly because the real application before the Board right now is for the road. As you know, although we have a design for a five lot subdivision included in this application, really the only developed part of the parcel that is proposed before the Board is the road bed itself. The road has been designed to have a boulevard design with double widths, specifically to provide for safe ingress and egress for the parcel. It also has been designed to ensure that there are adequate means for ingress and egress for all parcels that are proposed for the project. There is an opportunity for secondary access in the future, which has been, arrangements have been made, accommodations have been made, to include, once the actual access to Queensbury Avenue is available through the County property, a study for which is underway currently, and we’re asking the Board to move forward with a decision on that waiver request this evening, and we’re available to answer any questions you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the concern here obviously is that the Town’s opinion as to it being a dead end road or a loop road, I mean, those requirements are based on safety, based on emergency situations, based on traffic, and we have the ability to waive that in the presence of a compelling reason to do so, but I don’t see any, with your design, I don’t see any increase in safety. I don’t see any compelling reason to not continue the road to Queensbury Avenue. I mean, that’s my initial, I guess, and I understand that it’s inconvenient to deal with, when there’s private property, there’s County property involved, that complicates the design, but we’re looking at a long term investment in this property, I think, and I’m just not hearing a compelling reason to override the position of the Planning Department. MRS. SLEVIN-As we indicated, the applicant is willing to work with the County towards making that connection, but since we don’t have control of the property, as a legal matter, we can’t compel that to happen. That’s the reason that the road was designed in the fashion that it was. The site has other constraints, both topographic and wetlands limitations, which dictate the design of the roadway. The design is quite frankly, you know, been advance, in a creative fashion, to address those site limitations and the need for safety. That’s why it’s not just a dead end road, in fact. It does provide for a loop and it provides for opportunities to have access from multiple places within the site itself. MR. FORD-Could you please bring the Board up to date on any of the steps that have been taken relative to that access road to Queensbury Avenue since our last meeting? MRS. SLEVIN-I believe my client has had conversations with the County both on that issue and also with, you know, other issues that the Count is interested in for the parcel. I don’t think that there’s been any specific advancement for it. The County does have a study, which is underway, but I don’t believe that that’s been advanced to the point where there’s actually a report from the study. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer, I can offer that, I’ve spoken to Stu Baker, the Senior Planner, and the Transportation Council has picked Creighton Manning to do that study. At this point, they now, I believe, have six months to complete the study. MR. HUNSINGER-From like today? MR. OBORNE-From the day that the signed on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. TRAVER-Six months in which to conduct the study, or six months in which to conduct the study and generate a report? MR. OBORNE-The latter. MR. TRAVER-The latter. Thank you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Is one of the issues with the access road out to Queensbury Avenue the location of the actual road? Because there is that gravel driveway that exists now that we used to go in and look at the site during site visits. MRS. SLEVIN-From our perspective there is not an issue on location. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. SLEVIN-Yes, it would be our expectation that that’s the likely location of a road. I believe that there’s been some discussion at the County level to make some minor modifications to that location in some places, but from our perspective that gravel road would be fine. It does provide, my client does have a limited easement over the gravel road, but it’s not an easement that, you know from a title perspective, we would be confident to suggest would provide access to the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. SLEVIN-Sufficient. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the current gravel road, is that in the County property or is that on other property? MRS. SLEVIN-It’s both, I believe. VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-No, it’s totally County property. MRS. SLEVIN-Is it? Okay. MR. MACRI-What the County would like to see done is that the road align with the entrance to their technical park across the street, which will require to go over private property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you talked to any of the private property owners? MR. MACRI-Have we talked to any of the private property owners? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. MACRI-Well, I mean, from our perspective, the road could go straight. So it’s their designing that the road goes in that direction. MR. FORD-So the answer is no, you’ve not been in contact with any of these private ownerships? MR. MACRI-I know the property owners. We have had discussions. I don’t see it as an issue, but until the County is willing to negotiation, which they’re not, because they have other plans with the airport, and are really holding that hostage. I mean, I think the road as designed right now meets all the criteria for safety. There is no concerns. I think ultimately, you know, Warren County Economic Development is behind getting that road put in, but there are other dynamics happening currently that’s preventing us from getting this resolved. CHRIS DOOLEY MR. DOOLEY-And through the design we tried to align the road for this development to align with the gravel road on the County property, because that would be the most likely means for ingress and egress to the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. DOOLEY-I’m sorry. Chris Dooley from MJ Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you filed the application with the FAA and resolved that? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MRS. SLEVIN-It’s a notice, and the notice has been filed with the FAA. We would note, however, that as we’ve stated before, it would be the project which is planned before the Planning Board, which is the road development, does not trigger notice requirements. We’ve done it, nonetheless, at the request of Staff, in order to advance that issue, but the triggering criteria for the notice are not triggered by this project. In fact, the National Grid high tension lines are significantly higher than anything that’s proposed for the site would be. So that we’re well below any area on the site that would be relevant to trigger the notice requirements, but it has been filed. MR. TRAVER-I thought we had a communication rendering an opinion that there was a requirement? MRS. SLEVIN-We read that as not a specific requirement. We read that as saying that to the extent that somebody might be interested in filing it, it would be prudent to do so. To put the issue to bed, because, again, we still don’t believe we trigger any of the notice requirements, we’ve done so so that we can try to finalize that matter. MR. TRAVER-You’re going to do it anyway, even though you don’t agree with it. MRS. SLEVIN-It is done. It is already done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? I mean, the main criteria that we’re discussing tonight is the waiver request on the road. I guess, just briefly my opinion is that, you know, I think clearly it’s a better project with the access road going out to Queensbury Avenue, and I think probably everyone on the Board would agree to that. Having said that, though, you know, do members of the Board feel strongly enough that the waiver request not be granted? I think those are kind of, at least in my mind, those are two kind of separate issues. So I guess I’d open it up for specific comment on the waiver requests, and to get a poll from the Board as to whether or not that’s likely to be granted. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, when I look at the language, I mean, the waiver request that they’re asking for is for a road, almost, you know, twice the permitted length, you know, so dead end streets shall be no longer than 1,000 feet. What they’re asking for is 2,820 linear feet for a cul de sac, and I understand that they’ve done, you know, an appropriate configuration for the space that they had and for what they want to do with the site, but, I don’t know, based on the Zoning Administrator’s determination and what’s going to be going on over there, I’m kind of uncomfortable without having a second access. That’s just my point of view. MRS. SLEVIN-If I could just remind the Board, the language of the Ordinance which discusses the length limitation for a dead end street specifically contemplates that there’s going to be some sort of a terminus to the dead end street and in fact provides language about how there’s going to be a turnaround at that point. That’s not necessary here because in fact we have a loop, not a conventional dead end street, and I understand that there’s been an interpretation rendered by the Zoning Administrator, but it’s for that reason that we believe that the waiver request has validity and has substance because there is not a terminus. There is a loop which actually provides for a double boulevard as well. So not only have we addressed the issue through providing a loop so that there is not a long terminus to the road, but in fact there’s a double width to the road to provide that additional safety that’s contemplated in other places in your own Ordinance. MR. SIPP-Now, from Wal-Mart north, this road is a two lane road? MRS. SLEVIN-Correct. MR. SIPP-And when it gets to the property it gets a four lane or wider? MRS. SLEVIN-Correct, it’s a boulevard design. MR. SIPP-And what is the actual length of this road? MR. MACRI-To the Wal-Mart property is a boulevard, and we’re extending that boulevard, and it will continue throughout the property. MR. SIPP-Is that boulevard, how many lanes? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. MACRI-Boulevard means that it’s divided by landscaping and there are a lane on each side so that it’s passable on either side of that division. MR. DOOLEY-Right. If I could just interject. You have your 12 foot travel lane, which is typical for a car, and then there’s basically four to five feet for a pull off. So a car could pull over to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. MR. FORD-So it’s a single lane. MR. SIPP-It’s a single lane. MR. FORD-A single driving lane. MR. DOOLEY-It’s a single lane in and a single lane out. So there’s two lanes of traffic, but there’s a pull off on the shoulder to allow for people to pull off to allow emergency vehicles to pass. MR. SIPP-If this is in the middle of winter and both sides of that road have snow banks on them, I don’t think anybody is going to pull off to the side. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you continue the road through the back, if you continue the road right through the back to Queensbury, what size road would that be? MR. MACRI-The total width of the road from curb to curb? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, 20 feet? MR. MACRI-Twenty plus twenty plus the boulevard width, which is, George’s, what’s the design of the boulevard? GEORGE TURNER MR. TURNER-My name’s George Turner. I’m from MJ Engineering. The main boulevard entrance, the width of the pavement for the single lane is 17 feet, and I believe the boulevard, or the island in the middle is about 12 feet. So it’s almost 52 feet from curb to curb where the boulevard is. Now the boulevard extends past the NiMo right of way, and then from there you have two lanes of traffic that go all the way around in both directions, almost like a boulevard, that’ll be 24 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, but there’s additional areas off to the side since that’s not curbed of a two or three foot shoulder, and then we start the drainage swales. So in essence what they’re trying to say is that there is almost a boulevard from where the service road is to the very end of the cul de sac in essence, and if you think it from a safety standpoint I think is what they’re trying to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Almost a boulevard. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but the cul de sac is a dead end, no matter how you look at it. MRS. STEFFAN-And I was trying to think about this. I was trying to think what our reality in our Town is like this, and I thought if you think of the traffic circle in Downtown Glens Falls, and that that’s the middle of this figure eight thing, and then Ridge Road that goes on to Maple Avenue and then goes around to Bay and then goes on Glen Street, and if that was a closed loop and you wouldn’t be able to take any turns off of it, that’s really what we’re creating. Because it’s a two lane road, and so is that big enough? I’m just throwing it out. Is that big enough? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it’s a dead end, no matter how you configure it. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No matter what you say, it’s still a dead end. When you continue the road through to Queensbury, then you’re talking about access to a property for development. If you don’t, you don’t have it, and that’s just my opinion. MRS. SLEVIN-Again, the applicant has committed to work with the County to provide that secondary access, but without cooperation from the County, we certainly can’t commit to it. We will commit to continue to work toward it. We will commit to make provisions for it on a site that 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) my client has control over, but we cannot make commitments for properties that we don’t have control over. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand that. My answer to that is we can’t approve it until we get the matter settled. MRS. SLEVIN-I understand the Planning Board’s concern, but it holds the property hostage to a process that my client has no control over. It means that the property can’t be used for purposes for which even the Comprehensive Plan contemplated it would be used for, notwithstanding the fact that there’s been a number of different reviews of this property, all endorsing the specific use that my client is proposing now. If we say that the road design is not acceptable because it’s too long, it means that the property really can’t be used for the purposes for which it’s been zoned, and those purposes which have been endorsed on a number of different occasions, both in the Comprehensive Plan and the re-zonings for the property, over time, and we would ask the Board to take that into consideration as you look at this request. MR. SIPP-I don’t think we’re holding the property hostage. I think we’re looking at the safety of the people that would be using it in this case. If you can show us another way in or out, I think we can proceed from there. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess for my own edification, I appreciate the comments that you made, and I think they’re well taken. My bigger concern is the volume of traffic, and without the second access point, I don’t think the project can handle the ultimate build out that’s being proposed. I would be, and again, this is my own opinion. I would be willing to move forward with a scaled down project until the second access were available, but, beyond that, you know, I just think it’s, you know, given the limitations of the access, that also limits the design and the ultimate build out, and that’s not really an issue of the length of the road as much as it’s a function of the volume of traffic going into the property. MRS. SLEVIN-And I think the volume of traffic has been fully addressed in the traffic impact study that was submitted and that was reviewed with this Board the last time that we appeared before you, and I don’t think that Chazen has any objections to the conclusions in the report that say that the single access point in fact can handle the full volume of traffic at a full build out, worst case scenario, provided that the mitigation that’s proposed within the traffic impact study is all implemented. So I think that that issue, respectfully, has been looked at by both this Board and also your consulting engineer, and I don’t think that there’s any outstanding issues on that, with that respect. I think that it comes down to an understandable preference of the Board to have two means of ingress and egress to the property. We commit to work towards having that, but we don’t have control of that process, and we’ve tried to propose a new design for the project, which is the road itself, that is creative and addresses the safety concerns that the Board has articulated. MR. FORD-I’d like to have you further elaborate and address your statement about you having no control over that access road to Queensbury Avenue. Granted it’s going to take some five to six months apparently for this report to be forthcoming from the County, but there are, there is another way, through adjoining properties, of making that happen, correct, that would not require six months of study by the County. MRS. SLEVIN-Are you talking about having a secondary access through other properties controlled by Mr. Macri? I’m not quite sure. MR. FORD-I thought there were adjoining properties, in addition to the County property. Was that statement not made, that could be utilized? MRS. SLEVIN-No. It has to go through the County property at a minimum. There is a group that would include both the County property and private property, but the vast majority of the road, in any circumstance, would involve the County property. MR. OBORNE-I would concur with that, and just to state for the record, the Town Planning Department prefers for the road to align with Stone Quarry Road, not just the County. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And that would, again, necessitate public or private property. MR. FORD-I was just trying to explore options. I misunderstood that previous explanation. Thank you for that clarification. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’d also like to clarify something that you stated before about the preference of the Board. It’s not a matter of preference. It’s Code. We can’t override that without feeling that we have some compelling reason to do so. It’s not simply a matter of preference. Is that not obvious by the Town Code? MRS. SLEVIN-Well, the Town Code also provides an opportunity for the Board to provide a waiver, and we are asking for the waiver based on the design of the road, both the configuration and the width of the road, and also given the zoning of the parcel and the topographic constraints and environmental constraints of the property. So those are the predicates that we’re asking the Board to consider as it looks at this request. MR. TRAVER-I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Did you want to address the Board, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is this a public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just about to say, we do have a public hearing scheduled. If you wouldn’t mind giving up the table and we’ll take some public comment, and I would ask anyone that wishes to speak during the public hearing portion of our meeting to use the microphone and state your name for the record and address and comments or questions to the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-Good evening. I’m John Caffry representing the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition, and we were very pleased, relatively speaking, with the efforts that this applicant took and the Board took with protecting wetlands during the Wal-Mart project, but that was really on the fringes of the Big Cedar Swamp. This project is getting a lot closer to the Big Cedar Swamp itself and so there’s much more of a threat to the wetlands and the habitat of the wildlife that use the Big Cedar Swamp. Our main concern about this layout that’s proposed, I understand it’s expected to be somewhat conceptual and it’s not really the final layout and all that, but that all they’re really doing is drawing a line around the wetlands and some over on the adjacent areas and some through the adjacent areas, without really looking at the habitat that’s there and the habitat and the wildlife that’s there and how the habitat is used. It’s really a very basic cookie cutter design, and I don’t think they’ve yet really looked at the issues to the extent required by the Town Code or by SEQRA. Most wetland species use both wetlands and upland areas as part of their habitat for different seasons of the year, for different parts of their life cycle or their breeding cycle, and in order to know what species you have there and what their habitat needs are, you have to have a wildlife assessment. It’s not just enough to ask the State if there’s any records of rare, threatened or endangered species. You really need to look at all species, and then you need to know what their habitat needs are. We don’t know if the areas around the wetlands on this property are, how they’re used by the wildlife that’s included in the Big Cedar Swamp, especially amphibians, turtles, small mammals, things like that. So you need to look at it not just as a matter of drawing a line on the map, but there needs to be a habitat assessment. For instance, and then, but this is a related issue, but during the Earl Town project review in the 1980’s, it was identified that the Red Shouldered Hawk was present in the Big Cedar Swamp, and that’s a species of special concern under the DEC regulations. It’s still listed by DEC, and so that’s a species that’s going to have to be taken into account, and I don’t know the extent to which any wildlife studies have been done yet, but that’s in addition to the habitat needs of smaller animals, that’s another one that’s going to have to be looked at, and if you look at the design of this project, it’s really kind of sprawled all over the lot, and then there’s isolated islands of habitat that are cut off by roads or by parking lots or whatever that really have no value as habit once those things are built around them. Just because they don’t have pavement on them doesn’t mean they’re good habitat, and I would ask that the applicant and the Board re-look at the design of this and try to consolidate the developed areas in one portion of the property, really kind of smoosh it together, if you will, rather than sprawling it all out over the property. We’d also request that, as is currently drawn it shows that a lot of the wetlands are part of the building lots, and it would be much better if the wetlands were part of a common property that couldn’t be developed rather than being part of a building lot. There’s much less likelihood of problems with the property owners that way. If it was more consolidated, too, there’d be less length of roads, less impact on wildlife. We would support the request for a waiver because that additional road going out to Queensbury Avenue would further create habitat fragmentation and if you waive the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) requirement, then you would reduce the amount of habitat fragmentation. The Big Cedar Swamp is for the most part what they call a wooded wetland. Animals don’t always know where the wetland boundary is. This project would lose or destroy roughly in my estimate about 40 acres of woodland habitat next to the wetlands. That’s another reason, we think to consolidate the development to the eastern side of the property as much as possible and avoid just drawing lines around the wetland areas. Some other issues we think ought to be looked at is the lighting and how to avoid impacts on the wetlands, again, re-designing it to make it a lot more compact, using only native species of plants in the plantings. I think it could be looked at whether you could have shared parking lots or perhaps parking decks in order to minimize the amount of habitat loss in the area there. You could remove the islands from the parking lots in order to minimize the amount of pavement, and I think the maps I’ve seen so far, and I haven’t seen what’s in your file most recently, only are pretty well limited to the property itself, and I think we need to see where the wetlands are on adjoining lands, what the habitat is on adjoining land so you can maintain some habitat connectivity and not unnecessarily cut off the wetlands or the habitat on the site from the habitat off the site. You could have restrictions on tree cutting and lawns again to minimize, lots of times you’ll see factories and whatever surrounded by giant lawns that serve absolutely no purpose, and given the sensitive nature of this site, so close to the Big Cedar Swamp, all of that should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Regarding the road itself, I’m concerned to hear that the County is doing some kind of study separate and apart from what this Board is doing, which makes me think that there’s a potential for segmentation of the SEQRA review if they’re doing studies of roads that are being built specifically to connect to this project that isn’t part of your SEQRA review. Also from a traffic point of view if you build a road from this site out to Queensbury Avenue, you’ve already got one coming in from the Wal-Mart, pretty soon that’s going to be a big short cut. Everybody’s going to go through there that’s going to their jobs out along Queensbury Avenue out by the airport to avoid the light down there by the ice factory there, and so I don’t know if this traffic study is going to take that into account and traffic engineers probably like to pretend people don’t do that, but it’s going to happen, and I think that’s an issue that’s got to be looked at as to whether or not it’s a good idea to build that road there. Ultimately, in order to really look at the environmental impacts of this project in a comprehensive way, we think that you ought to do a positive declaration under SEQRA. I’ve seen some mention in your minutes of doing a Generic EIS, and especially where they want a conceptual type of review, I think a Generic EIS is probably the way to go. It lets you look at these habitat issues, where to focus the development and avoid impacts, and again, we’re not just talking about drawing a line around the wetlands so you don’t have to apply for permits. The habitat issues involved in wetlands go, don’t stop at the wetland boundary delineated by the little orange flags with numbers on them. So we would request that ultimately this Board do a positive declaration and a Generic EIS. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-Just a quick clarification. It’s the Transportation Council who’s undertaken this study, not the County. MR. CAFFRY-Regardless on the County property. It would still be a segmentation, I think, if they’re doing their study and you’re doing a separate study. MS. RADNER-As long as that study is considered as part of SEQRA review process, I don’t see how it could possibly be a segmentation issue. A study itself is not a project, it’s only one piece of information to be considered, and this Board often considers studies done by others, including engineers, other agencies, as part of their job when they do their SEQRA review. MR. CAFFRY-I would agree, but from what I hear that study is six months out, and I suspect this applicant’s in a bigger hurry than that, to have their SEQRA determination made, so that if this Board were to make a SEQRA determination without waiting for the results of that, then you may have a segmentation issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. Were there any written comments, Keith, since the last meeting? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the applicant wants to come back to the table, we will conclude the public hearing for this evening but leave it open. What’s the will of the Board? I’m not hearing a lot of support for the waiver request. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I went through and it appears we have many noes. Haven’t heard from Brad, but I think everybody else is pretty much no on granting the waiver. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. TRAVER-Well, and we have the, in some ways even adding to that is the public comment about the potential for a segmentation issue. I don’t know, legally, how realistic that definition is, but it certainly seems logical from the environmental impact perspective to consider what might happen with that road, and ironically it may argue, when the study is done, it may argue in support of the applicant’s plan, because there’s, again, public comment that adding the connection to Queensbury Avenue would actually increase the impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Would someone like to make a motion relative to the waiver request? MRS. STEFFAN-Well I could very easily do that and just say that the Planning Board is not in favor of granting a waiver for this site plan. Is that sufficient? MS. RADNER-I think you need to be a little bit more definitive, that you move that it be granted or that it be denied. MR. SCHONEWOLF-At this time. MS. RADNER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Is that the motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, no, I haven’t made it yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Because that’s all we’re considering this evening is just the waiver request on the length of the road. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay, and that doesn’t call for conditions or anything like that obviously, at this stage. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s just yes or no. MS. RADNER-If you were inclined to grant the waiver subject to a certain condition in order to reach the point where you felt that the concerns for which that section was imposed in the Zoning Ordinance would be met, you could certainly do so, under the waiver provisions. There isn’t really a way to deny the waiver with conditions, but it would be conditions relative to the waiver, not conditions relevant to some other future happening of the parcel. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-But only if it were going to be granted. MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. RADNER-Right at the beginning of the discussion Mr. Traver’s pretty accurately stated what your considerations are when you determine whether or not to grant a waiver. Whether or not you’re convinced that the reasons for the Code have been addressed in some manner by the waiver request and so you can grant the waiver and still feel confident that the intention of the Code is being met. MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional questions or comments from the Board while our secretary works on a motion? MR. MAGOWAN-Would you consider making the project smaller until there were approvals for the road? I mean, you’ve asked us to make considerations. I’m wondering, would you be willing to make considerations? MR. MACRI-As far as phasing the project? We have no objection to phasing the project. MR. MAGOWAN-No. Making it smaller. MR. MACRI-I think what we’re attempting to do here is, and I think everybody is aware of it, and I know you haven’t been at other meetings, that we’re trying to get this site shovel ready in accordance with requirements of New York State. So that’s one thing that we try and do, which 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) means preliminary approval of a site plan, but there’s no reason we couldn’t phase that and condition that to be a smaller project until certain criteria are met. By making it a smaller project, what are you saying, make the building smaller? Because that doesn’t make sense at all in what we’re trying to do to attract new business to the Town of Queensbury. You’re not going to attract a 20,000 square foot user to a project like this. What we’re looking for is a maximum user of the lot that’s available. Now if we phase the lots, say exclude a line where let’s say the two front lots are the only lots that are approved at this point, and then the balance of the project will only be addressed at some time in the future that that road becomes available. Now I’m not saying the road isn’t available currently to us. As far as we’re concerned, we do have rights across it, and rights of crossing, we’ve discussed this before, there’s no reason we can’t put an emergency access there and maintain that. I can’t sit here today and say that the County won’t take some action against us for trying that, but I really believe that we have rights across it. It’s been the only access to the property for 100 years, but I just don’t want to sit here today and say, yes, we’ll put that break away access, this emergency access there, but we do have rights across it. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the right to cross it include the right to improve it? MR. MACRI-I think we can maintain it. MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, if the council is undergoing a study, they probably object to any activity on that property until they completed their study. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just thinking, there’s a couple of kind of low spots that, you know, if you were to put gravel in there. MR. MACRI-So I think we’re dealing with two dynamics here. One is an economic development corporation that wants the road, okay, the County who wants to do some things at the airport. So they want some of our property. No denying that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MACRI-And therefore refusing to even discuss that. MR. TRAVER-They want a comprehensive approach. MR. MACRI-Yes, the comprehensive approach is difficult, to say the least, and it isn’t that I haven’t been at this for over two years with the County, but they have their agenda. So at one point the County said to us directly there’s no need for a road there, we would never put a road there, until EDC came to them and said, yes, there is a need for a road, we want a road, and they started the study. MR. TRAVER-So if you, in your discussions with them, if you signaled to them that it looked as though the project was going to require such a road, and you wanted to work with them to speed that comprehensive design, might that not help move things along? MR. MACRI-I think, you know, I would be in a better position if I had a project that was approvable and we could negotiate the access than if I didn’t have a project that was approvable, because we needed the access, understand that. I mean, that’s fairly simple. If I walked in to the County tomorrow and said, okay, we’ve got the waiver for the road, our project’s going to proceed, now what, can we get over this hurdle. So, I mean, that’s, you know, been the problem, definite problem. MRS. SLEVIN-And if the Board is amenable, if we can potentially look at the request for a waiver in the context of a phased approach so we would say that the first phase would allow for the development of the front lots, and then the second phase would allow the development of the remaining back lots, provided that that secondary access became available. So what it would do for Mr. Macri, it would provide the opportunity for him to move forward with. MR. TRAVER-So you would submit a different subdivision application? MR. MACRI-No, we’d just draw a line there. We could draw a line here tonight. It’s not going to change or affect anything, just draw a line through it. MR. TRAVER-Well, I don’t think we could draw a line there tonight. I think if you wanted to withdraw your. If you had a different application, I think we would certainly look at it. Absolutely. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) I mean, if you want to withdraw this subdivision application and submit a different design, obviously we would look at it. MRS. SLEVIN-It’s not a different subdivision application. It’s a phasing of the same subdivision application. MS. RADNER-What you would have to do, if you accepted that sort of an approach, is be very clear on what was being approved and what benchmarks, but your SEQRA review would have to consider the total intended maximum build out, but you can’t proceed with the SEQRA without the total build out. You can’t pretend like you don’t know phase two is coming. MR. TRAVER-Right. Gotcha. That really would pose a segmentation issue. MR. MACRI-Take a look at what Warren County has done on County Line Road. Take a look at what the City of Glens Falls has done at their tech park. They all of a sudden have one, after five or six years, have one potential. These things don’t happen overnight, and I know you guys, I think it’s important to have this property available with respect to clients who may come to the Town instead of the Town turning their back on them, but, you know, I have no problem whatsoever with the phased build out. MR. TRAVER-The problem we would run into in that scenario again would be the SEQRA, the segmentation issue, which would be even more severe than the one we have now with a pending study on the road that bisects the property. I mean, I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally, and again, I’m not speaking for the whole Board, but I think that fundamentally the project is sound. I think that we just have the issue of exactly what we’re dealing with tonight which is the road, and, you know, it is an inconvenience to have to wait for these studies, but, in addition to our concerns with safety and traffic, we’re now, it’s now been pointed out that there are some potential environmental concerns as well that may impact SEQRA. MR. SIPP-I agree with you there. There are environmental considerations for tonight. MR. MACRI-Well, the environmental considerations as such, as Cathi pointed out, would be that if you put the road in, it may affect habitat. MR. TRAVER-Possibly, but we don’t know the answer to that because we don’t have enough information yet. MR. MACRI-We’ve done all the habitat studies. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the removal of 35,000 cubic yards of material is going to affect the habitat. MR. TRAVER-Those are, I think, site plan issues, primarily. MR. SIPP-Sixty-one and a half acres being stripped of vegetation, shrubs, ground cover. MR. TRAVER-I think we’ve seen with the Wal-Mart project that we can work with the applicant to successfully mitigate a lot of that stuff. MR. SIPP-This is a lot more. MR. TRAVER-It is. It is, but those are really site plan issues. I mean, we’re looking at the subdivision and the road issue tonight, and. MR. MACRI-If you look at a lot of the roads here, it’s heavily used by friendly four wheel drivers and SUV people and whoever wants to just go up there and ram around. So if anything is affecting the habitat it’s the fact that we’re not up there trying to protect it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think our secretary is ready with a motion. Unless there’s final comments by the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: VMJR Companies Subdivision 1-2011 FWW 1-2011 MOTION TO DENY THE ROAD LENGTH WAIVER FOR SUBDIVISION 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2011 FOR VMJR COMPANIES: Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) The Queensbury Planning Board has considered the waiver request for the proposed development which includes a 2,820 linear feet cul-de-sac. Using the current zoning code 183- 27 I. (4) Layout of streets and roads dead end streets shall not be longer than 1,000 feet. As a result I move the Planning Board to deny the waiver request for the road length waiver. Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: MRS. SLEVIN-If I could just ask for clarification. Based on our discussion just a couple of minutes ago, is it fair to say that a proposed phasing of the road development would be something that the Board would consider, notwithstanding potential action on denial of the waiver request tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we vote on the motion that’s on the table first, and then we’ll address that discussion. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a tabling motion. MRS. SLEVIN-If you could table it, that probably makes more sense, because my request would be to do it without prejudice otherwise. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have a motion and a second. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. RADNER-At this point, unless the person who made the motion wishes to withdraw it or the person who seconded it wishes to withdraw it, it’s on the table for the Board to act upon. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board willing to consider a phasing plan, a waiver for the road length if the project were phased? MR. TRAVER-Well, not tonight, I don’t think. I mean, it would have to be something that was submitted for the Town to look at and comment on, exactly how that would happen. We’d have to look at the segmentation issues with regards to SEQRA. I don’t think it would alter the outcome. I mean, the road issue would remain the same, and I think we’re better off directing this project toward a resolution of that issue. The segmentation may, in the short-term, lead to some actionable items, but I think that the project as a whole is going to be completed sooner if we just move forward with the idea of completing the study and getting that access cleared up. Then we could do the whole thing at once. MRS. SLEVIN-If I could just make one comment. The SEQRA review has not been segmented. In fact, we’ve gone to great lengths to make sure that it is not segmented, because the reason why, even though the proposal before the Board is just for the road, all the analysis that’s been done, to the extent that we can, has looked at a full scope of development, and only those issues that we can’t specifically identify because we just don’t know what the buildings are going to be, had we not been able to advance the full scope of studies, but to the extent possible, this application has not segmented the SEQRA review, and that’s why we gave a traffic impact study that provided for full development. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, again, I can’t speak for everyone on the Board, but I am not going to try to do the job of the Planning Department. So I would direct you to discuss your other ideas you might have for moving this forward with the Planning Department, and try to get their support for something that they feel comfortable with moving forward, perhaps a different application or something. I mean, obviously. MR. OBORNE-It’s certainly not a support issue. It’s a facilitation issue. MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m talking about the support for a design. MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s got to come from this Board, but as far as getting that to you, certainly we’d be more than willing to have those discussions with the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s what I mean. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We’re at an impasse with the current design the way it’s laid out, but if they want to present a different plan and it can be moved through the Planning Department to the point where we’re going to look at it again, I think that’s fine. MR. OBORNE-My suggestion would be to have the applicant submit a plan, which basically is saying put a line in there, and then get some information down on a piece of paper on how you want to go forward, on how they want to go forward, that is to the approval of this Board. MR. TRAVER-Right, and certainly we would take a look at that. MR. OBORNE-The applicant certainly has proposed a phasing approach to this. I mean, that’s always been on the table, but obviously without that road, that’s an issue. MR. TRAVER-So I don’t know if that clarifies anything further for you. MRS. SLEVIN-Yes, that does. MR. TRAVER-But again, Staff are very helpful and very willing to sit down and try to help come up with a different process here. MRS. SLEVIN-And we appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we’re looking at a tabling motion now. When would we table this to? MR. TRAVER-Well, we still have an incomplete application, correct? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So I think we would need to hear from the Planning Department that we have a completed application before they would be put on the agenda. MR. OBORNE-If you follow established protocols, that would be fine. I think that the applicant should be petitioned as to when they would be potentially, able to complete the engineering and get those answers to Sean at this point. th MR. DOOLEY-Yes, for this particular plan as it’s laid out right here, it would be August 15. MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, it seems to me that that plan may need to be revised now. MR. DOOLEY-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Because I’m sure you don’t want all that pavement in there now, but that’s totally up to you. MR. DOOLEY-Yes, let us go back and look at this. Can we go back and look at this? MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds as though there’s going to need to be more discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have the public hearing held open. th MR. DOOLEY-Our goal would be to submit on August 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-For a September meeting. MR. OBORNE-And I think the first meeting is fine. MR. HUNSINGER-9/20. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: VMJR Companies Subdivision 1-2011 FWW 1-2011 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 FOR VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This will be tabled to September 20 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new th materials would be by August 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can now address prior engineering comments, staff notes, and previous Planning Board motion in light of the denial for the road length access waiver. Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that the public hearing was held open and we will th take additional public comment, if there is any, on September 20. You’re all set. Thank you. MRS. SLEVIN-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO 4-2011 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PATRICK GERUSO OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 34 HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.60 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.30 +/- ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 16-11 LOT SIZE 0.60 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-37.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 PATRICK GERUSO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-This is Final subdivision 4-2011 for Patrick Geruso. This is final subdivision review, 34 Howard Street, MDR, or Moderate Density Residential is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. This Board has already performed a negative declaration on 4/19. Just a quick synopsis of what’s going on. The Area Variance was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/20 of this year. They came back for Preliminary subdivision review. That was approved on 5/19 of this year. Now it’s Final subdivision review. This is on Howard Street, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GERUSO-Good evening. Patrick Geruso. I’m just here for final approval, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. GERUSO-No, I don’t think we had any problems in the meantime. Nobody came up, you know, nobody had any problems. We just had some preliminary final paperwork for the Town. That was about it. Nothing’s changed. It’s the same as what I brought last time before you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We did most of it in April. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. If there are no comments or questions, I will entertain a motion for approval. There is no public hearing. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing and SEQRA have all been completed. We gave them Preliminary approval. So it’s just a matter of the Final. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Did we have waivers for this? MR. GERUSO-We had waivers for like engineering and stormwater I believe, originally. Right? MR. OBORNE-Grading, stormwater, E & S and landscaping. That’s what I have on my notes. MRS. STEFFAN-You have E & S, stormwater. MR. OBORNE-Grading. MRS. STEFFAN-Grading, and landscaping? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-So you had all four. Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING Final Stage Subdivision 4-2011 Patrick Geruso A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.60 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 0.30 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 4/19/2011; the ZBA approved the variance request on 4/20/2011; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/19/11 and 5/19/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 4-2011 PATRICK GERUSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b)SEQRA Negative Declaration was approved on 5/19/11; c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d)Waiver requests granted: sketch plan review, stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, and E & S; e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID HOWARD OWNER(S) DAVID W. HOWARD ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 500 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. SPECIFICALLY, APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL CLEARING TO LOT 18 OF THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) CROSS REFERENCE SUB 14-2005 [4/15/08] APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 9.23 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-2-18 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 DAVID HOWARD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 14-2005, David Howard. This a modification to an approved subdivision. This is 500 Luzerne Road. Existing zoning is MDR. The SEQRA status on this would be Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant has exceeded the clearing limits to Lot 18 of the Hayes Luzerne Road subdivision and consequently is seeking approval for the existing clearing conditions as well as the additional clearing. Concerning proposed additional clearing, the applicant wishes to clear the majority of the remaining lot outside of the 100 foot setback to the on-site wetlands, increase the no cut buffer zone to the south from 20 to 30 feet and pursue the potential development of two ponds on the site. Staff comments: and I want to make this perfectly clear, If the Planning Board was to issue an approval for the additional clearing (either existing and/or proposed clearing), the applicant will be required to submit a Stormwater Pollution Preventative Plan (SWPPP) to the Department of Community Development and DEC. This can be made part of this approval if the clearing/grading plans and SWPPP are submitted for review. Conversely, if the Planning Board was not to approve the existing and/or proposed additional clearing, re-vegetation may be required and a SWPPP will be required regardless. What follows is a basic review. Basically what we’re asking the Planning Board to do tonight is to give the okay or the thumbs down for what has already occurred and what is proposed to occur, and then the applicant will be required to submit a SWPPP and a full plan after that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Any questions, please just let me know, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOWARD-Good evening, folks. I’m David Howard, and this is the project that I’m proposing to you tonight. In reference to the property, this is for my personal residence. It’s 9.23 acres, and in reference to what the gentleman was speaking about, in reference to the SWPPP for the project, I have contacted Mr. Nace of Nace Engineering, and I just spoke with him tonight actually, and he’s working on that, and that should be just, in a couple of days we should have approval from him in reference to DEC who I’ve already contacted for the stormwater prevention for this project. So basically tonight what my proposal is to clear further from my home for a garage in the future. The two proposed ponds that I have on the print, really I don’t think they’re going to work out due to the water table at this time in the summer months. It just doesn’t seem feasible that they’re going to hold the water. It is a high water table in the area, but it just seems like in the summer months they’ll be dry, and that’s not what I’d like to have on my property. So I think I totally want to do away with those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HOWARD-In reference to the property as well, like I’ve said, it’s for my personal home. I know it’s Lot Number 18 of the subdivision. It’s a lot of land and I really want to be able to use that land. There’s a 20 foot no clearing cut zone around the whole property. I really would like to, along the homes on Luzerne Road in the rear of those to increase those to 30 foot, and I may not even go that close, but for my privacy and also for theirs, I would like to increase that to at least 30 and maybe a little more. I laid out the footings for the home last week, and as you can see where the proposed home is going, there was a (lost word) right there next to the home, and it absolutely has to be cleared just a little more in order to at least, you know, not have trees falling on the residence, and I just want to have a lot of landscaping and use my property. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I have a couple of questions. MR. HOWARD-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-We got a copy of the note, the violation from the Code Enforcement Officer. When this was in front of us in 2008 we approved it as a residential subdivision. So my first question is, the house that you’re proposing is about the same size as the garage you’re proposing. MR. HOWARD-Yes, ma’am. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Is this going to be a commercial use? MR. HOWARD-No, absolutely not. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So tell us what you want to use the property for. MR. HOWARD-Well, I want to use the property for my home, okay. The home is, like I said, it’s 2400 square foot ranch, and due to the water table, I’ll go outside the scope of this. There’s a high water table there. The footings will be placed on the ground, okay, but this is not the first time I’ve done such a home like this, so. MRS. STEFFAN-So you won’t have a basement in it. It’ll be on a slab? MR. HOWARD-It’ll be a basement. The footings will be right below topsoil, and then we’ll build up from there and then fill will go around the front and the sides and it’ll be a walk out basement. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HOWARD-So it’ll be a usable basement, you know, that’ll be considered living space when it’s finished, and the garage, I want a garage as well for, I have a lot of like different types of toys, and I like to train and what not, and that’s why I kind of want the landscaping as well, you know, I just like to be outside. I want a big field area. That’s where I like to train. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so my next question is, based on the violation, what were you thinking when you cleared all that without a permit? MR. HOWARD-What was I thinking? Well, actually I’ve done a few projects in Queensbury before, and I know that you’re allowed to clear the property, you know, dig the foundation and before you pour footings, you need an inspection and building permit. This could be a long drawn out situation, but I know I spoke with my architect, Ethan Hall, you know, he’s doing my plans for me for the home. So I was like we can start clearing. We’ll clear this envelope for the home, which is allowed. I spoke to Dave Hatin and Craig Brown, yes, you can go ahead and clear. Well, I go out of town quite a bit for work, days at a time, when the clearing was taking place, unfortunately I was out of town. So then I arrived back home, this is what’s there. I take full responsibility because it is my property. So now I have to rectify that and just have to comply. So I looked at that and I said, wow, that’s a lot of clearing. So that’s where we ended up at. MR. FORD-What about the fill? MR. HOWARD-The fill? What do you mean by that, sir, the hauled in? Yes. MR. FORD-And stumps and debris. MR. HOWARD-Yes, they’re hauled out and then there is some in the back that are actually in the ground that I have to remove to comply with the violation notice from the Town. That’s a no brainer. There was some in the back. I don’t know where the diagram is, but the back, there’s a few right in the back there. They’ll have to come out, and I guess I can leave them on the ground, is what Bruce said, you know, I can just push those up to the property line, but they’ve just got to be above the ground. What happened at the beginning, too, is I remember Bruce saying something in reference to, yes, you can bury stumps. So I’m saying, okay, if it’s not a subdivision, you can bury stumps and debris. Well, the problem is this is a subdivision, Lot No. 18. So they have to come out now. That was basically misinterpretation or whatever it was, but they’ll come out and they’ll be on the ground and I’ll haul them away. I’ll probably haul them up to some place that I know of that I’ve hauled debris to on Bay Road. So, I’m all about complying and making things go because I’d really like to move into my home sooner rather than later. MR. TRAVER-The Notice of Violation it appears was issued in May, May 3, 2011. Was there any cutting or any of this work done after you received that Notice of Violation? MR. HOWARD-No, sir. I’m definitely not in the business of going against people’s wishes, and if there is a problem, I definitely want to comply with those. MR. FORD-Did you personally do any of the clearing? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HOWARD-No. No, I hired someone to come in, sir. It was one of those things where if I don’t have to, you know, use my physical labor and what not, then it’s less on me, you know, my other occupation to have them go in and do that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I ask the question because in the copy of the letter to you that we have of ndrd July 22, it references the May 3 Notice of Violation, and then at the end of the same paragraph, it talks about that on July 21 it was discovered that you had completely grubbed out all of the areas where the unapproved trees were removed, blah, blah, blah, but it’s your rd statement that all of that removal occurred prior to the May 3 Notice of Violation date. Is that correct? MR. HOWARD-No, sir. Actually, in reference to your, you’re talking about clearing the trees, rd that was all done before the first notice, okay, that you were talking about May 3 I believe you said, and then after that clearing I thought you were talking about cutting of trees. MR. TRAVER-Well, let me make sure that you understand my question. I have before me a nd communication to you from Bruce Frank dated July 22. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-In which he states that on May 3, 2011 you were issued a Notice of Violation Order to Remedy citation and a Stop Work Order. Is that accurate? MR. HOWARD-No. MR. TRAVER-That’s not accurate? nd MR. HOWARD-On July 22, yes, it was. MR. TRAVER-No, no, let me repeat myself. On May 3, 2011 you were issued a Notice of Violation Order to Remedy citation and a Stop Work Order. Is that accurate? MR. HOWARD-What they wanted to see, there was no Stop Work Order posted or anything, sir. Work was stopped. What I had to do at that point was just talk to Matt Steves who does my surveying on this, and he had to draw a diagram of what had been cleared. Once that was done, sir, then they allowed me to go ahead and work on my home again. MR. TRAVER-So you’re not certain if, in fact, you did receive that Notice of Violation Order to rd Remedy citation and a Stop Work Order on May 3? MR. HOWARD-No, I’m certain that I got that, yes. MR. TRAVER-You are? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So my next question is, was there any work on the property conducted rdst after you were issued that Stop Work Order between May 3 and July 21? That’s where I’m confused, because in the letter, you stated no, but in the letter it says on July 21, 2011 it was discovered you had completely grubbed out all the areas where the unapproved trees were removed, removed or stockpiled native soils and so on. So it appears to me in reading this that you were issued a violation, and then you committed another violation which was to violate the order of the Stop Work Order and the Order To Remedy, and I wanted to clarify if, in fact, my perception is accurate. MR. HOWARD-No, it’s not accurate, sir. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Could you explain, then, or clarify what this letter? MR. HOWARD-Yes. After the first Stop Work Order, I went to Matt Steves, told him exactly what was cleared, okay. At that point they stated we can give you a building permit, Dave, and you can start construction on your home. MR. FORD-Who is they? MR. HOWARD-Craig Brown, sir, and Bruce Frank at the zoning. I had a building permit for the home. So at that point, probably at July timeframe I believe it was, beginning of July, I had 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) equipment in there, in reference to clearing, getting the lot ready for the home. So at that point they pushed off all the stumps, all the soil, etc., as you see right there. So that’s what, if you’re considering clearing for pushing up the stumps and what not, yes, after that the stumps were pushed up and the soil was pushed in a pile, because that’s, with a project like this, the soil comes up first and then, you know, the house, so on and so forth, but I did comply with what they wanted to do afterwards. MR. FORD-This indicates that you were directed to discontinue removing any more trees or vegetation, and not to disturb the ground of the areas where the trees had been removed. Did you comply with that directive? MR. HOWARD-Yes, I did, sir. Yes, I did not touch anything after that. When they gave me a building permit and said I could start building my home, that’s when I started clearing the area for my home that I had cleared in reference to the stumps and what not. MR. FORD-And approximately what date did that occur, did that start? th MR. HOWARD-Beginning of July timeframe, sir, probably July 10 timeframe. I had two big pieces of equipment in there that were getting the site ready for my home. MR. TRAVER-So, if you, Mr. Oborne, I’m going to ask for your help on this. I’m still not clear on this. It sounds as though he was issued a building permit or some permission to commence rdrd construction on his home, during the period from May 3, since May 3 and before July 21. MR. OBORNE-That very well may be true. I’m not privy to that information, to be honest with you. I don’t have that information before me. What I do know is that the gentleman was issued a Stop Work Order after the trees were taken down and hauled off, okay, by Bruce, and that means no more work, as far as land clearing goes, and it’s my understanding that some time in July the stumps were grubbed out, and also stockpiled and removed, and so that would be an additional violation. That’s my understanding. Bruce would be able to clarify that more if he was here, because I don’t know exactly all the timeframes that have gone on. I’m now here presenting this to you. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Are you going to continue this? Do you want re-vegetation? Because the applicant wants to do more clearing, also, on top of this. I’m with that, but my understanding is speaking with Bruce that the additional grubbing was not an approved action, for lack of a better term. MR. HOWARD-Bruce allowed me to grub out the area, okay, and to build the home with Mr. Brown, Craig Brown, where the home is going. In reference to the SWPPP, what the grubbing that took place in the back corner where proposed future garage is going to go, that’s what’s in reference to the DEC and the SWPPP. Those two gentlemen said go ahead, Dave, grub out the area, do what you want to do. MR. OBORNE-That was approved initially in the subdivision back in ’05. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-This is limit of clearing that you certainly, you can grub all that out because that was allowed. It’s that additional clearing that’s the issue. MR. HOWARD-Yes, they said additional clearing in the back, that was the issue with that, and that’s where DEC comes into play, and like I say, I have friends that work in DEC, we work together, actually. I’ve spoken with them. So basically if you want to take like behind the house, so many feet in the back, that’s not proposed to be grubbed out, and that happened, okay, but where the house is going to go and what not, that wasn’t a violation. MR. OBORNE-And I concur with what he’s saying because that was the approved clearing limits. Again it’s the additional clearing limits that were the issue, and that’s where the impetus of that Stop Work Order once and then Stop Work Order twice. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s confusing, because the modification plan doesn’t look anything like the original approval, and so. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. OBORNE-That is correct, ma’am, yes. MR. HOWARD-Miss, they were having conversations about this quite often in reference to the house placement and what was going to happen. In the initial position of the house that the Hayes Group, I don’t think they did me much of a favor, but the position of it, they took the part that I had cleared, Craig did and Bruce, and actually helped me somewhat, and I decided that I didn’t want the driveway just to be, it’s my property. I wanted the driveway a little further back. I deal with people all the time. I wanted some privacy. Like, you know what, Dave, it seems like you can put the house a little bit farther back. The area, if you shrink it down like you have, it looks about the same as it’s just wide open in the initial one. So that’s why they issued me the building permit. They were a little bit hesitant because they know that if I came to you guys and I had the building permit, how did I do it, but they figured that, you know, I did the right thing and the position of the house is different than the original. MR. OBORNE-And I don’t think that’s an issue. That’s not a big issue. As long as it, the only reason to put a house on a subdivision plan is to show everybody that, yes, we can put a house within this building envelope. You can put a drainage field on and all that, and I know the Board knows that. So there is wiggle room with the Codes Department with the location of the house, as long as it doesn’t bust the zoning with it, and so that may very well be true. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and when they did that, we approved it with test pits, because of the water table at the time, and so, you know, normally that doesn’t happen, but we asked for it in this time period. So the house is generally in the spot where we had asked for the test pit data. So we got that, but it’s the excessive clearing in the back, I guess. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t think it’s possible to clear land much more than that. I don’t think there’s two stones touching in that picture there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HOWARD-There’s one picture, folks, where you can see where the footings have been laid out for the home. It’s right there, and you can see on the right side of the home that the tree line is right there, and that’s tough because once you get your home up, you know, the trees are right there. DAVID HOWARD, SR. MR. HOWARD, SR.-I’m David. I’m his father. We’re going to have to fill, obviously, if you look at the footing, we’re going to have an eight foot wall, maybe a nine, and we’re going to have to continue that fill out, and that’s where the septic disposal in the front, but on the side there, that’s probably going to go out there at least 40 feet. MR. HOWARD-Yes, the trees are close on the right side. So I’m really just asking for some leniency for the clearing to do more of that. MR. HOWARD, SR.-And of course if and when he gets approval to do the garage, that area back there, we would like to clear even more, because you’re going to go out there with the vehicles, and even though that looks huge, that area, it’s only probably 100 feet wide, by the time you get the garage on there. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m confused as to why you want to put the garage so far back. MR. HOWARD-Well, actually, sir, it’s a three car garage on the house, that’s attached to the house, and then I want the other garage out back as well, I want another garage. Like I said, I have a lot of recreational vehicles. I do a lot of cross training and what not that helps me with my work and it’s going to be a, it’s a beautiful place. So I really want to be able to, I’ve had visions of these nice houses and then having an additional garage you can go out to, and I think it’s just going to be a, it’s going to be a wonderful place. It’s going to be mine for many years. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly what’s your hobby with cars? MR. HOWARD-I don’t really have cars, miss. I have a lot of like four wheelers, snow mobiles, all that good stuff. I have the ability to do it and I do a lot of training, which is, that’s another subject, which is called cross training, which is referenced, and do a big building, maybe there’d be a basketball court in there. I don’t know. It’s going to be something, though. MR. FORD-Are you going to operate your business out of that, right? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HOWARD-I don’t own a business, sir. MR. FORD-You don’t? MR. HOWARD-No, sir. No, I actually, I’m a New York State trooper, and that’s why sometimes I’m out of town for, you know, I work up north. So three days at a time sometimes I’m gone. I do take full responsibility for what has happened. It is my property, and I’m going to rectify that. So, I can’t have my name attached to anything because that wouldn’t comply with their standards. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We have a public hearing. Do you know, is there any? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We have a public hearing scheduled for a modification. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing and I would ask anyone that wishes to address the Board to identify themselves for the record and to make their comments or questions to the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED COBY LA BELLE MR. LA BELLE-My name’s Coby LaBelle. His property borders mine. I’m on 462 Luzerne Road. What Dave does with his property is Dave’s thing. My concern is there’s a swamp back there, and the water table is high, and I have been flooded before, developments were put back there on Sherman Avenue. That’s my only concern is that water. Do you know what I mean? Trees suck water, I don’t know, ponds may help, they may not. That’s my only concern. That’s why I’m here. I don’t want that swamp coming between Sonny’s house and my house like it did three years ago, it ran for four days. That was a lot of water. Now the woods fill up behind my house to Sherman Avenue, right now. Table water, okay, there is a drain over there in that one development off Sherman Avenue, but it’s really not enough to drain that surface water off. That water runs. I’m the low man on the hill, you know what I mean, and that’s my only concern. What Dave does with his property is Dave’s business, but I don’t want that water problem. I’ve already had it, 16,000 gallons of water in my cellar. I don’t want that again, solid four days of just battling water, well, that’s my concern. Okay. That’s mainly all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LA BELLE-Thank you. CECIL HART MR. HART-Cecil Hart. I live at 466 Luzerne Road. I live right next to Coby. Your other developments that were out back previous to Mr. Howard filled my basement right full so the water was running out of cellar windows. I lost my furnace. I lost my pump, lost my hot water tank. I want to know if this water, or what he’s doing, if their engineers can tell me what he’s doing is not going to affect these people on Luzerne Road, fine, but if what he’s doing is going to start affecting us people again, is it going to happen. That’s my concern. I put my new home on a slab for that reason. I didn’t put a cellar on it, and that’s why he’s not putting a cellar under his because the water table is there, and by cutting all these trees, who’s to say? I mean, are they sucking up this water, or is taking these trees out going to create this water to come back up so that it creates problems for us? That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I have one I received today. “My name is Leroy LaCross, Jr. I reside at 485 Luzerne Road in Queensbury. Please note that I am against removal of anymore trees located on the property at 500 Luzerne Road, Queensbury. Your confirmation that you received this e-mail is appreciated.” That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to come back up to the table? MR. HOWARD-In reference to the two people that last spoke, I sympathize with their remarks, and there is definitely a high water table, and I actually used to work with Mr. LaBelle at my last job, and I wish I had a hand in where his home had gone because that water table is something awful, and it is sand, thank God, but at the same time, we’ve done test holes prior to me working on this property, and in the springtime it’s the worst, of course, and it’s only a couple of feet 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) down. So I understand why his basement does get wet at times, and the last gentleman that spoke, you know, thank God he put his home on a slab because things can change so that the home (lost word) become affected, and that’s why I’m building on top of the ground, and from what I’m doing here, I’m not an engineer and don’t pretend to be, to do so, but I know that sometimes clearing the ground and stuff, and letting it be able to dry out does help an area. I can’t do the ponds because they do dry up and right now the water table, we were checking the other day, and it is probably three or four feet down at least, you know, it’s dry most of the summer. So it has dropped, and what I have cleared doesn’t seem to have affected in a negative impact, and that’s the last thing I want to do is have neighbors upset at me. I just want, you know, I want to be cordial with them, and they can come over any time they’d like, and I just want to have a nice place back there. That’s all I’m looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, the clearing that was originally proposed has been exceeded. I’m not sure if additional clearing is warranted, particularly with the stormwater concerns of the neighbors. MR. HOWARD-Can I make a comment, sir, first? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HOWARD-I was speaking with Craig Brown and Bruce in reference to this and, you know, hoping for the best outcome as always. In reference to additional clearing, you know, it would be nice, because I know it doesn’t affect you folks, but it would be nice to be in the home in a timely manner at some point, and they were asking the best outcome for tonight would be to get like a conditional type approval to at least maybe clear some of my house, wouldn’t have the trees right next to it, and based on the conditional that I meet with DEC, which I have contacted nd them immediately that first day on July 22 I got the violation. Once I comply and give Mr. Brown that SWPPP, and I take care of the violation with the Town, then I can continue on the project. Because really, another month of having to come here just holds me up, and you start getting into the Fall months and the winter months, and it just, it really tends to push me along. So, I mean, that’s basically all I can ask. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s one part of me that can empathize with you, but there’s another part of me that says, you know, you’ve had ample notice that there were problems, and yet things went forward, and even though you hired agents to do work on your behalf, you’re still responsible for their actions. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And so I’m concerned that if we give you a conditional approval, you’ll just go forward, continue along the same path, you know, you and your agents, and so I’m just concerned about that, and I just, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about re-vegetation or anything like that. I keep hearing in your dialogue that you want to take more trees out, and when you put your house in, you know, you want to take more trees out from around, and I, you know, I certainly, I’m listening to neighbors and I understand that, but I, when we looked at this site initially, you can see from the plan and the approval that we were told that there was going to be a lot of green space and the buffers would be protected. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And now that’s not the scenario that we’re facing right now, and so I have concerns on many levels. MR. HOWARD-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. SIPP-You’ve got some test pits and perc tests on a map I have here. What was the result of these test pits? MR. HOWARD-In reference to that test pit, sir, we’ve done our own digging before we started, to see where we were going to put the foundation and the footings, and we shot some grades so that, you know, basically (lost word) high and dry. I don’t want my basement being wet, and the results are, in layman’s terms, I’m not an engineer, that, you know, the ground water’s right there in the spring so you really want to stay above it, and that’s all I can tell you, sir. I know that 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) there’s going to be a lot of fill around the front of the house and the sides of it, and the back’s going to be a walk out basement. That’s all I can tell you. MR. FORD-You did no test pits yourself? MR. HOWARD-Well, yes, we dug them ourselves and what not, and before the property, the Hayes Group had some test pits done as well. MR. FORD-The depth of your test pits were? MR. HOWARD, SR.-We went six feet, the water was just below the topsoil for most of the spring, and right about now it’s probably two feet down, three feet down. So we don’t take any chances. We’re above, we stripped the topsoil, and we added to that area. So we are about a foot and a half above the highest water that we noticed, plus the drain out by the street is three feet below us, and we’re going to do a French drain around the entire house, which, you know, that’s up to us, but we’re going to do a French footing drain around the entire house, pipe it right out. I’ve already talked to Chuck Garb. He said that sounds like a no brainer. MR. HUNSINGER-Where are you going to pipe it to? MR. HOWARD, SR.-Right to the, there’s a manhole out front. They came from Michaels Road and did drainage all the way down to Luzerne Road, the Town I’m assuming, but there’s a pipe that runs down through that’s got to be two foot in diameter, and it comes right out to Luzerne Road which is right on the property line, and we’re going to run a pipe around our building, our house, and come right on out and tie right into that, but that’s our concern. That’s how we’re going to drain our property. MR. FORD-I want to raise a question about the legality of that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think you may want to check with the Highway Super on that one. MR. Well, I talked to Chuck. MR. OBORNE-Chuck who? MR. HOWARD, SR.-Chuckie Garb. MR. HOWARD-The supervisor, Chuck Garb, for the highway. MR. OBORNE-For Warren County? MR. HOWARD, SR.-No, for Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-Okay. You need to go through the Supervisor. MR. HOWARD-Okay, and even if I decide not to do that. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Then we’re still a foot above high water. MR. OBORNE-I think you’re required to have a drain if your footers are within the seasonal high water mark. In fact, I know that’s the case. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Yes, but like I said, if we’re going to drain to a pond, we’re going to drain to daylight, if we can, and like I said, yes, we’ll get the proper permits to go to that, but that just makes sense in the world to come right out to a drainage that’s flowing all year. MR. OBORNE-And typically they will allow you to do that as long as it’s not gray water, if it’s just groundwater. Not a problem, but you still have to get your approval on that. It’s that gray water issue that kind of muddies things up. MR. HUNSINGER-How does that meet Code, though? Code requires that you maintain all stormwater on site. MR. OBORNE-Well, that might not necessarily be considered stormwater. I mean, it’s considered groundwater, but you have to get approval for that, to do that, specific on a case by case basis. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Is my understanding. MR. MAGOWAN-This picture up here on the screen, where’s the back of your house? MR. HOWARD-The back of the house, sir, would be where the rear boards are, basically. MR. MAGOWAN-Toward the red truck there? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s going to be all open there? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir, yes, that’ll be probably, you know, pool area of landscaping, etc. MR. OBORNE-All right. This shot here is from the very back where you want to put the garage. To the right is the big ditch, so that’s going to be cleared out. That’s fine. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. OBORNE-That’s not a problem. So this will give you reference on where we are. MR. HOWARD-So that wheel mark to the left would be the garage area. In the future, my biggest concern is just the home at this point, folks. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that’s to be proposed, right, with the proposal? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’d have to come back if you wanted to put that in, correct? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-My concern, do you want to go back to the picture in the back there, the footings. All right. Now how far is your tree line off of your footings, if we’re looking in the picture to the right? MR. HOWARD, SR.-Two feet. MR. HOWARD-Yes, they’re right there, sir, it’s really close. MR. FORD-That’s what you want to clear more of, right? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now what do you have to the left? MR. HOWARD-Actually to the left, what happens, sir, is there’s a line. This is all wetland area, and the garage comes in the end, yes. You see the left there, all the tree line, you can’t clear any further because that’s, you can’t touch that. That’s wetlands. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So from your footings, looking at this picture, where would I be standing? MR. HOWARD-Right about there, right there. MR. HOWARD, SR.-That’s the garage opening up on the top of the hill. MR. HOWARD-And there’s 35 feet. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Thirty-five feet to the wood line. MR. HOWARD-And in reference to having 35 feet, that’s kind of what you need to have to be able to pull into your garage because you couldn’t have it right there because it’s in the end, which in turn helps me plow that in the wintertime, because you can go by the garage. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say why don’t we compromise and not require him to re-vegetate anything, but on the other hand not allow any additional clearing. MR. HOWARD-Can I ask a question, sir? I like that with the vegetation thing. Can I, the only reason I ask to clear is because I’m a taxpayer as well as you are, of course, and I just want to make sure no trees fall on my house or they’re two feet away when I do this. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Obviously, if you go back to the picture where it shows the trees on the end of the house, right here, if you envision that arrow being eight feet tall, that’s the top of the foundation. So that tree’s going to die anyway, and I believe any tree within 20 feet of the house is going to die. Because we’re going to be, we’ll be filling around it anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but, Dave, you’re going to be open in the back, right? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So where from the front to the back, you’re not going to just put a retaining wall and just drop that straight down, are you? MR. HOWARD-Actually, yes. We’re going to have a retaining wall going out on wings on either end, you know, not eight feet tall wings, but going out. So the dirt will come out probably, I’m going to guess, 30 feet anyway, just like the garage will. It will slope right out. MR. FORD-With that acreage, why is that house being placed there? MR. HOWARD-It has to be. MR. FORD-It has to be? MR. HOWARD-Yes. In reference to the young lady’s stating that it has changed a little bit from what the Hayes proposed, sir, we had moved it a little bit due to the clearing, which Mr. Brown had stated was okay, and if you come in the end of the garage, and you have to have 35 foot, I couldn’t really put it anywhere else, you know, and at the same time I didn’t want it way up here by the corral that’s located right near my property. MR. FORD-Would you consider reconfiguring the house 90 degrees or so? MR. HOWARD-No, sir. No, because I really like the view of West Mountain at the angle that it’s at now. It’s very nice. Any way I change it would just not, it just wouldn’t work. MR. MAGOWAN-You said that was a three bay garage you’d be putting on the house? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. It’s actually, believe it or not, I looked at it yesterday, and it looks like just a big two car, you know. MR. OBORNE-You will be required to go to the Zoning Board, if you get approval, for a second garage, you’re aware of that? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure Craig told you that. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. FORD-With the level of the groundwater, don’t you have concerns about your leach field? MR. HOWARD-No, I don’t, sir. Dad’s been in the business for 30 plus years, and we’ve done so many homes now at this time that I know, in reference to hauling in the fill and what not, and putting the leach field in, and the ground is sand. It’s actually good ground. It’s just that the water table comes up just that two foot below. MR. HOWARD, SR.-The dirt you see right there to the corner, that’s on site fill. That’s going to be across the whole front, six, seven feet tall. That’s where the leach field will go. So we’ll be five feet above water table, six feet above water table. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HOWARD-And a lot of the leach field’s based on evaporation. You don’t dig your leach field that deep, you know, a couple of inches into the ground. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Yes, don’t envision the leach field going into the ground right there. That’s two feet of water that wouldn’t even pass Code. The fill will come across the front at around six feet to seven feet tall. There’ll probably only be a foot of foundation showing. So the leach field will then go in that entire fill pit. MR. OBORNE-You’ll have amended soils in there, I would imagine. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You need to have separation to the seasonal high water mark, and it’s not a mound system, per se, or a raised bed. You’re actually raising the grade and installing a leach field. MR. HOWARD-I would just, I mean, the easy way, sir, I think what you’re probably thinking is putting the home on a slab probably, you know, having it right there, but I would like a basement to be able to utilize that, and it will look pretty impressive for the back of the house. It will look almost like a two story. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reasons why we’re having so much discussion and debate obviously is because of everything that you’ve done so far. MR. HOWARD-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-But when we approve a subdivision, usually all these things are taken care of in advance and somebody like Tom Nace comes forward and identifies the clearing plan and deals with stormwater and gives us test pit data, and so as you explain your project, it’s getting more and more complex, because the kinds of things that concern us when we approve a subdivision or a modification to a subdivision are things like the water table and this was a problematic property when we looked at it for the subdivision initially, and so, I’m hearing a lot of concern because, you know, the things that you’ve done already are just not the kinds of things that we approve without having engineers provide us with documentation and staging plans and phasing plans and things like that. MR. HOWARD-Basically everything that I’m saying tonight in reference to, the clearing doesn’t necessarily change the schematics of the engineering. The land’s still the same. I’m just, I want to put my home here, and I just want a little approval to clear a little more property, because it is mine. I know it’s one lot of a subdivision. Usually the homes we build are in a subdivision, and they’re one acre and that’s it. This is numerous acres. That’s why I spent a good amount of money on the property. MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but the other issue is that you bought a piece of property in the Town of Queensbury, and our Zoning Codes are very specific on what’s approved and what’s not. MR. HOWARD, SR.-I think that’s why we’re in the process of having Mr. Nace and DEC involved in the back to, I want to say we got a spanking. Now we’ve got to get it taken care of. MR. HOWARD-It’s just one of those things that I have to clarify with them, and they said, you know, you get conditional. I just don’t want to have to come back every month, miss. I don’t have the time for that. I’m sure you hear it all the time. To clear a little more for my house, based on if I get the SWPPP from Mr. Nace and he does the work. I’ve built numerous homes. I’m just a very excited person. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s a very exciting time to build your own home, and I get that. I’ve been there myself. MR. HOWARD-I’ve done it before, but this is mine. I’ve done it a lot of times. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Basically just need you to say yes on 20 foot of trees to the right of the house, maybe at this point. The rest we’ll rectify, whatever way you and DEC and Tom Nace. I don’t even know the whole particulars, but if we were able to get an okay, let’s build the house, that would be like great. I don’t know if that can happen tonight or within the next week. We could actually build the house with the trees right there. We could fill around them. They all die. We don’t want to do that, because then they’re going to have to go anyway, but, you know, we would like, you know, to be able to build the house, and if we have to, like Dave has said, every 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) two or three weeks have to file another print, another application, that drags on, before you know it the Fall is here. MR. HOWARD-It’s one of those things I’ll be paying taxes I know quite a bit of it, and I’ve already talked to how much I’ll be paying on this, and I just want to get it going. MR. HUNSINGER-So the area that’s been cleared, even before you were required to come back before the Board, what was your plan, in terms of landscaping? MR. HOWARD-In reference to the front of the home, for instance, if you look at this picture survey here, the house will be, you know, the basic frame of the house starts eight foot up. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HOWARD-So it’s going to be graded down. That’s probably going to be maybe, you know, sod, stone walls, okay, probably something like that. The driveway from Luzerne Road is going to be probably 800 feet back to the home, okay, as you can kind of see on the print. So along the side of the driveway, you’re talking about a couple of feet of landscaping stone. We’ve done quite a bit of landscaping. So, I like the landscape stones. In the wintertime you’re not pushing up your grass. Okay. I’m very meticulous as well. It will look nice, and then, in reference to the side of the home, you know, it’ll be grass and sod, and then the back probably a lot of like stamped concrete. There’ll be a deck and what not, and then, you know, probably an in ground pool and I’d like, if I could clear more, which I just want to be able to clear for the house now. I’m not going to over step my bounds, but I want maybe like a field area. Training’s the key to being safe. So that’s what I’m looking at. MR. FORD-Well, what’s the surface of the driveway going to be? MR. HOWARD-I’m going to blacktop it, sir. Yes. I’m going to blacktop the whole thing. I’m going to spare no expense, really. It’s just, I know plowing gravel isn’t fun, especially when it’s thawed out. So you might as well just get it done the right way. MR. FORD-How about sparing impervious surface, with the high water table? MR. HOWARD-That’s okay. The guys have got a lot of dump trucks and what not, and we can haul our own gravel and stuff. So we’ll make sure we shoot grades and make sure we’re high and dry again, you know, definitely, 18, 24 inches of gravel and then blacktop will make a sound base. I know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Where are we at? MR. TRAVER-It’s a mess. It’s a mess. No site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HOWARD-Mr. Brown never said anything about a site plan review, you know. He said that basically come here and find out some more clearing, then you can go from there, because nothing, he approved the building permit of the house based on right where I put it on here. He said that’s okay. He says it has changed a little bit in relation to the original, but you don’t have to go to site plan. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review is not where you’re here for. You’re here for subdivision modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Looking at the plan that was submitted, the corner of his house is 131 feet from the property line. Now, this plan is where the footings are currently? MR. OBORNE-That is the proposed placement of the house, the modification. MR. HOWARD SR.-Because if you can see, the driveway is right to the edge of the wood line. That wood line hasn’t been touched, and that’s right where the driveway is, there will be. th MR. HUNSINGER-So this drawing is dated May 19? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Where it’s labeled proposed house? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where the house is, the footings are currently, right? MR. HOWARD-Yes, that’s right where the gentleman said in reference to the violation. I just had to get that plotted by Matt Steves. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was trying to make sure I understood that, and again, the corner of your house, the closest your house is to your neighbor is 131 feet. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-So based on that, I guess I don’t have a problem with him doing some additional clearing so that he could finish his house. MR. TRAVER-He’s proposing an additional 20 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, to me that seems reasonable. MR. HOWARD-And I really would like the privacy, too. I know in the summertime there is some privacy. In the wintertime it opens right out. You can kind of see it. More trees would be, I guess, the (lost words). MR. FORD-Could you accomplish the privacy and safety of your home with less than 20 additional feet of clearing? MR. HOWARD-I think that would be, I would do the best that I could, sir, if that’s what you requested I would try, and you guys can come out, you know, have Bruce come out and look, whenever he sees fit, of course. I would do the best I could, yes. Twenty feet is better than not getting anything from you folks. MR. FORD-Twenty feet is what you’re going for. Right? MR. HOWARD, SR.-Well, no, actually right now the tree is six feet away. We would like 30 or 35 more, but if you say 20, then we’ll make it work. Instead of the slope of the land like this, it would be like a ski slope. MR. FORD-What is the request for? MR. HOWARD-Well, the request, basically I’m requesting like I did up this small little note here. Around the whole property that Matt Steves had, when this subdivision was approved, there’s a 20 foot no clearing limit around the whole property. So I decided to write in here, you know, 30 foot along the back properties of the folks along Luzerne Road, and then I’d go to the 20 foot line around the rest of the property, you know, but because it’s a subdivision they’re only allowing you that little envelope to build in, but I would like to clear more, of course, and use my property, but if that’s all you want to give me is a little bit, like 20 more feet or so to clear to the right of my house, I can’t argue with that, because I had Matt Steves go in and mark the whole property, you know, I paid him to mark the whole property, do a 30 foot buffer in blue ribbons along the properties behind Mr. Barber, Mr. Parker, so on and so forth, and then do blue ribbons along the 20 foot no cut zone. So at any point in time, if I was approved, I would never cross those buffers, you know, it’s black and white, and then in reference to the wetland and stuff, those are marked blue ribbons. You never want to go on there. I don’t want any problems there. MR. FORD-Well, it may be black and white to you, but if it’s, and I don’t know that if you’re going to have the same people doing additional cutting and so forth that have already been doing some, that might not follow the rules. MR. HOWARD-Right. If I could say something to you, sir, maybe at this point. I’ve spoken to my dad about it, and he has equipment, you know, at this point probably (lost words) do it myself and then I won’t end up in this situation, and then I know what’s going on, because we do have equipment. So, you know, if we go through and just clear a little bit on our own, then there’s no question that, hey, I was there and I watched them. MR. OBORNE-Concerning the map that’s before you, that’s not a true representation of what existing conditions are at this point. MR. FORD-Thank you. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) th MR. OBORNE-There’s a little bit more clearing that seems to have happened since June 6, and I just want to make sure that that’s definitely displayed here. th MR. HUNSINGER-The map’s dated May 19. MR. OBORNE-I have a 6/6 revision date. 6/6/11. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I didn’t look for a revision date. Yes, you’re right, 6/6/11, yes. MR. OBORNE-So that’s what I have there, and there appears to be a little bit more clearing, based on the location of the house, you know, where the footings are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had the same thought, yes, although frequently the drafters will say, well, that’s the extent of the canopy, not the base of the trees. MR. OBORNE-Having been, yes, with one of those guys out in the field, I’ve heard that before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I think I would tend to agree with your comment. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and they certainly have been very cognizant of the 100 foot setback, while clearing, obviously. So I just thought I’d throw that out there for the Board’s consumption. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts, comments from the Board? I guess I’d like to determine if we’re going to take any action on this this evening or table it and have them come back. MR. HOWARD-If I could make one last comment. I don’t know if this helps or not. I’m here, and again, I’ve probably said this, I probably sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but I’m here to comply with everything you folks said, and I just would like to keep going. I know maybe that doesn’t help or not, but I’m here to comply with everything, and I’m not a person to buck the system, and when someone asks, when I tell someone in my job to comply, I would like them to do that, and so whatever you folks allow me to do, I do appreciate, and hopefully we can continue, because work’s stopped until this SWPPP goes through, and if I can get a conditional, you know, that would be great. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Well, so what we would be looking at would be allowing the extra 20 feet in that photograph that we’re looking at on the right hand side, to give some more space around the house, on that side of the house, but not doing any additional clearing beyond that. I could support that. MR. HOWARD, SR.-Almost, looking at the trees that would go there, I don’t think there’s really, it’s not that dense, the wood line, it’s not really that dense. Hard to tell there, but there’s really not a lot of trees. It might encompass 10 trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we heard from Mr. Traver. Would anyone else like to comment? Do members support that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I’d support it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MRS. STEFFAN-I frankly think this is so convoluted, I don’t know what we’re approving. After the letter from Bruce Frank, it’s just, there’s so much that’s been going on, if that’s the only thing, it’s remarkable that all this stuff went on and we’re just approving 20 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a suggestion? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I don’t. That’s why I’m confused. You guys will be looking at me to make a motion, and I don’t know what to do. MR. TRAVER-Do we know how Mr. Frank became aware that this, the original plan was not followed? MR. HOWARD-I do, sir. A gentleman on Luzerne Road, one of my neighbors I think, had actually called and just had him come out, and Bruce spoke with me, he came out and checked things out and said that, you know, the clearing’s too much, Dave. Just go to Matt Steves, have 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) him mark out what’s been cleared, make sure your house stays in this envelope, we’ll give you a building permit. That’s how it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought he found out when you applied for your building permit and he came out to inspect the footings. MR. HOWARD-No, he said no more clearing, let’s talk to Matt Steves and let’s meet with Craig Brown, which I did, and said, I’d like the house to go here, and he said, okay, Dave, that sounds good, we can give you a building permit and put the house in that area, and you’re good to go. th MR. MAGOWAN-Is the latest one that Matt Steves did on the 6 of June? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-Your proposed house is still within the, so we’d be doing. I’m actually looking at the pictures, and I’m seeing the footings there, and I’m not seeing the tree line through the middle of it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. What I’m asking, if this is what Van Dusen did. thth MR. OBORNE-On May 6, or June 6, that was the conditions. So, a month later now, a month and a half later. MR. MAGOWAN-So there were some more trees taken down. MR. HOWARD, SR.-I think the proposed house and driveway is shoved this way farther. MR. HOWARD-I think it’s forward more. I actually think the house is a little bit closer to the opening, because I would have liked to have had it set back farther, but I think it moved up, actually. MR. HOWARD, SR.-It’s probably shoved closer to the property line. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. HOWARD, SR.-See that hook that goes out behind the garage? That driveway is probably closer to that line than it’s shown on this plan. MR. FORD-I’d like to see a SWPPP before any approval. MR. HOWARD-Can there possibly be a conditional, sir, and then show you the SWPPP in the process? MR. FORD-No. Not in my opinion. MR. HOWARD-If I get the SWPPP next week, I have to wait a month you’re stating? MR. HOWARD, SR.-As what it’s set right now, the house could be built. Could that be accomplished? In other words, we don’t have to take a tree down to pour a footing. We’d like to take the trees down to continue our grade out, but to pour a footing, we don’t have to take a tree down. Obviously the SWPPP’s in motion. MR. FORD-And the projected completion is when? MR. HOWARD-Projected completion of the SWPPP, sir? Well, Mr. Nace, I just spoke with him, he came up earlier. His, I think it’s a guy named Tom went out today. He should have the paperwork done by the end of the week, and I spoke with the lady at DEC in Warrensburg and Albany, and it takes one week. So I would hope by the end of next week that would be completed. So I have a pretty good rapport with DEC. So the hope they can expedite that. MR. OBORNE-It’s a defacto, once it goes to DEC, after five days it’s considered to be under the general permit. So it’s not like DEC’s going to take a big close look at this. It just gets covered under the general permit after five days. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s basically something that gets filed and goes on file. Other comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-And so, Keith, you said that you think that more has been cleared than is denoted right here? MR. OBORNE-I think absolutely there is, but you’d need a delineation of that, of what’s there. MR. TRAVER-We’d need a survey of existing conditions. MR. OBORNE-It certainly seems to me that there has been additional clearing, especially in the back. These gentlemen may be correct in that the house may have been moved up on there, but I’m not sure where the location of the house is. At the very least the house is not located properly, according to the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Well, that was what I was trying to clarify when I asked about the two dates. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HOWARD-Yes, because I know the reference to the surveys, it doesn’t matter, I paid $900 to have this done, and if anything this house is pushed forward a little bit, which actually goes closer to that original that the young lady was speaking about. So that would comply more with the first plan, which I would think you guys would like more, but, you know, you go get another survey, and like I’ve spoken with Mr. Brown and Bruce, it just keeps costing more and more money. The thing is I just want to keep building the house. That’s all I’m asking for, not to spend more money. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from people who haven’t spoken yet? MR. MAGOWAN-So those are your footings that you have already in, and that’s all of them? So you’re ready to pour? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-How hard is it to have Van Dusen come in and just map out your footings? MR. HOWARD-It’s $900, and I’m not a wealthy person by any means. They can do that. If there was a conditional, hey, Dave, get Van Dusen and Steves, have them go out again, you know, hey, you can do your house, I’d say no problem. I just don’t want to have to wait another month and then a month. I just don’t like to build in the wintertime. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand that, being a builder. I definitely understand that point, but you did say you were a State trooper, right? MR. HOWARD-That’s correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, and you know what happens when people push the envelope a little too far with a State trooper. MR. HOWARD-Yes, I understand that. I’m well aware. MR. MAGOWAN-And I’m sure they don’t want to go to jail long either, do you know what I’m saying? MR. HOWARD-No, they don’t. That’s why I use my discretion lots of times, too. MR. MAGOWAN-And a lot of times they have to spend a lot of money to keep out of jail, correct? MR. HOWARD-That’s true, unless they’re nice like me. Then I can help them. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m just trying to put it all in perspective here. MR. HOWARD-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-But, no, I understand, Dave, and it’s a tough one here, because nothing’s making sense to me, you know what I’m saying. I’m seeing two different, you know, I’m seeing 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) what was approved with the subdivision, and then I see a, you know, I see an updated map on th the 6 of June, with a proposed house, with the tree line still going through the center, and then I’m looking up at a picture and I was told there was two foot, now we’re six feet off the footings, and you’re asking for us to make a decision based on three different things that it’s not jiving right now. It’s a tough thing to do. MR. HOWARD-I know. rdst MR. TRAVER-And it’s your statement that no clearing occurred between May 3 and July 21. MR. HOWARD-That’s correct, Mr. Traver, absolutely, and I just know that I would like the house as far back as possible. I would like it back where the garage is going to be, but that does get quite expensive as well. So, from where this house is proposed, it definitely has moved forward, if this is in the wood line here and not there, you know, it has moved forward, which, in turn, I would think you guys would like that more. So, and basically Mr. Brown said here’s your building permit and we’re happy with that and, you know, we have no problem, so now I’m here to say can I clear a little more on the right side? MR. FORD-You have a building permit now? MR. HOWARD-Sure I do. MR. OBORNE-You’re under a Stop Work Order. MR. HOWARD-Yes, I am. I’m not doing anything. That’s why I’m here. Basically the Stop Work Order is in reference to getting my SWPPP. It’s not in reference to where this house is going, if that’s a question. MR. OBORNE-And modifying the subdivision. MR. HOWARD-Exactly. Just the SWPPP. They didn’t stop it because of any house, of where the house was placed or anything. So, you know, they were very happy with that. They just wanted the SWPPP. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, from what I’ve heard from the Planning Board, we’re concerned with the clearing limits, and so it looks like you’re going to get tabled, and from what I’m hearing from the Board, we would like the applicant to provide an accurate survey delineating the existing conditions and then the proposed clearing limits. That’s what I’m hearing from everybody. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant indicated that the ponds were going to be removed from the plan. MR. HOWARD-If we could white those out, that would be perfect. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you can have that, when you get your survey done, you can have the ponds taken out. MR. OBORNE-Do you want the house to be delineated on the plan? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s what I thought I was asking. MR. MAGOWAN-No, the house and the tree line. You want the house and the tree line, you’ve got to state both. MR. TRAVER-I think that’s covered by her motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Before I forget, I have one other comment to make, too. Regarding the garage, on your note you said you wanted to construct a 2300 square foot garage. Code only allows a 2200 square foot garage. MR. HOWARD-Then I’ll go right there. Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. HOWARD-Whatever they say the maximum is, I’ll do it. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Twenty-two hundred is the maximum. Yes. MR. HOWARD-Very good. MR. TRAVER-And that’s a second garage. So as Mr. Oborne pointed out, you’d have to go. MR. HUNSINGER-It would still need a variance, then. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, if he wants to keep that 2300 square foot garage, that’s fine. You’re going to need zoning relief for it. That’s all. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. OBORNE-You already need relief anyway, so. MR. HOWARD-I think I’ll be back here numerous times. MR. TRAVER-It would also be garage number two. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That would also require zoning relief. MR. HOWARD-I think I’d like to be in my house when I propose that. So that’s why I’m here now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-What I would suggest also, just to smooth things over at this point, as best as we can, is to remove the location of the garage at this point, because you might have to have that variance before you come back to this Board with the location of that garage. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. OBORNE-I think it would be a lot easier. If you’re not ready to do it now, I’d say. MR. HOWARD-Yes. I just thought that since I was here for clearing, hey, you know, this is my property. I’m a taxpayer. How about we get approved to clear more property. I guess that’s not the case, but I’ll just white out the ponds and the garage. MR. OBORNE-Yes. If this was a separate standalone lot that wasn’t associated with the subdivision, you wouldn’t be here. MR. HOWARD-That would be perfect, and when I bought it, sir, I was like, this is really part of a subdivision? It’s 10 acres. I’ve never seen a lot in Queensbury that’s 10 acres, that’s in a subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It is the impetus as to why that subdivision got approved, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Because of the wetlands. MR. HOWARD-Now does this mean that I come back again next month, or does this mean that I, you know, have it surveyed with the house on it? th MRS. STEFFAN-It means that by August 15, you’ll have to have all of the revised plan to the Community Development Department, so that you can be on the agenda for September. MR. HOWARD-September. So I’ll just throw my snowmobiles in. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING MODIFICATION SUB # 14-2005 DAVID HOWARD 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to an approved subdivision. Specifically, applicant proposes additional clearing to Lot 18 of the approved subdivision. Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/26/2011; MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION 14-2005 DAVID HOWARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: th This is tabled to the September 20 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new th materials is August 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can: 1. Provide an accurate survey which: a)Delineates the existing conditions; b)That delineates the proposed clearing limits; c)That delineates the exact house location; d)That eliminates the ponds as discussed; e)Also eliminates the additional garage, the 2400 sq. ft. garage. 2. At that time when the applicant resubmits they will also provide a copy of the SWPPP. Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll see you back in September. th MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you on September 20. Thank you. If you have any questions, bring them to Keith. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-2011 SEQR TYPE II TOM & PAT BURKE AGENT(S) CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 67 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 264 SQ. FT. ONE CAR GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 40-11, SP 25-96, BP 97-595, BP 96-358 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA; APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9, 179-3-040 CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 43-2011, Tom and Pat Burke, Site Plan Review is the requested action. Location is 67 Mason Road. This is Waterfront Residential and a Type II SEQRA. On 7/13 of this year a No County Impact was issued. I believe the Planning Board is familiar with this. You gave a recommendation last week, went through the Zoning Board, gone through the Zoning Board and is now back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and it’s a 264 square foot one car garage, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DYBAS-For the record, Curt Dybas, representing Tom and Pat Burke and the proposed one car addition. I think Keith pretty much summed it up. The Burkes have been in the house over 30 years. They’ve built it as a year round residence. They’ve lived there ever since, and just recently they decided that they really need a one car garage for this winter climate, and have retained me to represent them through the process. Hopefully this is the final step this evening, and if anyone has any questions after review last week, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I heard there wasn’t going to be much snow this year. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) st MR. DYBAS-I’ll let you know about March 21. How’s that? MR. TRAVER-I think we’ve thoroughly looked at this application. MR. FORD-I have no questions or comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-Let me check. I don’t believe there are. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay. Let the record show that there were no comments received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And this is a Type II action. So unless there are additional comments or concerns from the Board, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 43-2011 TOM & PAT BURKE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 264 sq. ft. one car garage. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval; The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 7/19/2011; The ZBA approved the variance request on 7/20/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/26/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2011 TOM & PAT BURKE, 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 satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQR; 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; 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; 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; 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; Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) SITE PLAN NO. 44-2011 SEQR TYPE II GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCKINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) BARSSEL-HITE LLC ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION 535 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,194 +/- SQ. FT. OFFICE EXPANSION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXAM ROOM AND STORAGE. EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE USE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-11, SP 17-96, BP 96-735, BP 02-1015 [SIGN] WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 LOT SIZE 1.08 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-33 SECTION 179-9 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Okay. Site Plan 44-2011 Glens Falls Eye Associates, Site Plan Review is the requested action. 