Loading...
05-17-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 18-2012 Laura Feathers 1. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 Site Plan No. 26-2012 Kevin &Ann Dineen 3. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 Site Plan No. 27-2012 John & Pamela Cembrook 5. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-43 Special Use Permit No. 9-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 9. MOD TO SUP 45-2009 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 Site Plan No. 5-2012 DKC Holdings 13. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.1 Subdivision No. 4-2012 DKC Holdings 21. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.1 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 05/17/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, May 17, 2012. Our first item on the agenda is a tabled item for Laura Feathers. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Most of the items this evening do have a public hearing scheduled, and we'll go into more detail when we get to the first one. TABLED ITEM SITE PLAN NO. 18-2012 SEAR TYPE II LAURA FEATHERS AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1500 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE FROM AUGUST 1, 2012 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2012. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 29-11; SP 13-10, SP 12-09, SP 11-08, SP 26-07, SP 7-05, SP 22-04 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9-010 LAURIE BURNETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-1 do believe the Board is aware of Laura Feathers and what she does every year, year after year after year. She does bring in the application and it's the same one over and over. The only change to this year that we're trying to do, to accomplish with this Site Plan, is to give her maybe a two year approval instead of a one year approval, and work on that. MR. FORD-Good. MR. OBORNE-And then work from there, and if she comes back, she would be very happy. The Fire Marshal will be contacted every time the tent goes up. It's all the same approvals, but let me read into the record what we're doing here. Site Plan 18-2012 for Laura Feathers. Requested action is Site Plan Review for a tent sale longer than 12 days. 1500 State Route 9 is the location. Cl, Commercial Intensive, is the zoning. It's a Type 11 SEQRA. Warren County had a No County Impact issued on 3/29/2012. Project Description: Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from August 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012. Staff Comments: Merchandise would be for sale under a 20 foot by 20 foot tent that would be placed near the front of the Family Footwear Center property on Route 9. The tent would take up 3 parking spaces at this location. The applicant has requested the following waivers: lighting, landscaping, grading, and stormwater. This request is similar to proposals that have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Board over the last few years. The applicant is requesting 31 days for this tent sale, and basically, as stated, you certainly can give her approval for two years at this point. If that goes well, maybe in 2014, you give her approval until 2017. However you want to approach it is fine, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BURNETT-Greetings, Board. Thank you. I'm Laurie Burnett. I'm the store manager at Family Footwear Center on the corner of 9 and 149. Laura Feathers couldn't be here tonight so I'll be speaking for her. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MS. BURNETT-I've been the manager there for many a year and I'm familiar with the tent sale, if there's anything I can answer for you regarding her application. It is the same as it has been in years past. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BURNETT-Our intention is to maximize sales through having the tent sale to attract business and increase our sales that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Well, we have gone over this year after year, except for 2006, and I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what happened then? MR. OBORNE-It didn't show up on our computer. MS. BURNETT-1 have the 2006 paperwork in here, too, by the way, the whole file. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I noticed that, too, Tom, that there was a year skipped in there. Okay? No questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The two year thing is a good thing. MR. FORD-1 like the two year. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't even like this way, but this is what we've got to do. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't see any hands. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't expect there were. MR. OBORNE-It is highly controversial. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We will open the public hearing, and let the record show that no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Special Use Permit. So it's a slightly different resolution than what we typically see. MR. OBORNE-Actually, it is not. It is Site Plan Review, straight Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Members are comfortable with a two year approval? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think that's great. MR. TRAVER-Provided the equipment doesn't change, you know, the dimensions of the tent or anything fundamental changes. I think that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be for August of 2012 and August of 2013. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. If there's no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #18-2012 LAURA FEATHERS 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) Tax Map ID 288.12-1-15 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from August 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012. Tent Sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2012 tabled to 5/17/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2012 LAURA FEATHERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: The conditions will be that the tent will be installed from August 1St through August 31St 2012 and the same for 2013, for a total of 31 days. The Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal's office will be contacted by applicant for inspection prior to sale. The Planning Board has considered a two year approval. The Fire Marshal's office will be contacted two weeks prior to the start of sales. Dates of sale to be consistent with previous approvals. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II-no further action required; 3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans. 4) 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; Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MS. BURNETT-On behalf of Laura Feathers, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. FORD-Feel free to come back next year anyway. You don't have to make a presentation. MS. BURNETT-Thank you so much. MR. HUNGER-You're welcome. We have three items that are Old Business requiring public hearings. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 26-2012 SEAR TYPE II KEVIN & ANN DINEEN AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL- RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING WR- WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 96 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK & PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-12; SP 11-07, AV 29-97, SP 37-92, AV 60-92 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179-9 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Since they were here just on Tuesday evening, I don't know if we need a long introduction. MR. OBORNE-1 will keep it short and sweet. Kevin and Ann Dineen. Site Plan 26-2012. The Board is aware that this is a 96 square foot expansion. The permeability relief was not required last night because the applicant has offered up a like amount of square footage of impermeable surface. They will remove that and install lawn. They did, however, get their variance last night from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. We were at zoning last night, received our zoning area variance, and the one caveat that we did is we're going to pull four and a half feet off the end of the driveway that kind of goes down over the bank. That'll equal 96 square feet of pavement, tradeoff in impermeable surface for the addition for the master bathroom. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you changed the site plan already or no? MR. HALL-No, I haven't. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-I haven't updated it yet. I figured I'd wait until I came here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I saw the rolled up map. I thought maybe you had the new submission ready to go. MR. HALL-No. I updated them with a red pen as we were sitting here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 believe it to be a good move, good tradeoff. MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type 11 SEQRA so no SEQRA review is required. With that, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #26-2012 KEVIN & ANN DINEEN Tax Map ID 289.17-1-46 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes residential addition to existing single family dwelling. Expansion of non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 5/15/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 5/16/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/17/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2012 KEVIN & ANN DINEEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: With the condition that 96 square feet of pavement will be removed from the driveway area to compensate for the expansion. This will be included in the final drawings that are submitted. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II SEAR 3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 5) 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; 6) 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; Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2012 SEAR TYPE II JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) P3 REALTY ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 121 BIRDSALL ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 1,524 SQUARE FOOT SFD WITH 816 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AND RECONSTRUCT A +/-6,646 SQUARE FOOT SFD WITH 858 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE. PROJECTS IN AN AREA WITH SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND FILLING AND/OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF GLEN LAKE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR PROPOSED GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-12; BP 05-272 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, ROUND POND CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-43 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT & JEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This is a plan I believe the Planning Board is familiar with. It did go to the Zoning Board of Appeals last night. They did receive their zoning variances, and I do have it here, and I believe that there were no conditions, yes, there were no conditions on the Area Variance. This is a tear down and re-build. Stormwater controls are a part of this, compliant wastewater system, very extensive shoreline planting plan, and again, I think the Board is aware of what is going on here, and on Tuesday I did give a full description of the project. There are just a couple of issues that I have that may need to be clarified, if they haven't been already, and that is there is an existing dock and deck structure. I wouldn't say it's falling apart, but it's seen some days, I should say, and you may want to ascertain if there's going to be any shoreline disturbance as a result of replacement of that, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. It feels like we never left. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm sure. Three nights in a row. MR. JARRETT-The same as Tuesday night, Tom Jarrett, Jeff Redick, Pam Cembrook and Don Milne. We were successful last night at the Zoning Board. There was one concession we offered the Board. They questioned the storage above the garage and we offered to put a note on the plan that it is only for storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I think Keith has it in the minutes, but I'm sure it's all gotten lost in a blur here this week. We introduced the project the other night. I don't know if you'd like us to go through it again or not. It's a comprehensive wastewater and stormwater and landscaping plan to support the house. We're very pleased with the project. We hope you are. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that we really didn't address much on Tuesday evening were the outstanding engineering questions. So maybe if we could. MR. JARRETT-We didn't discuss them at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I was kind of hoping to avoid them altogether. We do have engineering comments from your Town engineer. We've looked through them. A number of them are acknowledgements. A number of them are minor. There's a couple of issues that I will need to discuss with Chazen, specifically the use of drywells and specifically the depth of rain gardens. Drywells, by the way, are a recommendation by DEC not a mandate by DEC. So we may have alternatives that we can explore in lieu of the drywells, but we are short of space, the far side of the driveway, and a drywell was a logical choice. We have a lot of pre-treatment upstream of the drywell, and that's the intent of Chazen's comment is to protect the drywell from siltation. So we don't have a concern about it, but we will discuss that with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The depth of the rain gardens, again, six inches is recommended by DEC. We have one rain garden that's nine inches. All the rest are at six inches. There is no mandate that they be six inches, and it depends on soil. We have very good soils there, and that's why we designed a one slightly deeper because we were constrained for space. We don't see it being a big issue. If we have to modify it, we will, and the rest of the comments I saw as relatively simple or mundane. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How about the Staff comments? MR. JARRETT-Keith, maybe you'd refresh my memory. I don't have them right in front of me yet. MR. OBORNE-Well, typically when you do shoreline, I have two Staff comments, basically. They state that seawalls are discouraged along the shoreline, except in the case where the alternative of shoreline restoration to a natural state is impossible, not a big deal, and the dock and wooden structure. MR. JARRETT-Okay. The dock, Pam can address that in just a second. The seawall, right now there's a wooden seawall that's in great disrepair, and we had planned, I think they're now possibly not going to touch that, but if they follow through with that, we were going to put in a seawall that meets DEC standards, which is a wall that's sloped back to allow wave action to be dissipated and so it doesn't buttress against the shoreline. They may subtract that from the project, but right now it's still on the plans, and so that's not the same type of seawall that we used to see, which was a vertical wall that would create a lot of disturbance and a lot of impact to the lake. MR. OBORNE-Vertical, right. MR. HUNSINGER-Which way is it angled? MR. JARRETT-Angled back into the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. JARRETT-So wave action is dissipated, animals can scurry in and out. That's the intent of the DEC standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We did talk briefly about the issue Keith raised again this evening about the dock and I think the discussion on Tuesday was that although it's in disrepair, there weren't any plans to renovate it at this time. Is that still the case? PAM CEMBROOK MRS. CEMBROOK-We've rebuilt that dock six years ago when we bought the house, because it was falling apart, and part of it is a crib dock, and as far as I'm concerned, it's really not in that bad of repair. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I don't think it's in really disrepair. It's been heaved by the ice, but I don't think it's in disrepair. MRS. CEMBROOK-1 thought it was pretty good. MR. OBORNE-1 apologize. I did not mean to offend. MRS. CEMBROOK-It works for us right now. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's what you had said on Tuesday evening, and I assume that hasn't changed. MR. JARRETT-Did the question come up because you're worried about disturbance later on? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Exactly. Well, it's like let's do it now and get it all approved. If it's compliant, it's compliant. MR. JARRETT-We would have the option to come in by ice or barge later on if we had to. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. If the applicant is happy with the dock, I'm more than happy with the dock. MR. KREBS-I had a question. I wasn't here on Tuesday night. My question is, the proposed well looks like it's on the neighbor's property. Is that true? MR. JARRETT-No, it's just on the line or near the, there's actually a neighbor's well near there. You may be looking at the neighbor's well actually. MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, I'm looking at C-3, and it says proposed well, 34D7. MR. JARRETT-Yes, that's actually on our property. MR. KREBS-That's on your property. Okay. MR. JARRETT-Yes, it is. The neighbor's well is just below that, if you look at existing drilled well, that's the neighbor's well. MR. KREBS-Okay. They looked like they were both in the same location from the drawings, but I just wanted to make sure that the well was on your property. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It would be rather embarrassing if we didn't put it there. MR. MAGOWAN-1 noticed there's quite a jog in the property. MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 was looking at the stone wall when I was. MRS. CEMBROOK-The prior owner gave up some of his property. They worked with each other because my neighbor on that one side wanted to put a garage in, and you see where their garage goes right up to that wall, and that way they could have a driveway in. So they gave up that amount of footage for that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's a nice neighborly thing to do. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes. It made designing our house challenging. MR. SIPP-Is the basement going to be strictly used for storage? MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes. We're building a post and beam house, so there will be no attic storage for us, and I don't like storing my winter and summer clothing in the basement because it's musty. So storing it above the garage is much better for us. MR. SIPP-1 notice you have double doors on the basement level. MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes, that is so we can get our canoes and kayaks and things into storage since this will be a vacation house until my husband and I retire. So we'd like to put all of our equipment away when we're not around. So that's where all of that will go. We don't have a shed. DON MILNE MR. MILNE-We have, at the present time, seven grandchildren, and so we have like kayaks, canoes, etc., etc., etc., and we just want to move that down to her place. MR. SIPP-Many years ago, we were in a site plan up on Rockhurst I think which there was supposed to be nothing but storage down there, and the next thing we knew we had big cellar windows and water and sewer hooked up, after we had given permission, passed the site plan. Now I just for the heck of it thought we'd find out what it is going to be used for. MR. OBORNE-1 would clarify that they are under no obligation to keep that as storage. They can use that as living space. They meet the Floor Area Ratio requirements MR. SIPP-Yes, they have to meet the Fire Code for the size window. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. JARRETT-They'd have to go through Dave Hatin's office for those modifications. The would check the Fire Code. That issue was brought up last night at the Zoning Board as well, and everybody looked at Keith. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 see no hands. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Similar to the last application, this is a Type 11 SEQRA. No SEQRA review is required, unless there's an issue that's been identified by someone on the Board, and with that I guess I'll entertain a motion if people feel comfortable. There are the outstanding engineering comments. So that would certainly be a condition of approval. Are you satisfied with the Staff comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Okay. Are you ready for a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Ready whenever you are. