Loading...
12-18-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2012 INDEX Special Use Permit No. 63-2012 Glens Falls Animal Hospital 1. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-14.1, 16, 17.1 Site Plan No. 75-2012 Cheryl Daniels 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 316.9-1-3 Site Plan No. 55-2012 Thomas & Mary Beth Babcock 4. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12 Site Plan No. 45-2012 Stewart's Shops Corp. 5. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25; 309.13-2-22 Site Plan No. 58-2012 Curtis & Tamara Carstensen 8. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-60 Site Plan No. 57-2012 Ron Miller 11. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-5 Site Plan No. 82-2012 Cindy Trombley 15. Tax Map No. 278.-1-46 Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 18. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 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. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, December 18, 2012. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from October 16tH and 22nd. Would anyone like to move that? MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Actually, Chris, it should say October 23rd MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. October 16tH and October 23rd. It's right on the record of resolution. It's wrong on the agenda. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16TH & OCTOBER 23RD, 2012, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-The next item we have an Administrative Item for Glens Falls Animal Hospital. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SUP 63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested that we table their project until, did they give us a date, Craig? MR. BROWN-No, I don't think they gave us a date. They have to decide what the next course of action they want to take. It's either seek a Use Variance, appeal a decision I made, abandon, modify. So I don't know if they're ready to move forward yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we table it indefinitely, or should we table it to a date specific? MR. BROWN-Well, they certainly didn't submit anything new by our December deadline for a January meeting. So, at the earliest I would pick the first February meeting, as kind of like a control date, and then we can check in and see if they've done anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that would be February 19tH MR. SCHONEWOLF-Hopefully, it's be March by the time the application is in. MR. HUNSINGER-We did have a public hearing scheduled on that. Is there anyone here in the audience that's here this evening for that project? Okay. We will open and then table the public hearing as well. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move that tabling? RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN #63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to board horses as an associated use with the Veterinary Hospital. Proposal to include the use of existing barn on adjoining lot and the creation of a 2.8 acre fenced paddock on a portion of two adjoining lots. Expansion of Veterinary Clinic in an Office zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/16/2012; tabled to 12/18/2012; The Zoning Administrator has made a determination that a Use Variance is required - see letter dated 11/15/2012; MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled until the February 19, 2013 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO 75-2012 SEAR TYPE II CHERYL DANIELS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 5 BOSS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,584 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 64- 12, BP 12-407, 96-733 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 261.9-1-3 SECTION 179-9, 179-3- 040, 179-6-060 MATT STEVES & LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig, do you want to summarize the Staff Notes? MR. BROWN-Yes. The trigger to bring them here before the Board is the construction of a freestanding dwelling within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 50 feet. The recommendation is for a little bit of, I think, side line setback relief, yes, eight feet of relief. I think the applicant's going to talk about a slightly smaller dwelling now that they've kind of refined the plan. Pretty flat site in the area of development. So there's not really a lot of concerns that have been raised in the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Cheryl Daniels on this application, and at the table is Larry Clute who is going to be the builder of this project. Ms. Daniels is in the audience if you had any specific questions that would relate to that that we cannot answer. Briefly, this is property on the west side of Boss Road, along the Hudson River, and she would like to take the existing home that is there and build a new energy compliant, nicer, newer home in that location. If you look at the two plans we have, I'll go over it real quickly. The existing one story wood frame house that lies extremely close to the northerly line, specifically the northwest corner of the house is only four feet off the property line, and then the next corner heading toward the road is seven feet, and the existing porch is only 23.7 off of the road highway bounds. The proposal is to build a new house in basically the same location, push it back a little bit so that it was compliant with the front setback, compliant with the south setback, and the river setback, and slide it parallel to that north line with a 12 foot setback. The one reason, which we'll be explaining, again, to the Zoning Board, but so that you understand, is the way we had (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) aligned this house with the garage front loaded and to the right hand side as you look at it, because she has a newer septic system that was installed I don't know exactly how long ago, but we could show you where the location of