Loading...
01-17-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch, LLC; French Mt. Bear Pond 1. Tax Map No. 278.-1-77, 13 Site Plan No. 75-2010 Hudson River LDC 2. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 303.12-1-9.5 Site Plan No. 7-2012 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 3. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-1 Site Plan No. 1-2012 William Threw 4. FWW# 1-2012 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-7, 13 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 2-2012 William Threw 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.17-1-12 Special Use Permit No. 4-2012 J & D Marina, LLC 15. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.5-1-26 Site Plan No. 8-2012 Gregg Laber, GMS Realty, LLC 18. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.2 Site Plan No. 47-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 20. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 27. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 FWW No. 1-2011 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 01/17/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2012. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. Many of our items have public hearings scheduled. There's also a handout on the back table for public hearing procedures. If you plan to speak during one of the public hearings, I would request that you take a look at the procedures and make yourself familiar with them. I will make further announcements when we do open the public hearings. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from November 15tH and November 17tH 2011. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15, 2011 November 17, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15TH & NOVEMBER 17TH, 2011, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I also wanted to welcome our new member, Mr. Deeb, to the Board. We have three administrative items this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND: TABLED TO 1/17/12 MR. HUNSINGER-This was tabled to this evening. I think we all got information in our package that the APA has taken Lead Agency Status on that project, and so we will be considering it again when the APA's finished with the SEQRA review. Is there any additional information, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, no additional information at this point in time. Staff does recommend that you table out to March 20tH MR. TRAVER-There was some public comment, an e-mail, a letter from someone regarding a bird watching or something? MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is some public comment associated with this, and obviously when we have a public hearing noticed we'll introduce that into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that was here for that project this evening? We will leave the public hearing open obviously, and we'll consider additional comments when we re-consider it in March. Would anyone like to make that motion to table? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND Tax Map ID 278.-l-77, 13 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on lands in Queensbury and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed. Outdoor recreation uses in a LC zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/2011, the application was tabled to 1/17/2012; No new information was submitted, therefore, let it be resolved, MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to March 20th. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012 by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-A specific date, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-March 20th I think is what you suggested. Yes. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have a request for an extension for Site Plan 75-2010, Hudson River LDC. SP 75-2010 HUDSON RIVER LDC: APPROVAL EXPIRES 2/15/2012 - REQUESTING AN EXTENSION MR. HUNSINGER-We did have correspondence that was e-mailed to us. Did you have anything else to add, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, not much. Just basically if we could get a two year approval on this one, as this is a shovel-ready site that you had already approved or the engineering is done, and my recommendation is a two year approval out to 2014 if at all possible. If you're uncomfortable with that, go with the one year. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, any discussion? MR. KREBS-I haven't got any problem going out two years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I don't, either. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, if anything changes in their plan, they'll be back before us anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Would someone like to move it? RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL OF SP #75-2010 HUDSON RIVER LDC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 25,000 +/- sq. ft. building for use as an office/warehouse/manufacturing facility. Office/warehouse/manufacturing facility in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and The application was approved on 2/15/2011; and The applicant is requesting an extension, therefore let it be resolved - MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 75-2010 HUDSON RIVER LDC TO JANUARY 17, 2014, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then the last item under administrative issues is Site Plan 7-2012 for Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. SP 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS: REQUEST LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW MR. HUNSINGER-You have a copy of the draft motion in your package; if anyone would like to move that? RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP Tax Map ID 295.6-1-1 WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan & Use Variance application for Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a new 120' monopole Telecommunications Tower. Telecommunication Towers in a RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Use Variance: Relief from use requirements of the RR-5A zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: TOQ ZBA; MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 & USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012 FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP/D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the Staff resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that would likely seek Lead Agency Status on that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There is the potential that the Zoning Board of Appeals may, and if they do, or we'd be hoping they won't, obviously, but if they would like to do their separate non-combined coordinated review, so to speak, they can do that on an unlisted action. I don't anticipate that happening. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, are they hearing it tomorrow night? MR. OBORNE-They're hearing it tomorrow night, and then we can move forward with the recommendation the following month? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. They say if you're around long enough you begin to see everything. We had a request to postpone the Threw discussions until later in the meeting, but I 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) see that Mr. O'Connor has showed up on time. So, we have several items for Planning Board recommendations to the ZBA. The first one is for William Threw. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2012 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 375 BIG BAY ROAD & OFF EAGAN ROAD SITE PLAN: PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN LOTS AS WELL AS COMBINING THE NORTHERN LOT WITH EXISTING WESTERN LOT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SITE COMPLIANCE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; RESULTING IN COMBINED LOT SIZE TO BE 9.18 ACRES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9,600 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE, RELOCATED 4,500 SQ. FT. QUONSET HUT, SAWMILL AND FIREWOOD OPERATION, AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE YARD. NEW USES AND NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE RELIEF FOR SAWMILL USE AND SIDE SETBACK RELIEF FOR EXISTING POLE BARN. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1 & 2-12, SP 2-12, NOA 3-10, SP 80-90, SP 67-89, BP 07-753, 246, 229, 00-631, 96-720, 89-410 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 3.14 & 5.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-7, 13 SECTION § 179-9; § 179-10 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize. MR. OBORNE-Yes. We're here for the purposes of a recommendation. As previously declared by the Planning Board Chair, the application is Site Plan 1-2012, Special Use Permit 11-2012 and Area Variance 1-2012 for William Threw, 375 Big Bay Road is the location, CLI, Commercial Light Industrial, is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA at this point. What follows is parcel history. We do have engineering in on this I do believe. Project Description: Proposal calls for a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lots as well as combining the northern lot with existing western lot in order to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting combined lot size to be 9.18 acres. Further, applicant proposes a 9,600 sq. ft. warehouse, relocated 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset hut, sawmill and firewood operation, and equipment storage yard. Staff Comments: The sawmill and firewood operation are reviewed under the auspices of a Special Use Permit and will require the same level of review, if not above, as Site Plan Review with the General Criteria for the following to be applied by the Planning Board as per §179-10-060: What follows is a list of the six general criteria that is applied for Use Variances. Please note that sawmills are allowable on lots of 100 acres or greater as per 179-10-070W. What I have also attached for the Planning Board's edification is the general description of the General Criteria. Please see attached description for the General Criteria for this project. Per code a Special Use Permit will require one of the following terms of validity: Permanent, Temporary, or Renewable. Nature of the Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Lot size - request for 90.82 acres of relief from the 100 acre requirement as per §179-10-070W. 2. Side setback relief-request for 3.6 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement for the existing pole barn associated with the firewood operation. What follows is soils. I think the Planning Board is familiar with the soils in the area. They are ubiquitous Oakville loamy fine sand. Site Plan Review follows which we'll get into hopefully next week. A few issues, obviously, as you can see. Really not much else to add. Please keep in mind that there are, again, the uses for sawmill and the firewood operation are under a Special Use Permit, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, William Threw. With me at the table is Tom Hutchins from Hutchins Engineering, who's going to be the project engineer, and Jeffrey Threw, who is going to be the ultimate owner of one of the two parcels that are before the Board. We weren't necessarily sure we were going to be on an agenda. That's why we were juggling times. I happened to be in Bolton for an Area Variance earlier, and quickly, or happily, got moved on their agenda to Number One so I could get here. Bill Threw was not aware that we were going to be on the agenda until I called him and said here's my agendas I just got from the Town, and he is in Florida, but he will be here when we get into the substance of the stuff. Tonight I think you're, just to, you're asked to make a recommendation as to the variances that are requested, and then we would come back to you for both Site Plan and for Special Use Permit when we get into the nitty gritty. We've got probably four or five pages of engineering comments which we're not prepared to answer tonight. We'll be lucky if 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) we get them answered for February 15t", which would get us into the March agenda, if we get through that process, but generally what we're trying to do is clean up the site and bring the site into compliance. There is an action pending against William Threw by the Town for noncompliance, and with the consent of the Town Attorney, we are making the applications that are necessary to bring the site into compliance. Basically what we're trying to do is divide the site into two different parcels. The southerly parcel, which would be the parcel that Jeffrey Threw will end up owning, is the parcel where he operates his truck repair, and we're going to have to adjust the boundary line of the tax map parcels in order to give him adequate access and ability to get people into his site and off his site. We will have a common driveway from the Town highway. We will have a common driveway maintenance agreement and easement, an easement for your common use between the two property owners. The property on the northern end of it, the front part of it is the two large warehouses that are used right now by SCA to store their raw product. They bring in baled paper there. They don't bale it. They don't produce it on site, but they store their baled paper there, and then bring it over to their mill in South Glens Falls for the purpose of manufacturing their paper. We, in the reconfiguration of this site, want to take the Quonset hut, which is the oval shaped building near the front that's on the southerly lot right now, remove that building, and move it to the back of the site. That will become the storage building in the back end of the property. Jeffrey will then build a wing, if you will, onto the existing repair shop. So that'll be one building, and that will be supported for this truck repair. In doing that, partially because of the building, but more so because of the existing pavement that's already there, particularly the pavement that's behind the building, not the pavement that's in front of the building between the building and the road. We exceed the permeability of the site. I think we're around 20%, and we're supposed to be at 30%. We are looking at even a different configuration of the building addition which may give us a little bit more permeability. We haven't worked that out, but we're trying to do that. So that's the Number One variance that we're asking for a recommendation is for your recommendation on the permeability variance that we have before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject, that's the second application that we'd be looking at. This first one is specifically for the 100 acres and the existing pole barn. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Then I've just made my presentation for the second variance not for the first variance. The second variance is the building or the property that's on the north side. Bill Threw has operated on this site since 1985. Before that, he operated on a site over on Luzerne Road. He moved to this site because of issues on Luzerne Road and that zoning, with the thought and I think with the blessing that what he was doing was then permitted in that LI zone, and I'm not 100% sure whether the zoning was changed or some of the use schedule was changed in that zone, but in any event, he has, since 1985, operated what is defined as a sawmill on that property. He's had various sawmills on that property. As I said, this is part of a cleanup operation, and if Bill were here he'd say the same thing. He had one of the oddest sawmills I've seen. He had the back end of a truck hooked up by belts and what not to a sawmill that was kind of like down the way from it, and he had a system where the logs would come on and this truck, when he put it in gear, would run the sawmill. That was right behind, if you've been out to the site, and maybe some of you have been out to the site over a period of years, that was directly behind the two big warehouses, a little bit to the south of them, and it sat up on a little break of a hill there. They used the incline of the hill on purpose. He then had a large sawmill, which would take about 10 people to operate, big gray thing. I don't know if he ever got that operable on the site or not, but it was kicking around there. He then went to, and has now, a band saw sawmill, if you will. It's a portable piece of equipment. It's not as big as your table. He doesn't produce a lot of wood with it. He uses it only sporadically. We would like to get a variance to operate that sawmill, and we're willing to stipulate the variance be for that sawmill. Because I think the question always comes, if you classify the property a sawmill, what could happen down the road, what kind of creeping expansion might you have. I've talked to Staff. I said, well, tell me how you want to restrict it so that you know what you're getting, and this isn't a game of changing cards, and we will stipulate to that if we can do that. The sawmill's necessary because Bill Threw is still in the excavation business and he takes trees down, not on the scale that he used to. He cleared most of the subdivision roads in the Town of Queensbury, and used to bring the trees back to his site and then salvage the trees for the value of the trees. Right now he does rough cut, rough saw lumber only. He doesn't do finished milling of saw wood. His immediate goal is to produce enough wood to build the enclosure or fence that we've said that we would enclose the storage of the construction equipment with. We're going to build an enclosure, eight foot high, and it's going to be made of rough saw wood, it's on the back side of the site. That takes care of some of the issues that we've had with neighbors and what not for storage of equipment on site. This is an old business. It's like any other construction yard. They have equipment there that they use, and probably a poor terminology, but they use in part to cannibalize for parts of other pieces, or they have pieces of equipment that they use occasionally and they start up when they need to use them. I mean, there's a crusher that sits there that's operable, but he isn't crushing anything right now. It's just sitting there. So we need a place to put it in storage. We need a place to put a couple of rollers in storage, and a lot of the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) other pieces of equipment that are like that, and that's part of the comments of Staff, too. They want us to show in more detail exactly where all that storage will be which we will, but I go back to the sawmill. If you look at your definition, sawmill includes the splitting of wood for firewood. So we've got two aspects of a sawmill on the property right now. One is that pole barn, which sits along the northerly boundary of the property, and again, there's small portable firewood, firewood processor, and it sits underneath that pole barn. We've been asked to give noise information on both those pieces of equipment, and we will have that. I don't have it here this evening. The manufacturer for the sawmill processer is putting it together for us. We've got to do something else for the band saw for the sawmill, and it's not operating right now, or we can't go, so we can't go out and test it ourselves. We're trying to find some manufacturing data to test it, but I think that would be part of your site plan or part of your special use permit. So we brought those, that use to the property in 1985. We've continued it since 1985. We want to continue it in the future. We don't mean to make it a principal part of the business. We don't intend to make it a principal part of the business. It's an incidental part of the, at the time when we get through the other parts of the approval process, we're willing to listen to hours of operation, even a term. I mean, on the site plan, or not on the site plan, on the special use permit you can make it permanent, you can make it temporary, or you can make it for a specific time period, and we're willing to listen to what you want to do so that you have a checks and balance on that when we get to that point. The third variance that we are asking for a variance for the operation of a sawmill, as we've described it, on the 9. Something acre parcel, and the Ordinance says you have to have 100 acres to operate a sawmill. I don't think we've had great complaints about the sawmill that had been there to be honest with you. It's, the sawmill operations are in the back northerly, northwesterly corner. I think Gross Electric has its warehouses behind that. The area behind that is vacant at this point. The third variance is because the pole barn, when it was put up, encroached on the 20 foot setback. We're asking for 3.6 feet relief for one corner of that pole barn, and then it goes from three feet six inches to a lesser amount. We don't think the variances are substantial, in the sense that it has been a pre- existing use, and I can't tell you whether or not it was legitimate when it was started in 1985 or not but everybody seemed to think it was. If you look at the list of times it's been before this Board, in either of the two applications, in the Staff Notes for your Board, this thing has been here at least 10 times, 12 times, and I've not had, not known of complaints because the sawmill was within operating. On the Staff Notes for the ZBA, they list the same number of times it's been here. Going back to, it must be a typo, well, it could be Site Plan 67 of 1989, but a lot of this goes back to 1989, 1990, 1996, and '07. We don't think that the variances we are asking for are substantial. We don't think that they are something that is going to affect the environment or the neighborhood or the community. We think that they are necessary. It would be a foolish waste of money particularly to take down the pole building and move it three feet, if we're going to be allowed to have the pole building. We wouldn't accomplish a lot. It's on a back line, way in the back that nobody sees or whatever. That's basically the pitch that we're going to make to the ZBA saying that we're coming back to you for Site Plan. We'll come back to you for Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-You have, as I understand it you have four wood processing pieces of equipment here, right? You have the modern band saw. You have the firewood processor, and then you have the pickup truck driven OSHA compliant (lost word) that you're not going to operate anymore, and the ten person thing, that's going to go as well? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So all that's left is the band saw, the. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it's disassembled and the 10, the large sawmill is all disassembled, and I think they're hoping it's sold. We've been doing this for maybe since last June or last May. He has sold an amazing amount of equipment that's there. He has junked a great deal of equipment that was there. The whole south, and if you go out in the back and you look to the left and it's pretty open now, that was chuck full of equipment when we started this thing. MR. TRAVER-And that's the-is at least partially referred to by the Town Attorney's letter, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Vehicles and so on. Those have been removed and that issue is resolved? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don't have, in my packet that I got with the notes; I didn't get the County or the Town Attorney's letter. I think I have, is it dated January 5t"? I have one that he sent me. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, January 5t". How old is the aerial? MR. OBORNE-The aerial is four years old. So that's actually showing a lot of the equipment and vehicles. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town's got 100 pictures of this property. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, my question was what the Town's litigation was about. MR. O'CONNOR-The litigation is about a problem we're having with Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt operates a towing service, which is legitimate and a permitted use on its zone. The problem we have is if he brings in unregistered vehicles and dismantles them in any way, and he was bringing them in and taking off the catalytic converter and the aluminum rims and then taking the bodies to Albany, and we've told him he can't do that, and this is her letter saying, and Craig has written a couple of letters, too, saying you need to know that that use is considered a junkyard use and this is not permitted on that site. A junkyard would require a Use Variance, and we've acknowledged that. I've started eviction action against Hunt and I'm probably going to have to follow that up. I'd given notice that he had to cease and desist that particular use because that was causing a problem with Mr. Hatin. So we don't have a problem. We're not asking. MR. MAGOWAN-So you were renting space to him? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Those were my questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but even driving back in there, I mean, there's still a lot of equipment and other materials on the site, and, you know, looking at the site plan that you've proposed, I don't know if that fenced in area that you're proposing is big enough to house everything as you described. MR. O'CONNOR-We're hopeful that the program that we have where we're selling everything will continue. The other day when we were up there there were four tandems that he thinks he has. This has gone through a lot of process, I guess. Bill Threw sold the business to somebody and it didn't work out, and when he got most of the equipment back it had sand in the engines and other things of that nature, and it has made it very difficult to retrieve and put that equipment back on the road, and some of that equipment also now is outdated because of new emission regulations. So he struggled, as a pretty much one man operation trying to recover from something that was a bad event, but he's done a, I think even Dave would acknowledge and maybe even Cathi who's been out to the property with me two or three times, it's not perfect, but it's a great improvement over what we started with, and we're hopeful that we're going to get rid of it. We've given a size, okay, we've given the size to that enclosure, and what can go in there can go in there, and what can't go in there we've got to get rid of. The other thing which we will do is we will line up the box trailers and those will be numbered. I think the suggestion was made figure out how many you actually use and maybe add five to it, and that'll be the, we're trying to get to limitations or definitions of what is there. This is an old business that grew by leaps and bounds or creeping, more by creeping, and you also ran into a problem, hindsight's great. He's moved everything away from the houses that are on the back road, which is where a lot of the complaint came from, Eagan Road. He actually sold those lots. He probably should have put something in those lots that told people, hey, you're moving in next to this operation, don't move in if you are ever going to have complaints, and I've used that with quarries. I've used that with the cement company, in legalistic terms, but basically those people moved into an industrial zone. They have rights, too. I'm not necessarily banging on them. So we're trying to clean this up, trying to get it done. MR. TRAVER-One of the things, you know, when I was first looking at the material and I saw 91 feet relief out of 100 foot requirement, my, of course, first reaction was saying, you know, that's a huge variance, but then, you know, when you think about it, or as I was imaging it, you know, you can have a 200 acre site and have the mill right next to the neighbors. Really, I would think it would be the setback that would be what would determine I think what the intent of the, I assume the intent of the 100 acre requirement is intended to meet. So once I thought about it, I didn't necessarily see that as a huge, you know, impediment, because to me it really is the distance that the equipment is operating from the neighbor. MR. SIPP-The circular saw is not going to be used anymore, it's just the band saw? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SIPP-It would be interesting to know the decibel rating of each one to see if there is a drop, which there should be. A band saw is quieter than a circular saw. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not that big. Jeff, what's the engine on it? JEFFREY THREW MR. THREW-It's a little three cylinder doits. MR. OBORNE-It's not the engine. It's the actual cutting that makes the noise. You're cutting a log. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, well, I know the thinner blades are more of a piercing sound, but the thicker blades, I mean, unless its dry wood, the wet wood absorbs some of the noise. I've been in the mills. It's not a big band saw. I've seen the largest ones, you know, with petties and that. MR. TRAVER-1 think what you're describing is actually considered, in the industry, a portable sawmill. MR. THREW-It's a portable band saw. MR. TRAVER-You can hook it up to a truck. I mean, I don't know if this one is still equipped for that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I've seen them. I (lost word) one operated, but I'm sure that information's available. MR. O'CONNOR-We're trying to get that information. We will get that information as part of the process. It used to be, when we first started this, it was on the south side of the big, the back warehouse, and it was sitting close to the warehouse itself, and that's where they operated, and that was an area that was very visible from the road, or not very visible, but somewhat visible from the road, so that was part of this process that get it out of there, get that entire area cleaned up of all the scrap wood that was there, get all the logs out of there that you had sitting there and get them away from anything that was visible on Eagan Road, which has been done. MR. SIPP-1 think an attempt should be made at landscaping to come close to the buffer stipulations needed for this piece of property. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm sure you're going to tell me that when we get to Site Plan or Special Use Permit. The landscaping itself in front of the building is not bad, the two buildings, the building that Jeff operates. There is, we will leave the trees that are there in front of the warehousing. There's a pretty good stand of trees that are there. MR. SIPP-Yes, but where are you going to move the sawmill to? MR. O'CONNOR-That's way out back. You're not going to even see that. You'd have to look through the buildings; you'd have to look through the two warehouses to even get close to it. It's the back end of the property, and the north boundary is bordered by Joe Gross's warehouses. So it's not even visible from that property, but we're not saying no. We're just. MR. SIPP-1 think it would spruce up the place a little bit. MR. DEEB-Can we go back to the enclosure? Do you have any idea how much equipment you're going to end up putting in the enclosure? MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever will fit. We will prioritize the salvaging of the equipment by the space that we have. MR. DEEB-But you're really trying to get rid of a lot of the dead weight, then? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we are. Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-If I may; I don't know how important to the Board the actual noise information is in order for you to render a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I don't know if you would like to discuss that aspect of it, because if you're going to give them a recommendation the 100 acres, you know, it's just a consideration. I don't want to slow the process down, but I just want to make sure that we dot our I's and cross our T's. MR. O'CONNOR-As I indicated, we will stipulate to whatever conditions you want to put upon us as far as Site Plan or Special Use Permit, and at that time we will be able to demonstrate to you what the decibels are, 50 feet, 100 feet from the equipment. MR. TRAVER-To answer Staff's comments, I think that the danger for the applicant, when we get to Site Plan Review is, you know, is mitigation going to be needed and how expensive will that be, you know, for the sound. I mean, they're more familiar with the equipment, at this point, than we are, and I think they have a plan to move forward. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't think the equipment's any noisier, if you will, than a backhoe or a loader. I've been to the site a couple of times, and talked to Bill probably from here to the back of the building, with a conversation while the saw was running in the background. MR. TRAVER-Well, the numbers will tell the story. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We certainly have a number of Site Plan issues, as the applicant has pointed out. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the Board's feeling on the variance requests that are requested here? MR. TRAVER-Well, the first one that we're considering, it looks like there's really two variances; the lot size and side setback. Again, I was initially amazed by the lot size request, but in view of the reality of the situation, I don't really have a problem with that, and I think 3.6 feet on the pre- existing building is, I don't have a problem with that either. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's a pole barn. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I think, you know, on this one, I mean, it's Site Plan that's going to be the real challenge to make it work, not the variances, in my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In reviewing this, I was trying to remember the discussion at the PORC Committee way back when on. I've got to be honest, I don't think we really had much of a discussion as to what the intent was for why so much land would be required, other than maybe the thought was it would probably be somewhere where there's a forest or. MR. OBORNE-Well, it would be in a rural area. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-As opposed to a residential. Obviously there's rural residential, but I think the intent is that it's in a rural area. MR. TRAVER-Yes, having a lot that big it's going to be (lost words) somewhere, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I mean there's not too many areas in the Town of Queensbury where you're going to find 100 acres. MR. TRAVER-Not that we haven't been asked to do a Site Plan on. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we talked about the rural area. I mean, was that some of the land that Bill sold and built the houses? I mean, was this pre-existing when these homes were built? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I've known the business for years. I mean, I was in the boom of the 80's there and Bill did, you guys built a lot of roads and I mean like you said, he was a key person in Queensbury. So I can understand how that stuff just acquires. It breaks down. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) You've got to keep moving. You don't have time. Now it's time to clean up. He knows scrap metal's up, right? MR. O'CONNOR-He tells me he ships a container every time he can. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We have our standard draft resolution for the variance request, A or B, limited review or based on our review we have the following areas of concern. Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? MR. KREBS-Well, I was going to say to select B, the Planning Board, based on limited review has identified the following areas of concern. One, Town Engineer's comments need to be satisfied prior to recommendation to the ZBA. MR. TRAVER-1 think prior to Site Plan Review. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But we're looking at tonight, I mean, you know, we can certainly consider that motion. I'm wondering if. MR. KREBS-Site Plan Review, or. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review, Special Use Permit. It's under the same umbrella. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's going to be next month. MR. OBORNE-It could potentially be Tuesday of next week. It probably won't happen because I don't think Tom can turn around. MR. O'CONNOR-We can't answer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's going to be February 21St or 28tH MR. OBORNE-Probably March because the deadline for February has passed. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Were you going to revise your recommendation, Don? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 01-12 WILLIAM THREW Tax Map ID 309.17-1-7, 13 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Proposal calls for a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lots as well as combining the northern lot with existing western lot in order to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting combined lot size to be 9.18 acres. Further, applicant proposes a 9,600 sq. ft. warehouse, relocated 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset hut, sawmill and firewood operation, and equipment storage yard. New uses and new construction proposed for the property requires review and approval from the Planning Board. Variances: Relief requested from lot size relief for sawmill use and side setback relief for existing pole barn. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated at Site Plan Review. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-If I can state for the record that that recommendation was for Tax ID Number 309.17-1-7 and 13. I have an issue with the Site Plan numbers because they're both stating 2012 at this point. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there's Site Plan 1-2012, which is the one we just did, and 2-2012. MR. OBORNE-Right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is a good introduction to the next project. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI- COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369 BIG BAY ROAD SITE PLAN: PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN LOT TO PROMOTE SITE COMPLIANCE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; RESULTING LOT SIZE FOR SOUTH LOT TO BE 1.91 ACRES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE EXISTING 4,500 SQ. FT. QUONSET HUT TO NORTHERN PARCEL AND CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. VEHICLE REPAIR FACILITY. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLI ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1 & 2-12, SP 1-12, SUP 11-12, NOA 3-10, SP 80-90, SP 67-89, BP 07-753, 246, 229, 00-631, 96-720, 89-410 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 2.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-12 SECTION § 179-9 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is on the southern lot. MR. O'CONNOR-And this requires a variance for permeability, and that's what we are asking for your recommendation for. That was the one that I thought was first and it was second. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We're not significantly increasing the lack of permeability, but we've already got it paved. If you'll notice this property is ringed, at least on one side, by whatever you call them, those Jersey barrier blocks. They belong to the Town of Queensbury, and that marks their boundary line. Most of that area is used for driving of heavy vehicles. So it needs to be paved. We have got some green space out in front. We will try to modify the new addition to his existing building and add permeability to the site by doing that. We've come up with a different configuration that we think will shave a couple of points of the variance, but we are asking for your recommendation of approval for permeability at 20.2, is that what it is, Tom? 20.4 as opposed to 40. MR. HUTCHINS-And we would add that the soils in the area are very permeable and granular in nature and conducive to infiltration of runoff and we will be able to develop a plan that will be compliant with regulations and through the Town's engineer we'll work through. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes that was my question and it's kind of hard to get a handle on that, given the number of engineering comments that are outstanding. MR. HUTCHINS-We'll get there, and it's going to take some back and forth. MR. TRAVER-How do you feel about a restriction on how many unlicensed or unregistered vehicles can be on the parcel at any given time? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-1 have problems with that. I think right now one of his customers, when we were in there last week or this week, I forget when it was, has three unregistered vehicles there, and I think one he's trying to change. It's a brand new vehicle but they're trying to take a body off one of the other, this fellow's other delivery trucks and then they're going to fit one on the other one. I mean, I can't tell you that, I mean, its auto repair, auto, that's the type of work. He doesn't bring them on for purposes of, as a junker or anything of that nature. MR. TRAVER-Right, but I think, you know, and I don't have that information in front of me, but I think that the unregistered unlicensed, I mean, it's one thing if you're bringing a vehicle in and repairing it, you know, then it's something that somebody's using, and, you know, fix this for me or whatever, but I think the issue and the issue with the Town is this issue of the unregistered, the junkyard issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a big difference between storing it and doing what you just said. MR. THREW-But that's another tenant. MR. O'CONNOR-1 would have a problem with that because I think that creates an issue. If it's, we understand that we can't run a junkyard, and the junkyard has been defined by the Town, by a ZBA determination that says that you can't bring unregistered vehicles onto the property for the purpose of dismantling them. You can, and nobody seems to have a time limit, you can bring them on, if you're just towing it. MR. TRAVER-But the project that you described that's underway does involve dismantling an unregistered vehicle. Right? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. TRAVER-Taking a body off is not dismantling it? MR. O'CONNOR-This is a brand new chasse. MR. THREW-It's the same thing that Arrowhead's been doing. MR. O'CONNOR-It's the same thing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I mean, if somebody tried to do that to my Cherokee, I certainly would say you're dismantling my Cherokee. MR. O'CONNOR-But, it's like Arrowhead. MR. THREW-Changing bodies. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't know who else does that. MR. MAGOWAN-They're retrofitting a truck to fit its particular need with another, you know, vehicle switching over, something like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if one unregistered vehicle at a time is not reasonable, is putting some number on there reasonable? I mean, you're talking about three. How about if we say half a dozen? MR. DEEB-How many can you work on at one point is what I'm saying. MR. O'CONNOR-How many stalls are you going to have? MR. THREW-Five and three is eight, but one shop's going to have 10 bays and the other shop's going to have three. MR. TRAVER-But again, we're only talking about unregistered. Not, you know, employee's vehicles or customer vehicles or whatever, but, you know, vehicles that aren't on the road anymore. MR. O'CONNOR-He's licensed by the State of New York as a repair shop. If it falls within that license, I don't think they should be limited in numbers. There's a separate license for dismantlers. There's a separate license for transporters. I mean, I got involved in this a little bit a couple of years ago. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if we attribute something along those lines to the motion that it has to be in compliance with a repair operation, as opposed to a salvage operation. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer, if no more than one unlicensed vehicle being used for the dismantling, storage or sale of motor vehicles as parts, scrap or salvage period. You just can't bring in an unlicensed vehicle and salvage it at that location. That is considered junk, that's a junkyard. Now what Jeff is doing is he's not, he's dismantling it, yes, I think that there's a fine line here. MR. TRAVER-Right, but with the intent of putting it back on the road. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-He's got the beer distributor who has a truck that is not registered, but has a body on it that he wants him to take off it and put it on the new chasse. So they tow the old truck to the premises, unlicensed, for the purpose of taking that body off and putting it on the new chasse. MR. TRAVER-But then the old junk vehicle is going to get removed from the property, right? MR. THREW-No, it's not junk. They're putting a different style body on the other one. MR. TRAVER-And I don't want us to get involved in defining the different types of work that you're doing, but I think it's significant, in view of the communication that we've had from the attorney. I do think that there should be something in here that does make it clear moving forward that there are permitted uses and there are not permitted uses on this property. Now what words we use or whatever, you know, I don't really care. I mean, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just trying to make sure that it's clear moving forward, what cannot happen on this property, which is this junk or salvage, you know, operation. If it's repaired or returned to the road, you know, that's fine. Maybe the language saying that under the license of, the suggestion that you made earlier, the repair, licensed auto repair or something like that. Maybe that would work. That's the only point I'm trying to make. MR. O'CONNOR-How about, you can make us aware of the fact that final Site Plan approval will be conditioned upon language satisfactory to the Town Attorney that we will not be in violation of the Junkyard Ordinance with vehicles that are brought to or, that are on the site. MR. TRAVER-1 think that works for tonight, and if you can propose that language and we can maybe have it reviewed. That's a great suggestion. MR. OBORNE-Because obviously we're here for the variances. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Great. That works. Thank you. I mean, that works for me. I can't speak for everybody else. MR. KREBS-Well, the verbiage I came up with was the Planning Board, based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by complying with New York State repair license law. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the applicant's attorney has just offered to submit language to be. MR. O'CONNOR-With the understanding that the applicant will be required to comply with language approved by the Town Attorney as to the prohibition of junkyard operation, something to that effect. MR. OBORNE-And I'm not too sure that that needs to be even part of the recommendation. I mean, it's on the record now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't know if it does, either. MR. OBORNE-You need to focus on the permeability aspect of what the applicant is asking for, to focus on the permeability aspect of what the applicant is asking for. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm just thinking that may come up, zoning may inquire about that issue as well, and this may help move this through the zoning. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-1 hope they don't because it's not under their auspices and they should be looking at the permeability aspect of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But that's not to say they won't bring it up. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. O'CONNOR-1 can't tell you what they're going to bring up either. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think, going back to the permeability issue, I don't have a concern with it, provided we can meet the engineering, which you seem confident that we can. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm confident that it eventually will. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, it's also the kind of thing that you can engineer anything. Whether or not you can afford to engineer it. MR. O'CONNOR-We're on new ground with a new six page letter. So we don't know whether it's going to be eventually or, like we say, whether it's going to be in some month. We don't know if it's going to be next month. MR. OBORNE-1 still think we've got that on the record, though, Mike. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think there's really any concerns with the permeability, provided they can satisfy the engineering comments, which is Site Plan. So unless I missed something, is there any other concern that Board members have with the permeability? So maybe Option A, Don. MR. OBORNE-We're not going to table right now. We'll table next week. Because you have to get to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Just protocol wise, they are scheduled for the following week, the 24th, I believe, and they are on for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit for the northern lot and Site Plan Review for the southern lot. They'll both be tabled out because you're not going to be ready. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we already passed the deadline. MR. OBORNE-Tabled out to most likely March. So, Mr. O'Connor was asking what date. He has a conflict, and I believe it was which one? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm available on the 20tH MR. OBORNE-So the earlier date. So come next Tuesday, when we do our resolution to table, we'll table to the 20th, to March 20tH MR. O'CONNOR-If you can do that and then we won't have to appear. We request that you table. MR. OBORNE-Send a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just send a letter. Yes, that's fine. Did you want to present the motion, Don? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 02-12 WILLIAM THREW Tax Map ID 307.17-1-12 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Proposal calls for a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lot to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting lot size for south lot to be 1.91 acres. Further applicant proposes to relocate existing 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset but to northern parcel and construct a 6,000 sq. ft. vehicle repair facility. Variances: Relief requested from permeability requirements of the CLI zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated if applicant satisfies engineering comments. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-And we will be very happy to consider your request to table this to March 20th. Well, you know what I mean; you don't need to appear to make that request. We have two more items that are before us for consideration, recommendation to the ZBA. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 4-2012 SEAR TYPE II J & D MARINA, LLC AGENT(S) LONNY CHASE, CHASE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JOHN MATTHEWS, THALIA CHASE ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 2546 RT. 9L SPECIAL USE PERMIT: APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO THE EXISTING MARINA OPERATIONS TO INCLUDE THE RE-POSITIONING OF MOORINGS TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER BEAMED BOATS; RESULTING SLIPS DROP FROM 80 TO 75 TOTAL. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. VARIANCE: RELIEF FOR DOCK LENGTH IN EXCESS OF 40' FROM MEAN LOW WATER MARK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3- 12, BP 04-964 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS LG PARK CEA LOT SIZE 3.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-26 SECTION § 179-9, 179-5- 060 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 4-2012 and Area Variance 3-2012 for J & D Marina. Again, this is a recommendation, as previously spoken. 2546 State Route 9L is the location. It's in Waterfront Residential and this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes changes to the existing marina operations to include the re-positioning of moorings to accommodate larger beamed boats; according to the applicant resulting slips drop from 80 to 75 in total. What follow, again, is the Special Use Permit protocols with the appropriate attachments. The nature of the variance is as follows: 1. Dock Length - Request for 190.9 feet of dock length relief from the 40 foot dock length requirement as per §179-5-060, and what follows, again, is Special Use Permit. There are some relative issues on the parcel, and I'll let the applicant talk about that, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board, but keep in mind that this is a recommendation specifically from the 40 foot mark of the dock out 190. Whatever feet it is. So I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. John Matthews, owner of Castaway Marina, J & D Marina. THALIA CHASE MRS. CHASE-Thalia Chase. I'm the owner of Castaway Marina. LONNY CHASE 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. CHASE-Lonny Chase, Chase Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I'd like to explain. Our main goal here was to change the configuration of the dock mooring location so that we could accommodate boats that were wider than the Marina was built for 30 years ago. All the slips are made, or the ones we want to change were made for seven and a half to eight foot wide boats, and everything that's being constructed now are eight and a half or nine foot wide. So it kind of leaves us with empty spaces that we can't rent because of the size of the boats, and if he can get the picture to show that I brought of the latest aerial photo of the Marina, I can point out exactly where we're trying to do, and you can see it on your plan, and going along with this, in the process of pulling out six by six's out of the muck and what not, I felt that after this summer's storm, it would be the ideal time to add some additional posts to make the boats more stable with a heavy north wind or a heavy south wind, which are prevailing winds at the Marina. The Marina is laid out exactly the way it was when I bought it, 15, 16 years ago, and it was the same way back when Jean Hoffman owned it 10 years prior to that. So I don't plan on changing the layout of the dock structure itself. It will stay. The walkways will be basically the same. All we want to do is pull up some of the posts that are in the water now and move them so that we can make the width between the posts so it will accommodate at least a nine or a ten foot wide beam and have some room for space in between them. Right now we're squeezing them in with a shoehorn. In this section here, what we want to do is start right about in this area and remove these fingers that come out and space them out so that we can get, we're going to reduce this by two boats, as it sits now, and then over here in this section we're going to remove, we'll leave these posts out here where they are, and we'll start right at this point here and come down to this point, and remove the posts and the little fingers that are sticking out and put new posts in so that we can eliminate, we're going to eliminate three boats in that area. So we're going to remove five boats from the Marina, basically, as far as what we can handle. So as far as impact to the neighborhood and impact to the area, we're actually reducing the number of boats that we can handle at the waterfront. MR. TRAVER-Isn't that water awfully shallow there in the previous picture between, yes, in that area there, to the left of that picture, between there and Route 9, doesn't that get awfully shallow in there to put a nine foot beam boat back in there? MR. MATTHEWS-No. Every one of our boats, if it's an 10 draws about 36 inches, and I did dredging there with a permit back two years after I bought it. I think it was about. MRS. CHASE-About 2002 1 think it was, 2002, 2001, something like that. MR. MATTHEWS-2001, and we cleaned that section right in there out so that it was, we were able to use it, but most of that section of dock, when I bought the place, was unused because it had, the silt had migrated in, filled it in, but since I cleaned it out, you know, we've been lucky it stayed and the activity in there with the boats has kept it and the majority of the docks we have at least four feet all the way around. MR. TRAVER-Good. It's been some years since I've been on that side of the dock, and I wasn't aware that you had dredged it. I just remembered that it was quite shallow in there. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it was, yes. MR. TRAVER-So an even bigger boat getting in there is, you know, would have trouble when I remember those waters. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to put the boats on the south side horizontal to the? You're going to put them the way they were? MR. MATTHEWS-Every boat backs in to the main dock. So they can enter and get on and off their boat through the transom. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would be a lot better over here on the end where you've, instead of them all jammed together you'll have some more room and they won't get banged together in a storm. MR. MATTHEWS-It's very difficult, especially if the wind is blowing from the north or south, for the people to squeeze an eight and a half boat into an eight foot slip, and the other issue that we do have is in the winter, in lieu of the fact that the posts are six by sixes, and they're pounded into the muck, the ice does move them a hair one way or another. So one year we may end up with an eight foot slip that was a nine foot slip, and the one next to it's the opposite. So it's hard to figure on where you're going to put boats from year to year, and people like to have their same dock. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. DEEB-This will alleviate some of that then. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The question I had, and one of the things I found confusing in trying to review this at home was the actual variance request itself. Because they're really not changing the dock structures; it's just the moorings. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, but it's still considered part of the dock. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-According to the Zoning Administrator. I asked the exact same question, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-So was there a prior approval for this 190.9 feet of dock length? Yes, okay. MR. OBORNE-That's why we're here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, gotcha. Now it makes sense. MR. CHASE-So basically they're asking for an additional 10 feet, due to the extra row of dock posts to the east. MR. KREBS-That's not the way it's being interpreted. The Ordinance says that the maximum you can have is 40 feet. MR. CHASE-Yes. MR. MATTHEWS-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-So the 190.9 is the total feet of dock length that you currently have. MR. MATTHEWS-Right. MR. CHASE-Which exceeds the 40 feet limit yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay, other questions, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 03-12 J & D MARINA, LLC Tax Map ID 240.5-1-26 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Special Use Permit: Applicant proposes changes to the existing marina operations to include the re-positioning of moorings to accommodate larger beamed boats; resulting slips drop from 80 to 75 total. A Special Use Permit is required to be reviewed and issued by the Planning Board for such improvements. Variance: Relief for dock length in excess of 40' from mean low water mark. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2012 J & D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MRS. CHASE-Thank you. MR. KREBS-And, John, you were talking about moving those. I had a summer home in Warner Bay and my dock was on the east side, and 1, one year, to prevent damage to the dock, thought I could put six by sixes on a slant into the water. They snapped like toothpicks. MR. MATTHEWS-Fortunately we have had very little winter ice damage, based on the location. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you're pretty well protected. MR. HUNSINGER-Our last item for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is Site Plan 8-2012. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2012 SEAR TYPE II GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) GMS REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A HANDICAP RAMP FOR PROPOSED OFFICE LOCATED AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL. CHANGE OF USE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLI ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5- 12; SP 64-11; 56-11, 7-11, 56-10; SUB 10-10M WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/11/2012 LOT SIZE 3.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4.2 SECTION § 179-9 GREGG LABER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, again, this is a recommendation to the ZBA, Site Plan 8-2012, Area Variance 5-2012 for Gregg Laber. Location is 319 Corinth Road. CLI is the existing zoning. This is a Type 11 SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a handicap ramp for proposed office located at northwest corner of parcel. Change of use and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CLI zone require Planning Board review and approval. There is also another addendum to this but it's not really associated with this use, is that Gregg would also like to get approval, pretty much after the fact, and for additional racking systems to the rear of the property, specifically of his business, Green Mountain Electric. So the specific variances that we're looking for here are front setback, relief requested for 17.7 feet from the 75 foot front setback requirement for the proposed access ramp. The same goes for the Travel Corridor, because they're both the same dimension. Side setback, relief requested for 4.5 feet from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the proposed handicap access and expansion of a nonconforming structure. That will need to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals also, and when we come back here next Tuesday. Do I have it on next Tuesday? I don't think so. I think it's been kicked off to March, or February. February. We could discuss the racking aspect and the parking and all that other stuff that's associated with this, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LABER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LABER-Gregg Laber. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MR. LABER-No. Pretty much what Keith said was it. We're just trying to use the little white house there up next to the road. Obviously we needed to have a handicapped ramp for New York State Code for handicap parking. I did notice on the Site Plan Review things they were talking about maybe not enough spaces there, and you guys recommended making them perpendicular, which I think was a great idea. So by doing that, I just kind of sketched in real quick we can get possibly five there, which I take the five, I take the extra. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think it's four plus an unloading zone, is what it comes out to. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. LABER-Yes, so that's what we would like to do at the little white house and see if we can get that rented out, leased out MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a prospective tenant or no? MR. LABER-No. We're waiting, not put the cart before the horse. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LABER-And the racking issues, are we talking about that, Keith, tonight? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don't think it's necessary. MR. LABER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It's pretty black and white at this point, and we'll review that at the Site Plan Review aspect of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the only thing we're really talking about is the variances. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Unless the Board wishes to talk about the incredibly interesting subject of racking. That's fine. MR. KREBS-And it's really not part of the variance anyway. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Hard to believe that a handicap ramp could trigger so many variance requests. MR. LABER-That's what I thought. MR. HUNSINGER-It's just the nature of the site. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. The age of the building and being close to the road, with the Codes changing over the years. MR. OBORNE-As well as the use. MR. MAGOWAN-And the use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LABER-There was a question, I think, of how we were going to enter the building. We're going to still keep the little porch on there, but not through the front door. We're cut a door on the side of the porch so as you go up the ramp and around and up the little stairs; you'll go into the little house and the side door. MR. OBORNE-So you just replace the door, close it off. MR. LABER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. That's the nature of my question. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks pretty cut and dried to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns from members of the Board on this? Even though there's a number of variance requests, it seemed pretty straightforward. Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll put a recommendation in. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 03-12 J & D MARINA, LLC Tax Map ID 308.16-2-4.2 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a handicap ramp for proposed office located at northwest corner of parcel. Change of use and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CLI zone requires PB review and approval. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) Variance: Relief requested from front setback, travel corridor overlay and side setback requirements of the CLI zone. Further, relief requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2012 GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LABER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We have two tabled items for consideration this evening. The first one is Site Plan 47-2011. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2011 SEAR TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 348 +/- SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 348 +/- SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE DECK BY 42 SQ. FT. RESULTING IN AN OVERALL DECK SIZE OF 390 SQ. FT. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-11, AV 46-11, AV 45-11; BP 11-140, 11-141, 99469, 98-785 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 9/14/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION §179-9 MARK & DAVID DUFRESNE, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 47-2011 for David & Evelyn Dufresne. Site Plan Review is the requested action. 24 Brayton Road is the location. It's Waterfront Residential and it's a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: The applicant has removed a 348 sq. ft. deck and partially built a new 348 sq. ft. deck in its place. Further, applicant proposes to expand the deck by 42 sq. ft. resulting in an overall deck size of 390 sq. ft. Staff Comments: The applicant had previously proposed the removal of two existing sheds totaling 109 square feet; these sheds have been removed. The previous on-site impermeable surfacing stood at 6,051.8 square feet or 51.0%. With the proposed removal of the sheds, reduction of 18.7 square feet from the deck, and the removal of the existing 329 square foot patio, the resulting on-site impermeable surfacing proposed is 5,606 or 47.3%, a reduction of impermeable surfacing of 3.7% or 446 square feet. Please note that the request for the deck addition in this revised proposal has been added to these calculations. The applicant proposes to remove the bump out area which was slated as a platform for the stairs on the western portion of the deck in order to not encroach further into the side setback. Requested waivers include grading, stormwater and topography. The ZBA did approve this last month, finally after many go grounds, to say the least, and is now back before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and with that I'd turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. DUFRESNE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Mark Dufresne. This is my father David. Again, what we have done is we've cleaned it all up and bringing it back to the way it was with the addition of adding on a little bit more onto the deck, which I guess the plans will show that with the stairs. We also (lost words) on the pad that is there, that thing there will have sod on it, come the springtime, and also those boxwood trees, there's a dozen of them, will be moved closer to the seawall, and there'll be some other plantings, I think the small, low ground covered rosebushes will be plugged in between them to give it some color so it kind of blends everything back in, and that'll get us back to the way it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, anything else? Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. We did have a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board and they did act on it in December. MR. OBORNE-If we could, just for the record, clarification. The applicant had introduced a landscaping plan back in the day I guess we could say, four months ago, five months ago. MR. DUFRESNE-At least. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was last year. MR. OBORNE-And I'm not necessarily sure what is being offered at this point. I think it's different from what Mr. Dufresne has stated. He wants to move the boxwoods up and add some low growing roses was it? MR. DUFRESNE-Yes, something with a little bit of color there. We don't want to put anything too elaborate there. MR. OBORNE-Well, my concern is specifically what deviation from the previous landscaping plan are we talking about? Because when I get Code Compliance to go out there, I have to know what plan we're using. I think that's the main issue that I'm driving at at this point. Do you have a copy of the old landscape plan? MR. MAGOWAN-Is this the plan? MR. OBORNE-That's it. MR. DUFRESNE-That was the one five months back or so. Yes, it was another plan. MR. KREBS-Back in October. MR. DUFRESNE-Again, if you look at the plantings there, they're going to be (lost words) so we wanted to stick with something that's low to the ground, and again, the boxwoods stay low the ground. You keep them trimmed, again, same with the roses and what not. Keep everything low to the ground and they will be absorbed. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're not using this one? MR. DUFRESNE-Not going to use that Miller plan at all. That is correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Let's see what else we have. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the basic site plan. MR. KREBS-There hasn't been a new plan since October submitted. Correct? MR. OBORNE-The landscaping plan, correct. Everything else is new, and that's why I bring it up, Don, is I know that they had submitted one and I know that there's sort of a deviation from that, and I would like to get clarification on exactly what that deviation is so Code Compliance can be, and make sure that the Planning Board's satisfied. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-The deviation in the landscape plan as you describe it is in types of plantings? MR. DUFRESNE-Types and size. MR. TRAVER-Types and size. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. DUFRESNE-And size, because some of them were taller. MR. TRAVER-What about square footage coverage, the size of the buffer and so on? Is that changing? MR. DUFRESNE-Yes. They'll probably be a little bit less in the plantings. It wouldn't be as concentrated. The original plan there was concentrated in the one corner, which is already trees and plantings along the Brown property that was there. MR. D. DUFRESNE-Probably three foot in diameter. MR. DUFRESNE-Right at the seawall. MR. D. DUFRESNE-Along the corner. He didn't look at that as being in there in the Miller plan. MR. TRAVER-So this is a fairly significant change in the landscaping plan. I mean, if you're talking number, size, scope. I'm thinking we may need to look at that. MR. OBORNE-Or develop something tonight that we can all live with. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And it has to be submitted, it has to be part of the plan. MR. OBORNE-It does have to be part of the plan, certainly. If the Planning Board wishes to have that plan before them, then obviously you'd have to table, and I would hope that as in past practices, you guys agree on something, and then you could put it on Community Development to make sure that that gets taken care of at the final submittal. MR. TRAVER-Well, to start with, I mean, I guess my feeling is let's start with the plan as proposed, and then let's go through the, did you say you did not have the submitted planting plan? MR. DUFRESNE-I don't believe I brought the Miller plan. MR. TRAVER-Well, let me give you a copy of it, and we'll go through, because right now we are accepting that we previously reviewed and approved, okay. So let's take it an element at a time, and, do I not have one? I may have to take that back. Does somebody else have an extra copy? MR. OBORNE-Yes, we need to get a plan to the applicant here. MR. TRAVER-I must have left mine home. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't have an extra. MR. TRAVER-So understand, if I can, for a moment, we're starting with the proposal that you presented to us, and that we made a positive recommendation on. MR. DUFRESNE-This one here with the Miller landscaping? MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that, any changes that you make to that we're going to need to discuss this evening in order for us to approve it. MR. D. DUFRESNE-Okay. On the right side, on the Brown side, which would be where that bump out was and that was taken off. They're cedar bushes that are probably six foot high, seven foot high. They're coming down. There's a white birch. That's what that is. So the white birch right there, that's probably three foot in diameter, minimum. There is also a pine tree right there that's tucked in there also. So what I think the plans are is to move the boxwood and put some, I'm not a landscape architect like this plan, and this man did not see, he only saw it from a plan on a drawing. MR. DUFRESNE-I mean, I would think that we could take the boxwoods and put them right by the seawall. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, if we can, just to clarify, if we could back up for a minute. You talked about the pine tree. You said that's coming out? MR. D. DUFRESNE-No, nothing's coming out. MR. DUFRESNE-Nothing's coming out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What about the birch tree that you were referring to? MR. D. DUFRESNE-The birch tree is not coming out. MR. TRAVER-And the cedar trees? MR. D. DUFRESNE-The cedar trees are staying. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DUFRESNE-There's nothing coming out. MR. D. DUFRESNE-Nothing's being removed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So all the way down the Brown side we see the big growth of the trees in that, they're all staying? MR. DUFRESNE-That is correct, and the same on the other side. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So what we're talking about is the H's and the S's? MR. DUFRESNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And then what are the circles with the X'? Those are the, 6 CF's, the Christmas Ferns. MR. HUNSINGER-He's got some hydrangeas going in and spireas. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you're talking boxwoods. MR. DUFRESNE-Right where the spireas are, around with the boxwood trees, since we already have them, put them along the seawall. For half a dozen hydrangeas you can run them, staggering them between them, behind them. MR. HUNSINGER-So what's labeled as S on here, those are going to be your boxwoods? MR. DUFRESNE-Yes. I'd go with S with the boxwoods, because we currently have them. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So that means you have seven? MR. DUFRESNE-1 have a dozen of them, actually. MR. MAGOWAN-We can throw them on the other, so that would be seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. MR. DUFRESNE-1 can throw them over on the other side of the stairway going down. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually, if you put them all the way along the front, we can pick up all those circles. MR. TRAVER-So basically you're not changing the location. You're changing the species. MR. DUFRESNE-Changing the species. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. DUFRESNE-Now I'm looking at, there's three layers deep, three layers, maybe go back to a two layer. I mean, they're looking at the, those are Black-eyed Susans. MR. TRAVER-In reducing, and again, understand I don't have the plan in front of me, but in reducing the buffer from three layers to two layers, what is the width of the buffer then? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Don, we need 15 feet, isn't that? MR. SIPP-Fifteen feet. I haven't got a plan here. He should have a copy of what's supposed to be in there. You've got enough of the big stuff. We want something that's low to the ground. MR. DUFRESNE-Like groundcover, per se. MR. SIPP-And rose bushes are not. MR. DUFRESNE-They're not tall ones, sir, they only grow about this tall, but they spread across the ground. MR. SIPP-Yes, but their root system is not enough to hold the, I mean, you haven't got much of a slope there, but rosebushes are not one of the things that are required. MR. DUFRESNE-And you could go with, again, with the hydrangeas in, for like I said, the boxwoods and hydrangeas, or vice versa, and some ground cover. I mean, the Black-eyed Susans aren't going to do a whole lot either for runoff. MR. SIPP-They're not on the approved list, either. You should have a copy of the approved list of plants that go in that area. The large trees are well spaced out, but you need ground cover, and this is low growing, although it's not (lost words) it goes to three feet in height. MR. DUFRESNE-And you want to keep them down anyway. Otherwise they're going to limit your view. MR. SIPP-You want to keep a 15 foot strip, enough to cover. MR. DUFRESNE-From the seawall off. Yes. MR. SIPP-And it's all in the, if you get a hold of the list, you can work from that. MR. DUFRESNE-Because you could literally separate off the boxwoods and hydrangeas back and then put some ground cover in there to fill that in, whatever is required that's on the list for it. MR. OBORNE-I would abandon the rose because it's an invasive species. MR. DUFRESNE-We could abandon the rose. I was thinking more along the lines of color, that's all. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. SIPP-These low growers have color. They have color. There's a blue. MR. DUFRESNE-So then we can run boxwoods across the seawall on both sides, and back it up with the hydrangeas. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically he has the boxwoods. So what are we supplementing the boxwoods for? MR. HUNSINGER-For the S. MR. MAGOWAN-Right up along front. I mean, are you going to plan to hedge them or are you going to stagger them and up? MR. DUFRESNE-I think we'll end up staggering them, almost like what the plan here has in mind. I mean, we could work with the plan. I just wanted to integrate in the boxwood trees versus throwing them away, and then continue on with the rest of this plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We appreciate what you're trying to do. Understand that for us we need to have a written plan as part of the record. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. DUFRESNE-Yes and we're not looking at a whole lot of them. Really the only thing we're looking to do is supplement in the boxwood trees in for something. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DUFRESNE-I mean, other than that, we can roll with this plan. We're okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It has on here 380 square feet of new planting. None of these on the list are invasive species, are they? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll bet you didn't think it would be that complicated. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, of course not. MR. D. DUFRESNE-I'm putting a buffer, putting more grass down now with the patio, you know, there with the $5,000 patio that cost me $2,000 to take up because of landscaping, it wasn't considered landscaping. MR. DUFRESNE-I guess if we could supplement that in, that would be good. MR. DEEB-You're going to add the boxwoods. MR. DUFRESNE-Add the boxwoods. MR. DEEB-And leave what's there? MR. DUFRESNE-And take something else out. MR. DEEB-What else would you take out? MR. DUFRESNE-Take one of the, I'm going to put the S, right where the boxwood will go right along where the S is, which would be, what, the spirea. MR. DEEB-All right, the third row's going to stay? MR. DUFRESNE-With the ground cover there? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. DUFRESNE-That's fine. MR. DEEB-You would put like the irises or something back there? MR. DUFRESNE-Yes. MR. DEEB-You're really not changing. MR. DUFRESNE-No, we're just subbing out one thing for another. MR. DEEB-Okay and I think we just have to put that in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If that's all you're doing. MR. MAGOWAN-Substituting the spirea for the boxwoods. MR. TRAVER-We'll need to put that in the form of a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Got that, Don? Boxwoods are replacing the spirea that are on the landscaping. MR. OBORNE-So make sure that we have this marked up right. MR. DUFRESNE-Yes. MR. OBORNE-What exactly what agreed to here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think where we ended, Keith, is they asked if they could replace the spirea with boxwoods. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. DEEB-The boxwoods, and then he's still going to plant the third row, but we're going to use low lying plants, but you're not going to use roses, right? MR. DUFRESNE-Correct. MR. DEEB-You're going to use something else. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that wasn't on the plan anyway. MR. OBORNE-So if you're comfortable with this plan, I think the only thing that we need to do is change the spirea to boxwoods. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And call it a night. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we're all good with that. MR. TRAVER-As long as we clarify that and it's in the record. MR. DEEB-And you will put flowers instead of grass, you said. MR. DUFRESNE-Yes, there's grass there now. We'll uproot the grass and put a layer of ground cover in there. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any 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? Did we have any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing was tabled from September. Seeing that there are no comments presented, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And it's a Type II action. I will entertain a motion for approval. With a note that there were waivers requested that are in the draft resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-So we're going to grant those? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless anyone has a problem with them. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #47-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE Tax Map ID 239.8-1-13 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant has removed a 348 /- sq. ft. deck and partially built a new 348 +/- sq. ft. deck in its place. Further, applicant proposes to expand the deck by 42 sq. ft. resulting in an overall deck size of 390 sq. ft. Hard surfacing within 50 of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/27/2011 tabled to 1/17/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) 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; and 2) Type 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5) Waiver requests granted: grading, stormwater and topography. 6) Approved with the condition that the applicant to replace spirea with boxwood on the shoreline landscaping plan. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-If the Board members could give the applicant their landscaping plan, any extra ones that they have. I could use them. They could mark that up and then they could make the changes and submit them for final. MR. HUNSINGER-1 did write on it, but. You're all set. Good luck. MR. D. DUFRESNE-All set. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE FWW 1-2011 SEAR TYPE I VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISE MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT IND. LOCATION QUAKER RD./QUEENSBURY AVE. SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.49 ACRES TO 29.78 ACRES WITH 10.69 +/- ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. FURTHER, EXTENSION OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD TO ACCESS MAIN PARCEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS [GREAT CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39& 84 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 SECTION § CHAPTER A-183 BRIAN OSTERHOUT & MARY BETH SLEVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-We're ready for Staff comments. MR. OBORNE-I'm pretty sure that the Planning Board is aware of what this application entails at this point. The applicant has made great strides with the County in regards to a connector road. There still is obviously work to be done. They should definitely be lauded for that. They are back here, again, specifically for the road waiver request for the phasing portion of the plan. There's not much to add to it as there has been no real new information with the exception of the DPW Committee meeting minutes that were attached, and the remaining notes, which I believe comments are 13 at this point, and we have to land on that road, and I think we can close out that engineering aspect of this, to this plan. There's really not a whole heck of a lot I can add to it. I'm sure the applicant has some comments to impart to the Board. With that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. OSTERHOUT-Good evening. As Keith mentioned, you know, since our last meeting. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. If you could identify yourselves for the record first. MR. OSTERHOUT-I'm sorry, Brian Osterhout from MJ Engineering. MS. SLEVIN-Mary Beth Slevin from Stockli Slevin & Peters. VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-Vic Macri, VMJR Companies. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Sorry, go ahead. MR. OSTERHOUT-No, that's fine. It's good to see everyone again. Since our last meeting, one of the sticking points or one of the, kind of where we left off with the last meeting was, you know, there were some initial discussions with the County going on at the time, and I believe the Planning Board wanted to see something a little more concrete in terms of an agreement with the County, which we were obviously trying to progress at the time that has occurred in a resolution in a memorandum of understanding between the applicant and the County concerning the connector road. Obviously the design of the connector road doesn't happen overnight. That's still in a planning study by other consultants, but in general, the applicant and the County have reached an agreement to grant access which would obviously be a condition of your ultimate approval on this, because that's one of the issues was always the secondary means of egress for the development, and that's really all that's transpired since the last time we were in front of you. MR. KREBS-The problem I have with it is that when I read the resolution from the County Board it says will be non-binding, access road be contingent on both parties agreeing to the terms of the Aviation easement. Neither party will be obligated under Letter of Intent to further the intentions of the Letter of Intent. So as far as I see, this is no commitment to anything. The document says there's no commitment. MR. MACRI-There is a commitment by the County. MRS. SLEVIN-There has been a Letter of Intent that the parties have agreed to, which establishes a protocol for moving forward. There are several steps that have to be taken, as Brian described. The location of a connector road has to be determined, and there's, you know, variables that have to be considered for that, including the topography of the area, any other kind of environmental limitations, the consultants determinations that the County has already engaged with Creighton Manning. So that's a process that needs to be completed in order to advance actual discussions on where the connector road's going to be, what the scope of the obligation of this applicant will be to complete the connector road, and then of course what the financial arrangements will be between the applicant and the County for the aviation easement. The applicant understands that any approval from this Board would be contingent upon completion of that process, completion of the, a final agreement with the County. As you know, Mr. Macri is trying to advance to a Preliminary approval for the Phase I of this project, which is memorialized in the waiver request that's still pending before the Board. We're just trying to advance it so that he can preserve the grant that he has for the shovel-ready aspect of the site. He has obtained an extension of that grant, but it is unlikely that he will get another extension of it and we understand it's going to take some time for the County to complete its process in working through with Creighton Manning to look at the aspects of the connector road that we previously reviewed with you. So we're again asking the Board to advance the waiver request that is pending before the Board. We understand that any advance of an approval by this Board will be contingent upon the, an ultimate approval of the connector road, but we would like to at least get to the next step on this process and then commence really the SEQRA review for it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that the difficulty, in my mind, is, as much as Mr. Krebs pointed out, it does seem, and certainly you've made great progress and I appreciated looking at the minutes of the two meetings involved and so on, and it does seem as though you're definitely moving forward. I did see that the County was waiting for a response regarding the cost of the avigation easements, but I think that the bottom line, in my mind, is that we are still awaiting something definite on the road, and although you're moving forward, I think we can move with you, in the sense that you have a, I guess kind of a theory of a plan you're moving toward. You'd have to work on some financial issues so you have a hypothetical avigation easement. MR. MACRI-As you say, the avigation easement is strictly for the expansion of the runway. MR. TRAVER-But it's required for the road. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. MACRI-There's no need for an avigation easement. MR. TRAVER-It's required for the road. MR. MACRI-That is part of the negotiations. The avigation easement, it all has to do with the expansion of the runway. You keep telling us, you know; get permission from the County to cross their lands. We've basically got the permission, okay. So now that we've got the permission, we'd like to move the project forward. If we never get the connection road, then we can't get an approved subdivision, can't get a signed plat. I understand that, but let's just, you know, start moving this thing forward. We've done what you've asked us to do, and that's get an agreement with the County that there would be a connector road. We have a lot to work out. It could take me a couple of years to work the thing out. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand, but what has been, what I had seen, what was submitted to me, is not an agreement with the County. It is the beginning of an agreement. They seem to be awaiting some negotiations with you. MR. MACRI-We had an agreement with the County to work on this process. We have the County Board of Supervisors' agreement that they're willing to accept us to have access. MR. TRAVER-Provided you get the avigation agreement. MR. MACRI-The avigation agreement will come once we determine where the road's going to be put. We can't determine that. They need a piece of my property in order to expand. They can't do it without that piece. Okay. So I'm in a situation here where we can take all the cards off the table with the County or not. Now I want to get the project to move forward. So obviously I don't want to do that, okay, but we have to both posture at this point, whereas this piece of land versus the avigation agreement is on the table for discussion. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that. MR. MACRI-And without this approval, we can't do the valuation. Okay. So tell me how to do it? I can't do a valuation until we have an approved plan. Otherwise we're doing a valuation on raw land, which is not what we have. Okay. So once we have an approved project, we can then do an evaluation of the value of the property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I can tell you what was submitted to me and what I reviewed indicated that you would have an avigation easement which would allow the design of the road to move forward. Now if that road had needed to be changed, in fact there's been an offer in here of$193,000 for the avigation easement. MR. MACRI-That was two years ago. That was before the development, and that was when we said we were developing the property and it was based on raw land, based on no approvals, and was under what we would expect. MR. TRAVER-Right. It doesn't say that it was a long time ago, but it does say that the offer was not agreeable, but you had not indicated what would be acceptable. So you're still. MR. MACRI-Right, because we cannot get an evaluation done until we have an approved plan. It's a Catch 22. They're not going to give you enough value for my property until I have an approved subdivision. Okay. Now as far as the value of the property, if you look at what we're paying as far as a (lost words) they weren't even approaching the assessed value of the property. So that was the problem. So we've agreed to go through this process, get this approval, based on the fact that we've agreed to put in a road. Once we have the approval, send it back to the FAA who hires an evaluation company. They'll come in and then re-do the evaluation, and that's the way it's going to have to go. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think, with that explanation, I guess then how I would interpret this figure is, as it stands now, one estimate that's been offered is approximately $193,000. It sounds as though your concern is that if you're able to move forward with Phase I, that avigation easement in the back then becomes much more valuable to you. MR. MACRI-All I need is an approved subdivision. Okay. Nothing with buildings on it. Just an approved subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand. MR. MACRI-Then we can value it as industrial property that's developable. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. TRAVER-1 understand. I see that clarification now, thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had for you is, you know, it's been a couple of months since we were here. Has the traffic study that's being done by the Glens Falls Transportation Committee been completed? Has that information been made available? Have you seen anything, Keith? MR. HUNSINGER-That has been. It is in draft form right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MACRI-They're supposed to have a meeting within the next few weeks, from what I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Is anyone aware of what some of the recommendations may be? MR. OBORNE-They're not specifically going to say yes or no, you need a road. That's my understanding. I have not read the draft, but I did read the preamble, so to speak, and there are quite a bit of agreement with the traffic study that Vic had had done for Wal-Mart and also for this project, too, which calls for some changes to timing and right hand lanes and the like, but specific to the project, it's not specific to the project, but it is to a certain extent specific to the parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So that's where we're at. It's in draft form, and it still needs to be tweaked I guess, for lack of a better term. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone know the process to finalize that form, what's involved or who's involved? MR. OBORNE-I believe their committee needs to get together and approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And I think that's another, if you will, Catch 22, because that secondary road that was referred to as having, that was anticipated to have quite an impact on the traffic flow. I mean, one of the pluses of that road, should it happen, is that. MR. OSTERHOUT-It would alleviate traffic. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-1 would suggest that you find out what happened Christmas week on that exit from Wal-Mart and the number of accidents that occurred there because of overload of that particular exit to Wal-Mart coming out on Quaker Road. I sat in Dunkin Donuts there on Dix Avenue and could see back across there. There were several accidents within the space of 30 minutes, and when I came out, I had a green light, and somebody crossed in front of me to get out from Wal- Mart, and if you're going to add more cars, you're going to add more problems for traffic. MR. MACRI-You're saying somebody pulled in front of you when you had the green light. So, I mean, that has nothing, that's a human error. That's not anything to do with the traffic study. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, you can't really plan for that, can you? MR. SIPP-Because people become frustrated with the signal system that's there and they pull out. MR. MACRI-Again, I mean, you know, that's somebody taking their life in their own hands. MR. SIPP-You've got too many cars going to be exiting that one road. Secondly, where is this road that, if you get the County to agree with it, build your road over their property, where does it end? Are you coming out on Queensbury Avenue? MR. MACRI-It's going to alleviate traffic and issues that you currently have on the Dix Avenue interchange. I don't know what else to call it. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not unless you build it. Until you get a project in place with a road in it, you haven't got a project. MR. OSTERHOUT-You can make that a condition of the approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we can't do SEQRA or anything else until you've got a road design in place. There's no project. This Board has told you nine million times that that road had to be there in order for them to consider this project and you keep coming back and saying no. MR. MACRI-You said we had to have the ability to build the road. MR. OSTERHOUT-We had to have a second means of egress. MR. MACRI-To get preliminary approval. Secondary access, which we do. We are also asking for a waiver. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Then put the plan together with a road on it. MR. OSTERHOUT-We don't necessarily control that process. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're protecting your investment, that's what you're doing. MS. SLEVIN-Well, that's why we're asking for the waiver from this Board, so that Mr. Macri can advance the first phase of his project and again, to preserve the grant that we talked to this Board about for about a year now to allow him to at least go out and market a portion of the property for development and then continue to work with the County on finalizing the process for the road. That is going to take time. This project has already been before this Board for over a year, and we're just hoping to try to get some advance on the process to get a determination on the waiver request that's pending, and to comment the SEQRA review for that portion of the project and then for the Phase 11, so that we can do a full review of at least that portion of the project and then complete the review of the connect road, once a location of a connector road is actually determined. MR. SIPP-Well, then you're telling me it's coming out on Queensbury Avenue. MS. SLEVIN-It's coming out there, correct. MR. SIPP-Where on Queensbury Avenue? MR. OSTERHOUT-Exactly where? The County has input on that. So I couldn't tell you with any degree of accuracy because they're going to have input on that and they haven't exactly told us where they want it to come out on Queensbury Avenue. We've given them some conceptual designs where we think it could go on the Queensbury Avenue, but ultimately the County is going to have to weigh in on that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The bottom line is you don't have a plan to bring to this Board until you have a plan, and the plan includes the road. The Board's told you that ten times over the last year. So until you get the road issue settled, you know, in writing and on the plan, you really haven't got anything to come to this Board with. MR. OSTERHOUT-We've talked about segmentation of the two projects as they're interrelated, Mary Beth has to speak to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I remember her talking about that. I don't think this Board ever agreed to it. MS. SLEVIN-The Board has the ability to look at the proposed subdivision. After conversations with the Board, the project was divided into two phases, and in order to advance the first phase of it, we also request a waiver from the length of the road limitation that is otherwise within the Ordinance. The Board has the ability to move forward with that request. It's otherwise a landlocked parcel. It makes the parcel undevelopable, and, you know, that has other implications which simply aren't necessary. We're simply asking the Board to move forward with a subdivision application, the first phase of it, and consistent with other subdivisions that the Town has done, allowing waivers from the road length limitation. It would be a temporary waiver, fully contemplating that the full approval would be contingent upon providing the secondary access and connector road before final approval can be given for any portion of the project. From Day One we've said that what we're trying to do is preserve the grant that Mr. Macri received for developing a shovel ready site so that he can go out and then market and then really determine what, in fact, the end users of the proposed project would be. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but this is not some 24 house subdivision. This is a huge project, and this road is vital. You're talking about thousands of people that are going to be using it. If the road doesn't happen, you don't have a project. That's the way I look at it. MR. MACRI-We understand that, absolutely understand that. MR. OSTERHOUT-We have to meet that condition. That doesn't mean you have to stop the process of reviewing it. It means to satisfy just full condition of what we're requesting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know if we're stopping the process. I think you're having trouble moving the process forward. MR. OSTERHOUT-We would love to move this process forward. That's why we come before you every few months. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but you don't meet the condition. MR. OSTERHOUT-I can't design a road that I don't have control over yet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we can't approve a project that doesn't have a road in it. MR. OSTERHOUT-I'm not asking you to approve it. I'm asking you to move the project forward, with the condition that, pending final approval, that road connection and all the things that go behind it, which is going to take probably over a year to do, in terms of waiting on the study that the County's, that the (lost word) take under, under the agreements that Mr. Macri has to do, all that has to get done, that could take a very long time. The Board and Mary Beth can correct me if I'm wrong, but conditions are a normal part of the approval process. That means we have to meet that condition or there is no project, but it doesn't necessarily stop a project. It just means that prior to us being able to put a shovel in the ground and doing the actual construction of the project, we have to meet those conditions. I mean, Keith (lost word) help me out a little bit here. Conditions on projects are done all the time. MR. OBORNE-Well, the Board's savvy enough to know that. Absolutely. I think what the Board, this is my recommendation, is to focus on the issue at hand, and that is the waiver request. If you approve that waiver request, they basically have a plan that's before you. If you don't approve the waiver request, you need to re-draw that plan, but that's the first thing to focus on in my mind, as your Town Planner, is look at this waiver request. That's what they're asking you to do. What are we doing right now. Once we reach that point and resolution there, that's when we can move forward. MR. TRAVER-And the waiver request is only for the Phase I, not including the road through? MR. OBORNE-Well, we don't know. I don't know how the Board's going to vote on that waiver request. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, I'm wondering, procedurally, I mean, we have a, basically a letter of intent from the County saying that will work with the applicant. Can we do the same? MR. OBORNE-Willing to work with the applicant based on obvious other issues that need to be resolved. MR. TRAVER-Yes, can we do the same? MR. OBORNE-As far as? MR. TRAVER-Like a letter of intent from the Town. MR. OBORNE-Specifically for what? MR. TRAVER-To move the process forward, contingent on all the other parties making their agreements as well. MR. OBORNE-You certainly could do that in a tabling motion. I think that the applicant is aware of where they are in the application process. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there has been significant progress. There's been a couple of meetings and they're talking numbers and some design elements and various things, and various things, and, you know, we want to try to keep pace with them, but we can't outpace them. So I'm wondering can we, there's got to be something that we can do that will move it forward, short of. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-Make a decision on the road waiver would be my recommendation, is make that decision and get that on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-The other piece of that, the other aspect of that waiver request that, and I believe I brought it up, if it wasn't the last meeting, it was two meetings ago, is the right of way that you currently have across the County property to access your property, and, I mean, that's still there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we talked about that. MR. HUNSINGER-So, yes, I mean, we've talked about it a number of times, and, you know, I mean, it is part of the reality of the situation. MR. TRAVER-Right. My recollection was when we've discussed it in the past, we've moved beyond that, and decided that, in fact, that wouldn't quite meet the need, but maybe that needs to be re-visited. I don't know. I mean, I'm just. MS. SLEVIN-We had talked about that existing easement as an emergency access only. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. SLEVIN-And that, you know, that certainly could be made available in the context of the waiver request. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's why I brought it up, because, I mean, it's not like we're looking at this waiver request in a vacuum. There's that other aspect of the waiver request as well that's part of the, you know, known reality of the situation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But if we grant the waiver request, and they move forward, and the road never gets put in, where do we stand? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've bought a pig in a poke. MS. SLEVIN-Again, we're not asking you to approve the project. The only thing that you would be approving would be the waiver, and we understand that any further approvals from this Board, whether it's for the first phase or the second phase, are going to be contingent upon providing that connector road. So the Board will still have full control over that process. We're not asking to circumvent that process, or in any way limit the Board's ability or desire to make sure that that connector road is there in the future. We are only trying to advance the project to the next step so that we can try to actually move forward with a further review. That's all we're trying to do. MR. OBORNE-And I would chime in and say that that's consistent with what you've been saying for the last two meetings, absolutely, but where are we at with the waiver request? And I keep circling back to that. MR. MAGOWAN-That waiver request is based on the first proposal. MS. SLEVIN-The first phase of the subdivision, correct. MR. MAGOWAN-The first phase, yes. MR. TRAVER-So it would be for the length of the dead end road, pending the construction of the connector road. MR. OBORNE-With the knowledge of what Mary just said you know, that you're going to have to go forward. Phase 11 is not going to go anywhere, none of the phases are going to go anywhere until that is in place. MS. SLEVIN-That's correct. MR. OBORNE-If that is made a condition of approval by this Board, which you'd have to do, if you were going to do that, but the bottom line is the waiver request at this point. MR. TRAVER-Right. It's a waiver request that is never intended to be used; basically, it's a procedural thing, because there isn't going to be a dead end road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe. MR. TRAVER-So why do we need the waiver request? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. MACRI-Let's make sure we understand. There would be a dead end road, even if we got the agreement with the county, okay. The road wouldn't be built until it was needed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don't want a dead end road. MR. MACRI-But there would be, not a, basically a loop road, but it wouldn't be built until it was needed, which means that you had a project to put on site. Okay. So I know you don't want a dead end road, but there's nothing going to be there until we have a project, and we're not going to put the road in until there's a project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, getting the project and deciding who your customers are going to be is your job. I want some assurance that there's a road that goes out the other way. MR. MACRI-Condition that, the first building can't be built until that road's in place. You can condition it that we can't do any building until we have a solid agreement with the County. You can condition it that way. I just don't understand why we come back month after month after month and we're going no place. We haven't even touched SEQRA yet. I mean, it's a frustrate process because, you know, there's ways to handle this. It's been done before. This is not the first time. MR. OSTERHOUT-The assurance is the condition. If he doesn't meet the condition. MR. MACRI-The project's dead. Nothing gets built. There is no dead end. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that's what we're having a difficulty with is because I think we kind of understand that if we were to approve the waiver request it really doesn't mean anything if you can't meet the condition. So, I'm having a hard time understanding what the value of it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's where I was left after our discussion a few minutes ago was if everything's conditional upon the road, why don't we do a letter of intent saying that, you know, we think that this has the potential of being a good project and we anticipate moving forward once the agreements are in place and we have a, same as what the County said, a letter of intent. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, I know it's not the normal way we do things, but this is a rather unusual circumstance, and that would give them something to move forward, and we'd be on the same, shoulder to shoulder with the other parties to the project, same degree of progress, and we keep doing that as we move forward. They make a little progress and, you know, we can see if we can. MR. MACRI-But what you're then saying is we would have to have the thing finalize with the County before, but if I don't get a preliminary Site Plan approval, we're never going to be able to finalize anything with the County. MR. TRAVER-Well, before this meeting, we talked about not being able to get Site Plan approval without the road. MR. MACRI-I'm not talking final Site Plan. MR. OSTERHOUT-We're talking subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Macri just used the term Site Plan. MR. MACRI-I'm sorry, subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Subdivision. MR. OSTERHOUT-What is in front of the Board is subdivision, and that's all we need to satisfy the grant is a Preliminary subdivision approval. That Preliminary subdivision approval can have conditions on it that an applicant would have to meet. The applicant has to go through a million more steps before anything happens on that site. At this point, he's just trying to advance the project to satisfy a grant that New York State has offered to the site for shovel ready progress. MR. MACRI-And also to have the site available to the Town of Queensbury. MR. OSTERHOUT-To market. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. MACRI-To market. MR. TRAVER-Sure, absolutely. MR. MACRI-And for Warren County to market, and everybody else. MR. OSTERHOUT-But there can't be construction or building on that until there's final subdivision approval and then there's a building and a person comes in and then you get another chance to review it under the Site Plan approval side. There's a million more cuts in this. MR. TRAVER-Well, why don't we put all that in a letter and say that, you know, we, I mean, I don't see how we can make any kind of concrete approval when we're still in the development stage, but I do think that we can certainly offer a letter of support of some kind, conceptually, that the project is moving forward, that, you know, we're seeing progress and that with the discussions that we've had and the design that we anticipate, you know, we think that it's something that we can support. MS. SLEVIN-It doesn't tell us what we have, though, and that's what we're trying to figure out what we have. MR. TRAVER-That's what you have with the County. MS. SLEVIN-With the County what we have is a process through which the connector road is going to be designed, it's location's going to be determined and certain financial aspects of it will be resolved. It's a discreet process. MR. TRAVER-And can't we offer you the same? MS. SLEVIN-What we need from this Board is an understanding of what the subdivision of the property will look like, and without, Number One, advancing the waiver request, and then looking at the SEQRA review for that subdivision to determine if, in fact, the layout of the lots is reasonable, given the environmental constraints of the property. MR. OSTERHOUT-Which is really what shovel ready is for is so that there's an abbreviated SEQRA process, when a real applicant comes before you in terms of the Site Plan approval. You've looked at the overall traffic impacts. You've looked at the overall wetlands impacts. You've looked at all the other environmental, potential significant adverse environmental impacts. MR. TRAVER-Right, but let's say that we do some kind of waiver on the dead end road. We then run up to the SEQRA, the next phase. How are we going to do SEQRA without the completed road, or without the plan for the road? We're still in the same spot. MS. SLEVIN-We're asking the Board to look at the SEQRA for the five subdivided lots, with the understanding that the SEQRA for the road will need to be determined. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's the segmentation issue that we discussed before. MS. SLEVIN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for reminding me. MS. SLEVIN-Because we can't look at the SEQRA on the road until we know where the road is going to be. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. SLEVIN-And that could be a year from now before that's finally determined. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have to be comfortable with the waiver and the segmentation of the project, for SEQRA purposes. MS. SLEVIN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-To move forward, yes. MR. OBORNE-And that's all assuming that this would be a negative declaration under SEQRA. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry? MR. OBORNE-That is all under the believe that SEQRA will be a neg dec and not a pos dec. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which isn't guaranteed. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don't know how the Board's going to vote. MR. TRAVER-Yes, absolutely, otherwise we'd be right back where we started from. We have an impediment with regards to SEQRA. Sure. Okay. MR. KREBS-Well, I'll propose a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING WAIVER REQUEST SUB # 1-2011 FWW# 1-2011 VMJR MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER REQUEST SUBMITTED WITH THE AUGUST 15, 2011 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2011 FOR VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: With the following condition: 1. No construction of any buildings within the subdivisions can start until the road to the Queensbury Avenue is completed. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, is this a public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll open the public hearing. Yes, we will. MR. TRAVER-Do we need to take public comment before voting on the motion? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because we're not acting on final approval. We're only acting on a waiver request. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'd like to address the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll give you the opportunity. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-So I think the waiver request is approved in the form as mentioned by the resolution. MS. SLEVIN-Thank you. MR. OSTERHOUT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-It was pointed out; we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there other questions, comments from the Board before I open the public hearing, or should I say continue the public hearing? We do have at least one commenter. And I would ask that you direct your comments to the Boards, and before you begin your comments, if you could state your name for the record, as we do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-Good evening. John Caffry on behalf of the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition. Regarding the waiver that you just voted to approve, I think you just committed a SEQRA violation by voting on that before you had completed the SEQRA. I'll have to review the statute of limitations on that issue, but I'm very concerned about this error that you've just made. To go further, and that's why I asked to be heard before you voted. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I appreciate that. MR. CAFFRY-Regarding the grant that they're talking about, I'd like to know what are these deadlines. They keep talking about all these conditions. I think this ought to be a matter of public record. I think it was premature to vote on SEQRA without knowing, or to vote on the waiver without having done SEQRA first, and I don't think you can do SEQRA until you know where the road's going to be. I also think you can't grant Preliminary subdivision approval for any part of this subdivision without knowing where the road's going to be. That'd be a violation of your subdivision regulations. I think that, also if you vote on the SEQRA without doing the whole project, including the road, that would be segmentation, and you're going to have to work out Lead Agency with the County. To get to the merits of t his thing, basically this is a really bad site for an industrial park. Trying to cram it in under the airport runway, with all those wetlands, and they're trying to cram too much into the site. In our prior comments, we have asked them to try to redesign the project so that you're not just drawing a line 100 feet around all the wetlands and cramming as much as you can into every little bit between the wetlands, and I haven't heard anything back from the applicant. They haven't submitted any revised plans, but I think that there's, just because you're 100 feet from the wetlands, doesn't mean you've avoided impacts on those wetlands. All you've done is avoid DEC jurisdiction, but I think that the Board ought to really ask them to redesign this to consolidate the development part of it away from the wetlands so you don't just have all these habitat islands that are surrounded by pavement and are really pretty worthless. It could be done. They could come up with a much better design that would comply with the Town Code, but as it's designed right now, it's really a very poor design. It may meet the technical setback requirements, but it doesn't take into account potential impacts on wildlife that use those wetlands as their habitat and also use the uplands as their habitat and need a much larger area than just the 100 feet. So I'd like to ask you to reconsider your vote on the waiver, and I would like to see this thing proceed in the normal fashion, without waivers, without segmentation of the SEQRA review because of its close proximity to the Big Cedar Swamp. We've tried to make our concerns known all along. We're not waiting until the last minute to raise these issues, and we'd be glad to talk to the applicant, but we haven't heard anything back from them. So thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comments? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Let me look. I'll get back to you. I don't see any. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 would like to clarify, as a representative of the Planning Department, I think that your vote on the waiver request was okay, to be honest with you, and from Staff's point of view, I appreciate finally having that request taken care of and the vote taken care, but John's absolutely right, I mean, you can't go through SEQRA at this point. All you did was just give them an approval for something they've been asking for for a while, that you've had before you, and you've had before you for almost six months now. So, I mean, you've had enough time to review it. So I just wanted to put that out there on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Well, if there are no other public comments, we will conclude the public hearing for this evening, and we will leave the public hearing open. I don't know if there's any other action or business that we anticipated to take this evening. MS. SLEVIN-The only comment that I would like to make is, again, the Board had the right to make a decision on the waiver request. It doesn't commit the Board to a specific course of action. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MS. SLEVIN-And as a consequence SEQRA is not adversely implicated. We welcome the opportunity to commence the SEQRA process and to really look at the impacts of the project, the five lot subdivision that's before the Board. We do recognize that there is some segmentation that occurs in the process that we're asking the Board to review, and that's separating out the County road, SEQRA issues versus the five lot subdivision but because we simply don't want to wait until the County process is completed, which could be a year from now, we're trying to get a preliminary review of the subdivision and have a preliminary understanding of what the potential development of the property is, with the clear understanding that nothing can move forward until that connector road is ultimately resolved, and at that point, too, the SEQRA will be resolved for the connector road, and the implications of that will have to be weighed in with respect to the project, and just remind the Board again, the project as we talk about it is a five lot subdivision, without any specific development on it, because as we've talked about for many months now, we don't know what the actual configuration or utilization of the site 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) will be, because we don't have users for it. So it's highly likely that it will change. The analysis that's been done for the Board to consider and SEQRA review looks at worst case scenario. It looks at the fullest potential development of the property. That's not necessarily what's going to happen, and most likely probably won't happen, but it's a worst case, and it's what's required for SEQRA, and that's the process that we're prepared to move forward with, to ask this Board to review, and to have the Staff review the materials that have been submitted in support of the EAF and the SEQRA review and then determine what the next steps would be from here. MR. HUNSINGER-I know that you were awaiting the determination on the waiver request before you could move forward. So now that we've resolved that one issue, do you anticipate additional submittals between now and when we would hear this project again? MR. OSTERHOUT-There are approximately 13 engineering comments which are left for us. There was some additional work that the consulting engineer for the Town wanted us to take a look at, address, and review, and we're certainly moving that forward. From a SEQRA standpoint, a lot of the studies that have been submitted to the Board, including the traffic, we're currently undergoing the wetlands permitting process, etc., all that, the archeology studies, all that's been done and previously submitted to the Board. To my knowledge, really nothing's changed with that that would require a new submittal, because we haven't really delved into any of that yet, other than the traffic study which had been reviewed by the Town's consultant. So, obviously as, you know, additional questions, comments, concerns come up, we certainly can address those, but I think, from a submittal standpoint, the 13 engineering comments that are left are on us to address prior to the next meeting. MR. OBORNE-And Staff comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, Staff comments. MR. OSTERHOUT-And Staff comments, yes. MR. OBORNE-And an explanation on how you're moving forward on SEQRA. That segmentation aspect of it, I know that you've supplied materials for the record on that but will obviously need to be vetted by our Town Counsel. How you want to proceed forward, how these properties are or are not related to this subdivision, just clarify it. MS. SLEVIN-And we certainly would look forward to doing that. MR. OBORNE-And we look forward to receiving that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, and part of the reason why I asked if there was going to be new submittals is, you know, in anticipation of a tabling motion to when we would hear the project again. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the next big hurdle for us is going to be that segmentation issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean the engineering comments and Staff comments. MR. OSTERHOUT-From a timing standpoint, we've missed the January submittal. So the next submittal for us would be the middle of February, which would presumably get us on to the March agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OSTERHOUT-So that's, at least from our perspective, what we'd be thinking. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a preference of the 20th or 27th March meeting? MS. S LEVI N-Whichever is going to be the better agenda for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Do you have a preference, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I have no preference at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Probably the 20tH MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, why don't we make it the 20th, then. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MACRI-Can we specifically request that the Town make a decision on the remarks on the segmentation issue? I mean, they've been in the Town, not just for reference, but for response. MR. OBORNE-Well, you couldn't have a response until we knew what the waiver request was going to be. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MACRI-They've been, I mean, you would think that you'd at least have a preliminary review of it. MR. OBORNE-Mike Hill has perused it, absolutely. MS. SLEVIN-And I did reach out to the Planning Board's attorney this week, and he said that he would be happy to take a look at the issue, but that he needed to have the issue referred to him by the Board or the Staff. So whatever the proper process is for that to be initiated. MR. HUNSINGER-So in our tabling motion we should request the Town Counsel to review the segmentation issue. MR. OBORNE-If you so wish. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the best way to handle it? MR. OBORNE-That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, at this point we probably don't even need to put it in the motion, just direct them. MR. OBORNE-1 can assure you that whatever submittal that they give to us, clarifying their position, will be put before Mike Hill's, for his vetting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Would anyone like to make a motion to table this? So that the applicant can address engineering and Staff comments? Table it to March 20th. Is there anything else? MS. SLEVIN-No thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 1-2011 FWW# 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the March 20, 2012 Board meeting so that the applicant can address Staff comments and engineering comments. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that the public hearing was held open. We will take additional comments on March 20th. You're also welcome to submit written comments. MS. SLEVIN-Thank you for your time. We appreciate it. MR. OSTERHOUT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We did have a request by Mr. Salvador if he could address the Board. If you could keep your comments to five minutes. It would be appreciated. Although you didn't tell me what you wanted to talk about. JOHN SALVADOR 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) MR. SALVADOR-I'll tell you right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for taking the time. Please recall your December 15, 2011 public hearing which lead to this Board's approval of Site Plan 66-2011 for the modification of the Mellowstone boathouse and piers on Dunham's Bay. The thrust of my public comment that evenings was to inform this Board that I had filed a Notice of Appeal with the ZBA on December the 13t , appealing the Zoning Administrator's erroneous determination that the amount and degree of relief being requested by the applicant, Andrew West, amounted to 20 feet or 100% of the required setback of 20 feet. One of the criteria for standing before the appeals board, the Town's ZBA, is that the Notice of Appeal must be filed within 60 days of the Zoning Administrator's record of making such an erroneous determination. In that regard, the earliest the Zoning Administrator could have made his erroneous determination on this application was upon his receipt of the applicant's revised map of the survey for the Seelye estate. The map was first received on November 23, 2011, one week before the scheduled hearing on the 30tH Evidence in written form of his erroneous determination did not appear until the issuance of Staff Notes, shortly before the public hearing conducted on November 30, 2011. The Zoning Administrator has turned my reference to his Staff Notes from that of evidence to that of fact. His erroneous determination is a fact, even if he never issued his so called Staff Notes. What I'm saying here is I did not appeal his Staff Notes, which is what he said I did. I'm not appealing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Right. MR. SALVADOR-The Staff Notes served as evidence that he made this determination. That he made the determination is a fact. Mr. Hunsinger will recall my attempt to have this Board stay its proceedings on December 15th because Town Law provides for such a stay upon the filing of an appeal from a Zoning Administrator's determination. My plea for a stay was not honored because Mr. Hunsinger was in the possession of confidential advice in the form of an opinion from Town Counsel. Quote, this is from the minutes of your hearing, you said, Mr. Hunsinger, we do have a comment from Counsel relative to the comments that Mr. Salvador made about the need for a stay. The appeal from the Zoning Administrator's erroneous determination, which I noticed on December the 13th, has been entered and will be argued before the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow evening. In that regard, I received Staff Notes which concludes with this statement, if it is found that the appellant has standing, please refer to the Town Counsel's memo on this subject, quote, Staff Notes are not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe it's the same note, the same advice. It appears that Town Counsel's memo, referenced by the Zoning Administrator, is the same Town Counsel comment which was in Mr. Hunsinger's possession during the December 15th public hearing that is Staff Notes are not appealable to the ZBA. As you know, there is absolutely no mention in Town Law of a criteria for taking an appeal from Staff Notes. Why, then, would anyone attempt such an appeal in the first place? And certainly I wouldn't. I am appealing an erroneous determination, something that is mathematically incorrect, and that appeal will be heard tomorrow night. One other thing I'd like to mention and I don't mean to pick on you as a freshly assigned alternate. MR. DEEB-I've got broad shoulders. MR. SALVADOR-But both, Town Law speaks to alternates in both the Planning Board section of Town Law and the ZBA section of Town Law, and there is no provision for an alternate to sit on the Board unless someone recuses themselves because of a conflict of interest. Absenteeism is not a reason for an alternate to sit. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-That's interesting. I'll look that up. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would like to state for the record, I, Keith Eric Oborne, I am not the Zoning Administrator for the Town of Queensbury. I am a Land Use Planner. I wrote the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there any other business to bring before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2012) Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 41