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #27-2012 JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK Tax Map ID 289.17-1-43 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1,524 square foot SFD with 816 square foot detached garage and reconstruct a +/-6,646 square foot SFD with 858 square foot garage. Projects in an area with slopes in excess of 15% of the proposed construction and filling and/or hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline of Glen Lake require Planning Board review and approval. PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 5/15/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 5/16/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/17/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2012 JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The conditions that are added to this granted motion are the fact that they will meet the engineering comments, and get engineering signoff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II SEQRA; 3) Waiver requests granted: lighting plans; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; 6) 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; 7) 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; Duly adopted 17th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. MRS. CEMBROOK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome, yes, good luck. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 MODIFICATION TO SUP 45-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; NACE ENGINEERING LOCATION 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD SPECIAL USE PERMIT: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF "PERMEABLE" PAVERS ON EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING SPACES. FURTHER, APPLICANT SEEKS AFTER THE FACT 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A +/- 665 SQUARE FOOT PATIO WITH ACCESS DECK AND STAIRS TO ACCOMMODATE FOUR TABLES AS WELL AS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 6 FOOT TALL, 112 FOOT LONG STOCKADE FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY. MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-12, SUP 45-09, AV 39-09, BOH 14-09 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-9, 179-10 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This one I will take an introduction, Keith, so we can bring everyone up to speed on what happened last night. MR. OBORNE-Yes. San Souci was tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals because we need to get the permeability issues correct. What happened is we were tabled out to June 20th, the June 20th Zoning Board meeting, with a drop dead date for revisions by the 23rd of May, which is the day before our Final agenda meeting. With that, if the Planning Board would have the same condition of approval that submitted plans be, revised plans be submitted on May 23rd, and be tabled out to June 21St if they feel that that is a good date for the Planning Board. We do have room on the agenda for it at this point in time. What we did receive last night from Sean Doty was an opinion on the amount of permeability that will be given for certain permeable pavers, in hopes that Tom Center can turn this around by next Wednesday, we tabled them out to the following month to get this plan moving forward. I believe the Board is aware of the issues on the plan, based on the Staff Notes, and sure certainly based on site visits. There's not really much to add to it, being that we're tabling the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything that you wanted to add? I guess I've have to ask you to introduce yourself first. MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Nace Engineer. Larry Clute, the property owner for the San Souci. Would it be possible, as far as for the Planning Board review, depending on when we get through the zoning process, coming right back the next day, if we actually have the ability to schedule it for the July meeting? I believe I have a conflict for the June meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-For the June 21St meeting? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we certainly don't have a problem pushing it out to July. MR. FORD-That would give us more time to study. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Doesn't cause you any problems, does it, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Well, not too much of a problem. I probably would have tabled you out to July, then, last night, to give you more of a chance to get all the numbers right and all that, but that's fine. If there's a conflict, there's a conflict. MR. CENTER-Well, I'm also not sure, when we get through zoning, whether additional things are going to need to be shown on the final drawing, and want to make sure when it gets before the Planning Board, we understand, you know, that's during the prime time season, that not a lot of the work is going to be accomplished until the Fall or started again until the Fall anyway. MR. OBORNE-And to add on to that, you have no idea if the Zoning Board's going to give you approval for everything either. MR. CENTER-Right, and instead of wasting your time and taking up a spot, I think it would be safer, and it would allow us to get you a drawing in in time, drawing and documentation in for the meeting. MR. FORD-It makes sense to me. Thank you. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. CENTER-Okay, and just to update a little bit about what went on last night, was some agreements were made that prior to the meeting, the next meeting when we're before them, there are going to be some building improvements performed, including the siding on the Cleverdale side of the building will be finished and some plantings will be made along the Mason Road side of the fence line and up towards the building and the fence on the upper side of the patio. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that to finish the previous permit you had or? MR. CENTER-No, that was based on some comments that were received last night, some things the Zoning Board was looking for in regard to some plantings and getting some work done and a good faith effort to show some finishing of the building. MR. OBORNE-1 would add that the Zoning Board did not make that a condition of the tabling resolution. This is something that the applicant offered up on their own cognizance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We tabled a couple of projects to the 17th of July on Tuesday. Should we maybe table this to the 24th or? MR. OBORNE-That would not be a bad idea, in case we have a lot of recommendations. MR. CENTER-July 24th? That would work. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Center is happy with that date. Absolutely. So the submission date for you would be June 15th for any July meeting. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But he's under the gun with the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-But of course that's after the, the deadline's before the Zoning Board meeting. MR. CENTER-The deadline's before the Zoning Board meeting. I suppose if I have to make a modification after the Zoning Board meeting, we'll work through it, to update those drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled, well, I mean, the public hearing was held open until this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. MR. OBORNE-1 do have public comment, though. MR. HUNSINGER-You do? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Just real quick. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to read it tonight, or do you want to wait until July? MR. OBORNE-1 think I want to read it tonight, get it into the record for the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And that would be, everything that is in there for public comment will be taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is going to be difficult for me to read here. Town of Queensbury Board, San Souci of Cleverdale. "I am a neighbor on 82 Mason Road of the San souci restaurant. I support the existence of the restaurant but I object to the expansion of capacity to the restaurant 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) because it will likely increase traffic and parking requirements in this residential community. I expressed similar objections at the 2009 meeting when the original variance request was filed. There have been several occasions when overflow vehicles have been unable to find parking space at the restaurant and they opted to park along a very narrow Mason Road. Some residents have cordoned off their parking areas and/or posted "no parking" signs. Continued expansion of commercial activities in this predominantly residential area could likely depreciate the value of property and unfavorably impact property owners and Town tax base. Sincerely, James R. Finnecy 82 Mason Road" May 15, 2012, San Souci of Cleverdale The above referenced after the fact variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper is troubled by the failure of the applicant to implement stormwater improvement measures on the approved plans that were agreed in discussions. The ability for stormwater improvements is further compromised by the continued and unpermitted expansion of the facility. The Lake George Water Keeper requests, in this case, the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically Article 8 Landscaping and Buffering Standards during your deliberations. The proposed after the fact expansion will increase the undersized parking provided, which will place an additional burden on the neighborhood. The proposed site plan should require tree planting as per Article 8 of Chapter 179, which would increase stormwater management and treatment. Stormwater management should be provided to the greatest extent practicable at this site. Soil restoration should be required in areas proposed for grass pavers to improve the infiltration potential. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky Lake George Water Keeper And that's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That first comment, Jim Finnecy that wrote that letter, this actually does increase the parking that was approved in '09, right? MR. OBORNE-No. There's no increase to parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's just. MR. OBORNE-Sixteen and stay 16. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, the way it's on the drawing, yes, but in actual practice, it's more, because they double parking. MR. OBORNE-Yes, because they double, exactly. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Also, is he increasing the capacity of the restaurant? Does the deck count as part of the restaurant, or is that just a waiting area? They're not serving food or drink out there technically. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it would apply to increasing the requirements, yes. At this point it's totally built out. There's no room for parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. OBORNE-So that's where we're at at this point. MR. CENTER-If I could just answer. As far as the building itself is sited by the Fire Marshal for 105 seats, and if I remember correctly, we are still, even with the added picnic tables, underneath those 105 seats, even if you add the seating capacity for those tables, we're still underneath what the maximum capacity of the facility is rated by the Fire Marshal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-And that is denoted on the site utilization calculations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, my only comment is it's been there since I was 15 years old. So that's a long time. MR. FORD-That goes back a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to put forward a tabling motion? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SUP # 9-2012 SAN SOUCI Tax Map ID 226.12-1-43 MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the July 24th meeting, with a final date of submission being June 15, 2012. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. MR. OBORNE-You're going to see them right now. MR. CENTER-We're going to finish the night together. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; NACE ENGINEERING ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LT INDUSTRIAL MDR- MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL STORAGE AREA ON LANDS WITHIN THE CLI ZONE OF THE PARCEL. FURTHER, APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL FOR THE GRADING AND STABILIZATION OF THOSE LANDS CURRENTLY UTILIZED AS MATERIAL STORAGE WITHIN THE MDR ZONE ON THE PARCEL. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN A CLI ZONE AND DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 4-12, SB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 26.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.1 SECTION 179-9,179-6-010C TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. As stated, Site Plan 5-2012 DKC Holdings. The requested action is Site Plan Review for a construction company in the CLI zone, and for disturbance of more than one acre. Location is Luzerne Road. Existing zoning is bifurcated. Actually, it's not bifurcated anymore, and we'll discuss that in a little bit, but it's CLI and MDR. The SEQRA status is Type Unlisted. Engineering review should be attached. Project Description: Applicant proposes after the fact approval for a material storage area on lands within the CLI zone of the parcel. Further, applicant seeks approval for the grading and stabilization of 1.72 acres of those lands currently utilized as material storage within the MDR zone on the parcel. Construction Company in a CLI zone and disturbance of more than one acre requires PB review and approval. What you have are the ubiquitous Oakville sandy loam soils, 0 to 3% slopes on this parcel, high permeability, depth of water is vast, to say the least. My review basically says final site plan to be updated denoting existing conditions, and that's on there just because the road access to the rear of the storage area does not exist anymore, not a huge deal. A 50 foot Type C buffer will be required on the northern end of the material storage area when the adjoining MDR lands are developed. This buffer should be planned for during this site plan review. If any additional portions of the parcel are to be utilized for material storage, that should be denoted on the plans. Town designated engineering comments attached and SWPPP and associated Notice of Intent has been submitted. I'm going to add just one little caveat to this. The surrounding lands, Larry has, as you'll see in the following application, a Sketch Plan coming in. You also have a Sketch Plan for a residential subdivision coming in, which I don't know if we need to discuss that tonight, but certainly the latter one, they're all connected. I'm sure he'll talk to you about it and get you up to speed on it. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, Nace Engineering with Larry Clute, the property owner. This, to give you a little history on this lot, this lot was subdivided into its current layout and it had an old existing house that was torn down and demolished. So the front clearing area was not cleared by the applicant. That was existing clearing from the existing home that was there prior to him purchasing that land. He did clear the .9 acres to the rear and we're here today because he has disturbed the soils of more than one acre, putting them into the stormwater pollution prevention control end of things, and an erosion and sediment control plan. There is no plan with this use for any hard surface. There is no hard surface. There is an existing trail that went through the property. That's what is being used for access to the areas where they've stored materials. He's storing excess sand and topsoil and tree stumps from other projects on the lot at this time. There is no plan to clear any additional area, and this plan before you is primarily a sediment erosion control plan in that regard, because we are not constructing any hard surface or impervious surface building structures, roads, anything like that, and I don't know if you have any questions in regards to, there is the area that goes over the MDR line, which will be restored similar to Mr. Howard's parcel where he restored some land when he cleared out in the back when he went over his area. We will be doing the same thing. That will be restored, topsoil, seeded, sediment fence and brought back into a grassed area, you know, permeable grass, and not part of the land clearing. It'll be part of the residential subdivision that's proposed shortly in the proposal. MR. FORD-Ultimately what is going to happen with the stumps and other debris that's been dumped there? MR. CLUTE-I've been using this as what I call my break down lot. You excavate an off-site, not this site, excess sand. When you dig the cellar holes, stumps, wherever I bring them from. Every year, year and a half, I take the stump pile, grind it down to mulch. That mulch is used at my new houses, and that's to the back portion. So we make a stump brush pile so to speak, and then I bring Rick Sears in and he grinds it down into the mulch that we use for our landscaping. So that's what happens with the stumps. MR. FORD-And you anticipate that'll be done how soon? MR. CLUTE-That's done on a regular basis. MR. FORD-Annually or every two years? MR. CLUTE-About every year, year and a half. We judge it based on the pile. His machine is extremely expensive, and it handles a massive quantity. So we, in order to justify him moving this machine, we create a fairly large pile of stumps and brush, break it up, turn it into mulch. MR. FORD-Sounds like an economical and practical plan. MR. CLUTE-It works really well for Rick, it truly does, and for myself actually, because it's more and more complicated to get rid of stumps. This is a terrific. I'm not involved in it. Rick does what he does and I end up with the mulch for the houses, but he also retails the mulch. So it works out extremely well. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-That's quite a machine Rick's got. MR. CLUTE-It's unbelievable. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-He's always up and down the Northway going here, you know. MR. CLUTE-He is. Yes, he uses it, I'm not the only one. He's up and down the highway, as you say, same purpose, literally just goes to these massive piles of stumps and brush and accommodates the same, it's a terrific way to get rid of these stumps. It works out really well. MR. FORD-I'm glad you can use the chips. MR. CLUTE-Yes, we use the product. Because we actually, our chippings, too, are back there in that general area, too, and he accommodates that into that mulch mix as well. So essentially all this product gets recycled, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-So basically you intend to use the site for what's there now? MR. CLUTE-That's correct. Yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. CLUTE-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you address the engineering comments? I guess the biggest one that I had marked was Item Three, saying that you did not provide sufficient information to support the permit eligibility. MR. CENTER-In regards to the endangered species archeological resources, both A and B, we're not proposing any tree cutting. We're not proposing any excavating or any hard surface. We're not breaking ground. This was an existing residential site. We are not, those things, as Staff is aware, very difficult to attain from certain agencies, in regards to whether it's archeological or having to go through the different steps in the permit. This is West Glens Falls. It has not been required on other lots that are an acre of disturbance. We don't see where they would either be an issue. We're not connected to the power lines. We're not a habitat for the endangered species throughout the Town. Those areas where we're adjacent to, yes, we do go and do due diligence. This one is not one of those areas, as far as endangered species go, and the archeological resources, it's an existing, it's a residential lot. It was previously a residential lot. There's residential lots all around us. Archeological, I'm not sure what we're going to gain by going through those motions, in regards to this particular site. MR. OBORNE-1 would add that Sean will not sign off without those documents. So they're requirements of the permit, and it's not as difficult as you think. I mean, it's a letter to. MR. CENTER-It would be fairly costly to go through the motions of these things we know the answers we're most likely going to receive. MR. CLUTE-It is kind of costly. MR. OBORNE-You can petition John Bonafeedy and you can petition DEC to give you signoffs. MR. CLUTE-No, what we're going to do is we're going to discuss it with the engineer. We're not excavating this site. There's no excavation happening. If I were digging on this site, then I could see this, but we'll discuss it first with the engineer and work through this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we will need a signoff from him. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my biggest concern was the engineering comments. MR. CENTER-1 would like to go through, I'll go through just, are there anything in the Staff comments in particular? As far as Number One, I believe, you know, what we've discussed tonight, the existing clearing limits are as shown. We're not going to be disturbing any other areas. We have had discussion in regards to showing individual piles and stumps areas. We have a detail on here for silt fence around the piles, around those things. So I feel that we've addressed that, as far as what has been shown. Number Two, what you will see when we do submit for the residential portion of the parcel in the rear, Mr. Clute and Matt Steves have put together that preliminary proposal is going to show a 100 foot buffer on the residential portion. So we would like to waive the 50 foot buffer on the rear of this lot. We're going to be providing a 100 foot buffer on the residential portion. I'm not sure how the Board feels about that, if there's any discussion, but that was something that, it's in Keith's comments and we, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, since you own both lots, I mean, you can make that stipulation. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, you can't always. MR. CENTER-Right. This is an instance where we felt it more practical to provide the 100 foot buffer on the, where there's two acre to the (lost word) which are two acre lots. MR. CLUTE-My opinion was it's of more concern to the residential buyer, obviously, than to the industrial buyer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. CLUTE-So if I give them 100 foot that they own, there's no chance of any, lesser chance of any disturbance. They're in control. It's their 100 feet. MR. CENTER-Right. They're in control. It's their 100 feet, and also you will have another bite of the apple, if you will, if anything is proposed for this lot, whether or not during site plan review, whether an additional buffer would be provided, or, you know, not using that area for whatever use. So that would have to come before you anyway, so if that buffer became a concern, it could be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, my only thought on that is whether or not we would remember that the buffer is to the residential lots. MR. FORD-I'm sure we'll be reminded. MR. TRAVER-Well, no, it would have to be listed like as a no cut zone or something on the residential portion, right? MR. OBORNE-That's exactly right. MR. TRAVER-Because they would have the right to cut that back, and then we'd have potentially less than the required buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, what you have right now, you don't have a use on that parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-1 mean, because they did a lot line adjustment, and that's been approved, so now it's not, this map here will need to be updated, obviously, to show what the parcel lines are now, and there's no use on the other parcel so there's no requirement, but from a planning perspective we know there's going to be a use on the parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Okay. MR. CENTER-And comment number three, as we've addressed it, the plan is for this use not to do any additional clearing than what's shown on the plan. In regards to the engineering comments, Comment Number One, we acknowledge we'll make the changes to the application. We acknowledge, the 1.72 acres is the total area of disturbance, and we have filed a Notice of Intent with Staff, provided that, a draft for them to review for us to submit. Question Number Two, the engineer asked in regards to the access trail, there is no plans to pave or improve at all. It's an existing dirt trail that will remain as such. Number Three, we talked about A and B. C, we'll revise the certification statement as requested. We'll add to the Oakville sands that's on the plan that it's in the HSGA group. E, we will also add the control of litter and pollutants note to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Number Four, the Question that we have here, this site is predominantly sandy with fast perc soils. This is an erosion and sediment control plan. We understand the regulations have stormwater design requirements for the 50 year design storm. We are storing materials on here. We are not creating any other impervious surface. So the 50 year design storm, to go through the process, the pre is going to be the same as the post. We would ask that this be waived for this application. We aren't doing any additional, there is some land clearing, but it's a high fast perking soil. The areas that we're doing the material storage are cupped down into the ground. So anything that does come off stays in those areas, and it's relatively flat and it's not running anywhere off site. I guess we would ask if the Board would waive that requirement, even though, you know, the engineer has brought it up as part of his review, which he can't, he can just bring it up that it's in the Zoning Code. We would ask that as in grading plans and landscaping plans on other projects, is that a potential that we could have that waived for this application, seeing as that, as far as the Notice of Intent, erosion and sediment control, that water quality is not required because of the type of use and what we are doing here is just land disturbance. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have any thoughts, feelings on that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm not sure we can, I mean, that's really an engineering issue, I think, it goes back to getting the signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but the point's well taken. If there's no impervious materials put on the site, the pre and post runoff are going to be the same. There's no change. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I guess if there's a change in use, we would have another look at it. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Right. Yes, the only difference would be what the elevations were and where they were elevated, but, you know, that's going to be changing. MR. CENTER-It's a relatively flat site, and like I said, the berms, if you look, actually on this drawing, these areas are actually built up, and you can see the contour. So this sits down low, and there's a berm around the areas, and the same thing with the back. This sits lower than the road, or trail, if you will, that goes through it. So everything that comes off those. I was just out there today after the rains that we had yesterday, and it was fairly dry almost the entire area. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a small puddle in the trail. MR. CENTER-Right, and that probably is topsoil that's sitting there that it gets in a rut, it will sit in a rut„ but as far as the rest of the areas, there is no runoff. He owns the parcel. It's not going to go off site. We are providing the silt fence which will have to be maintained as long as the disturbance is there, the silt fence will have to be there. It will stay in this cleared area. It's not really going anywhere. MR. OBORNE-1 would add that Tom said that it's not required. It is required, but I think the question is is it necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That's really what it comes down to, and everything he says is spot on. I mean, I don't need to tell him that or the Board that. He's right. It's flat. The whole site's going to be protected by a silt fence at this point, and the silt fence would go up and down, but there's vegetation all around. Again, it is required, but is it necessary? You do have the power to waive that if you so choose, and I'd pass that on to the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Where did the gravel come from that's there? MR. CLUTE-The fill? That comes off all my individual sites. MR. HUNSINGER-Even the pile of gravel that was there? MR. OBORNE-Yes, there's a little pile. MR. CLUTE-This is when you first come in off of Luzerne Road, our sand, which I call fill, and our stone, is stored immediately in as you come in. When you go out in back, that's where the recycling takes effect. So my topsoil's out there, my chips and my stumps, but these come off of building sites. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-All within here, from Queensbury. MR. FORD-1 believe that we should acknowledge that it's a requirement and waive it as not being necessary in this particular instance. MR. HUNSINGER-Makes sense to everybody. MR. CENTER-And Number Five, we will work with the Town Engineer to insure that the silt fence, if there's anywhere he's concerned about with siltation that we'll show the silt fence as requested, and we'll extend the construction entrance to 50 feet. That's not an issue, and, Number Seven, there is no temporary swale proposed. So this was an error, and I'll modify the Notice of Intent to show it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 would ask the Board if you are heading down the road of approval with that Number Four on Sean's comments, that you specifically state that in the approval resolution, that Number Four of his comments, although we acknowledge that it's required, we don't believe it's necessary, or something along those lines. MR. FORD-That's why I stipulated it that way. MR. CENTER-And I didn't mean that it wasn't required. It's semantics on my part. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-That's fine. 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. Are there any outstanding concerns that would prohibit us from moving forward on this tonight? I see a lot of heads shaking no. So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted action. I believe they submitted a Short Form. So a Short Form SEQRA is required. MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Make a motion to approve a Negative Declaration for Site Plan 5-2012. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf : WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DKC HOLDINGS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) Duly adopted this 17th day of, May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? I think the only condition we had was that reference to Item Four of the engineering comments. MR. TRAVER-Well, we need a signoff, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Only relative to Item Number Four, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, the standard resolution includes engineering signoff required. So I don't know if we need to state it again. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #5-2012 DKC HOLDINGS Tax Map ID 308.12-1-7.1 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes after the fact approval for a material storage area on lands within the CLI zone of the parcel. Further, applicant seeks approval for the grading and stabilization of those lands currently utilized as material storage within the MDR zone on the parcel. Construction Company in a CLI zone and disturbance of more than one acre requires PB review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/17/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2012 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the draft provided by Staff, which includes engineering signoff required prior to signature of the Administrator of our approved plans, and we want to reference Item Number Four in the engineer's report and we are acknowledging the requirement and waiving the necessity for it. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 6) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 7) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. SP 5-2012 DKC Holding-resolution contd. 8) 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; 9) 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; Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing like a little teamwork in the preparation of the resolution. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEAR TYPE NOT REQUIRED AT SKETCH PLAN DKC HOLDINGS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 26.7 PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 3.52, 3.95 & 7.74 RESPECTIVELY WITHIN THE CLI ZONE WITH THE REMAINING 11.49 ACRES ZONED MDR TO BE MERGED WITH PARCEL TO THE WEST OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 5-12, SB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 26.7 ACRES SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is a Sketch Plan Review. There's not a lot of notes on this, but the applicant proposes subdivision of a 26.7 acre parcel. That now needs to be updated and 11.49 acres have been culled off from that and there was a lot line adjustment along the zoning boundary lines at this point. That'll get all cleaned up. If you could look at the subdivision. You see where the MDR boundary line is. What the subdivision is actually happening is a three lot subdivision of 3.52, 3.95 and 7.74 acres respectively within the CLI zone. The subdivision as planned will require a road frontage variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for Lot Three. The applicant will need to inquire with the Highway Department on any plans to extend West Drive by that department. All three lots are adjacent to MDR zoned lands and a 50 foot Type C buffer may be required when those lands are developed. As we all know, they're Oakville sandy loams, OakvilleA a 0 to 3 percent slope. So I think we're familiar with what's going on there. Now, with this subdivision that's coming up, not this one, there's another residential subdivision coming up, they alluded to the fact that that's going to have a 100 foot buffer adjacent to the CLI lands. So just keep that in mind when you're going through your deliberations. There you go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, Nace Engineering, with Larry Clute. As Keith outlined, this is a three lot subdivision for this parcel. The rear section has been merged with the MDR section. I guess the only exception, and we've been working on this between lawyers, is the requirement of whether there's a requirement for a variance or not for road frontage. Mr. Steves has talked with Highway and checked on the status of West Drive, and the Town has been receiving Federal funds for the entire length of that road, all the way to the back parcel, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) and there's 379 feet of frontage along that right of way that's there. At some point in time, when someone does decide to build there, there would probably be some wrangling between whoever is building on that lot and Town Highway as to how the road gets constructed the rest of the way and where it goes, but I believe it's our belief, Mr. Clute's and speaking with Mr. Lapper before this was brought to the Board, that we feel that it doesn't require a variance, that it does have road frontage, and I suppose that it's outside of all our pay grades between the lawyers to make that determination prior to coming in for Preliminary and Final. I don't know whether I'm speaking out of school or not but I know, speaking for Mr. Clute, I understand the Staff has made comments that the road ends where it ends and it's not a Town constructed road so therefore there's no road frontage, but the Town has been receiving Federal funds for the entire length of the road. The applicant has the right to call that road frontage, and I think that's, at some point hopefully this'll get fleshed out. MR. OBORNE-1 would say that this would be a determination that has been made by the Zoning Administrator and regardless of the lawyers, that doesn't really matter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-If he makes that determination, they're going to need an Area Variance, but that's an argument for the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, the Zoning Administrator makes the determination, if they don't like it, they appeal it to the ZBA. Either way you're going there it sounds like, because he already made that determination. MR. OBORNE-Well, we don't have Preliminary, we don't have a preliminary plat in. This is Sketch, as designed, just for your edification and the applicant's edification, it would require that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, my only initial thought on this is, you know, having gone to the site, it seems to be a fairly significant elevation change between West Drive, and then, you know, what would be your access into the back lot, I mean, not that it can't be accommodated through grading, but, I mean, the road is significantly higher than the lands around it back there. MR. OBORNE-It's probably fill. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can tell it's all fill. Yes. You can tell it's all fill. That's my only comment. I mean, it's certainly not a showstopper. It's just an observation. So, I mean, is the eventual intent to put some sort of housing on Lot Three and have commercial industrial on Lots One and Two? Is that what you hope to do? MR. CLUTE-The intent at this point is Lot Three I'm actually going to sell to my other company, which is the storage units, and that would allow, over time, the expansion of that particular business, storage purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Residential, I leaned against the residential, how do I want to say, the high density residential, the trailer park that happens to be bordering that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-1 would have a very difficult time selling, say, any kind of product on that lot. So the storage facility is actually an ideal purpose for Lot Three, just simply expand its purpose. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-My thoughts. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don't need to worry about accessing West Drive, yes. MR. CLUTE-Yes, exactly, and then the two front lots, actually the lot that we just got done talking about, my break down lot, at some point I would like to hope that's my new offices, Clute Enterprises. MR. HUNSINGER-So if your intention is to use Lot Three for the storage units, why wouldn't you do a, combine those two lots? MR. CLUTE-Combine it into one? Financially it's wiser to leave it separated. I can borrow against two projects versus one project. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and obviously if you do that then access would be through the existing property, or not necessarily? MR. CLUTE-My opinion is is of of West Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-We will come to a determination, whether it's through variances, somehow, some way it'll be off of West Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-But it won't be into the deep part of it. There is definitely elevation changes, but it would be on this most southerly access point right there where the pavement is now, which is fairly a smooth transition into that parcel. So that's where the gates would be if I do expand the storage purpose. MR. OBORNE-1 would say that that's not a difficult Area Variance to get either. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. OBORNE-But, I mean, your argument's your argument. That's fine. The Zoning Board, and I'm not speaking for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but would, I think. MR. CLUTE-I'm going to expand on it. I'll tell you why I will argue it is because at the time if I do come to develop this lot, and they ask me to put that road on in, I'm not in agreement with that. The Town of Queensbury has been being paid to have that road, and that's my argument. Do you see what I'm saying, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. CLUTE-And that's where I'm drawing the line. The idea of the variance is very simple, you know, and more than likely I'd be okay based on the usages. What scares me is when I go to use that piece and they tell me I've got to put 300 and some odd foot worth of road in. MR. OBORNE-Well, it's 100 feet is what you would need. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. OBORNE-But it wouldn't be by you. It's not your road. It's the Town of Queensbury's paper road. MR. CLUTE-But that's where I get nervous. I really want to see that. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. My comment was to allay any fears. I believe that you'd get a variance for that. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question I have now relates back to the road. On the Site Plan that you've submitted, is that a fairly accurate depiction of where the pavement is? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes, that surveyed. MR. CLUTE-But you can see where the 50 foot right of way continues right on forward, designated as the road, for whatever reason the pavement stopped at that point for whatever reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's really no one using it. MR. CLUTE-No, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-There's nothing there. MR. CLUTE-That's right. Yes. MR. FORD-All pavement stops somewhere. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any concerns about the proposal, any other thoughts, comments? Keith, you alluded to a residential development. Where would that be, then? MR. OBORNE-That's coming up, where the hand is here, you have Burnt Hills subdivision right up here. This is all slated for development, and the portion that is MDR, I believe, runs somewhere like this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And then all that, this has been merged. So this parcel is not actually in this shape anymore. Craig has signed off administratively on a lot line adjustment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So all the MDR is now all MDR, and it's all ready to go, and we wanted to get this in lock step, Larry did, wanted to get this in lock step, because you're going to see that next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who's the developer? MR. OBORNE-Mr. Clute. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good. MR. FORD-Shouldn't be too many arguments there. MR. HUNSINGER-It'll be easy for us to then see how that would relate to this, because that was going to be my question, how the two relate to each other. We want to make sure we do good planning and, you know, meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. CLUTE-1 understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? I mean, there's no action to be taken because it's just Sketch Plan review, but, do you have any idea how quickly you'd be filing Preliminary? MR. CENTER-Probably June 15tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Coincidentally June is when Sketch for LARIC is as well. So at that point you would have both to show. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It's great that we got that application in. MR. CLUTE-1 agree. MR. OBORNE-1 mean, we're in good shape. We've not necessarily expedited anything. It's just that the timing was right for the lot line adjustment and Craig signed off on it before you even submitted it. So that's great. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We had no other scheduled items. Is there any other business to come before the Board? I had one item. MR. CENTER-Mr. Chairman, I had just one question, if you have a moment and the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. CENTER-One of the things that, as applicant engineers, that we're seeing more and more with the new Code that was brought in is the stormwater regulations seem to be spread out in many different areas of the Code beyond 147, and it becomes very difficult at times to ensure that we're providing a full and complete application, and we tend to get caught between, and I know it's got to be difficult for the Town Engineer, as I do that in the Town of Bolton, when you don't have things all in one section of the Code, as stormwater. We have a Section 147 in the Town of Queensbury. Everything relating to stormwater really should be in there and relate back out to the other areas of zoning. When there's little pieces that are laid out in zoning that 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) apply to stormwater, we get caught back and forth, and I don't think it's giving good applications at times, and we get into the engineering decisions where it's very difficult for a town engineer to make a determination like this one right here where we talked about, that regulation is actually in the Zoning Code, and I see it coming up more and more where a residential's going to require a 25 year design storm to be done, and it may be such a very small application that a minor criteria would be the only thing that would apply very well. You'd get that, you know, gallon and a half per square foot, but there's no mechanism for the Town Engineer to do that, and I think that Chazen has a very good person who's familiar with the Town of Queensbury, being Chris Round, on board, that may be able to help pull that together at some point. I think there's a lot of engineers out here that, before you, that wouldn't mind sitting in on a workshop and trying to bring those things in, because as we looked at the new Code over time, we found some of these things early on, and they've been talked about, oh, we'll fix that once we get involved, when there's a problem we'll fix it, and now they're becoming issues. They're costing client's money. The applicants are, you know, and in these times, you know, we're not trying to make it, you know, an easier process per se,. but we're trying to save some money and get good projects at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-And there's also not a lot of areas for some of the newer applications like the green infrastructure and things. I just think, it's just a suggestion that maybe in the future we look at trying to consolidate the stormwater back in to 147, and I know what they were trying to do. What they were trying to do is the only thing prior to that Zoning Code that we just passed was 147 only applied to the Lake George basin. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-And there was no other thing to bring in the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-Now 147 has an A, B, and a C, but there's a lot of things that don't even fall in the A, B, and C categories in 147, and the Town Engineer's trapped because he can't make the determination, because there's nothing there, and we, as applicants, try to do the best, what we think applies and will work for the site, and get good engineering, and my fear at some of these things is we end up designing to a Code, and not getting a good design for the land and a good engineering judgment, then you have a town engineer just checking boxes on a Code review, as opposed to does this make good engineering sense. So, just a suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I think the point's well taken, and, you know, when we adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and then the Zoning Ordinance, we acknowledged up front that it really needs to be a living, breathing document, and that it needs to be looked at periodically and updated. In fact, I had tickler on my calendar, I think it was last Fall, I mean, it was a long time ago, it was quite a while ago, to have that conversation with Staff about, you know, looking at this stuff again and, you know, we should address these issues as they're pointed out, and as we sort of (lost word), and that's what kind of happened for the need to overhaul the Code the last time. I mean, if we can take care of it as we go along, then we don't have to, you know, throw the Code out every five years and start from scratch. MR. CENTER-And I don't think, I think it's just that stormwater portion of the Code that needs a definition, because that's what we spend most of our time arguing about. MR. HUNSINGER-Seems to be, yes. MR. CENTER-And it's difficult for you folks, because, you know, you're a Planning Board, not necessarily, you know, tasked with looking over some of the engineering stuff, but you need those documents, that regulation, that town engineer needs that to go by. In Bolton we have two criteria, a minor and a major, and it's applied throughout, and then it has it's specific criteria. If you're within 1,000 feet of the lake, or you're outside of that, or you're in the Town in certain areas, and it works pretty well, I think, for developers, for applicant's engineers, and for me, as a reviewer. It gives me a nice basis, but it also allows some sense of, okay, you know, it doesn't fit exactly, but it's within the intent of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-And you can accept that, and then you can explain that to the Town Planning Board. So just trying to make the process a little bit smoother, work for applicants, work for the Board. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. KREBS-Well, I made a proposal a year ago, and in fact I intended to bring it up again, is I would like to see us extend the cycle by two weeks. We get the engineering reports in the mail on Saturday, for a Tuesday Planning Board meeting. Sometimes there are 34 engineering comments. The applicant hasn't seen them, or has just seen them before they come to the meeting on Tuesday. I would like to spread it out by an additional two weeks, so that after the engineer does his report, he and the applicant can sit down and review those, come to a conclusion, and then only submit to the Planning Board those where there is a conflict that can't be resolved. It would, Number One, there's oftentimes that we end up tabling a motion because we can't resolve the engineering questions. So 1, again tonight, am going to ask the Board that we have another meeting at some point and discuss changing the way we do the procedure. Now Staff doesn't like that idea at all, okay, because it's a change. MR. OBORNE-No, that's not it. MR. KREBS-But it would smooth out the process significantly. MR. TRAVER-We have done sort of a hybrid procedure with some applications where we've given them, you know, we've asked them to do a lot more of the engineering up front. MR. KREBS-But only major things. MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't know if it's so much a major or a minor or if the engineering is particularly involved, and, you know, to your point, it's worthy of investing additional engineering conversation before coming before us, but I don't know if we want to do that with every single project. MR. FORD-1 think we may be dealing with separate issues here, and I think it would be appropriate to encourage Tom to bring his observations to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-147 needs to be re-visited. There's no ifs, ands or buts about that. I mean, since the day I got here I was befuddled by that Code, honestly. MR. KREBS-My feeling is, as a businessman, I wouldn't want to have to pay my engineer, my lawyer to come back multiple times, which we do force people to do, and it's often, I mean, I'm not an engineer. So some of the engineering comments that I read, I don't know whether they're correct, incorrect, whether they're applicable to the situation. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's why we have a Town Engineer. MR. KREBS-Yes, but I have to make the final decision. So if they haven't resolved it. MR. TRAVER-Well, not for engineering. That's why we require the signoff. MR. OBORNE-1 don't have an issue with change, but we had developed a process by which applications, large or small, that can come before the Board, you would look at it from a planning perspective, get the feedback to them, and then come back and say don't come back until engineering's flat, and we support that, I support that 1,000%. 1 had developed procedures for that and protocols for that, and that was last year, and we came to the point, well, let's stop and not do that anymore. That fell by the wayside, but there's no ifs ands or buts but that 147 needs to be redone. I agree with that. MR. CENTER-If 147 is cleaned up and merged, and is very defined, you can get, and it's clear what the Board's looking for from a stormwater perspective, and there's enough latitude to uniquely design things depending on the site, you can get to the point where, okay, the engineer, the town engineer and the planning, or and the applicant's engineer come to that conclusion before they come to you, and that's what we do in Bolton. We have a very nice, defined Code. We had minor tweaks, but in the 10 years, I believe, I've been with Mr. Nace, that I've been doing this, we've been able to work in that box and the Town Engineer's been given the latitude and the applicants, we work together, we get our determinations and then it goes off to the Planning Board and engineering, and if the Water Keeper brings something up and the Planning Board feels it needs to come back to the Town Engineer, we work it out, we address it in that aspect. MR. OBORNE-There's many shades of gray in this Town. MR. CENTER-Unfortunately in 147 and the Code there's many shades of gray to stormwater. The engineer doesn't have the latitude to make those determinations and then it ends up 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) coming back to you folks and it may be difficult not, you know, being able to go to all the meetings, being able to be involved in all the different scenarios that there are in the engineering end of things, and it was just a suggestion. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, we're happy to look at it. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, point well taken. MR. FORD-Do you feel free to go to the Town Board and voice your concerns? MR. CENTER-We certainly can. We've talked to them in the past over times. I know, they've known. I mean, I think it's been talked about. I don't know, you know, sometimes we're perceived as just an arm of the developers, and here to make, you know what I'm saying? It's, we voiced these concerns to the Supervisor, to different Town Board members as they come up, say, geez, you know, we're really going way off the reservation on some of this stuff, and it's costing the Town taxpayer dollars, you know, you could be bringing in things, and it's making it very difficult, and we want to see it developed right. MR. FORD-You've done it individually, Tom? MR. CENTER-Yes, we have, myself, Mr. Nace, Matt Steves. MR. FORD-But with individual Town Board members? MR. CENTER-Yes, we've talked as things come out. MR. FORD-Or to them as a Board? MR. CENTER-As a Board, I don't think we've come out at the Board meetings. I know some of us were involved during the PORC Committee. I think we did. MR. FORD-That's what I would encourage you to do. I would encourage you, when you're facing the full Board, make your presentation. MR. CENTER-Okay. All right. MR. FORD-You have some good points. I think they need to be aware of them. MR. CENTER-Okay. We'll give it a shot. MR. HUNSINGER-How difficult would it be for us to try to coordinate a meeting with the Town Engineer and some of the other engineers, just to talk about Chapter 147 and maybe, is it something that's covered in the existing contract with the Town Engineer is really the question? MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board can ask for pretty much anything that they want. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. OBORNE-My suggestion would be to approach the stormwater management officer, which is Craig, because he knows what's going on with 147. We don't have the staff, but nevertheless, that would be the way to go, is to coordinate with Craig at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I would give him a call. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. The item that I wanted to bring up, I was speaking with George earlier today, at another event, and he had asked a question about where alternates could sit during the course of the meeting, and he said a lot of times they're at a disadvantage because they can't see the presentations that are being made. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything that would prohibit alternates from sitting near where Staff sit? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-Not at all. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll get you into more comfortable chairs, if nothing else. I didn't know if there was any reason why. MR. OBORNE-Well, if they disturb me, that may be a reason, if they, like, talk a lot. MR. MAGOWAN-Dave, there's not a lot of questions you can ask there, all right, Keith is under stress up front here. MR. OBORNE-No, I have no problem with that whatsoever. GEORGE FERONE MR. FERONE-The reason I raised it was, I mean, as you can see, you've got two guys that are involved. We're here every month for both meetings. There's a lot going on there. There's people talking to you. They're giving you handouts, they're showing maps that are facing that way. We're trying to stay involved and educated, in the event we've got to sit up there, and it would just be a little easier for us. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-I used to always sit right up front over here, and someone mentioned to me, you should sit up front, and I said, well, I've got to see things, but I also want to hear everything, too, because, you know, if I ever have to sit quick, you know, I want to. MR. KREBS-Why don't we just put another table with no mics on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my thought was if they were over there, it would be clear that, you know, that they're not voting, is what I was thinking. They might think you're the town attorney or the town engineer. Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board? I know it's still early in the month. How do our agenda items look? Are we caught up? MR. OBORNE-Yes, we're caught up. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we didn't even have a full agenda this evening, so I assume that we're caught up. MR. OBORNE-And you're not going to have a full agenda next month, either. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we get away with one meeting, or no? MR. OBORNE-No, you'll have to have two meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-After two public hearings on the same subject, do we have to have a third one? MR. HUNSINGER-For what? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The cell tower. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the problem is, there's going to be new information presented, and that was the main reason why we left the public hearing open is because we're expecting new information and I guess the public has a right to be able to comment on new information. The other issue is, once we close a public hearing, we have 60 days to make a decision, and that's in State law. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, not knowing what's going to happen, it's kind of hard to close a public hearing until we're sure. MR. OBORNE-You're going to make a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Enough information to act on it. So those are the two reasons why. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right. I forgot about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Believe me, I did think about it, and I also thought about not taking public comment the other evening, but the Town Attorney was fairly convincing that people were expecting one. One was advertised, and they had a right to be heard. MR. MAGOWAN-Can we open it only as new comments, not the same ones we've already discussed? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we can certainly ask that, and we've done that in the past, but it's very hard to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I think guys should be cut off at five minutes, especially a guy like Salvador, because if you let him go six, he'll go six, and the Town Board has started cutting him off from time to time. MR. MAGOWAN-What's wrong with three? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can set it anything you want. You don't even have to allow it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-I think you've got to expect it and just live with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-You could put a time limit on it, but I mean, you can't just obliterate the public. Somebody may come in with a gem of an idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I mean, when we talked about this at the workshop with Mark Schachner, you know, he said, you know, most people when they hear the bell will be polite and courteous and they'll stop, but some people won't. Then you have to say something. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They get away with it at the Town Board and it's on television, and once that happens, the rest of us are dead. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it's one of the most difficult aspects of handling our meeting, and I think Chris does a great job in fielding that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-That's tough. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I don't know how you can be so patient with some of those. MR. FORD-1 really complimented him on the way he handled the meeting on Tuesday. MR. OBORNE-I do have one item, though, I'd like to go over. It was pointed out by George that when we made the resolution for Kevin and Ann Dineen, the application has in it, or the draft resolution states Site Plan No. 9-2012, and for the record, the application is actually Site Plan No. 26-2012. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And you're just reading it off what was there. That was the Staff's mistake on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So just to clear that up, it's Site Plan No. 26-2012 that was approved tonight for Kevin and Ann Dineen, and not Site Plan No. 9-2012. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I would expect the record to have the correct number in there, yes. It's kind of like the Congressional record, you know, the Congressional record is the minutes from Congress. Well, they come out with a draft, and then individual members of Congress have a certain period of time to make changes, and they will go ahead and make wholesale changes sometimes before the official minutes come out. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-After they find out how stupid they sound. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. No, seriously. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's true. That's what they do. Is there anything else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? MR. FORD-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Second by Mr. Ford. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 17, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 30