the existing septic is in the southeasterly corner of the property, and we do not want to have to disturb that because that is a new system, newer system, and like Craig said, if you look at the topography, it is flat until you hit the top of that slope that goes down to the river, we want to maintain that, the building on the upper level of that and not get into that bank at all. We had to make it compliant with the front setback, have a little bit of room for your car in the driveway and not be 23 feet off the road, but then again also accommodating the existing septic system, and that's why, again, it's in front of the Planning Board as well. There is one slight change. There's a couple of different numbers that come up on different applications, as far as the building, 2,204 square feet. After modifying the plan and getting the final plans for the design with the contractor, the homeowner, it is now, including all the porches, which it's 2,098 square feet, that includes the house, the garage and the porches. We have just one final comment. This is on municipal water as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No, not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is this built on a slab, is that built on a slab or has it got a full foundation? MR. CLUTE-Full foundation, yes, sir. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why you don't want to get too close to the septic. MR. CLUTE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it seemed pretty straightforward. Any questions or comments? MR. KREBS-I like the way they set it back from the road a little bit. It still doesn't go over the Cliff. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a little tight driving down there. In fact, I went all the way to the end and turned around thinking, I wonder how the snow plows do that. It must be tricky. I thought it seemed pretty straightforward. If there's no concerns from the Board, we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#64-12 CHERYL DANIELS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,584 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Construction within 50 feet of slopes greater than 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Request for front and side setback relief. Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the ZBA. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2012 FOR CHERYL DANIELS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The rest of the items this evening have public hearings scheduled with them. On the back table there is a handout for information on public hearings and what they entail and how they proceed, and if you are here this evening and plan to address the Board during a public hearing, I would ask that you take a look at those and familiarize yourself with the process. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK AGENT(S) ROBERT NAPOLI OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 15 CHESTNUT ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. EXPANSION OF A NOW CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. _CROSS REFERENCE A V 45-12, AV 73-90, SP 35-88A, AV 1415; BP 91-379, 88-832 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And that applicant has requested that we table their project until a January meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that's here to address the Board on that project? We will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought one of these, Craig, they did ask for a specific date, but I guess not. MR. BROWN-They didn't, but it would work best for us if we went with the first date, the 15th. MR. HUNSINGER-The first date, which is the 15tH MR. MAGOWAN-How is January looking? MR. BROWN-It's full. MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make a motion to table this to January 15th, at the applicant's request? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN # 55-2012 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 168 sq. ft. addition to existing single family home. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/28/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012, tabled to 10/16/2012 and further tabled to 12/18/2012; Type I I SEQRA-no further review necessary; On 12/11/2012 the applicant sent an e-mail requesting to be tabled to a January meeting: MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the January 15, 2013 Planning Board meeting, at the applicant's request. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING Cl & CLI LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD & 481 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) DRIVE-THRU LANES ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED 1,450 SQ. FT. BANK TO BE LOCATED IN EXISTING VACANT SPACE. FURTHER, SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE CONNECTION TO SEWER, PARKING AND DRIVE AISLE RECONFIGURATION AND LANDSCAPING. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN A Cl AND CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 5-2001, PZ 2-2001 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 LOT SIZE 2.70, 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25; 309.13-2-22 SECTION 179-9 CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig, whenever you're ready to summarize notes. MR. BROWN-Let me catch up here a little bit. I believe these guys were tabled last time. This is, I guess, the basic application is renovation to the Stewart's for the bank and the drive thru and the site improvements. I think you guys tabled them last time for some updated information on some lighting, I think some banking lighting standards, and I think they've submitted that with their previous submittal, and there was also, with the removal of the house on the adjacent property, there was some landscaping issues that came up. A tree was removed inadvertently and I think they've offered a fix to replace that tree. So this is just a, I think the tidying up of the lighting issues you guys had with them last time. MR. MARSHALL-I'm Chuck Marshall with Stewart's. The last time I was here, as Craig discussed, you guys gave conditional approval so that we could do the tree removal to remove the house, and literally I stood in front of you and said if there's a problem, I'll fix it, and I had an on-site meeting with Bruce Frank and the tree contractor, and you guys all know where the site is. Before I was on the Northway ramp, my phone rang and they said, I cut the wrong tree down. So I wrote the Chairman a letter, and we'll replace it with the same type of tree that was there. We did work on the lighting, on the photometric plan, to address the concerns of the Board, and that's on the back side of that plan, if you want to go over it. I know the bigger concern was, as we approach our neighbors, and we've brought those below the required maximum limits. What I handed out to you is, when I was here, it was just a conversation about limiting the access along Corinth Road, and what I did was I used, on the back side of the chart is the New York State DOT Average Annual Daily Traffic. So I took the Average Annual Daily Traffic and figured that for the four year period DOT had records of accidents, how many cars went through the intersection and how many cars were involved in accidents and how many of those accidents pertained to the Stewart's lot. So in an effort to limit the Board's concerns, your chances of being in an accident are about one in 4.25 million. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's getting better, too, year after year. MR. MAGOWAN-Must be that good coffee. MR. MARSHALL-Everyone's awake, or they're having an ice cream cone and they leave happy, but, no, I knew it was a concern and I wanted to do something to show that, I think the existing traffic situation works for us, and I think that a lot of people, myself included, do use the exit and entrance on Big Bay Road, and use the light to access Corinth Road. The only other thing I want to address is that we did add additional planting along the southern boundary with our neighbor, and that was both to help with the photometric, but also I think that there were some landscaping concerns just voiced. So we wanted to make what we had a little bit better. There are some TDE comments regarding stormwater drainage. I have spoken with Sean Doty from Chazen and think that we can work through, in an effort to mitigate what he wants. He doesn't want drywells and he doesn't want roof, only roofs are supposed to run into drywells. So, what he proposed was a drainage trench and we have no problem doing that, and think that that'll be a solution agreeable to both parties. MR. HUNSINGER-Where did he suggest you put it, or didn't you (lost words)? MR. MARSHALL-It'll be actually in the, almost in the foundation of the existing house. So we'll run everything, because that's basically where the additional impervious area is going to be is in the vicinity of where the house was, as we re-configure the parking. So that works well because there'll be a green space area anyway, and it'll be under the grass. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I notice many times when I go to that site is that parking lot on the south, people kind of use that for commuter parking. I mean, I've done it (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) myself, you know, met people there who drive down the Northway, and I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are about that and how that might play into the overall parking plan or parking strategy. MR. MARSHALL-We obviously encourage, you know, people to, I guess it's a Catch-22. We encourage people to go to Stewart's. We don't, we would prefer that customers, and I'm assuming now with the potential for a tenant as, a bank as a tenant, there'll be slightly more demand for that space, but honestly it hasn't been brought to us as an issue from the shop level. Our stores are very good about letting us know when there's a continuous problem, and it hasn't been a big enough problem where I've heard about it at my level, and I definitely would be one of the people that would hear about it. So while we don't encourage people to do it, we, like in some of the ends it says understand that they do, but again, it hasn't been a problem where it's displaced our customers. So we haven't done anything, I don't feel that we need to do anything to address it at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Have you run into that in other stores before? MR. MARSHALL-We have, but again, we put up either no parking signs or, there's not much, I mean, there's not much you can do. With the number of partners we have working in the shops, if you have parking further from the shop than right in front, it happens. I mean, it happens, in Little Falls, NY we're next to a funeral home. So we know that when there's funerals, people park in our lot. We don't encourage it, but, again, it's part of being a neighbor and it's part of being part of the community, you know, everyone knows where Stewart's is, which works well for us. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is there going to be a bank in there? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. There is going to be a bank in there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, because I think we had a discussion about what the standards were for, you know, for an automatic teller machine for the lighting, and I assume. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I believe we forwarded the regulations from the banking department to the Town Staff. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I mean, it doesn't matter, you've got to do it, if you have that kind of machine. MR. MARSHALL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and one of the other things that we were concerned about is when you submitted the existing photometric plan, it was greater than what had been proposed, if you recall, and I know that was one of the concerns on a couple of items, well, so, you know, we appreciate the revised one. It seems like the revised one took care of the vast majority of the issues that we had addressed at the last meeting. Other questions or comments from the Board? I guess I just wanted to go back, though, to the stormwater issue and where the drainage swale would be and how that would be constructed, because that is a site plan issue. MR. MARSHALL-If you look at the existing house, the property is pretty well delineated, with the bolded hashed. If you look at inside the foundation, which is the lighter hashed inside, it's our anticipation to put 24 inch HCP pipe wrapped in stone, and basically just pack the stone around it. The pipe will be perforated, and the water will run through it. It's about 60 feet of 24 inch pipe. So, again, I spoke with Sean Doty from Chazen, and understand that everything has to go through the Town for formal acceptance, but he thinks that, if anything, our system's oversized, which we'd rather be safe than sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-And one of the advantages of having the house down now is you get a better feel for the site, and you begin to appreciate how close that neighbor is. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I just wanted to make sure, you don't have any plans to take that fence down? MR. MARSHALL-No, we don't have any plans to take the fence down. In fact, we were trying to separate ourselves with the green space and the planting. So we, you know, understand the (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) concerns of our neighbors and when there's that residential commercial mix, we do try and provide a balance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are members comfortable with the revised lighting plan and the landscaping plan? MR. KREBS-I just added to the draft, that including the drainage, engineering signoff required prior to signature by the Zoning Administrator of the approved plans including the drainage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Just so that brings that to everybody's attention. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no further questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments? MR. BROWN-No comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received, and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there are no further questions, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN #45-2012 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of three (3) drive-thru lanes associated with a proposed 1,450 sq. ft. bank to be located in existing vacant space. Further, site improvements to include connection to sewer, parking, and drive aisle reconfiguration and landscaping. Commercial expansion in a CI and CLI zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/2012 tabled to 12/18/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO .45-2012 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. We are re-affirming previous SEAR findings. No waivers were requested. The applicant has offered to replace the tree taken down. 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) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans, including the drainage; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) 5) 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 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. KREBS-And we have a Negative SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. MR. BROWN-Yes. I'm just looking at Staff Notes. It looks like you guys may have done SEAR before. It says Unlisted previous. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because this is a modification. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you can just, we can just confirm the SEAR. Right. MR. BROWN-Re-affirm your previous findings, yes. MR. KREBS-Waiver requests granted for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't think they requested any waivers, though. I think that's just in the standard resolution. So no waivers were requested. MR. KREBS-Engineering signoff required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans, including the drainage. MR. MAGOWAN-1 second it. MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion. The only thing that we might want to add is the applicant's offer to replace the tree. I mean, it's on the record, but it probably should be part of the resolution. MR. MARSHALL-It was one of those things, it was like, me, you, don't cut the tree, don't cut the tree, don't cut the tree. MR. HUNSINGER-1 really appreciated the way you took responsibility for it, you know, offered a solution before we even had to ask. I really appreciated that. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I sat here and said, something happens, I will fix it, and five minutes into it, I had to fix it. MR. HUNSINGER-We've had other applicants not to be named that went ahead and, you know, clear cut half a mountain and said well, you know, we couldn't sell the house without the view. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion, any further discussion? Hearing none, call the vote. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MARSHALL-Thank you, all. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 58-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 CURTIS & TAMARA CARSTENSEN AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 18 HOLLY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) WALK AND STAIRS AND REPLACE WITH NEW PATIO, STAIRS AND DRY LAID STONE WALL RESULTING IN +/- 564 SQ. FT. OF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF SHORELINE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: SHORELINE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-12 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-60 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Anytime you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, Craig. MR. BROWN-Yes, I'm just, I'm going through the one of them that Keith has here talks about site plan review application proposed front and both side setbacks have been reduced to zero. Clarification is requested in order to avoid additional variances. I'm just trying to catch up on that. Is that something that rings a bell with you? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. BROWN-Because I haven't seen it on the plan either. MR. JARRETT-That doesn't sound correct at all. MR. BROWN-I'm not sure what he's talking about. MR. JARRETT-We were at the ZBA. You saw this project previously, as you may remember. We went to the ZBA and they were not totally comfortable with the design originally. They asked us to, they tabled it and asked us to consider permeable pavers, which we did. We obtained a small credit from the Town Engineer, but albeit a credit, and then the ZBA approved it, so I think we're all set with regard to zoning issues. MR. BROWN-Yes, I'm not seeing it on the page Keith referenced in his notes, when he drafted these, about a zero setback. MR. JARRETT-There's definitely no structures that are at zero setback, so I'm not sure. MR. HUNSINGER-And we have a copy of the variance resolution. MR. BROWN-I know there was a shoreline setback variance you needed. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. BROWN-But I'm not seeing that the front, which you're not really planning anything on the front of the parcel by the street or the side setback. MR. JARRETT-No. MR. BROWN-So I would think under Additional Comments, that second bullet item, I would just ignore that. I'm not really sure what that is, and it appears as though, obviously the variance has been granted for the shoreline relief, and this is a little bit smaller project than you saw the last time, right. Did you reduce the impermeability or the size of the patio? MR. JARRETT-The size of the patio did not change. MR. BROWN-You got some credit for the construction. MR. JARRETT-But we got credit for permeable construction. MR. BROWN-Okay. So it's a more permeable project. MR. JARRETT-It's more permeable now. The other thing I want to point out is that we're managing basically all the stormwater from the front lakeside of the house in this proposed system onto the patio. So we're treating stormwater from existing pervious areas that we don't have to do. So we're offering that and we think it's a benefit. It's a win/win for neighbors, the lake, the Town. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) MR. BROWN-And it looks like there's only one outstanding engineering comment, and that has to do with some soil testing that, I guess, can happen during construction seems like a reasonable time to do it. MR. JARRETT-Yes. There's been confusion as to how deep test pits need to be within the Lake George basin. We're getting it straightened out, but essentially Chazen has advised that we can do this extra testing just prior to construction and modify the design. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and they also said they had no problem with approving it contingent on that. MR. JARRETT-And I can tell the Board that I've witnessed the soils myself and they're very granular in that area, excellent infiltration. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we kind of jumped right into your presentation. Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. JARRETT-No, I think we've enhanced the project since you saw it last, and I'm very happy with it. I hope you are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open it up for questions or comments from members of the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I see the improvements. I like them. It's a plus, plus for me. I like the whole system underneath the porch roof. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, most of the stormwater comes off the road. MR. JARRETT-Certainly dirty stormwater does. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. You should see it now, this week. MR. HUNSINGER-No questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see anyone. MR. BROWN-Nothing here. MR. HUNSINGER-No comments in the file. So I will close the public hearing and let the record note no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II action. So no SEAR review is required unless there's an issue that we identified. With that, unless there's a question or comment from the Board, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN # 58-2012 CURTIS & TAMARA CARSTENSEN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to remove existing concrete walk and stairs and replace with new patio, stairs, and dry laid stone wall resulting in +/-564 sq. ft. of total impervious surface. Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of shoreline and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/25/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/28/2012; Type II SEAR-no further review necessary; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/18/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2012 CURTIS & TAMARA CARSTENSEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 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) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) 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 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-And in that draft is the engineer's signoff. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN 57-2012 SEAR TYPE II RON MILLER AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 107 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE A PORTION OF AND INSTALL TERRACED LANDSCAPING THAT INCLUDES DRY LAID STONE WALLS, CONSTRUCTION OF A +/- 250 SQ. FT. FLAGSTONE PATIO, AND VEGETATED RETENTION AREAS TO TREAT STORMWATER. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF SHORELINE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-12, AV 73-96 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-5 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BROWN-Yes, similar to the last project, the back and forth with the Zoning Board and engineering, the variance was granted. Similar changes to the design with the, I guess the introduction of more permeability in the design with stone between the dry laid, the patio pavers or stones. So this is, again, a little bit more permeable project than you've seen previously. A couple more, four, five or six more different engineering comments, but all things that I think can be figured out. Not a lot to it. You guys have seen it a couple of times already. It's just they have the variance now and it's a little bit more permeable than you saw last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-We'll do it by the numbers this time. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, and with me is Mr. Miller, the owner of the property. As Craig said, this is very similar to the prior application. You have seen it before. The Zoning Board wanted us to add some permeability to the project, which we have done in two ways this time. We've not only modified the construction, but we reduced the size of the patio, which the Zoning Board was pleased with. A lot more landscaping on this project and throughout the site, as you can see, including we (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) propose removing asphalt driveways and putting in a rain garden for that runoff from the existing driveway that remained. We landed in a Catch-22. The Town Engineer has stated that we're less than 100 feet from Lake George with that rain garden. We can't do it without a variance. So I frankly feel, based on the regulations, that this Board has the right to waive those standards, you know, Craig will weigh in. If you wish not to waive them, then we'll remove the stormwater from that area, because I don't want to go back to the Zoning Board for this. So frankly that's the Catch-22 we're in. I think Craig's correct on the remaining issues, that they're technical in nature with the re-zoning pretty quickly, but this Catch-22 on the separation to Lake George, the whole lot is 103 feet deep. We can't comply, and right now the runoff is there. So it's running onto neighbor's properties and into Lake George. So what do we do? MR. KREBS-You're much better off to have the rain garden. MR. JARRETT-I would think. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember we had extensive discussion about this previously. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I'm hoping the Board will work with us on this. MR. BROWN-And I guess the weigh in for me is, you know, historically and pretty consistently, the way we've treated any infiltration devices within 100 feet of the shoreline, that's a dimensional requirement that's in our Code currently. That's something I'd like to look at changing and making the purview of this Board rather than the Zoning Board, but right now we look at it as dimensional relief, and if they want to have that there, I think they would need a variance to do that. I'm not sure if it's required in your design, if you can stand to lose it. MR. JARRETT-It is not required. It does not affect the proposed patio at all. It's just a benefit to the lake and the neighbors. If it's listed as a dimensional requirement specifically in the Code, then I stand corrected. DEC and the Park Commission, which are the parent regulations for Queensbury's Code, do allow waivers with regard to existing development. When you're managing stormwater from existing impervious areas, they allow a lot of flexibility, not as much with new impervious, for sure, but with existing they do allow it, but if it's a dimensional Code, then we'll have to live with it. We will withdraw that aspect of the project. We'll just put landscaping in there. It won't be an infiltration system. MR. HUNSINGER-So can you describe on the site plan where that would be? MR. JARRETT-If you look at Retention Area A, which is up in the top right corner of your diagram on C-1, there's a little label that says Retention Area A, just next to it is the existing asphalt to be removed. There's a couple of leaders there, and we're going to build the rain garden in that spot. Instead of a rain garden now, it'll just be a landscaping bed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We won't infiltrate stormwater there. It'll just be landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, before we've had lengthy discussion about, well, what's considered infiltration and. MR. JARRETT-That debate could still be waged here, but we'll take it out of this. It could get late here quickly. So we'll just call it landscaping. We won't put a depression in and infiltrate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Question I would ask, though, is it still going to accomplish a lot of what you were hoping the rain garden would accomplish? MR. JARRETT-Not nearly as much. Not nearly as much, but I don't think, I think your hands are tied, based on what Craig said. MR. BROWN-Yes, they are. I think, yes, I mean, we can talk about it if you want to, but if you're going to construct a device that's constructed as an infiltration device. MR. JARRETT-Is intended as that. MR. BROWN-Is intended as that, we have to call it that and make sure it meets our plans. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) MR. JARRETT-Certainly on the record we won't construct it with that intent. We will construct it as landscaping. MR. BROWN-Right. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-For meeting issues, I think we've discussed a lot, and I'm hoping the Board is happy with the remaining aspects of the project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that true that Frank Sinatra owns the land next to you? RON MILLER MR. MILLER-I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I said is that true, if you look at the map, it says Frank Sinatra. MR. MILLER-Yes, it is. MR. JARRETT-I was just refreshing my memory on that tonight, and it was like. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it like that Michael Jordan commercial on tv? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes, very much so, otherwise there would be more crowds on Rockhurst. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I did have a couple of questions, though, on the engineering comments. One, well, if we remove the infiltration device, then we don't have to worry about it being 100 feet from a well. MR. JARRETT-Those issues go away. That's the one, and there are no wells, by the way. There's water supplies from the lake, all the neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-All the neighbors. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-That issue goes away. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? I think I would tend to agree with your comment that it's a better design than when we saw it. We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-Nothing new. MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there's further questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN NO. 57-2012 RON MILLER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to eliminate a portion of and install terraced landscaping that includes dry laid stone walls, construction of a +/- 250 sq. ft.. flagstone patio, and vegetated retention areas to treat stormwater. Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of shoreline and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/28/2012; Type I I SEQRA-no further review necessary; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/18/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2012 RON MILLER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff, removing Item Two (draft Item 2 removed). 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) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) 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 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. BROWN-Were there any waivers sought or granted with this? Just to be clear, it's a pickem here. MR. JARRETT-I don't think so. MR. BROWN-Okay. I would just remove Item Two, then. MR. KREBS-Okay. Remove Item Two. MR. BROWN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you. Great. NEW BUSINESS: (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) SITE PLAN NO. 82-2012 SEAR TYPE II CINDY TROMBLEY AGENT(S) PETER BROWN OWNER(S) MORRIS PRODUCTS, INC. ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 1347 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A DOG GROOMING/RETAIL BUSINESS IN A PORTION OF EXISTING BUILDING. CHANGE OF USE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS IN A NC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 98-582 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-146 SECTION 179-9 CINDY TROMBLEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig. MR. BROWN-Basically a recycling, reoccupation of a building, an existing building at the intersection of Bay and 149. No proposed improvements to the site. Thoughts are maybe we want to look at some landscaping improvements there. They've requested waivers from lighting, stormwater, grading and landscaping because they're not planning to do anything to the site. So we'll want to consider those waivers, and then just, you know, snow storage, you know, what's going to happen on the site, what currently happens on the site, what's going to happen, wastewater, and I think the Fire Marshal had a comment that had no concerns. This is a first time around with this project. It went to Warren County and that was No County Impact. So Type I I SEAR. I think we're ready to move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MRS. TROMBLEY-Hi. I'm Cindy Trombley. This is my husband Mike. I'm just looking to open a dog grooming retail business in one section of the building that's pre-existing as commercial, to do dog grooming, sell toys, treats, accessories, and things like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else? MRS. TROMBLEY-1 don't think so. I know we had requested the waiver for some of the things since it's existing and we're not making any changes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. How about signs? I mean, I did see a sign sample. MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes. We had that in there. We couldn't go any further with anything until we could make sure that this was going to get through. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MR. KREBS-But any sign will just have to be, you know, per the Code. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think there's a, isn't there a French Mountain log sign there? Were you thinking about just adding a panel to that kind of thing? MRS. TROMBLEY-1 think the picture's all in there, transposed everything on there. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in here. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. DEEB-How many dogs do you usually get at one time? MRS. TROMBLEY-I'm going to do this by appointment. I'm strictly hands on. I don't like to have dogs sitting in a crate or a kennel. I like to have it so that I know that my dog is being taken care of. So any one time I would say maybe two if there's a family that's got two dogs coming in. So I want one in, one out. I don't want to have a house full of dogs just sitting there. I don't think it's right for the dog or, you know. MR. DEEB-I was just curious. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the retail portion, I mean, do you see people just coming in for the retail, or do you see it only as being people that are in for grooming services? MRS. TROMBLEY-I'm hoping. I'm hoping for retail coming in. I want to sell like the gourmet treats and have like the leashes, collars, toys, so that it's a, Christmas time, people come in and get little goodies for the little stockings. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Well, I have two dogs and I live about two miles down the road. MRS. TROMBLEY-Good. MR. BROWN-Well, I think that's an important question. That's something that we talked about. The question was, does this use fit here, and it goes along with your question about how many animals are going to be there at one time, and it's a grooming and retail. It's not a kennel. It's not a boarding. So that's why it's not considered a kennel, it's considered a retail facility that also offers grooming and whatever goes on. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course if the use is primarily retail, there's going to be more traffic, more need for parking. MR. BROWN-Right, and I think that's the way we require them to show the parking, based on the retail square footage requirement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a lot of room for parking there now. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, there's tons of room. MR. SCHONEWOLF-American Tree doesn't park anything there, rarely. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-When do you want to start? MRS. TROMBLEY-Tomorrow. MR. DEEB-You want to get those clippers out, don't you? MRS. TROMBLEY-1 do. I need my hands going. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? No takers? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Nothing in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments, and it's a Type 11 SEAR. They did request waivers for stormwater, lighting, grading and landscaping. There's wall sconces, but is there any other site lighting in the parking area or anything? MRS. TROMBLEY-1 don't believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you planning on being open in the evening when it's dark? MRS. TROMBLEY-Just probably a late night, like six, seven o'clock. No nine o'clock. MR. HUNSINGER-But you had already said it would be more by appointment. MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if you did want to add any outside lighting, especially like a poll light or something like that, you would have to come back for an amendment to your approved site plan. MRS. TROMBLEY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So, no other concerns or comments? MR. KREBS-Entertain a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. You have to close the public hearing. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. We'll close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Maria. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN # 82-2012 CINDY TROMBLEY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a dog grooming / retail business in a portion of existing building. Change of use and no site plan review within the last seven years in a NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval; Type II SEAR-no further review necessary; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/18/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 82-2012 CINDY TROMBLEY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 5) 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 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set. MRS. TROMBLEY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Now how many of these do they have to file, Craig? MR. BROWN-Four. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want some back, so you don't have to make more copies? MR. MAGOWAN-Keep costs down. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ AGENT(S) PETER BROWN OWNER(S) MORRIS PRODUCTS, INC. ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 53 CAREY ROAD, LOTS 4& 13 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30,300 SQ. FT. EXPANSION ADDITION TO EXISTING 30,502 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE RESULTING IN A PROPOSED STRUCTURE SIZE OF 60,802 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL USE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 67-05 SP 69-00 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 4.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And the applicant has requested a tabling resolution. He said because he didn't think we could get to him before 8:30. MR. BROWN-Get him out before 8:30. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Might have made it, but, I mean, it's a significant project. There's some engineering issues with that. So he probably might not have made it. MR. HUNSINGER-He has, the applicant has requested that we table this to January 15tH MR. BROWN-I see that's a question mark in his letter. Again, I'm trying to do the agenda fix up and coordinate it for next month. The 22nd would work best, as far as balancing the meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-They would prefer the 15th. Everybody wants to go as early as possible, but it would work better for the 22nd MR. HUNSINGER-1 had the same thoughts, because the 15th is. MR. MAGOWAN-Can we put them on earlier on the 22nd. MR. BROWN-Yes. As, under Old Business they'd be higher up on the agenda, sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Because usually on the first meeting is when we do all the Zoning Board recommendations. MR. BROWN-Recommendations, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we do have a public hearing scheduled on the project this evening. We will, of course, table the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And with that, I'll entertain a motion to table this to January 22nd at the applicant's request. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 30,300 sq. ft. expansion addition to existing 30,502 sq. ft. warehouse resulting in a proposed structure size of 60,802 sq. ft. Expansion of existing commercial use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/18/2012; On 12/13/2012 the agent submitted a letter requesting to be tabled to the January 15, 2013 meeting: MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tabled until the January 22, 2013 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/2012) AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to bring before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-A motion to adjourn. Is there a second? MR. FERONE-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman