Loading...
06-21-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2012 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-2011 & VMJR Companies 1. FWW 1-2011 Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 Site Plan No. 32-2012 Colleen Hogan-Clark 3. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-17 Site Plan No. 21-2012 Ben L. Aronson 7. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-10 Site Plan No. 34-2012 Michael Gleasman 14. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-7 Site Plan No. 33-2012 Glenn Durlacher (Cont'd Pg. 20) 15. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-13 Site Plan No. 31-2012 Frank Parillo 16. 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 06/21/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER 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, June 21, 2012. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. We have several public hearings scheduled this evening. There's also a handout back there for public hearing procedures. If you intend to speak during the public hearing, I would ask that you make yourself familiar with those and we'll go into more detail when we get to our first public hearing. Our first item on the agenda is an administrative item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 -VMJR TABLED TO 6/21/2012-NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED MARY BETH SLEVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This was tabled until this evening. No new information was submitted. Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. New information was submitted after the 14th, which is when this was issued to the Planning Board, but we did meet with the applicant and their agents, along with many other County and Town officials. We did discuss many issues, and that's pointed out in my memorandum. Ms. Slevin is here to brief the Board on where we are with the application, and I think that that's pretty much all we need to do at this point. MS. SLEVIN-Good evening. Again, Mary Beth Slevin here on behalf of the applicant. We did have the benefit of having a very large meeting on May 7th with Town Staff and County staff to talk about a large litany of issues. This project included with the aviation easement and also the County road extension towards Queensbury Avenue. We've been working with the County to try to advance the design of the connector road. The County has already made certain improvements so we're trying to coordinate the work that our folks are going to do along with the County. We've received some of the information from the County just recently, so that's part of the reason why there was a delay in being able to make the submission to the Board this evening, because that information was just received too late to be able to incorporate it into a design that we could present to the Board. We are looking at some modifications to the utilization of the connector road. As the Board knows, with the Creighton Manning study that was done for the connector road, there was an indication that a full scale connector road may not be necessary there. So we're exploring alongside of that study whether modifications may be appropriate for the utilization of the road, but once we have a design to submit to the Board, we can more fully explore that option with the Board. M.J. Engineering has also met with Town's consulting engineers, and we have a better idea of the scope of information that they still require in order to complete the application. That information will be also incorporated in the next submission. We expect that submission to be made by the July 15th deadline, so that we would hope to be back before the Board with a full review for your August meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Does, the Staff mention in the memo that they handed out this evening, the fire training center, and does the construction of that access drive change, at all, your approach to the secondary access point? MS. SLEVIN-It does. That's part of the coordination that we're doing with the County on the design of the roadway. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not saying that that's, that the access to the fire training facility is going to be shared as an exit road to that property? MS. SLEVIN-That's what's contemplated, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's a bad idea, in my opinion, because the training facility's a Iockdown facility, which means that the road would be locked down, and I don't think if you've got, if you need that exit road, you're not going to go get a key. MS. SLEVIN-We are working with the County to determine exactly the scope of access that would be necessary, and the County is on board for working through those issues with us. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Keep in mind, in the long run, it'll be up to this Board whether there's enough access into the property. MS. SLEVIN-We fully are aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess I have a similar comment. Just looking at the materials this evening, it looks as though what's being contemplated is a road that, at best, would only be for emergency access only, and I think that might be a problem. MS. SLEVIN-We understand that that's a different direction than what we've discussed with the Board before. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. SLEVIN-We had hoped to be on the agenda this evening to have a full discussion on that issue, but Craig indicated that that wasn't going to be possible. The reason that we are looking to change direction and to move towards emergency access only is because of the independent Creighton Manning report which indicated that the connector road really didn't provide the level of utility that was expected. Our own traffic information that was generated substantially before that also supported that conclusion. Because of the cost of the connector road, based on the analysis done by Creighton Manning, it just isn't economically feasible to do a full build out of that road and be able to advance the project. So we want to walk through the rationale for that with the Board and explain how the traffic studies do support an emergency access only for the connector road. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would be an interesting discussion, because I didn't come to the same conclusion after reading the Creighton Manning study. Their comment was that the cost benefit to the general public was insufficient, but not to a specific user, and I think those are two different issues, but we can talk about it in detail at a future meeting. MS. SLEVIN-We believe that they go a little further than that, but again, we'd like to wait until we have a full submission for the Board to take a look at. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. When would you expect that full submission to be ready? MS. SLEVIN-Again, we expect to be able to make it by your July 15th deadline to be available for review by your August meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 would recommend a tabling out to either the 21St or the 28th of August. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we entertain that motion, is there anyone in the audience that was here for the public hearing for this project? Okay. The public hearing will remain open and we'll table the public hearing until the August meeting. Do you have a preference, at this point, Keith, which meeting? MR. OBORNE-1 have no preference. MR. KREBS-Do you want to do the first? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why not, the 21St MR. OBORNE-That would be a July 16th deadline. Give you an extra day. MS. SLEVIN-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-My pleasure. RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIVISION # 1-2011 & FWW# 1-2011 VMJR A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.49 acres to 29.78 acres with 10.69 +/- acres proposed as open space. Further, extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to access main parcel proposed. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Big Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/26, 5/31, 7/26, 9/20 11/15/11; 1/17/12, 3/20/12 tabled to 4/17/12; tabled to 6/21/2012; MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 VMJR, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the August 21St Planning Board meeting with a deadline for submission of information of July 16tH Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. MS. SLEVIN-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 32-2012 SEAR TYPE II COLLEEN HOGAN-CLARK AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 19 PIONEER POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 296 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A 340 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 518 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 594 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 76-90, AV 59-90 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-17 SECTION 179-9, 179-5-060 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is an Expedited Review, Site Plan Review at 19 Pioneer Point. The photo is up on the screen right now. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 296 sq. ft. dock with a 340 sq. ft. boathouse and replace with a new 518 sq. ft. dock with 594 sq. ft. boathouse. Boathouse in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. What we have, again, is an Expedited Review before the Board. The boathouse, as proposed, is below the required height, and as designed appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities, and, as always, I always ask the Board to consider shoreline buffers, and with that, I'd pass it on to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants. I think Keith has pretty much summarized what we have. The boathouse is compliant, as far as all setbacks, height, and it's simply a replacement of a 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) boathouse, which, if you went out and looked at it, and you used your judgment, you probably didn't go up on the deck. It's probably 20 years old or better. It sits right on a point, and it gets a lot of wave action and what not, and they would like to replace it and it's a little bit bigger. It actually doesn't fit their boat that they presently have. So they've made it somewhat bigger, but it's still not up to the full 40 feet. I think they've put it at 35 feet, and the deck is less than the full coverage on the docks itself. So it's a conservative type application. If you don't have any question on the construction of the boathouse itself, probably the issue might be shoreline buffer. I'd like to argue, first, that to follow the shoreline buffer regulations would probably do more harm to this site and to the lake than leaving it as is. This property has been developed probably 35 years. Everything is fully stabilized, and if you went there and you looked at the front yard of it, they have maintained four or five large trees on that property. If you were going to require a buffer on the north side of it, which is shown on your sketch as having a retaining wall, it really would serve no purpose. There is no drainage that goes down there. The retaining wall stops everything that goes that way. On the west side of the property, the only flat land on this site is that flat land, which is probably about 15 feet deep behind the concrete retaining wall, that little step up retaining wall. This is a small lot. I think one side of it is like pie shaped going to the point. One side is 100 feet and the other is 90 feet. It is on a holding tank. It's been on a holding tank since the structure was re-built probably about 15 years ago. Can't guarantee it forever, but it gets very little usage. The people come out of Annapolis for about a month a year. It's been in their family, it was Harold Hillis' property, then Mike Hogan, the father, bought it, and then he sold it to his daughter. If you insist upon something, I'm prepare to discuss it, but I don't think it serves the purposes of what the shoreline buffer was set up for. If you look at this property, particularly from the west, the house is probably 30 feet above the lake, and what you look at is the lawn, and the lawn is like the ground cover, if you will, for the large oak trees that are there and the large pine tree. If you, we talk about doing a buffer down on that only flat place on that lot, I think we've got to be very careful not to harm the root structure of the pine tree and one of the oak trees, which they hope to preserve, but I'm willing to discuss it with you if you think it's a necessity or if you think that the benefit outweighs the disturbance. Because right now there's no proposed upland disturbance. They will demolish the dock and build the dock into the lake. That's, if you have questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MR. SIPP-1 wish you would put contour lines on this. Have you got any idea what the difference in elevation is from the concrete walk up by the house down to the shoreline? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably, where the walk is below the house, there's steps that go down to the walk, so probably at that point probably 15 feet. MR. SIPP-How many feet, 40 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-It's one inch to, or 10 feet to one inch. So it's approximately, probably 30 feet, and that walk does go down and it goes into the sand area, which is, there is a concrete retaining wall at the water, and there is a sand area prior to that, which is a little bit below the concrete retaining wall. That's a little beach area. That's where they step off to go into the water. It's this side of it. That's where they set up a sandbox for their kids. They have very young kids. It's not on that side. That's what I call the north side of the property. It's on the, it's right at the point. You can see it kind of next to the tree there. That's what that sidewalk goes to. MR. SIPP-Yes, but it's still a steep slope there, and only grass is there, and grass is not a good filter for a buffer zone like that. It calls for a 15 foot buffer zone. Now you've got the tall trees and you've got some brush in there, but I don't think that's enough with that slope. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a very fast draining soil. It's a cobblestone type soil. If you ever dug up there, you're very sorry that you started. So it drains very well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, and we're really not affecting, we're not touching the land. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All we're doing is changing the boathouse. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And our Ordinance also says that you should do limited disturbance to the land. MR. O'CONNOR-We wouldn't be here if they were just building the flat dock. The flat dock could be built just on Town permit. The only reason we're here is because they're putting the boat cover over the top of the dock, and that's certainly removed from land. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it's in the Town of Bolton. MR. O'CONNOR-No, this is Glen Lake. I'm waiting to use that case. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was waiting for you. MR. O'CONNOR-No, they want to build it this summer. They don't want to build it next year. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. FORD-Or the year after. MR. O'CONNOR-It is a navigable body of water, and we used to get permits from DEC. When we first built our boathouse, I live two places away from that, we did get, I think, a DEC permit to put the cribs in. You used to have to do that, and you used to have to go to the Army Corps of Engineers, too. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-For Glen Lake? MR. O'CONNOR-Glen Lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SIPP-1 think that, you know, if you want to keep that lake in some kind of shape, we've got to start some place, and because it is available to us to ask for that buffer, in this situation I think we should have something there. Now you can have ground cover which is going to be much more, help to screen out the materials going into the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-That 15 feet depth is the only place that's flat down there for the kids to fish off and everything else that they do. I don't really think that you're going to do more benefit than you are harm, and I talked to the fellow at Toadflax today. I got the comments, I think, Friday, and started doing some scrambling. I don't know if you're going to hurt the, he said stay away from the oak trees, definitely, because I talked about, if you look at that west side, where the slope is, if you went to that two foot retaining wall and built a berm on top of the two foot retaining wall, he thought that that would do more harm to the oak trees that are on that side of the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-Other members, comments, questions? MR. MAGOWAN-1 feel since it's all in the water and, you know, after viewing the slopes, I have to say I want to agree with Mike there that I almost think it would do more harm. MR. SIPP-How can it? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, one, you're taking away the footage for the kids and that to play that they're used to playing in. So you're going to put down a ground cover, and I can just see them running all over that and that not surviving and not, you know, doing its purpose, but, you know, really, this is a, we're kind of a pre-existing situation. If we were changing something and adding on to the house and that and changing the slope, you know, changing the ground, I'd tend to say that, you know, the buffer, but, you know, the boathouse which is all out in the water, I mean, like Don said, you know, it can go both ways. MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, if you disturb 15 feet of an existing lawn, and you have heavy rains for three weeks afterwards, you're going to have more destruction to the lake than you will have for years of the runoff from the existing lawn. MR. SIPP-But you're not disturbing the whole lawn. You can build this so that it would not disturb the whole lawn. Grass is not a good uptake of water, and water is a problem here. Rainwater, stormwater has got to be. MR. KREBS-So maybe an alternative, Don, would be that we could put one row of high absorption plants along the edge. MR. SIPP-At least that's a beginning, but I don't know. You would have to calculate the amount of water off of that lawn surface that's going to be headed towards the lake. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there's a matter of opinion. I think you and I talked about this. If you read the report that was given the State from the University of Washington, when they're talking about not making fertilizer regulations locally and letting the State do it, you see the guy saying that a good, thick lawn is better for stormwater runoff than any buffer you can put, providing it's only 15 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-When the Lake George Park Commission did its study on stream corridor protection, they also had a couple of studies that supported that. There were a couple of studies that went the other way, but there were a couple of studies that said sediment and what not is caught up in the lawn as much as anything else. These people are conservative. I mean, they live with a holding tank. MR. FORD-1 think it's a great idea that when a project like this comes before us that we have an opportunity to look at the possibilities of buffers, and that really is a judgment call on our part, and personally, in this instance, and I don't want it applied to all except the judgment call portion of it, I think that disturbing the grass and disturbing that lawn area has a greater potential for being detrimental to the lake. So I would leave it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. TRAVER-1 guess I agree. It's also, in as much as it's the only flat area, I think, in terms of using the land, too, anything you put there, the activity near the water is going to be taking place there. So it's going to be difficult to support anything more than grass, and it's not a heavily used piece of property anyway, at least at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 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 written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-If there are no further questions or comments, I will entertain a motion for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #32-2012 COLLEEN HOGAN-CLARK A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 296 sq. ft. dock with a 340 sq. ft. boathouse and replace with a new 518 sq. ft. dock with 594 sq. ft. boathouse. Boathouse in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/21/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2012 COLLEEN HOGAN-CLARK, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type 11 ; 3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, lighting plans; 4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) 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. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; Duly adopted this 21 st day of June, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to add my two cents. The review indicates that the boathouse is proposed to be 14 foot 3 inches above the high water mark. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There is no high water mark, no mean high water mark on Glen Lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just, any time I get a chance to put that into the record, because of the one bad example, I always do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There's a spillway level, there's a top of the dam level, and there's a flood elevation. That is a, there is no mean high water mark. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe I should say you understand it has to be no more than 16 feet above the water? MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. We have no problem. MR. OBORNE-Staff will amend that, in the future, for Glen Lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The Ordinance? MR. OBORNE-No, my notes. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf NOES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2012 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED BEN L. ARONSON AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS-MAIN STREET LOCATION 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 53 PARKING SPACES ON VACANT LAND TO THE EAST OF WHICH 24 SPACES TO BE BANKED FOR FUTURE USE. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE NEW LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 10-02, SP 49-99, AV 83-99, SP 22-97, AV 19-97, UV 18-97, UV 14- 94, AV 15-94, AV 94-92, A V 29-92, A V 1287, VAR. 777 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-10 SECTION 179-9, 179-7 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. We had the pleasure of reviewing this a couple of months ago. This is Site Plan 21-2012 for Ben L. Aronson, also known as Double A Provisions. This is a revision to an approved Site Plan. 64 Main Street is the location. Main Street is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Applicant proposes 53 parking spaces on vacant land to the east of which 24 spaces to be banked for future use. Proposal to include new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater controls. What follows is Site Plan Review. I'll make the assumption that the Planning Board as reviewed this. Staff's really only issue with this is the fact that the new Main Street project has just been completed and the applicant proposes to put in gravel parking. It is my opinion, and it's not anything in the Code that's specific, but it's my opinion that gravel drives are really not, should not be allowed in that area, except for spillover parking, and that is specific to the Code, is what it says should be considered for spillover parking. I know that the applicant 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) brought for the potential for paving to be done. That has since changed and it's basically a bit of a change to the plan, concerning motorcycle parking, the saving of one of the trees, and he did potentially offer some type of mitigation to the dust, but that should be clarified, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Members of the Board, good evening. Tom Jarrett for Ben Aronson, Double A. In April we tabled it for resolution of Staff and engineering comments, and I think we've fully addressed them. I think from Keith's remarks, we haven't satisfactorily addressed necessarily all of them, but we've fully addressed them we think. My client wishes not to pave the parking lot at this time, and he's not saying never, but he's saying at this time because there is a potential building or a future building shown in the front there as is in keeping with the Main Street Design Guidelines, and he'd prefer to wait and pave this until he knows what building's going to go in there and what the configuration will be and what the parking lot needs are. He doesn't foresee that being an awfully long time down the road. There's no guarantee, but he'd prefer to wait until that time. Now in the meantime, the parking that he does propose is for his own employees. They are used to parking on gravel. It is behind an asphalt parking apron and it is behind some proposed landscaping. So we feel it's probably not a big impact, I would think, to Main Street in our opinion. Let me defer to the size of the parking spaces where we saved the tree for a minute and we'll come back to the paving. Keith has suggested that we sign that for motorcycle parking. However, interestingly enough, enough small cars are coming out now that would fit in that space that I'd prefer not to sign it. If it becomes a problem in the future we could sign it for motorcycles only, but I'd prefer to leave it open and let anybody that can fit in there go in there. Interestingly enough they will fit, the SMART cars will fit in there, probably stacked. MR. HUNSINGER-Those SMART cars, they fit sideways. MR. JARRETT-I would think. MR. TRAVER-My Goldwing Motorcycle is bigger than a SMART car. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-So, not to be flip, but I'd prefer to wait on the signage until it's needed, if needed. At this point I think anybody smart enough is not going to stick an SUV in there that sticks halfway out into the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wouldn't count on it. MR. JARRETT-Did I mention the word smart, and I got everybody's attention, and I think, are all the other issues resolved in your mind, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Well, the public comment concerning the dust on the Second Avenue side. I've been getting quite a bit of complaints on that. MR. JARRETT-I've been by there several times. Obviously I don't, I'm not there when the dust is prevalent, but Mr. Aronson has said he would mitigate dust, and I guess if he doesn't do it, the next time we're in here then the Board can take out their wrath. MR. OBORNE-Well, that's one of my questions is what clarity, I mean, what is that mitigation, what does that entail? MR. JARRETT-He's talked to me about using water or lime or whatever measures are necessary, I guess. He would even propose paving an apron if he had to. MR. OBORNE-Not PCP's or anything like that? MR. JARRETT-Not that I'm aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, oil, right? MR. JARRETT-Yes, no, we would not be using that. MR. MAGOWAN-No, they use a calcium. They use a calcium, and then the rain that kind of puts a, they use a, you know, like on the east side and that to knock out the dust there. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. FORD-He's done nothing to date? MR. JARRETT-I don't know that. We didn't talk about what he's done to date. The neighbors have complained, but I don't know if he's done anything in the past or anything since we first discussed it. I can't speak to that. I don't know if there's been a problem since we first discussed it, either. MR. MAGOWAN-What about maybe just, if anything, putting a binder coat down right at the entranceway of the parking lot to help knock down the dust and the dirt in the parking lot, you know, before you go out into the Main Street for the, you know, the employee parking and that? MR. JARRETT-Well, there is an apron already there. So our entrance is paved for the first 20 some odd feet already. MR. MAGOWAN-So you have enough for everything to get off the tires and? MR. JARRETT-Yes, the new parking lot has already got an apron that would prevent tracking out into Main Street and prevent dust migration. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Brad, that comment is particular to the Second Avenue side or the west side, it's wide open. MR. JARRETT-Which is not part of this application, per se. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I know that is because I'm always down there at Jim's Glass. MR. JARRETT-That's where the complaints were. MR. MAGOWAN-On the dust side, but you also said on the Main Street, I mean, with that all being new road and that, you know, and you know how it is pulling into the parking lot and stuff like that, especially with the gravel, you get the ruts and the mud and the dirt, and the next thing you know it's going down the road. MR. JARRETT-As I say, we do have the, I can measure it, we have 20 plus feet of pavement existing. MR. OBORNE-At least. My whole issue with it, for what it's worth, is that, you know, the Main Street project is a $16.8 million project, and now you're putting in gravel parking spaces. That's really where this comes from, from a planning perspective. I think that the applicant, I think Tom's got a very good argument that if a building is going to be built, he's going to have to rip up that concrete. I totally understand that. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Aronson told me that he's not, he doesn't object to paving it in the future, he just doesn't want to do it right now because he doesn't need it for his employees and he'd rather wait until the building goes in. MR. FORD-But there's no projection for a building? No date even? MR. JARRETT-No. He's kind of hoping, but the economy has not come back to the point where there's a lot of pressure there for that. So they don't forecast for it. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I have a comment I'd like to raise. I received a letter today from Double A, being a customer of theirs, that they, the end of the month they will be closing their doors. MR. JARRETT-I had heard that same rumor, but I didn't know it to be (lost word). MR. MAGOWAN-No, I got the letter today in the mail that they're going to be closing their doors. So 1, not that that should have a concern on this, but I'm a little baffled of, you know, you haven't heard anything about it? MR. JARRETT-I was, I learned of the rumor of it a while back, but I was told to continue with the application. If you recall, the application was first made necessary because he had a contract for the land across the road where his employees are parking now. When that contract fell through, he told me to keep going with this application. He wanted to keep this in the pipeline. He has not told me to cease or hold the application, withdraw it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Did you have any comments on the two engineering issues that remain? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. JARRETT-We responded to them this week. We did find an error in our calculations that Chazen had picked up on. We acknowledged it. We re-ran our calculations. Did not affect the design. We re-submitted those calculations to the Planning Office. So that should not be a problem, and with regard to the swales down the center and along the edge of the parking lot, those are not intended to be technically rain gardens and infiltration devices. So the comment about the depth of planting medium I think is not germane to this issue. They were intended only to be swales to take sediment out before the stormwater goes into the drywells. So the planting mediums there are strictly for good growth medium for the plantings in the swale, which we think will be much more aesthetic than just the, you know, plain bare swale or just grass. MR. OBORNE-It's pre-treatment. MR. JARRETT-It is pre-treatment, but it's only removing sediment due to lateral flow, not infiltration. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-If there were to be a change in use in this property, we'd have another look at the parking lot, too, wouldn't we? MR. KREBS-Absolutely. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. You'd have a look at the whole site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the whole Site Plan. MR. JARRETT-And we did note some future interconnects here, and there's a lot of flexibility on where they would go, depending on what adjoining uses do. MR. FORD-Well, looking at this project and what has gone into Main Street corridor, I don't see the reason for continuing with the dust and the gravel. I think that we should call for paving. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that both sides? MR. KREBS-Yes, but the problem, Tom, is that once you pave it, you may be ripping the pavement up a year from now because you have a different configuration of buildings. MR. FORD-Or 15 years from now. MR. KREBS-Or 15 years from now. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they can also, you know, put down a binder. MR. KREBS-But if there's nobody driving on to the parking lot because AA is closed, where's the dust going to come from? MR. JARRETT-That's a question none of us are prepared to answer tonight. MR. KREBS-Well, I'm just. MR. FORD-The chances are, if they close, there will be a new owner, and that. MR. JARRETT-Business owner. The site owner is still going to be Ben. That we know of. I can't speak to that specifically. MR. KREBS-Right, but even if it's a new owner and a new business, they have to come before us for a Site Plan Review. Is that not correct? MR. OBORNE-Not unless it's a change in use. If it's a change of use. MR. KREBS-Yes, but a change of use (lost word)Aronson, AA Provisions. MR. TRAVER-No, he's the owner, but if somebody bought the business. MR. JARRETT-It could come back to you. It could easily come back to you. MR. FORD-It could, but it might not. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. JARRETT-Yes, I'll defer to Keith. It may not. MR. OBORNE-There are what if's, I mean, at this point. I mean, if it comes back as a food distribution service, then, no, you wouldn't see it. If it comes back as a White Castle or something. MR. KREBS-Right, none of us have. MR. FORD-1 don't have a crystal ball. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. FORD-What we're dealing with is what is existing, right now, and what is proposed. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they can always put down a binder, which, you know, is a cheaper cost a way and it's a heavier layer of rock that would keep it down. MR. FORD-1 certainly agree with that, but apparently one has not been put down to alleviate the dust problem that has existed for months, probably years. MR. JARRETT-The whole site, you're saying the whole site? Or just the new parking area? MR. FORD-At least the new parking area. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd be more concerned on the Second Avenue. If we're going to make him pave it. MR. FORD-Near Jim's? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's the side where I know that that dirt and the dust has always been there. MR. FORD-1 know it is. MR. MAGOWAN-And that would be more the side that I'd see if we were going to make him, you know, pave it, or ask for him to pave it, would be the side, because you do have that 20 foot runaway or, you know, section of paved already to bring you out onto the Main Street. I was more worried about people carrying the stuff out onto the road. MR. TRAVER-And that's where the dust (lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the dust complaints are coming from Second Street. MR. FORD-And I can understand why. MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind that, again, I'm not espousing any side on this, is that if you were to require them to pave that, you would have to put in stormwater controls at that point, which would probably be a couple of drywells. I don't know what it would be, but that would add to that, because there's definitely runoff that would come off there. There's runoff that comes off right now. MR. JARRETT-He does have stormwater management on that side. I don't know if it's compliant. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it's running right off into. MR. JARRETT-I think the grading is probably poor. MR. OBORNE-1 agree. MR. JARRETT-He has drywells there. I just don't know if they're compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other 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? I know we had some comments back in April. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. OBORNE-1 do have public comment. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You do? Okay. MR. OBORNE-And this is from Geoffrey Burke, Patrick Butler and Margaret McClure. "To Whom It May Concern: A letter was previously presented to the Planning Board (April 16, 2012) regarding the Aronson property at the corner of Main Street and Second Street. We do not object to the proposal on Main street but we did request that the parking lot area be a solid surface (blacktop) not gravel or stone dust as it is at present. We who live at the end of Second Street cannot leave our windows open due to the dust that funnels down the street. The road itself is continuously filled with gravel, dust and runoff that settles in the street and our driveway. After every rainstorm or with winter runoff, our driveway is filled with gravel that flows down the street into our driveway. In the past month there have been two accidents on Second Street due to the accumulation of gravel and stone dust: one was a motorcyclist and the other a young girl on a bicycle, both were injured, because they lost control hitting the stones on the roadway. We hope that you will seriously consider this request as you are reviewing this proposal." That's it MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that the same letter they wrote in April? MR. OBORNE-No, this was an e-mail sent to me by Mr. Burke on June 20th, similar. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I'm wondering, would there be a possibility that you could create a swale situation where you could only pave maybe six feet and not have to pave the entire parking area? MR. JARRETT-On the Second Street side, or on the new parking? MR. KREBS-On the Second Street side. MR. JARRETT-I've not really looked at the alternatives there, to be honest with you, and I was given specifically no authorization to agree to paving tonight. So I either have to withdraw or table. MR. KREBS-Let's table it, then. Because we need to have some correction, but I can't see paving 23 spaces and then having them come in and rip it up. Maybe there's six feet along Second Avenue then. MR. JARRETT-Do I hear more concern along the Second Street side than I do with the new parking area? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Well, I guess I would request a tabling and I'll go back and talk with Mr. Aronson. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I can bring that message to him that there's more concern on Second Street than there is in the parking area. I'm not quite sure he agrees with that, but. MR. FORD-Well, more concern, more concern with the Second Street. I still have concern with the other. MR. JARRETT-I'll phrase it that way. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-So I do request a tabling at this point. MR. OBORNE-It's going to be out to August. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. JARRETT-Apparently with the letter that had been received, I don't think that's going to be a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-And we will leave the public hearing open. Do you think you could get a submission in by July 16th? MR. JARRETT-Certainly, we can get a decision on what we plan to do and get it in by July 16tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Do you want to do an August 21St? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. JARRETT-August 21St? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Are you ready? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 21-2012 BEN L. ARONSON MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2012 BEN L. ARONSON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the August 21St Planning Board meeting with a deadline of July 16th for submission of information. This is at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JARRETT-One clarification while I'm still on the record. Would the Board consider partial paving of that side, as was mentioned as an alternative? I can look at all the alternatives. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think, speaking for myself, we'll consider something reasonable. MR. KREBS-Whatever reduces dust problems. MR. JARRETT-I'll look at the alternatives and then present them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we need to address the issue. MR. FORD-You understand as well as we do what the issues are, address them please. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I do. MR. OBORNE-And everybody's aware that that whole Second Street, that's wide open there, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's part of the problem. MR. OBORNE-I'm sure that exacerbates the situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. See you in August. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Yes, we'll see you then. NEW BUSINESS: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) SITE PLAN NO. 34-2012 SEAR TYPE II MICHAEL GLEASMAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 52 '/2 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING U-SHAPED WHARF AND REPLACE WITH A 164 SQ. FT. 30 FOOT LONG L-SHAPED WHARF WITH 480 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: SIDE LINE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 29-12; BP 11- 264; BP 11-237, AV 74-05, AV 96-04, AV 61-03, SP 40-03 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA; LGPC LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-7 SECTION 179-5-050, 179-9 MICHAEL GLEASMAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe the Planning Board is aware of this issue. You issued a recommendation two days ago for this. He did receive his Area Variance last night, no conditions. It's a teardown re-build. He's already torn down a portion of the north dock, I believe it is. MR. GLEASMAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And to accommodate a larger boat. He does have Lake George Park Commission approval for this. I believe that is the case, and there's really not much to add to this at this point. He has offered a planting plan below his wall, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GLEASMAN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GLEASMAN-Yes, Michael Gleasman. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. GLEASMAN-1 don't know if there's anything new to add. Just that this was something we kind of inherited. We purchased the land six months ago in December and the current condition wasn't really usable. It was very unsafe, crooked. The boathouse had to come down that was on there, and so we simply just want to replace it with something less than what was there. We don't want an enclosed boathouse. We just want to do a single pier dock versus a U-shaped with just an open-sided sundeck. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-1 think you've tried to fill in some plantings in there. You could get help from the Water Keeper who can give you some more ideas, possibly, but you don't have much space to work with. It's steep enough slope, but it's just not convenient to work on. Black-eyed Susans is probably one of your better ones you can substitute or add some more. MR. GLEASMAN-Black-eyed Susan? MR. SIPP-Yes, it has deep roots, and will hold the soil. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Did anyone want to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. If there are no further comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #34-2012 MICHAEL GLEASMAN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to remove existing U-shaped wharf and replace with a 164 sq. ft. 41 foot long L-shaped wharf with 480 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 6/19/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 6/21/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/21/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2012 MICHAEL GLEASMAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II SEAR; 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. 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) 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 this 21 st day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. GLEASMAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2012 SEAR TYPE II GLENN DURLACHER OWNER(S) JOHN MILLER ZONING CM-COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION STATE ROUTE 9-VACANT PARCEL NEXT TO 1048 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES WOOD CARVING SCULPTURE AND DISPLAY. NEW RETAIL USES IN A CM ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.06 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-13 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, summarize Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 33-2012 for Glenn Durlacher. New retail uses require Planning Board review and approval. This is a vacant parcel next to 1048 Route 9, which is Adirondack Audio. Commercial Moderate is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Basically the applicant proposes woodcarving, sculpture and display fronting on State Route 9. Staff's only issue is with pedestrian access and control, and the existing landscaping is in need of attention, for lack of a better term. This is, again, a stump carving operation. We have a few of them in the Town. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) He does not plan to put up a structure right now, but you may see somewhere down the road he'll be putting up a tent structure that will require your approval, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? MR. OBORNE-Nobody's here. Let me check outside and see if anybody's floating around. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I guess we'll jump ahead and come back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He'll probably be here next Tuesday night. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll skip that one and come back to it if someone shows up. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We're here to discuss that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 know that. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MR. OBORNE-You could open the public hearing, or wait until after Mr. Parillo's. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to go to Parillo. We'll come back and I'll give you an opportunity. MR. OBORNE-It'll be one more application, to give the applicant time to come on in and talk. MR. KREBS-Understand that we've been a little quicker than usual tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Normally you wouldn't get heard this soon anyway. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2012 SEAR TYPE II FRANK PARILLO AGENT(S) J. LAPPER B P S R OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 199 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CLEAR 2.4 ACRES OF VEGETATION FROM EXISTING 4.92 ACRE PARCEL FOR WHAT THE APPLICANT STATES IS FOR MARKETING PURPOSES. DISTURBANCE OF LAND 1 ACRE OR MORE IN SIZE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 54-2011, SV 53-2011, BP 2012-240 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 4.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2- 2,3 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-010 JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This is Site Plan 31-2012 for Frank Parillo. Requested action is Site Plan Review for disturbance of land of one acre or more. 199 Corinth Road is the location. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. It's a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Referral was a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes to clear 2.4 acres of vegetation from existing 4.92 acres parcel for what the applicant states is for marketing purposes. What Staff has put in the notes basically is this is another, for lack of a better term, bite at the apple to get traffic out to a signalized intersection with this parcel. So, consideration should be given to that, and if the road is to be extended, if Mr. Parillo agrees to that, then signage will have to be forthcoming also. Existing wastewater system associated with the single family dwelling to be decommissioned, and the clarification on the method of decommission should be brought forward. Engineering comments are attached, and it's a straightforward plan, a clearing, for marketing purposes. He's not going to disturb the soil or do any grading at this point in time. My understanding, one more thing and I'll finish, is that since there's going to be vehicles on site and equipment on site for the construction of the Taco Bell, at that time, they'd go ahead and clear it. So it's not like it's separate to this. That's my understanding, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WRIGHT-Good evening. John Wright from Bartlett Pontiff. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm here with Mr. Parillo. As the Board knows, this is the Taco Bell site. The impetus behind the application here is that there is a house, garage and shed just to the west of where the Taco Bell drive aisle would be, that obviously need to go before Taco Bell goes in. Two very incompatible uses, and so the plan right now, Mr. Parillo's been in contact with West Glens Falls Fire Department. They're going to use it as a training exercise and actually burn the home, and 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) in order to do that obviously trees near the house need to go, and so that was the start of the project, and certainly with the planned development of the project, the site is going to need to be cleared. So the idea is to do it all at once. There will be grass, seeded, planted. Anything that's disturbed will be planted and maintained. Mr. Parillo's got several other properties in the area that he has grassed, planted and maintained. He's got a gentleman on Staff that will mow. That's what he does. He spends most of his time mowing. So the site will be kept up in that respect. As for Staff's comment about the drive connecting back to Big Bay, Taco Bell's been approved by this Board, and that wasn't a condition of that approval. This particular application has absolutely nothing to do with adding traffic or anything of that sort. So we think it would be an inappropriate condition to attach that to this particular application. We understand the concern that when there is further development of the property, perhaps that would be something that needs to be done, but right now, in terms of the clearing and erosion control, it really has nothing to do with this application. So we think that's for a later date. To address the engineering comments, there were two that we did want to address, one being endangered species and the other being archeology. It's our understanding from other projects in this area that there's no implication for the Kamer blue or any other endangered species. So we'd ask that that not be made any sort of condition of this project, and in terms of archeological studies, the soil's not being disturbed. Trees are being taken down, and really the only soil disturbance is being done where the house already is, which obviously has already been disturbed. So this project itself is not going to disturb any soil that would require an archeological study. There's no excavation, as Mr. Oborne said, and so we'd ask that those two engineering comments not be incorporated into the approval as any sort of condition, and again, you know, anything that is disturbed is going to be planted with grass, and so it's a flat site that will be maintained, and so we think that the controls that are going to be put in place will do the job. So if the Board has any questions, Mr. Parillo and I are all ears. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-That's a pretty heavily wooded area, isn't it? Are you going to be leaving the stumps in, grassing over them? FRANK PARILLO MR. PARILLO-No, they will be removed. We have several (lost words) of some parcels that we own that we mow on a regular basis. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know a lot of your lands, Frank. You keep a nice job keep them up. MR. PARILLO-The stumps will be removed, topsoil will be put in place. Will be mowed on a regular basis. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That building you're burning down, does that have a basement? MR. PAR ILLO-Yes, it does. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to take that out? MR. PARILLO-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good. MR. OBORNE-If I could have a point of clarification on endangered species and archeology. Staff's not requesting that. Obviously, that is something from the engineer. That is a requirement of the DEC. That is not our requirement. That is the requirement for the SWPPP, and we do not come off that. That's a DEC rule. That's not our rule. So you won't get coverage under the General Permit unless you have proof of endangered species and archeology. MR. WRIGHT-Certainly, yes, we'll do what we have to do with them. MR. OBORNE-It's been streamlined a bit recently, for a bit. MR. MAGOWAN-Also the back entrance access road, I see it coming out onto Big Bay, is that going to be across the house where it's going to be a problem with the people exiting in the future of use? MR. PARILLO-That's a part of(lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, I know the houses go, I mean, because I know Curtis Lumber, you're going to be right up against there, and I know there's houses that are close, you know, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) close by that vicinity. I was just wondering if that roadway is going to be right in the middle of someone's picture window. MR. PARILLO-We're flexible as to where we can put the road, I mean, to accommodate the neighbors. Believe me, we want to get along with the neighbors. It's just a temporary road for clearing. We've got to come back for Site Plan Review when we develop the rest of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I didn't know if it was a permanent. It looked like it was semi-paved so far in, you know. MR. OBORNE-That's a temporary construction entrance. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Okay. I'm sorry, it's fine print. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments? Yes, I always thought that was an interesting for the State to get around, you know, to infuse additional regulations, you know, through the SWPPP. MR. OBORNE-Yes, obviously, if they were under a Type I SEQRA or a Long Form, I mean, obviously we'd take care of that here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That's DEC also, but I. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Interesting. MR. KREBS-Well, it wouldn't be the first time that DEC did something stupid. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've got to say what you mean, Don. MR. PARILLO-I have taken some pictures of some other stuff that we mow on a regular basis, if the Board would like to see that. MR. KREBS-Having been a businessman, I know that by doing this you're going to improve the potential of sale or lease of this land. It's going to look better next to the Taco Bell. Until such time as it is used for another application, I don't see any problem with it. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I like the idea, and I kind of wondered why you, but now we know why you didn't come in with Taco Bell and do it all under one thing. So I think it's a great opportunity to bring more businesses over to that side of the Northway and moving up Corinth Road. MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of requirements do you have with, and I'm thinking DEC, SEQRA, with trying to burn the house down as a training? MR. PARILLO-Well, I spoke with the Fire Chief. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I would think that the State would have a big say in that. MR. OBORNE-We leave that to Fire Code New York, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to worry about endangered species, but we're not going to worry about air quality when we torch the house? MR. OBORNE-With Lehigh Cement down the road. I don't know, I don't want to get into. MR. PARILLO-I mean, that was just an offer on my part, I was doing it for community. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All you need is you need two things, you need a permit, a burning permit from the Town and nobody else. DEC has nothing to do with it, and you might want to get a tax certificate from the fire department so you can show that you donated something for training. MR. PARILLO-We do have a demolition permit, but this burning came up after the fact. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's a good way to do it, because the Town will get rid of everything. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you have a certain amount of demo you have to pull out of the house anyway, then you have to make sure that there's no asbestos and other harmful, you know, vinyl siding, stuff like that. I mean, basically you're going to get down to a wood structure so they can practice. MR. PARILLO-Well, they've already been up there and looked. So I mean, as far as the burn permit and all that, I'm going to leave that up to the Fire Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, don't they make you take off the roof, too? MR. PARILLO-The roof is a slate roof. So you don't have to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Only if it's asbestos and only if it's asbestos siding. MR. MAGOWAN-A slate roof, you might be able to get someone to come in and take that off for the slate itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because the fire departments don't like those because they're dangerous. If they come off they can cut your wrist off or something. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just thought it was an interesting question. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing. Let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type II SEQRA so no SEQRA review is necessary, unless of course there's an issue, and I don't think we've identified any, but I can't speak for the whole Board. With that, I'll entertain a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-1 did. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #31-2012 FRANK PARILLO A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to clear 2.4 acres of vegetation from existing 4.92 acres parcel for what the applicant states is for marketing purposes. Disturbance of land 1 acre or more in size requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/21/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2012 FRANK PARILLO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per resolution prepared by Staff. We grant the waiver for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting plans. 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 11; 3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) 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) 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; 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 7) 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; 8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 9) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10)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; 11)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 12)The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. Duly adopted this 21 st day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. PARILLO-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2012 SEAR TYPE II GLENN DURLACHER CONTINUED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll come back to Site Plan No. 33-2012 for Glenn Durlacher, because we did have people here to comment during the public hearing. I don't want to say it's unprecedented the applicant doesn't show up. Usually we just table it and when they come back address it, but since there are members of the audience, I think we owe them the courtesy of being able to comment during the public hearing. So I will open the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for neighbors, interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would ask that you address any of your comments to the Board. We do tape the meeting. The microphones are used to tape the meeting, and the tape is then used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state your name clearly for the record before you make your comments. With that, whoever wants to be first. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Charles McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane, which is just about directly behind where this proposal sits, and I guess that's the first point I want to make is I hope you keep in mind that this property backs up to a residential area. I'm making some assumptions, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) with the applicant not being here, but it sounds like he plans to sell or attempt to sell some of his carvings, and then also create them. Now the first half of that I've got no problem. That's a retail operation. It's appropriate in the Commercial Moderate. The second half I have a real problem with. You could make an argument that the second half is manufacturing, and it qualifies to be in a Heavy Industrial area. Heavy Industrial says you have raw materials stored outside and you have products that are finished stored outside. That's what he's going to be doing. When you described this on paper as being carving, it's kind of misleading, because you think initially carving, okay, he's using knife. He's not. He's going to be using a chainsaw, and it's going to run for a lot of time, and I don't want to listen to a chainsaw when I'm sitting in my backyard, and that's my basic problem with it. The first half of it, if he wants to sell his products in this location, more power to him, but I would like to see the actual manufacturing, sculpting, whatever he wants to call it, done somewhere else. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? CHRIS CORNELL MR. CORNELL-Good evening. Chris Cornell, 6 Cedarwood Drive, within 1,000 feet of this site or less. Been a resident of the Twicwood neighborhood for 17 years, have dealt with many, what I call noise pollution issues, first being the rock concerts that occurred at Great Escape. There were concerts that went into the late evenings, past 10 o'clock, at volume levels that were so loud that it literally rattled the windows of our home, keeping our child up at night. The second was the thunderous sound from the Bobsled, a ride that Great Escape purchased, used and it had a very low, thunderous roar. After many meetings and discussions at boards such as this, Great Escape, I think they paid over $100,000 and had that undercoated with an insulation, and that rectified the situation. Another were the go carts at The Fun Spot. The Go Carts were initially purchased with a deflector plate, which is basically no muffler at all, extremely loud and when you have numerous go carts running constantly, the noise was substantial. Taking those three examples into account, this is another situation that I think is more significant. The reason I say that was the go carts have been quieted down. They're still able to be heard with the mufflers, and those were expensive mufflers that the owner put on it and we appreciated that. The concerts that we had mailings that came out afterwards and they cut the hours back so they didn't go as late and the volume levels were lower. That was appreciated, but with a chainsaw location at that site, first of all it's closer than The Great Escape is to our house, and it's closer than the go carts are, but you don't wear ear protection when you ride a go cart. You don't wear ear protection when you ride on the Bobsled, and you don't wear protection, unless you're pretty old, at a rock concert. Having said that, obviously everybody who's used a chainsaw knows that one of the first rules is you protect your ears because chainsaws make an excessive amount of noise. Everybody who lives in the neighborhood knows who's having work done in their yard when a tree service comes, and everybody drives around the block to see what's getting cut down and why, but when you are carving with a chainsaw, that is continuous. I mean, there's first the rough cut, then there's fine detailing after that, and then there's different tools that are being used. It is very noisy, and with it going constantly, that really affects the quality of the neighborhood, and this is the time of year as well, I know it's tourist season, but this is the time that lots of homes get put on the market and people come to look at homes, and I'll tell you what, when people come into our neighborhood, which is beautiful, and it's an older neighborhood, my house is 1968. It's getting revived, people are putting money into kitchens and bathrooms and it's taking on new life again. When you get out of a car and you hear a chainsaw going, the entire time you're walking through a house, I'm going to tell you right now, you're not going to get the price you're asking, and most likely those people are going to go elsewhere. So I plead with the Board at this time to, when this gentleman comes in hopefully that you have a discussion with him and deny any chainsaw work on that property. I'm all for displaying. I think, you know, helping out business whenever you can, wonderful, but when it's affecting so many people within a neighborhood, it's so close, I just have to be opposed to it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sir, a question. What would you feel if the applicant were to be restricted to only electric chainsaws as opposed to gasoline powered chainsaws? MR. CORNELL-Having never used an electric chainsaw or heard somebody use it, I really can't comment on it. I'm not sure what the decibel level is, but, you know, sound is an interesting thing because depending on the frequency of it, it can travel for some distance. Wind direction as well, humidity, those things all effect sound. It's interesting, because on some days I can hear screams from the Comet rollercoaster, and other days I can't. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we've heard that from other homeowners from that area. MR. CORNELL-And there've been times when at Animal Land people would say, what's that sound I hear, I said, it's a lion. A lion? I said, yes, that's the lion roaring, and, you know, that traveled, that's substantially farther from our home than the chainsaw site, so, I just get 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) concerned because, okay, an electric chainsaw today, nobody's looking, gasoline powered chainsaw tomorrow. So, that's my feeling on it. MR. TRAVER-1 understand. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Well, electric chainsaws do not make any less noise. MR. CORNELL-Well, when I watch the t.v. show that has chainsaw carving, I've never seen them use an electric chainsaw, for the majority of the carving. I know they use like an electric grinder with a chainsaw type bit. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they may not be able to use it. I'm just curious. MR. CORNELL-I'm just throwing that back at you as well, but I'm, again, opposed to any chainsawing on that site. MR. SIPP-Unless you get somebody to hold it, you can't get enough power out of that. It's not made for heavy work. MR. CORNELL-Right. MR. OBORNE-There's one thing that's a problem with an electric chainsaw on this site, there's no electricity on the site. MR. CORNELL-Well then you'd have the gasoline powered generator that's roaring the entire time, so, you know, just be careful, and I can tell that you fellows definitely are, as I've heard this evening, that, you know, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Linda McNulty. We're at 14 and 16 Twicwood Lane, and I just want it on record that I object also. I do not want chainsaws to listen to from morning until probably even nine o'clock at night, because he does not stop, even during the winter. I've seen him, if it's the same one, across from Wal-Mart, I have seen him out there during the winter and it is not pleasant to listen to a chainsaw for any length of time. It is different if you've got a tree being taken down, because at least you know the project is ending at the end of the day, this is ongoing. I really do object. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could, just for a second, that was actually one of the questions that I thought of for you or any of the other neighbors. There's the one carver across from Wal-Mart, but then there's another one further up by Glen Lake Road. Do you hear either one of those? MRS. MC NULTY-No. MR. OBORNE-That's the same one. MR. HUNSINGER-It's the same guy? Okay. MR. OBORNE-He had a falling out with both those locations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MC NULTY-Well, I urge him to find a location that does not back up to a residential neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am, I had a question as well. I think one of the commenters mentioned that the retail side of the business was not necessarily an issue, it was the manufacturing and the chainsaw and so on. MRS. MC NULTY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-What is your feeling about that? MRS. MC NULTY-1 have no problem if he is displaying the sculptures. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) MR. TRAVER-The sales. MRS. MC NULTY-The sales end of it, but I do not want to see anything that will create noise, and I also find them very distracting to drivers along Route 9. That's another consider. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other comments? You didn't have any written comments, did you, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We already have an application. So it's not like we're waiting for new information. If we were to table this to a July meeting date, would that make sense? MR. OBORNE-That's fine. Yes. We will have two extremely full meetings in July, which is fine. That's what we're here for. MR. KREBS-Or do you want to move it to August? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can move it to August. MR. OBORNE-That's up to you. We have room for it if you wish to put it there. MR. KREBS-Move it to August. MR. TRAVER-Why don't we move it to August, that also might give the applicant a better opportunity to look at the public comment. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MC NULTY-1 have a problem in postponing this. MR. KREBS-We have no choice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don't have a choice. MR. KREBS-The applicant is not here. MRS. MC NULTY-It should automatically be denied. MR. OBORNE-He had a death in the family. He was supposed to have somebody come here and represent. MRS. MC NULTY-We have open heart surgery coming up. We've got neighbors that are going to be away at that time. We made the effort to be here. MR. OBORNE-1 am not supporting what he has or hasn't done, but you have to give the applicant a chance. He's not here. MR. TRAVER-He is entitled to due process. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let's table it to August. MR. HUNSINGER-We tabled two to August 21St. So why don't we table this to the 28tH Whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 33-2012 GLENN DURLACHER MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2012 GLENN DURLACHER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the August 28th Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2012, by the following vote: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for members of the audience, if you, I mean, you're certainly welcome to come on the 20th, but if you're unable to, we also will take written comments if you want to make written comments, they'll be read into the record, and of course the comments that were made this evening are already part of the record and will be duly considered. The comments that are going to be transcribed into the record, will they be reviewed during the August 28th date to remind the Board members of what was discussed today? MR. HUNSINGER-No, none of the comments that were made this evening will be re-read into the record again. They're already part of the record. Can we get copies? MR. HUNSINGER-You absolutely can. You can go to the Town website or you could come into the office and copies will be available to you. RAYMOND RHONE MR. RHONE-Raymond Rhone, 4 Cedarwood Drive, Queensbury. Just a question. The question I have is that the opportunity for many of the neighbors to come here in August may be limited. If we had a copy of the comments, which I thought were very ably presented this evening, and probably sum the general position of the neighborhood, if we could go to the neighbors and say, this is what was said, do you affirm those sentiments, and then bring it back to you people, would it be acceptable evidence of the feeling of the general neighborhood? MR. KREBS-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KREBS-You can do a petition and give it to Keith at the Staff and they will provide us with that information for the next meeting. MR. RHONE-Then I work is cut out for us. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-And I would add that if you talk to any of your neighbors and they want to supply any public comment to send in, I will read it into the record. That's what I'm tasked to do. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and these minutes will be available at Queensbury.net, once they're transcribed, on the Town website. MR. RHONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. Any other business to come before the Board this evening? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you everybody. This is it until July. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2012) Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 25