Loading...
06-18-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 22-2013 Whispering Pines Association 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-39 Site Plan No. 29-2013 Keith&Kelly Harris 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 265.4-32,44 Site Plan No. 21-2013 Hobby Lobby 8. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 23-2013 Jeffrey Threw 8. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-7, 12 Site Plan No. 24-2013 Jeffrey Threw 28. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-7-13 Site Plan No. 25-2013 Maynard Baker 31. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-34 Site Plan No. 26-2013 Lake George RV Park, Inc. 34. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-9.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, June 18, 2013. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled for most of our items, and I'll go into detail when we get to the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from April 16th and April 23, 2013. Would anyone like to make a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, 2013 April 23, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 16TH AND APRIL 23RD, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first one is Whispering Pines Association, Site Plan 22-2013. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 22-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATION AGENT(S) RICHARD JONES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR- MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 WEEKS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 32' X 24' SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES TO HOUSE EXISTING CONTAINERS FOR TRASH AND RECYCLING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN AN MDR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM SETBACK AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 22- 13, SV 72-01, BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2013 LOT SIZE 15.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-39 SECTION 179-5-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Under Summary Remarks,the Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the zoning board in regards to the variance requests. The information submitted shows Building B 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) located 1 ft. from the property line and it should be noted that the applicant owns the adjacent parcel, at this time the applicant has not chosen to merge the parcels. The applicant explained during pre-submission meeting the intent of the buildings is to improve the appearance on the site and to reduce the number pick up visits. The applicant has requested waivers for site plan and area variance items specifically site plan items A-0 and area variance C-#6 for lighting information as the applicant has indicated they are not relevant to the project proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thankyou. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jimmy Valente from Whispering Pines. This is kind of an interesting application, because this is what they have now, the three containers, which are not structures and don't require any variances to stay there until the end of time. They've always been there. They're at a remote part of the site, and so everyone brings their garbage, in both locations, one towards the Northway side and one towards the south side. What they're proposing is to build structures around these that'll cost about$35,000 apiece. This is a same design of what they did in one of their Syracuse area apartment complexes. The intent is to make this better for the neighbors, a permanent structure to enclose these containers rather than having them sit out there. If there was a more compliant location that would work, they would certainly consider that, but because of where other facilities are, garages, there's not a place to relocate these. So it's really a choice between leaving them where they are out in the open or spending some money to shield the neighbor, and we think this is just a better proposal. It's an improvement. They're planning on doing a big repaving of the center next year which is going to cost a lot of money, and this is just a cleanup issue, if you will, before they get there, to build these two overpriced buildings, just to enclose these dumpsters. So that's really it. If you want to add anything,Jim. JIM VALENTE MR.VALENTE-No,that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I certainly would rather look at the back of that building than three garbage cans sitting out there. So my feeling is it's a definite improvement to the property and I would approve it. MR. MAGOWAN-I've got your back on this one, Don. I think it's a great improvement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's been your experience at other places? People can't get into them, or can they freely enter them? MR. VALENTE-Yes. Well, they're going to be able to freely front load it or side load it through the side shoot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you sprinkle them,or have you ever had any fires in there? MR.VALENTE-No,there's nothing really in there. Never,we clean them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm sure you do. MR. VALENTE-No, the townships that we've had in Syracuse, between (lost word), Liverpool, Cicero,all these locations we proposed to these townships and they loved what we did. MR. FORD-What are you showing us? MR. LAPPER-It's just the exact location, the Syracuse area one, but just what it's going to look like, the same plan. MR. HUNSINGER-The same design? MR. LAPPER-The same design. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's a good idea. MR. FORD-Do you want to address that one foot? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. LAPPER-The issue there is that when they purchased the property, they have a separate tax map parcel out by the Northway, and they don't want to merge the properties because they may someday be able to do something and they'd lose their rights if they merged it. It's a couple of acres, so it's a one foot from the property line, but it's one foot from their own property line. So there's nobody else impacted but them, but they don't want to just go and merge the properties, because this is basically a vacant parcel out there that they might be able to put another building on someday. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's why you can have the tennis courts. MR. KREBS-On both. MR. LAPPER-Yes,exactly. MR. KREBS-Well, and the two story garage, you know, just down from that, it's also on both pieces of property. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Nobody respected the property line back then,obviously. MR. MAGOWAN-So you split the tax on that? MR. LAPPER-Probably get two bills. MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any input,though,from the neighbors that are adjacent? MR. LAPPER-There's a neighbor not, on the other side behind Wal-Mart,who has this unattractive, blue tarp over her fence that they look at eight months of the year until this vegetation grows in, and she's not a happy neighbor, but I think it'll look better for her looking at the back of the structure than looking at the containers,but that's what she's done. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that back up to where the? MR.VALENTE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. VALENTE-Seven months that's what it looks like when the trees, the leaves are gone. If you went over and looked now, in June,there is a (lost word) back there where you're not seeing it,but our residents have to look at that. We did talk to the Town,and apparently. MR.MAGOWAN-You didn't offer to put up maybe green tarps? MR. VALENTE-I left cranes on my yard so she could remove trees and chippers and all this, being neighborly for her to do that, and then the tarps came out. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? This is an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. MRS. MOORE-You're only doing a recommendation to the Zoning Board. You'll see them again next Tuesday for actual site plan, because they still need a variance for the setbacks for each of those buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought we needed to do it before it went to the Zoning Board? MRS.MOORE-Yes,you can. I apologize. MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. KREBS-We declare a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 22-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATION,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of, June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 22-2013 WHISPERING PINES ASSOC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of two 32' x 24' single story structures to house existing containers for trash and recycling. Accessory structures in an MDR zone require Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from setback and accessory structure requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; 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. 22-2013 WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATION, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. We have also declared a Negative Declaration for SEQR. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR.VALENTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2013 SEAR TYPE II KEITH & KELLY HARRIS AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PAM HARRIS ZONING RR-3A; LC-10A LOCATION 1653 & 1671 BAY ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%; CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN AN L C ZONE WITHIN THE APA BOUNDARY AND MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECTS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-13; BP 12-584 GAZEBO; BP 03-694 SFD; BP 10-296 POOL WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 123.13 AC; 28.76 AC. TAX MAP NO. 265.1-32, 44 SECTION 179-6-060, 179-3-040 JON LAPPER REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in reference to the relief requested having no road frontage. The Planning Board may suggest as a condition to the Zoning Board the plans indicate the driveway access is to occur with the adjacent parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins, project engineer, and Keith and Kelly Harris. This is another interesting application because they have many acres beyond the density for two houses. There's one house now that Keith's mom, Pam, lives in and owns and Keith and Kelly want to build their house to be next to mom. Because of the topography of the site, it doesn't make sense to put in a second driveway, and the variance that we're asking for is frontage on Bay Road. Room exists that they could have 50 feet on each. They could draw these two lots differently so there would actually be 50 feet, but it would still need a variance because we'd never want to put a second driveway in going up the mountain. So therefore there's no benefit to that, so I'm sure you were all out to see this. The driveway is paved for the steep mountain. This required DEC permits for stormwater which was all done in 2004 when this was put in. So it's a well-designed driveway that's really like a road that can certainly handle the one additional house on 20 acres. It's a 10 acre zone, 120 acres all together for the two houses. So,you know, pretty straight forward. The best answer is I think to use the driveway that's there to access this, and the reason why this is located where it is is just that this is the flattest area, the best place on the side of that mountain to put a house. That's how Tom picked this location. That's why we're here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well,some of us remember being back here in 2004. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't realize it was that long ago. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How long is that driveway? KEITH HARRIS MR. HARRIS-I think it's almost six tenths of a mile. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I remember. We were there before. We had to pack a lunch. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HARRIS-I walked that many times in the snow and I get stuck plowing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I hope you've got a snow plow. MR. HARRIS-Well,hopefully I can start from the top and go to the bottom now,instead of coming up it,you know. MR. MAGOWAN-Those four wheel drives, I'm sorry, but going uphill with those four blades it's just, you're right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,the only obvious question to a project like this is,you know,what happens when the two lots aren't owned by family members, you know, and how do you make for maintenance of the driveway? MR. LAPPER-We will, as a condition of approval, we will prepare an easement agreement that will be recorded. So they'll be treated arms-length that there will be an easement agreement that requires them to share the maintenance. So that would cover for the future. It's a good question. MR. FORD-It's a good solution. MR. LAPPER-Because you never know who's going to own something in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Subdivisions are permanent. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is necessary unless there's an issue that's been identified. Unless there's additional questions or comments, I'll entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 19-2013 KEITH &KELLY HARRIS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Construction within 50 feet of slopes greater than 15%; construction of a single family dwelling in an LC zone within the APA boundary and Major Stormwater projects require Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from minimum road frontage requirement 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. 19-2013 KEITH & KELLY HARRIS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. HARRIS-Thank you. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. KREBS-See you next week. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HOBBY LOBBY AGENT(S) P132 ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GS 1998 C-1 NORTHWAY PLAZA ZONING CI- COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REPURPOSING OF AN EXISTING 58,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A HOBBY LOBBY,ADDITIONAL SITE WORK INCLUDES A 1,125 SQ. FT. VESTIBULE, NEW DELIVERY TRUCK AREA, 2,000 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK, REMOVAL OF SOME PARKING SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE VESTIBULE, SIDEWALK,AND DRIVE AISLE. NEW USES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 48-08; SP 12-02, MANY AV'S &SV'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2013-NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1- 47 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested that we table this to the July 16th agenda, since no one from the applicant could be here this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on that project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing, and okay, Mr. Ford moves it. Do we have a second? RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 21-2013 HOBBY LOBBY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes repurposing of an existing 58,000 sq. ft. building for a Hobby Lobby, additional site work includes a 1,125 sq. ft. vestibule, new delivery truck area, 2,000 sq. ft. sidewalk, removal of some parking spaces to accommodate vestibule, sidewalk, and drive aisle. New uses in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/18/2013; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2013 HOBBY LOBBY, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the July 16th Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013,by the following vote: MR.TRAVER-Mr. Chairman,did they say why they wanted to table? MRS.MOORE-They're out of town. MR. HUNSINGER-They just said they couldn't be available tonight. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I just wondered. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369 BIG BAY ROAD PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 16,000 SQ. FT. REPAIR FACILITY WITH (7) BAYS;9,600 SQ. FT.WAREHOUSE BUILDING;4,500 SQ. FT. RELOCATED BUILDING AND EXISTING POLE BARN TO MAINTAIN SAW MILL OPERATION AND PROPOSED 60 X 120 SQ. FT. EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE YARD WITH 8 FOOT SCREENED FENCE. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE UPGRADED PARKING ARRANGEMENTS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEVICES AND LANDSCAPING. HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE, SALES, AND SERVICE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/20131 REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1 & 2-12, SP 1-12, SUP 11-12, SP 2-12, NOA 3-10, SP 80-90, SP 67-89; BP 07-753, 246, 229, 00-631, 96-720, 89-410 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2013-NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 3.14, 5.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-7, 13 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY THREW, PRESENT MR. HUNS INGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Under Staff comments,the applicant proposes to construct a heavy equipment repair, sales and storage facility. The plan indicates the construction of a 16,000 sq. ft. repair facility, a 9,600 sq. ft.warehouse building,to relocate an existing 4,500 sq. ft.building, and to have a 7,200 sq. ft. storage yard. The Board is to complete SEQR using the Short Form and site plan review application. The project has been referred to the Town Designated Engineer. The Board may request information about the lands towards the rear of the property and any future development of those lands. The Board should consider similar conditions for the project that was previously noted in my Staff comments. The previous condition for #3 to limit the number of trailers on site should be reviewed to determine if that condition is warranted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thankyou. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins. I'm herewith Jeffrey Threw. This is an interesting application as well. We were here last Fall, it was a 2012 application when we presented a Site Plan to reconfigure this site, which consists of, was put together in two separate applications so it consists, right now, of three parcels. The plan is to merge the two, maintain the previous warehouse and Jeffrey's business was going to expand and locate on the southerly parcel. As we know,the warehouses were destroyed by fire in February, and in re-thinking that I guess the owners have reconsidered how they want to reconfigure the site. Some of that work from the prior Site Plan is underway,particularly on the southerly parcel, which is where Jeff's business currently is located. There was a building to be removed that has been removed, and some of that work was initiated. What we're proposing at this juncture, and again it's presented as two applications, but in the general area where the two warehouses were located Jeffrey wishes to construct a 16,000 square foot building to house his business and the warehouses will not be reconstructed in their prior configuration, and that paper storage use will not be continued, will not be pursued in the future. So we have modified the plan. They're showing a phase line, and I've marked it, kind of highlighted it with blue pen. This being the proposed, Jeffrey's proposed business. This is currently where he is located. We did reconfigure the property line between them a little bit from the last proposal. You recall the last proposal we had reconfigured that line. Well, to make this building work better we've reconfigured that line to some extent additionally from the past. We're showing a phase line right here, and this phase line applies to the application to the application on the big parcel, not necessarily the application on this parcel, but at this point, what we would pursue, and Jeffrey's basically ready to begin construction of this facility to house his business, but these two buildings in the rear remain as shown on the previous application, and we're showing that as Phase Two. We don't really have intention to construct them at this point in time. However, that's the remaining part of our proposal at this point, but right now what we really wish to pursue is Phase I. What else,Jeffrey? Do you have anything to add? MR.THREW-No,that's pretty much it, Phase I. MR. HUTCH INS-Okay. With that I guess I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. KREBS-And the building is really 20,000 square feet. Right? MR.THREW-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sorry. MR.HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's going to be in the new building besides the saw mill? Are you storing anything? MR.THREW-No. My shop is going to be truck repair. MR. KREBS-The new building is not,is just truck repair,right? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR.THREW-Correct. MR. KREBS-And office space. MR. HUTCHINS-And office,associated office space. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're going to move out of the front? MR.THREW-Yes,where I'm at,to the new building. MR. MAGOWAN-Into the back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where's the pole barn going to be located? MR.THREW-That was last year's,with Phase II. MR. HUTCHINS-The pole barn is back here, which was in Phase II of the prior application. Again, this portion hasn't changed at all. So that's the pole barn. This is a future warehouse building that was,again,in the previous application. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that pole barn sprinkled? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR.THREW-No. It's open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's wide open. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is the warehouse going to be sprinkled? MR.THREW-My shop? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Your shop. MR.THREW-Yes. It has to be. MR. DEEB-It has to be,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. I thought the last building had to be,too,until we got there. MR.THREW-Yes,it's 16,000 square feet and above. MR. HUNSINGER-And how big was the old one? MR.THREW-Last year's approval? MR. HUNSINGER-No,the one that burned down. MR.THREW-The warehouses? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.THREW-They were 25,000 each. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR.THREW-So a total of 50,000 square feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they were jammed with paper, plus tires on the roof. The roof fell in. It just added more fuel and the walls gave way,and it became a four day project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-There's a question regarding the previous conditions. One of them was that no more than six trailers would be located on the site at any one time. Is there any issue with that in this new configuration? I (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR.THREW-No. MR.TRAVER-No? Okay. MR.THREW-It's owned by Adirondack Truck Repair,because customers, I could have more than six trailers. MRS. MOORE-So I guess, do you want to have that restriction removed? Because right now it's limiting you to six trailers on the site. MR.TRAVER-That was a condition of approval. MR.THREW-Yes. That was company owned,not my customers. MRS. MOORE-So that's my thought is that there's spaces for trailers,there's more spaces for trailers on this new proposal than maybe previously had been submitted. So I'm thinking that that is a restriction that we should look at. I don't think you want that restriction on the application, but I don't know what the Board. MR. HUTCHINS-And those were intended as storage trailers which were semi-permanently on the site. MRS.MOORE-So it's not applicable anymore. MR. TRAVER-So if we amend that Condition Three that there will be no more than six storage trailers,that would work. MR. HUTCHINS-That works,yes. MR. DEEB-And the other trailers you have are going to be ones you're working in and there'll be there. I mean,they can. They can't leave the cab and haul it off by hand,that's for sure. MR.THREW-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,I was going to say,since we were there last time,the site's really been cleaned up a lot. MR.THREW-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. THREW-I had Dave Hatin out there probably two weeks ago to look at all the prior issues with my father's equipment and stuff, all the unusable trucks, equipment, trailers, all been taken care of, gone off the site. MR. MAGOWAN-It does look much better up there. MR. HUNSINGER-I also remember when you were here before there were a lot of concerns from, not necessarily immediate neighbors, but proximate neighbors about the saw mill. Have there been any issues since last? MR.THREW-My father hasn't run it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.THREW-Hopefully he retires. MR. DEEB-So if he retires, are you going to keep the saw mill? MR.THREW-Me,personally? No. MR. DEEB-But other than you,would still be running an operation? MR. THREW-That's Phase II. I haven't even decided what is going to be going on there. My main goal is get my business in Phase I up and going,because we desperately need room. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. KREBS-Maybe he could use his past experience to be on the Board. He could come back and join us again as a Planning Board member. Since I sat with him years and years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions,comments from the Board? Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There is a record of conversation, but that person's in the audience. She may wish to address that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was about to open the public hearing. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. The purpose of the public hearing is for concerned parties to express their concerns to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board that they first identify their name for the record. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also on the Town's website for anyone to listen to or to review at a future date. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board? Yes,ma'am. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET FOOTE MS. FOOTE-Good evening. I'm Margaret Foote. I live at 80 Eagan Road. I own the property that borders the back. MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. DAVID BOGUE MR. BOGUE-And I'm David Bogue. I live with Margaret at 80 Eagan Road, but I also own the property at 79 Eagan Road,which abuts 80 and 84. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. FOOTE-Yes, you can see it on the map where I hit the back, and the property that, I think now on this proposal he is trying to combine with the back again is that three acres in there, and that's what hits my property, and it also hits the neighbors in the front,which is all residential. Mine was changed to Waterfront Residential, although I don't have any waterfront. So I hit the back, and where there's a proposal for, my question today to her is, what constitutes the front of that back piece of property? Right now, on the Town's documents it says that that front is actually the piece that hits the Town's Highway Department property. So there's a SO foot setback. The back and the sides are what hit my property and hit the neighbors on Eagan Road. This property used to be known as Eagan Road, 0 Eagan Road because at one point they owned out to Eagan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. FOOTE-It doesn't hit Eagan Road, but it hits all residential because they've sold the property that made those homes, except mine. So now we have a 30 foot buffer, and where they're going to store equipment will actually be within 30 feet of my property. I don't know what the equipment is. That's my main concern. We have no idea, if it's,you know,leakage. My house beyond, all the houses are well and septics. I have a concern if anybody, and I asked today and she didn't know, if anybody's checked to see if any of our water is impacted. We're not Town water. It's right of use from my property for all the homes. So I'd like somebody to address or, you know, just tell me, reassure me that our wells aren't going to be affected by whatever's stored in that equipment area, which, I guess you can see it on here, do you know what I'm talking about? Yes? I can point out where I'm concerned, and I don't understand why. I mean, there are buffers here for water, but here is, this is mine here. It says Lands of Maille,but it's really mine. This is where (lost word), if it's any indication of what they have there, there could be leakage. I don't know how water flows, but I know up here in front we have a well, and that anybody from here on also has a well. There's no Town water past(lost word). MR.MAGOWAN-Well,right now Phase II is what they were talking about. MS. FOOTE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So the darker area over here toward the right more. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MS. FOOTE-I just want to express, because if this gets changed, this is being combined, is my understanding? I thought they were trying to reconfigure? MR. MAGOWAN-No, they're changing the two front lots there with the, that are shaded, the shaded area. MS. FOOTE-They changed this last year when this all became, right now (lost words). But somebody has said that's an old saw mill. I'm concerned because what's there is a portable band saw mill that they bought from BOCES a couple of years ago, which we haven't heard. It hasn't been any. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,that's in the back up top there. MS. FOOTE-Here,in the woods,there is old equipment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. FOOTE-And I want it changed that that old saw mill is not allowed. It doesn't say it in last year's either, and we did ask it last year in the minutes that it be a portable saw mill, not that saw mill that's in the woods, sitting there. Am I making sense? Because you're all looking at me like I'm not. MR.HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FORD-Could you give us the approximate distance from your well head to the closest property line? MS. FOOTE-No, I have no idea. To his you're saying? No, I don't know. I have six acres. You know,the water may, I may be hitting the (lost word). MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's got to be quite a ways. You're way over on the edge. MS. FOOTE-Could very well be,but I'm also concerned about the sawmill. I would like it to say. MR. SCHONEWOLF-(Lost words) inoperative,right? MS. FOOTE-Yes,but it's sitting there in the woods. MR. BOGUE-No,the saw mill is operational. MS. FOOTE-The portable. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Well,that's the whole thing. MS. FOOTE-I'm more concerned that if you don't change the wording from last year which I asked to be changed to portable saw mill that's existing. He bought it from BOCES. It's fine, but there's an old saw mill, and everybody keeps saying that the saw mill operation's been going on for years. That old saw mill that's sitting in the woods,still there in the woods,has not been running since I've owned the property. MR. DEEB-How long have you been there? MS. FOOTE-I think 2005. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the saw mill that we were talking about earlier before you came up to the table is the one that's under the pole barn. MS. FOOTE-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. Okay. MS. FOOTE-But that,you said they cleaned it up. That's still there. It's in the woods. It's still there. MR. KREBS-We could put a condition,the old saw mill will not be allowed to be used. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MS. FOOTE-Because last year you changed the 100 acre. They don't have to have 100 acres to run a saw mill. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MS. FOOTE-So the wording to me is important. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood, and there is on the site plan, as you had mentioned, proposed 60 by 120 storage yard. MS. FOOTE-And I would ask that, could it be moved over to the Town's property line, rather than being on my side. Why couldn't it be over on the other side? So that, you know, because there's salt and sand over here, and it says snow storage, but why couldn't this come over here, because you're giving them a 50 foot setback between the Town, if you say that this is the front, and if you reclassify it. Okay,well how about my side be the front? I just, I don't know what's going to, and if you put it down here, these are all homes down here,too, and if it was Eagan Road then,you know, I'm not getting a 50 foot,they will. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean,you also see the cutting area, that southern boundary is all wooded, you know,they're not proposing to take any of those trees out. MR. BOGUE-Does this map reflect what's up on the picture,or are they different? MS.FOOTE-They're different. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,this map is what's proposed. MR. BOGUE-There are a lot of moving parts here, and so that obviously generates a lot of questions, and we were here for the last hearing back in the Fall, and there were a number of conversations going on about what the proposed plans were, and they looked fair and reasonable. Jeff has built a very successful business. I think he has a great opportunity to build on that and expand, and this is a difficult situation to be in because we're good neighbors, but in fairness, they're asking for permission from the Town to do certain things, which potentially could impact a number of neighbors, and we are the most proximate to that. So what we're really trying to understand here is what potential impact could it have on our property, and what are the future plans as this evolves. There's two separate parcels here, two separate applications. Last time we spoke, the lines of demarcation were different. So there's a change. A tragic event happened a few months ago, posed a new opportunity for Jeff to change his plans, which is fine, okay. I don't think that is where we have an objection or a question, other than the fact that with this change in plans, what potential impact might it have on, A. water, because it is a repair facility. There are going to be vehicles there with oil. What protections have been put in place to make sure that there won't be leakage, or additional leakage beyond what might have already been there from all of the vehicles that have been stored there for years, and I've got to say, you know, we walk our dog along the perimeter every night. It is a remarkable change from what it used to be. It's cleaned up a lot. There's still more work to be done, and I hope it gets finished, but now we're at a point where we can fix things, or certainly make sure that something doesn't impact us going forward in the future. So one concern is storage of vehicles, what kind of protection to the water system is going to be there, what noise might we expect out of this expanded operation that doesn't exist now, because today it's out on the front of the property. Now it's going to move closer to where we are, and those are, I think, fair and legitimate concerns that, you know, neighbors would have. Then it brings us to the Phase II piece. Because Phase II is a different size. Phase II still purports to have perhaps a saw mill operation on it, and I don't know that we've gotten sufficient enough answers as to if that's going to happen, what protections are going to be there, first in terms of noise, and then secondly dust collection, the size of that or what the future purpose of that parcel is. I know we're here talking about Phase I, but if I remember the last conversation, the two are interrelated. So I want to make sure that we have at least an agreement on how those two parcels are going to be used, and what protections are going to be put in place,you know, for things like our water and our noise and our property, and it's not clear in terms of the plans that, that I can see, that we've addressed all those concerns. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Neither of those, Phase I or Phase II, are contiguous to your property, though, are they? MS. FOOTE-Yes. MR. BOGUE-Yes. We abut. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MS. FOOTE-Mine are the Lands of Maille. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Phase II would be,yes. MR. BOGUE-Sure. No,Jeff's property is not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm talking about the two buildings that he's talking about. MS. FOOTE-No,the buildings up in front,no. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Actually,that is to the Town's property. MS. FOOTE-It is to the Town's. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's across the street from it. MR. BOGUE-However,you know, as I said,today the operation is really out on Big Bay Road, for the most part. What Jeff's proposing to do is move it back much further, and that's okay. As long as we have the questions answered and,you know,we have a chance to really address them. MR.SCHONEWOLF-No,the road that goes. MS. FOOTE-On Big Bay? MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MS. FOOTE-Yes, water is Big Bay, and there is water on Eagan. That was, I guess, years ago, but only up to my line. MR. BOGUE-The other question I had was, I was not aware until just before I heard about it, but there are provisions to allow six trailer storage facilities. Are these just 18 wheeler boxes that would sit there to store things in? MR.HUNSINGER-Yes,I think they've all been removed,though. MR. KREBS-Yes,but they did have approval the last time to have six trailers for storage purposes. MR. HUNS INGER-Right. MS. FOOTE-They were for the warehouse. Is that what you're saying? MR. HUNSINGER-Well,it was for the previous site plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's for the previous site. MR. HUNSINGER-And they're not,they haven't identified any on the new site. MS.FOOTE-So there shouldn't be any? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's why we had the discussion about whether or not that's applicable. MS. FOOTE-well, I wasn't understanding what you were saying. They had them, because the warehouse had them every day. MR. BOGUE-But these are owner operated containers, not customer containers. So they're allowed to have six, and then you may have how many more that may be getting worked on. MR. HUNSINGER-The previous site plan there were a number of trailers,they were on the site,that were used to store materials. MR. BOGUE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-They were,instead of a warehouse,if you will. MR. BOGUE-Right. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-They have since been removed. They're not shown on the new site plan. So right now there's no proposal to have any trailers as permanent storage facilities. MR. BOGUE-Okay. I misunderstood. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BOGUE-So only customer owned vehicles that may be under repair? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BOGUE-Okay. Got it. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't mean to speak for the applicant. MR. BOGUE-Is that? That makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-There isn't any storage trailers shown on the site plan. MR. HUTCHINS-And they weren't shown on the previous one either (lost words) on site, which we had agreed to limit to six. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I didn't specifically look for any today when I was out there, but I also didn't see any. So I assume they were all gone. MR. BOGUE-So the plan on the first parcel, the application that we're discussing now, would have no temporary storage facilities,other than the proposed building. Is that what I understand? MR.THREW-I can put up to six for my personal business. MR. BOGUE-For your personal business, and so then that generates another series of questions in my mind. Knowing what was there, most of which were falling apart, material falling out of them, are these going to be under some sort of control? What's going to be stored in them? Are they going to be contained and locked? MR. HUNSINGER-We can certainly ask the applicant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd have to ask the owner of the property,that's his decision. MR. BOGUE-Okay. MS. FOOTE-But he can only have six. MR. KREBS-But I also have to ask you,when you bought the property from Maille's. MS. FOOTE-I didn't buy it from Maille's. MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, whoever you purchased the property from, was there an existing saw mill there? MS. FOOTE-No. MR. KREBS-There wasn't? MS. FOOTE-No,not in operation. MR.TRAVER-The old saw mill was there,but it wasn't in operation. MS. FOOTE-It wasn't up anywhere. There was no saw mill up when I bought the property. He bought a portable one. MR. FORD-You also mentioned an old one. MS. FOOTE-That's right,because when I bought. MR. FORD-Was that old one there when you purchased the property? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MS. FOOTE-It's buried in the woods,and now that the stuff has been cleaned. MR. FORD-Was it there when you purchased the property? MS. FOOTE-I didn't go out and look in his woods,no. MR. FORD-Okay. MS. FOOTE-No, I didn't look. My point is, Mr. