Loading...
02-21-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2012 INDEX TB RECOMMENDATION Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments 1. Site Plan No. 8-2012 Gregg Laber, GMS Realty, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.2 Subdivision No. 5-2011 Lisa Pushor, Scott Spellburg 9. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 Subdivision No. 1-2012 George Ryan 13. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-9 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 12-2012 SBLB Properties II, LLC 23. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-48 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 0212112012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 15, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD ON PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 2.1 TOWN BOARD PER RESOLUTION 78, 2012 IS REQUESTING REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO 1) AMEND ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES ALONG LUZERNE ROAD BETWEEN VETERANS ROAD AND HOLDEN AVENUE FROM MS TO O AND FROM MS TO NR; 2) ADD FUNERAL HOME AS ALLOWED USE WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW IN CLI ZONE AND 3) REVISE PROVISIONS RELATING TO ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF PLANNING BOARD & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. (DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE RECORDING DEVICE, SOME OF THE MEETING MINUTES WERE LOST) THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 179 "ZONING' OF THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and 1) Amend zoning designations for certain properties along Luzerne Road between Veterans Road and Holden Avenue from MS to O and from MS to NR; 2) Add Funeral Home as allowed use with Site Plan review in CLI zone and 3) Revise provisions relating to alternate members of Planning Board & Zoning Board of Appeals. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-2012 SEAR TYPE II GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC OWNER(S) GMS REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A HANDICAP RAMP FOR PROPOSED OFFICE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARCEL. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE PLACEMENT OF RACKING EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE WHOLESALE/RETAIL ELECTRICAL USE FOR THE STORING OF CONDUIT TO THE REAR OF THE PARCEL. CHANGE OF USE IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-11, SP 56-11, SP 7-11, SUB 10-10M, SP 56-10 WARREN CO. PB REFERRAL 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 3.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2- 4.2 SECTION § 179-9 GREGG LABER, PRESENT MR. LABER-I haven't had it delineated, a clean copy, but if that's something that Craig wants, we could have C.T. Male do that, but we can turn the parking around, which makes sense, and I can actually gain another parking spot in front of the little house. That'll give us the parking places that we want. Of course we need to get a handicap ramp in to the house so it's legal for New York State. Just want to do that on this side of the house, the side that you see right there. The little front porch section will be eliminated. Where the window is that you see will now become a doorway that will come off from the porch, the handicap ramp porch that is, and pretty much that's it with the house. It's just a ramp and going to the side. MR. KREBS-Gregg, will the door that exists on the front side where the porch is now, will that door be eliminated? MR. LABER-That will be eliminated. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. LABER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-1 would also add it may be beneficial, Gregg, if you put wheel stops at the spaces so you wouldn't go forward into the house. That may be prudent. MR. MAGOWAN-Who would do that, Keith? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Seeing as it's a wooden house, that's a good idea. Is this it for a while? MR. LABER-I hope so. We're running out of space. I would like to put another extension on the warehouse, but we'll wait. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You have the room. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's nice to drive down there and see lights on, and see cars, you know, it was vacant for so many years. It's really starting to look really great over there. MR. LABER-That whole Corinth Road has really come alive in the last couple of years. MR. MAGOWAN-It has. MR. LABER-It looks really nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from members of the Board? So did, have we addressed all of the comments that are in Staff Notes? Do you have that in front of you? MR. LABER-I have Number Four and Five were talking about conduit racks. What I observed last time I was up was that there are actually nine racks and three up on the tar, actually four up on the tar, and I can actually when 1, if you guys, if you're interested, when 1, if you want C.T. Male to re-do the plan, I can show the parking in the correct location in front of the house, and I can show the location of all of those racks, and send you a new copy of that. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be good. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be good so that we have on record a plan as it really exists. MR. LABER-Yes. I can do that. Is that another meeting, or I just send it to you, administratively you kind of put it in? MR. OBORNE-We'll condition it tonight. MR. LABER-Yes, we can do that, and then other than that, I think that's pretty much it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-As far as I thought, there is a 20 foot drive there, isn't there? MR. LABER-Yes, it goes right around the new owners, right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. LABER-That's always existed. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow members of the public to provide comment to the Planning Board. Anyone wishing to address the Board is asked to speak into the microphone. We do use a tape of this evening's meeting to transcribe the minutes of the meeting. I would ask that you identify yourself for the record, if you wish to speak and address any of your comments to the Board. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have at least one person that wants to comment. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KIM WELLS MS. WELLS-Good evening. I'm Kim Wells and this is my husband Matthew Lahey. We live at 21 Merritt Road. I know we were here last month. We actually brought pictures of what the property looks like from our yard, which is very different from the pictures that you're showing that were probably, I don't know who submitted them, but they were taken this morning and our concern is that no matter what room you are in our house, you have to look at what's happening at this building, and as you can see, there's a bunch of discarded, like, I don't know what you call them, but wheel, like the wooden wire wheel things, and it just doesn't look appealing. We can see it from our bedroom. We can see it from our kitchen. We can see it from our deck. We can see it from our side porch. We've actually had to raise our fence to try and not see it, but you can still see over our fence. So our concern is that the way that it is now, I mean, that's an exact view from our side yard, and it's not really appealing. So we would like to see maybe those things not be there or some type of a shrub or something be put up to block the view of that, and that's our main concern. I mean, it looks like a lot of that pipe or conduit, whatever it's called, that's there now, it was just recently brought in. I mean, it hasn't always been that much, but it's still not appealing to look at. It kind of, you know, you can't go out and enjoy your deck and have a barbecue or anything because you have to look at that picture right there. So we would like to see them change and fix that because again, it's not really all that great to look at. MR. MAGOWAN-And how long have you lived there? MS. WELLS-We've lived there, I've lived there for seven years. My husband has lived there all of his life. MR. MAGOWAN-What was it like when Northern Distributing was there and that? MATTHEW LAHEY MR. LEAHY-They didn't have debris and stuff like that in the parking lot. Trucks were brought inside at night. The benefit is now it's only daytimes. Northern Distributing was around the clock. The new place updated, modern. Light fixtures aren't as bright as the big flood lights on the back of Northern Distributing used to be, but the vegetation's less because of the road recently constructed. That's about it, but like I said, it was just an empty parking lot with 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) Northern Distributing there. All the trucks were behind the main building being loaded and unloaded, but that aspect was empty. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you win some, you lose some. MR. LEAHY-Yes, exactly, and like I said, without the vegetation from the road being built, you know, some kind of shrubbery put in or a fence. I think of it as West Side being across the street. They have a fence around the place. Why doesn't the back lot of this? MR. OBORNE-1 will say that a Type C buffer is required, was required at the initial site plan, at this point, and that is basically a 50 foot vegetative buffer, both sides of the property line, is what the intent is. Obviously you have that in the Code to fall back on if need be. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MS. WELLS-No, that was it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. WELLS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to address the Board on this project? I know we had talked about this at the last meeting. Did you have any comments based on the neighbor's comments? MR. LABER-No. It's the first I've heard of it. By electrical distribution, I mean, that's kind of common, I mean, having wire wheels kicking around because we re-spool stuff and there's obviously not enough room inside the facility to put that conduit. Same thing, you know, not enough room in the building to contain that. Vegetation, I was a little confused on the vegetation. We did cut a bunch of trees down up in the front of the building, but I don't believe we cut anything on the side, on that side. I could be wrong about that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is before. So certainly the trees here, I'm not sure along here, though. MR. LEAHY-I'm not sure if it's so much trees as just underbrush, you know. It's just with the manicuring of the road and building of the road going in. MR. LABER-Like I said, I don't think there was huge trees but the group of trees, Keith, that were cut was that whole group right in there that's at the front of the building, but nothing along, I don't think we touched anything along the side. I'd have to go and look for stumps. My nephew did it. So I'd have to double check, but I don't believe we did, but, I mean, vegetation, I mean, if we were to put some type of a hedgerow in there or something like that, it would take a period of time to grow, but, I mean, that's a possibility I suppose. MR. KREBS-But if you put some arborvitae, which stay green all year long, it would make it, you know, so that you couldn't see through and you're right, it'll take probably a few years to get them, but they come relatively inexpensively relatively tall. So that might be something to consider. MR. LABER-Are you suggesting that that would be on the edge of the tall pine trees or something like that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be the question. Where would we have them placed? MR. MAGOWAN-Where is your house? MR. OBORNE-Is it this one here? MR. LEAHY-No, the next one. MR. OBORNE-This one. MR. HUNSINGER-The picture's a little deceiving. This picture. MR. MAGOWAN-That's your house there? MR. LEAHY-No, it's highlighted in green. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. OBORNE-It is this one? MR. LABER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So there is a, it looks as though there are fairly large trees there. So there's a canopy present, which I think is what the public comment was. What they really need is something underneath. So the arborvitae, in that case, might not work, but there are probably, I'd have to ask Mr. Sipp, I guess, but there's probably hedges, or hedge type plantings that might kind of fill in that gap that not only would help with their view, but it would give you a little more security, too. It wouldn't be quite so easy for people to see the product that you have outside. MR. SIPP-You use a three foot berm. Build up a berm three foot high, put on your two foot arborvitae and in two years you'll have cover. You may have to replace one or two here and there, but they'll do well. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my concern is, it doesn't look like anything was ever cleared from back there. That's always been open back there, in the previous picture. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I just did a quick measurement. I mean, there is a 70 foot vegetative buffer there between the property line, but this isn't exact. So, keep that in mind. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's taken at an angle, and, Don, as far as making a berm, wouldn't we have to take out or damage or destroy some of the trees that are existing there in order to do that? In other words, this is basically undergrowth I think is what we're talking about. MR. SIPP-You put the berm up to it and go around it, you'd have a space there, but it would be considerably less than it was before, if there are good trees in that area. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Most of it's all pine. MR. LABER-It's all sandy. Does that stuff grow in sand? MR. TRAVER-If we were, would you have vegetation that you would recommend if we were not to do the engineering of a berm in that area but simply wanted to plant some things under those trees? Is there an alternative to building a berm? MR. SIPP-That should take, anything that grows there will grow. Now it's a sandy soil. You're not going to get any big spurt of growth out of it, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what about, instead of the arborvitaes and that, if he goes out and gets a bunch of white pines and just plant a smaller hedgerow of smaller white pines there that are quite common. MR. SIPP-You've got an east/west sun. The back end of whatever you put there is going to be less than the front end because of the way the sun is positioned or this is positioned in relation to the sun. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but if he just can fill in the gaps, you know, in between, because it seems to be only one house that's complaining. I mean, it is pretty thick, you know, and I've been over there and then like I said right now with the winter vegetation, you know, the leaves down, the little small leaves that you don't really see in the summer. So, you know, if we go with the smaller white pine trees instead of the arborvitaes, they will be natural with all the other pines and grow up pretty quick, and if you keep them trimmed you can turn them into little shrubs. It's kind of a cross between making a berm and all the arborvitaes that are going to take a while to grow. MR. LABER-Where are you suggesting that those white pines would go, from kind of like snow bank up to the top of his green, the green property line or are you suggesting further than that? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, basically what we would have to do is come over to check out their line of view and see what the holes we have to fill, you know, would be a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-That's kind of vague, though. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don't know that we're looking to modify your site plan. I just think, and you certainly seem receptive to the concerns of the neighbor. So maybe we could just ask that you look at that area and see if there's some, consider some of the suggestions that were made tonight and see if you can add something to help block that. MR. LABER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Without having to re-submit another, you know, I think we're already considering a landscaping waiver. So we don't want you to have to go through another thing, but it sounds as though that would be a benefit to the community, and it may help with some security as well on your part. MR. LABER-Yes. Okay. MR. TRAVER-So just take it into consideration and see if you can do something to. MR. LABER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of a resolution, though, I think we'd need to have some detail. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would caution something a little more specific, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we could say a minimum of so many trees or bushes or something. MR. OBORNE-Yes, or how about four spruce species, equidistance along the east property line. Maybe that would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you want them along the property line or more along the tree line? MR. OBORNE-I'm sorry, along the hedge line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Maybe something along those lines. MR. LABER-So define the hedge line? Are you talking about from the snow bank all the way to Corinth Road or? MR. OBORNE-Well, no, we're talking about this specific property. So from this area here, all the way to like right around here. MR. LABER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So I don't know if the Planning Board wants to extend the courtesy for this property also. MR. LEAHY-Their view is even worse. MR. OBORNE-Again, I don't want to design this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don't either. MR. OBORNE-We need to be able to have Code Compliance check it out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, find a compromise here. In looking at the site plan, I'm trying to ascertain how long a stretch we're looking at, and I don't see any measurements. MR. OBORNE-I can give you a quick rundown. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I knew you could. MR. OBORNE-Talking about 150 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fifty yards. MR. SIPP-It's hard to say, Chris, because you've got to think about if you start out planting too close together, you're going to lose. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. SIPP-And white pine, if you get four foot spacings, say you have two feet for each tree, you could grow into it. You'd have a pretty good three, four years, that's according to how big you want to buy white pine, or dig them up out of somebody else's backyard. MR. OBORNE-Well, Soil and Water has their tree seedling sale also going. They come in about maybe 12 to 18 inches dry root, and they're cheap. MR. TRAVER-Yes, like 10 or 15 cents apiece I think. MR. OBORNE-1 don't know it's probably a dozen for five dollars. MR. HUNSINGER-But they take a while to grow. MR. TRAVER-1 know when I bought my property, I bought 100 of them, and it was next to nothing. White spruce I think they were or something. MR. HUNSINGER-And how many of them will die? MR. OBORNE-Well, it depends on their nurturing, the nurturing nature of the applicant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The amount of water they get the first five years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes, that's about it. MR. TRAVER-There's probably enough stray RAF coming from that electrical company that they'll grow four feet in a year. MR. MAGOWAN-Especially with those LED lights. MR. TRAVER-Well, if they're to be every four feet and we're looking at. MR. KREBS-Well, what I was going to put is that we'll grant the waivers with the understanding that white pines will be planted every four feet along the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Along the property line or the edge of the tree line? MR. OBORNE-The tree line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The tree line. MR. HUNSINGER-The eastern tree line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Eastern tree line to provide a barrier to the neighbors. MR. LEAHY-That would be on the west side, correct? MR. OBORNE-That would be the east side. They'd be on their west side, but it would be on your east. MR. LEAHY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The east side of the tree line. MR. OBORNE-That would probably take about four years before you see any real change, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless we specify a taller tree. MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, if you have a taller tree, then every four feet is not really going to work. MR. SIPP-It wouldn't take much in the way of 5-10-5 to boost that quite a bit. MR. OBORNE-Yes, no, I agree, and then, you know, if they grow over time, you could take them out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can you fertilize in that area? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's not near the lake. Okay. Well, this is a Type II SEQRA. So no further SEQRA is required. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And will entertain a motion. Is everyone satisfied with the compromise? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #8-2012 GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC Tax Map ID 308.16-2-4.2 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a handicap ramp for proposed office located at northwest corner of parcel. The applicant is also seeking approval for the placement of racking equipment associated with the wholesale/retail electrical use for the storing of conduit to the rear of the parcel. Change of use in in a CLI zone requires PB review and approval. The PB provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 1/17/2012; the ZBA approved the variance request(s) on 1/18/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 212112012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2012 GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per resolution prepared by Staff: 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 with 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; 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans but landscaping with the understanding that white pines seedlings every four feet along the edge of the tree line on the east side of the property; 7) Also there should be updated site plans to show the parking as revised. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LABER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT SPELLBURG AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STONE POINTE, LLC & SCOTT SPELLBURG ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LC-10A-LAND CONSERVATION LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF THREE (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO EIGHT (8) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 ACRES TO 44.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-11, SUB 5-2006 APA , CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 38.52, 1.36, 52.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 SECTION CHAPTER §A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-1 believe the Planning Board is familiar with this application. It's off Ellsworth Lane. It's an eight lot subdivision, and specifically it's three parcels totaling 92.12 acres to be subdivided into eight residential lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Staff comments: Concerning SEQRA, the Planning Board cannot make a determination based on the Subdivision Plan as presented. Historic preservation, and I will amend this, endangered species is in, but historic preservation documentation has not been provided at this time and as such the Planning Board may wish to ascertain the timeframe that these required documents will be provided. Further, the APA has requested of the applicant to submit a non-jurisdictional inquiry form (JIF) for potential wetlands associated with Lot 1, please see attached. What follows is soils, site plan review, and we are at Preliminary right now. The Zoning Board of Appeals has issued their approvals for this subdivision. I'm sure the applicant can fill you in on these timeframes that are needed at this point. Also engineering is also out. There are quite a few engineering comments associated with this project at this point in time, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of Scott Spellburg and Lisa Pushor who are with me. You'll recall we were here in October looking for a recommendation for what was at that time a 9 lot project, and you referred us to the Zoning Board of Appeals for some variance work, or for some variance requests, predominantly because of a recent zone change that created what we perceived as a hardship with one of the parcels. We have been to the Zoning Board. We went to a couple of Zoning Board meetings and we did receive the density relief that we need to proceed with the project. We are one less lot as a result of the process with the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that one lot was one of the, actually it wasn't one of the ones we were looking for variances on, but it was one of the lots on the southerly parcel where you see Lots Five, Six and Seven now. There were four lots there the last time we were here. So we're here with an eight lot subdivision. Total area of over 90 acres, and our lots vary from three acres to forty-four acres, and we have all the variances we need. I think you've seen it before. With that I guess I'd turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Unless you folks want to add anything? SCOTT SPELLBURG MR. SPELLBURG-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I mean, obviously we're not going to get real far based on Staff comments and other needed reviews. MR. KREBS-Well, and not only that, but we have 21 engineering. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's pretty difficult to even know what questions will remain unanswered. MR. KREBS-Right. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-Have you filed the jurisdictional inquiry form yet? MR. HUTCH INS-Almost. It's completed. It was just signed tonight. It will be filed tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We did not anticipate jurisdiction because there was a prior subdivision, and they issued a non-jurisdiction based upon, that was pretty thorough and clear. We didn't anticipate there being jurisdiction. We don't anticipate it happening this time, although I guess it could. MR. HUNSINGER-How about historic preservation and endangered species? MR. HUTCH INS-Endangered species has been completed. A letter was submitted with the very first submission. It's dated September 6t". There's a signoff there. I'm not sure, I think Keith just missed that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCH INS-Historic Preservation, we've been advised by the State Office of Historic Preservation that we need to retain an archeologist to review this project further. So that's where we are. MR. HUNSINGER-What do they think is around? MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know. Well, they won't tell us, but what we have is this is SHPO's website map. I know it's hard to see, but what they call the gray area, which is areas of potential archeological site activity, we have a little corner of our site that touches on the gray area, which is somewhat unfortunate because my experience is if it's, your project is outside of the gray area, they don't really have an interest in it. MR. MAGOWAN-So is that Lot Five or Six? MR. HUTCHINS-That is Lot. MR. KREBS-It looks like it's Five. MR. HUTCHINS-It's a corner of Lot Five and it's a corner of Lot Four. MR. HUNSINGER-It maybe it sort of follows that ravine. Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-So we're in the process of determining how we're going to deal with the archeological question. We would prefer to continue with local review of the project, if we can, with that archeological issue outstanding. Other issues, engineering comments, yes, there's a lot of them. There are, we'll be able to get through them all. It will be a matter of time and back and forth. MR. KREBS-How long do you think it will take to get through all the engineering comments so that we can satisfy them? MR. HUTCHINS-1 wouldn't want to, I mean, we're going to go as fast as we can. We're going to respond. However, if we respond to engineering comments tomorrow, that will be considered a submission for March 15t", which means we will get a response from the engineer the Friday prior to the April Planning Board meeting. So it takes a long time to get through engineering review. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. As a representative of the office, we certainly would like for you to discuss any engineering issues with Chazen. Anything that's put down in writing needs to go through our office. That's the only caveat. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but I can't resolve 24 comments by discussion. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-1 mean, I worked on that one with Craig last month, it was on a different project, but we had a couple of weeks before the submission, and I wasn't able to get an engineering review turned around. I haven't been able to make it happen. If it could, that would be great, because probably one review, probably I'm not going to be able to respond to these comments and get a response back from the engineer that says, okay, we're good. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. All right. So that is mid-April when we've got the next round of comments. So click off another couple of months. So it's going to take some time. MR. KREBS-The problem is that for the Board to do any kind of an approval with this many outstanding issues is almost impossible. So, you know, my feeling was if we could get those resolved, that we could re-schedule them for a meeting in April, which would give you time to get to the engineers, get back, resolve the problem, so that the next engineering report we get all these are satisfied. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. That's my concern. Believe me, the faster the better. I mean, I don't want to have to come back and forth in the paperwork. This is costing money. I'd rather have two people sit down and say, this is how we get it to the end. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-And what I would suggest is that you and the engineer and Keith sit down together and work out the issues. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I will attempt to do that. MR. KREBS-Okay. So we just table this to the first meeting in April? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and we should take any comments. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. We have at least one. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I'd like to thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to provide some brief comments regarding the application. First of all we are not opposed to a subdivision on the property. Our concerns are regarding the protection of water quality and the impacts that disturbance of steep slopes can have on the watershed, especially in the environmentally sensitive areas, recognized for protection by the Comprehensive Plan. For the Board's information, we have previously met with the applicant's agent and discussed our concerns. First, we are disappointed at the excessive variance that was granted regarding relief from permeability requirements of 95% for Lots Two, Three and Four. The applicant requested and received a decrease in permeability requirements to 80%, a four-fold increase in the allowable impervious cover. The current site development proposes permeability of 91, 92 and 90% for Lots Two, Three, and Four which is nearly twice the allowable. Why then such an excessive variance. I would ask the Planning Board to consider minimizing the impervious cover in these environmentally sensitive areas, and such reductions could be reducing driveway widths, for example the 18 feet for the combined driveway for Lots One and Four could be reduced. Another consideration would be the restriction of the allowable footprint to the current size as proposed on the individual lots. Second, we would request a stormwater management for the lower 600 feet of the subdivision road. It does not appear any stormwater management is proposed, possibly because the road may be considered pre-existing. We would recommend pre-existing conditions be classified as woods, which existed prior to the construction of the road, which appears to have been done without any stormwater management. Lastly, we would recommend vegetative plantings for the stormwater basins. A note is on the plans that say vegetated stormwater basins are provided, but all too often this simply refers to grass planting which provides minimal treatment. In closing we'd like to thank the applicant for their continued consideration of our comments, which will provide for an improved project which will be a benefit for them as well as for the community, and I'd like to thank the Board for your time. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The ZBA has already approved this, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, then it's a done deal. MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing open, when we table this. Would you have any objection to reducing driveway widths? MR. HUTCHINS-We don't have any objection to reducing driveway widths where we can. However, there are certain requirements, particularly the Fire Marshal, who's going to want a certain driveway width. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-1 believe we have, I know we have reduced them once. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember. MR. HUTCH INS-Through the public comment process, and we won't have a problem with looking at driveway widths and reducing them to as low a level as we can reasonably do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Where we anticipate cars are going to have to pass each other, we want wider than a 12 foot driveway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, well that road that comes in there, I'm sure the Fire Marshal wants that to be 20 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where you go off from the little, if you call them driveways, some of them have some length to them, that doesn't have to be 20 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-That doesn't have to be 20, and they are narrower. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-No, we don't have a problem with that and we've looked at that in the past. We made some modifications to some previous common space on that end. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, this is always the balance we try to strike, you know, what's wide enough versus what's too wide, and certainly I would expect that you would want to help keep them narrow because it costs money to build them. MR. HUTCHINS-And the wider they are, the more stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-You've got to deal with, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. (Lost words) our stormwater model comes out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Come on up to Assembly Point, I'll show you some stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-So we'll be looking to table this to our April 17th, and work with Keith to get a meeting with the Town Engineer. MR. OBORNE-You need to do a Phase 11, so it's a shovel test, also, for. MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't believe I've seen anything that indicates we need to do a Phase 11. MR. OBORNE-1 thought that you needed to do a shovel test? MR. HUTCHINS-No, we need to retain an archeologist to do a Phase 1. 1 don't know if that's a shovel test or not, but it's a Phase 1, it's not a Phase 11. MR. OBORNE-Okay. All right. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But I'm not quite sure what exactly Phase I is. I know we can't do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a motion Mr. Krebs? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB# 5-2011 LISA PUSHOR & SCOTT SPELLBURG Tax Map ID 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of three (3) parcels totaling 92.12 +/- acres into eight (8) residential lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 10/18/2011; a negative SEAR declaration was approved on 10/18/2011; and the Zoning Board approved the variance requests on 12/21/2011; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 10/18/2011, 10/25/2011, and 0212112012; MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the April 17th Planning Board meeting, to allow the applicant time to work with the engineers and resolve the engineering problems. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck, and just for the record, the public hearing was held open and we will take further public comment on April 17tH NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2012 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED GEORGE RYAN AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) KAREN & GEORGE RYAN ZONING NC-NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. LOCATION 955 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.2 & 1.7 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 56-07, SP 41-93, SP 35-93, SP 17-88 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-9 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 GEORGE RYAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 1-2012, Preliminary and Final for George Ryan. Obviously subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 955 State Route 149. Neighborhood Commercial is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.9 acre parcel into two lots of 3.2 & 1.7 acres. Staff Comments: The applicant has requested a waiver from the Sketch Plan requirements. Further, the applicant is seeking both preliminary and final subdivision approval at this time. The proposed subdivision is located along Farm to Market Road State Route 149 and consists of a commercial parcel and a residential parcel. The residential parcel (Lot 1) to be 1.7 acres in size and has an existing single family dwelling located on site. The commercial parcel (Lot 2) to be 3.2 acres in size and has an existing agricultural/nursery business by the name of Ryan Country Farms. The applicant requests waivers from sketch plan, grading, contours, stormwater, and lighting requirements of the application. What follows is the survey and Preliminary plat requirements. There are some issues that need to be cleaned up which I don't think are the end of the world. Because obviously when it gets before you, Chris, we'll have all those issues taken care of at Final. The question is is the Board comfortable moving forward with SEQRA at this point? And we do have endangered species. We do have SHPO, which I don't think are a problem on this parcel. However, there needs to be some type of verification of that, and then there's some issues on the Long Form, and again, it's just paperwork issues that we can take care of. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. RYAN-First of all, I'm not trying to make, one is not residential. They're both going to be Neighborhood Commercial. We're keeping the same zone, Neighborhood Commercial. I'm just subdividing. As far as the species, I had a wetland specialist come. He looked for wetlands because the Town said I had wetlands. I got a letter from the DEC. I put it in your guys' packets. You guys should have a copy of all of that, and where we're coming along with the new zone for the residential is not true. I'm just trying to subdivide Neighborhood Commercial. Separate my house from my business. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You misunderstood what I was saying. The parcel was actually, the use is residential. There's a residential house on that parcel. I'm not changing the zoning whatsoever. MR. RYAN-Well, I still want to keep the same Neighborhood Commercial. MR. OBORNE-It will be. MR. RYAN-It was Highway Commercial at one time, 500 feet from the corner. It was a long road just to retain that zone. I don't want to lose that. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. RYAN-George Ryan. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. RYAN-And I already have two addresses there. My business is 943. My house is 955. About 10 years ago the Post Office gave me two addresses. So it just makes sense to subdivide it and it just gives me a little bit of leverage. I have two children. I just wanted to subdivide the land. As far as wetlands and endangered species, I've had them all there, because down at the Town, I put up a copy of the map, they said that I have wetlands. So I did do a lot of research on it and I got the letters from the DEC and I got the letters from the APA and I had a wetlands specialist come in from the State. It took a couple of years to get it all done and evidently one time in 1970, the DEC had a lot of workers and they had nothing to do and they put them all in an office and they said can you guys put overlays on these maps, and they did, and a lot of these wetland maps that you see on the DEC wetland are not particularly wetlands. So I just ran into that thing, but I did give you a letter and (lost words) from the DEC and there's a letter in there from the APA. They came out and a wetlands specialist came from the State. When they were working on the road they wanted to fill some of my land because they had to cut in the front and they had to go to the APA and get a permit which they did, and they filled the front. So all I'm trying to do is just subdivide it. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don't have any immediate plans or needs for the subdivision? MR. RYAN-No. I have a daughter, an engineer at school. Maybe when she gets out of school there might not be any jobs. Maybe I'll have to put an office or something in for her but that would be down the road, but, no, I'm just subdividing to make it so it's better for myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-And that's the only thing. There's no plans to do anything different. MR. HUNSINGER-Just going back to the Staff comments, have you ever received a letter from Historic Preservation? MR. RYAN-Never. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I have gotten letters from them for donations. Every year. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? Comments? MR. KREBS-I think it's pretty clear, the letter from the Adirondack Park Agency says does not require a permit, and the one from the DEC says there are no regulated New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands. Now I think that's pretty clear. MR. OBORNE-Wetlands aren't an issue. That's not an issue. It has not been since you've had that letter. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing. Did you want to speak at the public hearing, sir? Yes. We'll open the public hearing, and you can be the first commenter. You'll need to come up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN WALKER MR. WALKER-My name is John Walker, and I own Walker Logging Supply, which has been closed up now for several years. My only question is for George, I would like to know how close he plans to come to my line with his, whatever he's going to do there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll ask the question for you. Anything else? MR. KREBS-And not only that, but any change in the use of the property today would require another Site Plan Review. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Potentially. MR. KREBS-Potentially. MR. OBORNE-Depending on what the change of use is. MR. KREBS-Yes. I mean, if it was a dramatic change in use. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Sir, I think the only thing that you're going to see is a line on a piece of paper. There's not going to be any real change to the property. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-And the line on the piece of property that's going to change is not abutting his property either. MR. WALKER-That still doesn't answer my question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We'll ask him when he comes back to the table. Did you have any other questions, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER-Just seems like a big job just to get him to find out how close he's coming to my property. MR. HUNSINGER-Did anyone else want to address the Board? Okay. MR. RYAN-As far as the property line. My setbacks are 15 or 30 feet, and like I said, I'm not doing any changes. I'm just subdividing the land. Nothing's going to change whatsoever. In the future, if I want to do it, I'd like to stay zone NC 1 Acre like it is. It would be a nice size lot, and in the future if I decide to do something, I have to come for a Site Plan Review with a plan and that, but nothing is going to change. The business, I have a well on my house. There's a well on the business, and it's just typically the line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Are we comfortable with the waiver request for Sketch Plan? Okay. We would consider that first, right, Keith, before we do SEQRA? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for the waiver request for Sketch Plan? RESOLUTION FOR WAIVER REQUEST FOR SKETCH PLAN RE: SUB # 1-2012 RYAN Tax Map ID 266.3-1-9 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.9 acre parcel into two lots of 3.2 & 1.7 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; The applicant is requesting a waiver from sketch plan review; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MOTION TO GRANT REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2012 GEORGE RYAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we would consider a Preliminary Stage of subdivision we need to go through SEQRA, which is a Long Form. MR. KREBS-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, can we stop there for a second? We don't have documentation to back that up. MR. OBORNE-You do not. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. KREBS-Well, I mean, it's not like this is out in the middle of the woods someplace. I mean, it's been an active home and garden shop for many years. MR. RYAN-1979. MR. KREBS-And right behind it is a golf course. Okay. Where are the endangered species coming from? MR. TRAVER-The question is not whether there's an impact. The question is do we have the documentation on it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I just wanted to stop there because I thought we needed to talk about it. I think what it goes back to is the definition of what the action is. The action is a subdivision. There's no change in land use or density or anything else. As Keith pointed out, it's a line on a map. So even though we don't have specific documentation, the land is already developed. You're not proposing any new development or any new use or any new action other than the subdivision. MR. RYAN-No change whatsoever. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think we can legitimately say that it won't, but I do think we still would need documentation for the file, you know, a signoff from DEC. MR. RYAN-I will give them a shout and get them out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-But New York State was just over there, you know, they did the road, and they were looking for stuff. They didn't find anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Could we make that a condition of Final approval, Keith? Would that make sense. MR. OBORNE-If that is how you want to handle it, absolutely. Obviously the converse way of handling it is have that documentation beforehand. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, no, I'm saying make it a condition for Final approval. So until he gets the documentation, there's no Final approval. Just approve Preliminary. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you can make that a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-We can talk about that when we get to that point. Okay. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay, but if we're saying there's no endangered species, why do we need proof? I mean, our SEQRA determination, would that not constitute proof that in fact it's been found there's no endangered species? MR. OBORNE-No, it does not. MR. TRAVER-No, okay. MR. OBORNE-No, what you're dealing with is what environmental aspects are you comfortable with at this point. As Chris stated before, there's not going to be any change to the property whatsoever. So the requirements of DEC are the requirements of DEC. MR. TRAVER-Right. No, I understand that. MR. KREBS-But the question is, will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? And changing the, putting a different property line there is not going to affect, that's my feeling. MR. RYAN-He's exactly right. It's just a line on a piece of paper. I'm still going to mow the grass the same way. I'm still going to do everything the same way. There's nothing changing. MR. OBORNE-I agree with you. I absolutely, 100% agree with you that the proposal is not going to have any impact on it. Okay. Now if the Planning Board's comfortable with approving that, that's fine. I'm here to try to protect you also, though. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. TRAVER-That's an interesting way of looking at it, because there could be endangered species present, and yet changing a line on a map, we could say that we're comfortable that if they're there, they're not going to be affected, and then at some point if we did a Site Plan or something, it could be a different story. So we're not saying they're not there. We're saying they're not affected by this action. MR. OBORNE-Well, subdivision, in this State, captures that endangered species and archeological aspect of any project. So, you know, it is a matter of how the Planning Board wants to proceed with that. MR. KREBS-But the question is, will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species, and I don't see how putting a property line is going to affect them. So that's my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone else comfortable with that? Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It seems like commonsense to me. Maybe I've got it all wrong. MR. TRAVER-Useful discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Good discussion, yes. I'm sorry. Item Nine. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE RYAN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21St day of, February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary subdivision approval? RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STG. SUB # 1-2012 GEORGE RYAN A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.9 acre parcel into two lots of 3.2 and 1.7 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 212112012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2012 GEORGE RYAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; c) Waiver requests granted: grading, contours, stormwater, and lighting plans. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we want to talk about the documentation that was mentioned for endangered species and historic preservation? Interesting discussion we had. If you remember back to the Eagle's Nest, about historic preservation requirements and SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Eagle's Nest? MR. HUNSINGER-On Lake George. What was the name of it? Owl's Nest. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, and we required them to get review from SHPO before we would advance the project at all, and SHPO basically came back and said, unless there's Federal money involved, there's no review required. MR. TRAVER-Well, that was because it was a historic. MR. OBORNE-Right. Yes, that was an archeological, that was a historic. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of historic, you're talking about archeological review, not historic preservation review. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was trying to clarify what the issue was. That's all. Okay. MR. TRAVER-And I think, if I recall, the endangered species letter can come from Warrensburg. I think we've seen those before. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Jed Hayden is the contact there, and it's not going to be an issue. It's just a matter of the file being complete. That's all. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So the question is, do we table it, pending those documents, or can we do a conditional approval? MR. OBORNE-1 would recommend that you approve it, at this point, with that condition. MR. HUNSINGER-With those two conditions. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And, you know, we do have some plat conditions that need to be satisfied also in my notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There's one plat condition. One of the things we didn't ask you about, George, is you currently have a driveway between the two properties. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be maintained obviously. MR. RYAN-Yes, everything's going to stay just like it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RYAN-And the driveway that I have between the two properties is, I have hay down there because it is muddy and, you know, I'm just trying to grow some grass back there, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-So you have a comment in here, Keith, which, you know, makes sense, to formalize that, but as long as it's the same owner, I don't know if we need to formalize it, but if we do a subdivision, he, of course, could sell one lot, and I guess that sale would be conditioned on them at the maintenance of the existing site the way it is. MR. OBORNE-That would be between him and the purchaser. MR. HUNSINGER-But if they wanted to discontinue that interconnect, they'd need to come back for Site Plan Review. Is that a fair assumption or no? MR. OBORNE-1 think they would have to come in and have a curb cut permit through the County. MR. HUNSINGER-He has curb cuts for both lots. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but he doesn't have direct access onto that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That's why I requested the easement. MR. RYAN-I don't understand that. Right now I have four curb cuts, 700 foot of road frontage there. The house will still have one curb cut. The business will have three. I've been through Site Plan Review for them and they're all legitimate. Before I had my business there, I had a house there. So came and put a house in and they gave me a curb cut. Then I put my business in and I put two curb cuts in, and then I came in 2007 for Site Plan Review and put a third curb cut in. All the curb cuts are all in. MR. OBORNE-You have direct access off of 149 for the residential portion? MR. RYAN-Yes, sir. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because that was the discussion when the road was being built. We talked about we didn't want the mud dragged out on 149, and you said you were going to put some gravel there but you didn't know what the spacing is until the road was finished, right? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. RYAN-Exactly, yes, and they blacktopped it so that wouldn't happen and I'm still having some issues. I've got to get some trees and stuff back in there, but the power lines, they took them down. We have some more trees growing and stuff. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I recall that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other issues that we need to put in the conditions? Do we need the plat language? I mean, that's a requirement. Until he puts it on there, he can't file the plat. MR. OBORNE-Right, and this is just for your, the surveyor, right. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't really need it in the resolution. MR. OBORNE-Right, it just needs to be put on the final mylar. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the only thing we need, in terms of the conditions, are the documentation on archeological resources and endangered species. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. I mean, if you want, you could make sure the statement of approval gets on the final plat, but, I mean, that's a requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's a requirement. It's kind of redundant I think. Is that clear, Don? MR. KREBS-I'm working on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought I did, but I'll make sure and I'll say it again. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Were there any other conditions, Steve? Did you have something else? MR. TRAVER-I'm just helping. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 1-2012 GEORGE RYAN Tax Map ID 266.3-1-9 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.9 acre parcel into two lots of 3.2 & 1.7 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 212112012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2012 GEORGE RYAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 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 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d) Waiver requests granted: grading, contours, stormwater, and lighting plans; e) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. f) Documentation to be provided to document that no endangered species or archeological sites exist. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. RYAN-Thank you, guys. Now how about that archeologist? I've got to hire an archeologist? MR. HUNSINGER-No, you just have to get a letter from DEC, from the State Historic Preservation Office. MR. RYAN-So we just give them a shout? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and get a letter from them. MR. RYAN-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SBLB PROPERTIES II, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT APPLICANT PROPOSES 29 PARKING SPACES ON VACANT PARCEL ADJOINING JERRY BROWN'S AUTO PARTS. EXPANSION OF JUNKYARD USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE LGLC REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-148 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 12-2012, SBLB Properties. This is an expansion of a junkyard use and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. Lower Warren Street is the location. Industrial zoning is Heavy Industrial. SEQRA is an Unlisted. Parcel History: None found, whatsoever. Project Description: Applicant proposes 29 parking spaces on vacant parcel adjoining Jerry Brown's Auto Parts. Staff Comments: The parcel was recently re-zoned from Commercial Light Industrial (CLI) to Heavy Industrial (HI) to accommodate the use proposed before the Planning Board. The applicant has paved the area but has not painted parking spaces at this point in time. Sight lines appear more than adequate however, current site access is of concern due to the lack of vehicular control. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I will make the assumption that the Planning Board has seen that. I will say that there was discussion with Code Compliance, in particular with Bruce Frank, on the Littleleaf Linden issue of it being salt tolerant, and it is, although it is sensitive to salt spray. So I think as far as the species go, for that aspect of my Comment Number Five, that can be struck, but arborvitae has very low salt tolerance, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larry Brown and Tom Hutchins. Because we're the last item and it's still really early for the Queensbury Planning Board, I have a short story, just to put in perspective how we got here with this site, and I just gave Keith a CD disk with some photos of the site. What happened, you'll probably recall we were here last year 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) with an application for a storage shed which was right on the boundary of the main site which Keith referred to as a junkyard and we call a recycling facility. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, I thought junkyard was not politically correct, too. MR. LAPPER-This one is a recycling, of any of these type of facilities, this is, and we've gone through this, but they recycle all of the liquids, all the fluids and sell them and everything is scrubbed and cleaned and marked with a barcode and sold over the Internet primarily and it's a real serious facility and they employ a lot of people. So they needed more racking and we were asking for a setback variance on the west side of the existing parcel next to this parcel that we're here for tonight, and the neighbors were the Olson estate who owned the property next door. It had been vacant for years, and years, and years, and they objected to the proximity of this, which was a few feet closer to their boundary, but there wasn't really room on the site to put it, to respect the setback. So the simple answer was to throw money at the problem and to buy the site next door. When Larry purchased it, the only reason to justify the purchase was to make it into a parking lot for his employees so that he could make it less crowded in front of the facility and make it more readily accessible for his customers to move the employees to this site. When he bought the site he discovered that the area that we're here to talk about tonight was already paved, but just hadn't been maintained, covered with dirt, so when he swept it all out, it was all impervious pavement, and that's what, we have the photos. LARRY BROWN MR. BROWN-What had happened, basically, was, the reason that we started cleaning up the site is because a lot of debris got knocked over. Some of the trees that were in the very front of the parking lot had like tipped over during Irene and I never understood why it happened. So I had called somebody in to start cleaning the stuff up, and the reason that the trees tipped over was just because they never formed a root base through the asphalt. There was just so much dirt shoved on top of the road for all the years, and it was all, I shouldn't say trees, but it was just brush, scrub trees or whatever they were, and so they tipped over in the front, and so as we started cleaning it up, and when we started scraping it is when we noticed that there was blacktop underneath. MR. LAPPER-So since it was blacktop, Larry had it re-surfaced, figuring that it wasn't a site plan issue because it was existing blacktop impervious surfaces. Craig then called when the blacktoppers were out there and said, look, this really should go to Site Plan Review. I didn't agree, but at the same time you've got to pick your fights, and after talking with Larry and Tom, rather than appealing his determination to the Zoning Board, I mean, it was fine and we just figured we'd rather be here and we'll submit the Site Plan Review, and obviously there were some things we could do to make it a little bit nicer so that was just a case of working with the Planning Department. So we submitted this and at that point we all put our heads together, understood that the whole thing was a giant curb cut and nobody was going to be happy with that, an aesthetically it would be nicer to do what we proposed. So Tom came up with a plan to saw cut this planting bed, which would be mostly rocks, rather than introducing mulch or dirt, which would just be a maintenance issue, and planting these Littleleaf Lindens which is the same trees that are in Queensbury Plaza, which after years have really developed nicely, you know, where Olive Garden and Red Lobster are, that it's just a very pretty tree, but because of the small leaves, it's not a big maintenance issue in the Fall. So Tom came up with that, and then the arborvitae in the back just to soften it up, and we submitted, immediately, to get before you, and then Craig thought about it and said that we really ought to go for re-zoning because that site was Commercial Light Industrial, and the Town Board had re-zoned the site that Larry bought, the property on the other side, to Heavy Industrial, but not, but this one just got purchased and this wasn't re-zoned. So the price of working with Craig and coming for Site Plan, he worked this through for us which was the benefit to talk to the Town Board and we were able to quickly get this re-zoned to Heavy Industry in December, which was really nice to just clean the whole thing up in terms of zoning. In the Light Industrial zone, a parking lot's a permitted principal use. So I didn't see it as a big issue, but on the other hand, Craig was right. It's just better to clean it up and all have it in the same zoning. So the Town Board took care of that in December, which made us eligible to get before you for Site Plan Review, even though this was sitting in Keith's desk for a couple of months while we were dealing with the re-zoning. So it was certainly not the intention on Larry's part that he thought that he was doing anything wrong by paving this, and that's what the photos show, that it was already paved, but I think at the end of the day we're better off coming here and cleaning this up and controlling the curb cuts and it'll just look a lot nicer. So, with that for introduction and a short cord, let me just ask Tom to just walk you through what we've proposed. MR. KREBS-Jonathan, if I remember right, that property was Dan Olson's property, wasn't it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. KREBS-And that was all paved. That used to be a gas station. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KREBS-I used to go there and get gas all the time. So I know the location and that almost entire front was paved. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, essentially what we've done, it's relatively simple, is cut out a strip across the, right at the border of the right of way, cut out a strip with the new asphalt and get some plantings in there, and there were some comments. We left a fairly generous access opening on either side and we've had a couple of comments and we could certainly narrow that down, narrow that down a little bit by spreading the planting out, adding a tree on each end, we could tighten that up a little bit, as comments have suggested. We debated about plantings to the rear of the parking area. It's already reasonably heavily wooded, although it's not beautiful. It's kind of brushy and brambles. So we didn't want to block the whole end because we want to be able to push snow there. So we've planted a couple of, or four rows of hedges spaced across there with some spacing between them so we could push some snow back and still have something to green it up a little bit. There's 29 parking spaces. They're basically, it's not wide enough to get double row of parking. So we've got 29 parking spaces all facing north, and access on either end of the piece, and with that I'll turn it over for questions. MR. LAPPER-The only other thing, Keith had asked about stormwater management, and because there's no new impervious, it wasn't required, but if you want to just explain how it's graded away from the road. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the whole thing slopes gently to the north. You can see the contours. You've got a 78 here and a 77 at the rear. So it all, and you can see this in the field if you look at it. It all slopes gently to the north. So you've got sheet coming off the paved area into a wooded area, which is fine, and it all trickles down ultimately to a discharge area. So it works. It functions. There's no real requirement to add stormwater and there's no additional hard area so we didn't add anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? The only question I had, how deep was the dirt on top of the existing asphalt? MR. BROWN-It was, I don't even know, I don't know that I would even call it dirt. It was, I guess it was dirt, but a lot of it was what had come off the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, sand. MR. BROWN-It was just a combination of trash and just all kinds of stuff, but I would say, in spots, it was probably, you know, six inches. In some other spots where it was humped it might have been a foot, but it was just. MR. LAPPER-Just hadn't been maintained. MR. BROWN-Yes, it was, to be honest with you, I mean, I've been there, you know, on and off the property that we own since I've been 13, and it was, when I started looking back at aerial photos we had done years ago, you could actually tell that there was some there, but I had never even, I never knew that there was pavement under there because there was always just dirt on top. I just thought it was a dust bowl over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do we know if the old tanks were taken out? MR. LAPPER-We actually checked on that before the closing, checked with DEC, and what they were, they were above ground tanks, if you can imagine it was so long ago where you see it sitting there. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I'll open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. Any concerns or issues that we need to consider? MR. OBORNE-Are you okay with the access issue? Are you okay with arborvitae? MR. MAGOWAN-You said you were going to shrink it down, though, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-From which directions? MR. KREBS-Both. MR. HUNSINGER-So you'd just push it out? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I'd stretch it both to the east and to the west. MR. TRAVER-So it would now be 24 feet as opposed to the 60? Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else for consideration? This is an Unlisted action. Long Form? MR. OBORNE-Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 hope. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. Okay. Short Form SEQRA. Do you have the Short Form in front of you, Mr. Krebs? MR. KREBS-No, I don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's in the application. MR. LAPPER-It was in the application. MR. KREBS-It's in the application. MR. OBORNE-1 can do it if you want. Chris, I can do it if you want. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That's not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. OBORNE-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I would have to have somebody put forward a negative declaration. MR. KREBS-I'd move for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) RESOLUTION NO. 12-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SBLB PROPERTIES II, LLC WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21St day of, February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NOES ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready? MR. KREBS-You need a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we need a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 12-2012 SBLB PROPERTIES II, LLC Tax Map ID 303.19-1-48 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 29 parking spaces on vacant parcel adjoining Jerry Brown's Auto Parts. Expansion of junkyard use requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 212112012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2012 SBLB PROPERTIES II, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per resolution prepared by Staff. 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-0800, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEAR Negative Declaration; 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) 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. With the following condition: To incorporate a 24 foot access to the east and west, as opposed to the 60 foot access proposed. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Now you're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We need to talk about our joint workshop meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the joint workshop meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-With Queensbury Partners. MR. OBORNE-They haven't submitted anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Queensbury Partners? MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they had asked for a joint meeting prior, prior to our last meeting. MR. OBORNE-The Zoning Board was not on board for that. MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Board wasn't? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there's not going to be one? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's too bad, because I think we need to educate the Zoning Board on what we talked about. MR. HUNSINGER-What could we do to help that impasse? MR. OBORNE-1 think what they'll do, they'll probably come in and ask for some guidance from you at this point and knowing the history of what happened at the Zoning Board, you know, the Planning Board may wish to consider obviously changing their approach for this so it could at least balance out for the both Boards, what you want. That's a discussion that the applicant has to make with you, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So should we consider another workshop? Have they asked for the Planning Board for a workshop? MR. OBORNE-They have not. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-They have not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-At this point. I'm not sure what Matt has spoken to Craig about, if anything at all, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-He has not contacted me. Usually he does, you know, talk to me about this issue here. So I really cannot give you much information because really none has been provided. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So at what meeting did the Zoning Board talk about this? MR. OBORNE-They did not talk about it through a meeting. It was sent out via e-mail to gauge the potential for the scheduling of a workshop, and it was pretty unanimous, if four out of seven members is considered unanimous. That's all we got. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, this is a bad week, and I know one of them is in Florida. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think, I wouldn't take it as a complete negative reflection on the project. I would say that it was. MR. OBORNE-Well, based on what happened at the Zoning Board, they were pretty adamant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know they were. MR. KREBS-But I'm not sure that they understood that a lot of the requirements for those variances were actually created by the Planning Board working with the applicant to get rid of having lots of cars sitting on the Bay Road side. MR. TRAVER-I think that's in the minutes. We made a point of saying that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Zoning Board certainly is aware that the Planning Board influences this project. Absolutely. I do believe that the Zoning Board takes their task very seriously when it comes to the zoning, and that is to provide the minimum allowable under the Zoning Code. Now they're pretty consistent with that. So, obviously with the preponderance of zoning variances that were required, they were very uncomfortable with it. MR. KREBS-Okay. Then what should we do if we would still like to see that project go forth? Do we go to the Town and get them to change the zoning so there'll be less? MR. OBORNE-Well, obviously it wouldn't be the Planning Board doing that. It would be the applicant. That would be to change the whole O zone. I don't think that's, they are not going to do that. I don't think that's going to happen. I think they're going to have to think, and I don't want to say out of the box. I think they need to think a little bit more inside the box. Than what they did. I think quite frankly you gave them quite a bit, and they took off with it to a certain extent also. MR. KREBS-Yes, but as I remember it, when they first came they had buildings that were set back and met the requirement. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, yes. MR. KREBS-And they didn't need any variances. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. KREBS-It is this body that kind of influenced us to bring the property forward, so that we could have the nice boulevard in the back and that we could park the cars in the back instead of parking cars on Bay Road. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. OBORNE-One of the bigger issues that the Zoning Board has, and they're very consistent with this, are height variances. They're not wild about height variances. They're also not wild about giving variances, to be honest with you, but that's the nature of the beast. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, variances should be very hard to get. Yes, by definition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think that they could think out of the box a little bit there, and those buildings in the front, they could do like they do in Vermont, which is one of the things that they're patterning after anyhow, is they could have various heights of the buildings like, they don't have to, you know, (lost words), but you have some two and a half story buildings. You have some three, because that's the way they were built in those days and they were attached. If they think a little bit out of the box and come in with something like that, they may be able to get some recognition from that. MR. SIPP-Yes, I think that they did a little bit more than we gave them leverage to do. There are some places there where that stormwater is going into. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, they're going to have to address that issue, too. MR. SIPP-Salt, oil, brake fluid, everything within 30 feet of one of those buildings. MR. OBORNE-I mean, I think we accommodated them above and beyond what we normally would with an applicant, to be honest with you, with that joint meeting specifically. They have to get an engineered plan to you before you can even do a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So they need to land on that issue, you know, soon, and the last thing we want to have happen, from my point of view at least, and again this is my point of view, is to have this stall any further than it has. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you don't want the project to die just because two people can't agree. I mean, that looks pretty bad. MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, there's a balance that has to be met. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. OBORNE-There's a balance that has to be met. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it's not all on our shoulders and it's not all on the Zoning Board's shoulders. Part of it's on the applicant's shoulders. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Absolutely. MR. KREBS-But in addition, too, you know, this business of only two story buildings is ridiculous because we want to be green in this country and two story buildings are not as green as three story buildings, and they're not as green as four story buildings, because they become more efficient from a heat and light standpoint, the more stories you have. I mean, that's exactly why when you go to New York City you don't see any two story buildings. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They've also run out of land. MR. KREBS-Yes, but the point is that they are more efficient. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we don't need to do anything this evening is really what it comes down to. Yes, okay. We'll wait to hear from the applicant, then. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think that would be the course of action to take. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just based on the discussion, certainly this Board is open and willing to work with them and do what we need to do. MR. OBORNE-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Salvador has asked for the Board's attention for five minutes. I should ask you ahead of time what it is that you wish to discuss. Just to make sure that it's relevant to our work. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, and thank you for the time. Just a couple of points I'd like to bring you up to date on. You mentioned the Mellowstone project earlier, Owl's Nest. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-The sponsors of that project have been trying to transfer the property, and to deed it to Mr. West, and they have failed to do that so far. So the property still remains in the name of the Joshua Rock Corporation, as far as the County is concerned, and as far as the Town is concerned, at the Assessor's Office, it remains in Eleanor J. Seelye's estate. So until that gets sorted out, it's sort of in limbo, but they're working on trying to transfer the title. Another thing I learned since your approval of the Diane Matthew's Class A Marina on Dunham's Bay is that the Lake George Park Commission has a guidance for offsite restrooms and parking, and with regard to the restrooms, you recall that they had proposed to use the restrooms at the Castaway Marina. The Castaway Marina is two miles from that site, including egress and ingress. The guidance program for the Park Commission limits that distance to one quarter of a mile. So they are fully eight times beyond the Park Commission's guidance. In lieu of them being beyond the one quarter, they are, and there's no public transportation system between the two sites, and there's not likely to be, then they are obligated to furnish their own administered, or to contract for transportation, shuttle bus, whatever have you, between the two sites, and that's for them to work out with the Commission, and that'll be heard on Tuesday of next week. Since I brought to your attention the issue of the alternate members, I sent a letter to Mr. Stec dated February 2nd, and I have copies of that for you here tonight. In any case, I point out here that Town Law Section 271, as it applies to the Planning Board, restricts the use of alternate members to only cases of conflict of interest, and you'll see this evening you approved that resolution that's going before the Town Board for public hearing Monday night coming, and if you'll notice what the Town has said in here, and I really don't understand this, Paragraph A, they have stricken the phrase, Pursuant to Section 271, Subdivision 15 of Town Law, alternate members may be established for the Planning Board. There's nothing wrong with that statement. I don't know why they're striking it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ask them. MR. SALVADOR-1 intend to Monday night. You should have asked them before you approved this. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because I know that they're just trying to change a mistake they made to make it legal. Because alternates all over the State serve when regular people are absent. MR. SALVADOR-Maybe all over the State it's improper. That's all I'm saying. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That might be your opinion. MR. SALVADOR-All right. That'll be heard Monday. Okay. That's all I'm saying. They went on, in Paragraph B, to try to justify their using alternates for other than conflict of interest, and you read that in that Paragraph B. However, Paragraph B lacks any reference to jurisdiction. What authority do they have to write Paragraph B? And that'll be heard Monday night. I just wanted to let you know, and I'll give you this letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, John. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Did I make the five minutes? MR. HUNSINGER-You sure did. Thank you. I appreciate it. Any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 0212112012) Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. See you all next Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 33