535 Bay Road is the location. This is, zoning is Office and it’s a Type II SEQRA. Engineering should be attached. What happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals was a denial of any TCO additional parking, and there was quite a bit of discussion on the existing parking. I did ask for Ethan to draw up new proposed plans based on the ZBA’s issues that they had with the TCO, and I did place them before you and give you a quick brief on what was going on before the meeting, and with that, there’s really not much to say, with the exception of the expansion for the structure is going forward, but everything else is being left alone at this point. So my notes are kind of outdated at this point. Engineering is outdated. Stormwater is still being asked for a waiver. Landscaping, grading, lighting is all still being requested as a waiver, and with that update I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Glens Falls Eye Associates down here on Bay Road. The drawing that’s on top and the drawing that’s on top of yours, your package, the smaller drawing that you have, the 18 by 24, indicate the existing conditions. The red line on the outside is the property line. The blue line is the setbacks for the 75 foot front setback from Baywood Drive and the 75 foot Bay Road corridor setback. The pink line is the extension of the Travel Corridor Overlay. The shaded area on top is the existing in the picture that Keith has up on the board, is the existing northerly portion of their building. This is a slab on grade portion of the building which, I believe when the building was originally done was a garage. I believe that there was a two car garage that got converted over into office space. It’s really not, they can’t utilize it. It’s got a couple of small exam rooms in it, and what they’re finding is that they don’t have enough exam rooms for the amount of staff that they have, and they get a big backup of people sitting in the exam room waiting because they don’t have a big turnover. So the intent is to take the southern portion of the building, this “L” shape down here, and we’re going to flip it right over and make it an identical mirror image on the north side of the building and utilize that space for additional exam rooms, additional procedure areas, and hopefully speed up the turnover that they have down there, so there aren’t as many people waiting. They have enough staff that they can see people. They just don’t have places to put them right now. So that’s kind of the whole premise for this. As Keith said, the Zoning Board did grant us the Area Variance for setback, but in our discussion with them, they weren’t in favor of the parking modifications that we were proposing. They would prefer to leave the treed areas and the green spaces in the back of the building, and by Code calculation, we don’t need additional parking spaces. I have modified, and on your chart does show the modifications as Keith discussed with the updated parking calculations shown. So with that, our project got significantly smaller. It’s pretty much now just a building modification, and we’re leaving the parking just as is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you still leaving that spot right there? MR. HALL-Right where that car is parked? It’s our intent to leave those there. Those are the doctor’s spaces. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know what they are. MR. HALL-And they’re a come and go, because they have surgeries that they’re often in and out for. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they could walk back a little further to get their car, across the parking lot. MR. HALL-Yes, this entrance on the front, the entrance that you can see there, the red door that you can see on the front, is pretty much the staff entrance for the physicians. All the patients and most of the staff goes in through the front portion. The docs tend to breeze in and out 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) through the back, so that they’re not crossing through the patient waiting area when they’re coming in. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, which is really the front, but it’s the back of the building. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just think those three parking spots are an accident waiting to happen. They don’t back them in all the time, a guy pulls it in, in the winter, gets in his car, doesn’t clean off his window, somebody’s, there’s a lot of traffic that comes in there. It’s not just for the eye doctor. If somebody’s coming, shooting out the driveway, and, hello. MR. OBORNE-Well, they’re certainly not required. They also should not be part of the parking calculations, they still are, Ethan. You’re supposed to be down to 48. MR. HALL-Forty-eight. Okay. MR. OBORNE-As far as existing. You can’t count them as existing because they’re not wholly within the setback. MR. HALL-Even still, we’re required to have 36. So even if I don’t count them. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. FORD-It could be a reserve parking for the physicians anywhere. MR. HALL-It’s already marked. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s what it is. That’s the problem. MR. FORD-My point is it doesn’t have to be there. MR. HALL-Yes, that sign is reserved only for the physicians. It’s not for the general staff. MR. FORD-My point is they could be anywhere. They don’t have to be there. MR. HALL-They could be. This is the most direct path for them to get in and out. Any other spot that we have them park in, they’d have to create additional sidewalk to get out to them or something like that. It was kind of our intent that that’s what we were doing with these four spaces down here, was adding additional parking for them on this end, and that was what we were denied by zoning, any parking in the Travel Overlay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They could walk out to their left, there’s eight spaces back there. MR. MAGOWAN-How long have those four spaces been there? MR. HALL-These three? Since the inception. MRS. STEFFAN-As long as I’ve been in town. MR. HALL-They’ve been there since Day One. MR. FORD-And they’re not part of the Travel Overlay? MR. OBORNE-They’re in the Travel Overlay. MR. HALL-Yes, one of them is not and two of them are. The problem is is the way that this property line cuts back at an angle, if this property line came right straight out the way it probably ought to have, when this whole thing was laid out, it would be really kind of a non-issue, because they wouldn’t be wholly on the lot, but unfortunately the way that the subdivision was laid out, this corner got chopped off. MRS. STEFFAN-And just the way the lot is figured out, the entrance to this building is behind the back of the building, and so I’ve never seen a patient, I go to the, this is my eye doctor, and 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) my mother goes here, and we’ve been going there for a long time, everybody parks in the back because that’s where the entrance is. MR. HALL-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-They have an eye glass place and the entrance of that is in the back, and so, you know, it works. I’ve never seen a problem with the doctor’s parking there or not. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say, I think it’s just the doctors that park there. It’s not like they’re in and out eight times a day. I mean, if they have an emergency, they have to sneak out, or if they come back late from lunch and they can sneak in. I mean, it’s all right with me. Doctors do it. MR. TRAVER-And there is signage that indicates that it’s for the doctors. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The doctors are usually there, I believe there’s four doctors, and there’s the three parking spaces. MR. HALL-Yes, there’s three parking spaces. Dr. Brassell’s really not. MRS. STEFFAN-But one is always doing surgery. I mean, they all have appointed surgery days. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s why that three spaces works. MR. HALL-Actually Mark has two or three days of surgery and Steven has two days of surgery. I think they kind of jump on and off and then one of them’s pretty much always there. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I just have never seen a problem there. Plus it’s landscaped on both sides. So it’s obviously separated from the rest of the parking around the back, and with not taking out any of the trees to the back entrance, I think that adds value. I was sad to see those trees go. So I think those spaces work fine. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have an issue. MR. FORD-You’ve got me convinced, Gretchen. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there’s no one in the audience. Keith, were there any written comments? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing and I will also close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments received. What’s the will of the Board? Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the only other thing, what about the engineering comments? Because the plan that’s presented is different than the one that the engineers looked at. So just get a signoff? MR. HALL-Pretty much everything goes away. All of the engineering comments for the most part dealt with stormwater management coming off from the parking. MR. OBORNE-If you give him the stormwater waiver, add on to that engineering approval is not necessary, if you feel so, but also a reasonable approval is to have stormwater placed on this parcel. I have to say that. MR. HALL-Yes, we’ve got, we’re putting in an eave trench down this side of the building that’s going to have everything tied in to the foundation drain. The foundation drain does come out 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) and daylight out here into this roadside ditch out here. So we’re just going to be picking up the same stormwater. MR. OBORNE-With that, then, you have stormwater in the form of eave trenches along the addition and the addition only. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You may want to have the engineer myopically look at that one issue. I’d just throw that out there because obviously those need to be designed. You’re going to need to do test pits. Did you, you know, all that stuff will need to be fleshed out. The water table’s right there. MR. HALL-This actually has a crawl space under this portion of the building, which they don’t get any water in. That was, that’s what I’m basing my water on. If they were having, I know that up at Dr. Bannon’s office we had a water issue. When we put the MRI in for Dr. Bannon, we couldn’t put a crawl space under it because he does have water issues there. So here they have no water in their crawl space. So that’s kind of what I based it on. I figured if they were going to have any issues the same as Dr. Bannon did, they’d have water downstairs, and they don’t. That’s where all their mechanicals are is underneath. MR. OBORNE-And just to clarify, we’re having problems, in the Department of Community Development, with granting stormwater, well, not us granting, but the Planning Board granting stormwater waivers, yet stormwater is part of the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It’s becoming very difficult to manage at this point, and I want to go down the path of an all or nothing issue at this point. So, if an applicant is offering stormwater controls, yet is requesting a waiver from stormwater management, that kind of puts us in an odd position. I mean, it really does because you need to design these based on storage and separation to groundwater, etc., etc. So you do need some type of stormwater. MR. HALL-Yes. I agree. I think that there has to be some kind of a break over point as to size and scale of project. MR. OBORNE-I think it’s an all or nothing issue. I think it has to be as easy as that, but we can discuss that at another time. With this project, and I’m sorry to muddy this water, even a bit more, he’s requesting stormwater waivers, yet providing stormwater. How do you want, do you want Sean to look at that, or do you want to go ahead and take Ethan’s expertise in his design and go with that? I think those are your two options. I’m not advocating for either one. MR. MAGOWAN-That is a good one, though, how do you do that. MR. OBORNE-That’s why you make the big bucks. MR. TRAVER-Well, you don’t foresee any difficulty in getting a signoff with regards to stormwater? MR. HALL-I wouldn’t think so. MR. OBORNE-You might have to change your design based on separation to the mean high water mark, but. MR. SIPP-You’re just adding one more roof, really. MR. HALL-Yes, and it’s only slightly larger than what’s there now. I mean, the amount of roof that we’re adding is only coming out just a little bit. I mean, there’s the line that’s there. MR. OBORNE-Realistically, I mean, I don’t think that’s an issue. It’s the process that we’re going through. MR. FORD-Point well made. MR. TRAVER-So if we can err on the side of caution and, you know, require the stormwater approval, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be any problem for them, and it will be more consistent on our part. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) MR. FORD-Yes. I concur. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The site is very well landscaped. MR. HALL-Yes, they did a good job. I mean, they tend to keep it up fairly nicely and they do spend a fair amount on the back portion of it, too. So it’s not just the Bay Road frontage that they do. They tend to maintain the back of it fairly well, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I know in the last couple of weeks especially, when I go anywhere, and I go to park, I look for a shady spot. MR. HALL-Yes, exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we closed the public hearing. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So we’re ready to roll. MRS. STEFFAN-So I will make a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 44-2011 GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,194 +/- sq. ft. office expansion to provide additional exam room and storage. Expansion of an office use and site improvements requires Planning Board review and approval; The Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA on 7/19/11; the ZBA approved the variance request on 7/20/11; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/26/11; this application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2011 GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As a result of the recent ZBA approval the applicant has submitted revised drawings, actually submitted two of them-the first one is the existing site plan-C-1; and the second drawing is the proposed site plan-C-2. These plans are dated 7/25/2011. Based on review of these plans and discussion the Planning Board will approve this application. According to the resolution prepared by staff-the applicant has asked for waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping, and lighting. The Planning Board will not grant a waiver for stormwater management but will grant the waivers for grading, landscaping, and lighting. 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. 2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary. 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. 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: grading, landscaping & 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. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/26/2011) 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.\ 8)The only conditions on this approval are 1) that the applicant will obtain a sign-off from our engineering consultant on the new plan design for the stormwater proposed; 2) the plans do have to be sealed by a licensed professional engineer before final submittal. Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2011 by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-The last thing that you should state, just for clarification, the stormwater controls proposed, because if he’s going to, if you say you’re not going to grant the stormwater waiver, he’s got to comply with Chapter 147. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome, good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? Before we consider a motion to adjourn, I just want to remind everyone nd that we have a Special Meeting next Tuesday, August 2 at 7 o’clock. MRS. STEFFAN-And I will not be here. Brad will be taking my place. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s right. We’re going to be a man down next week. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MR. FORD-Yes. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 26, 2011, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Everyone NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 46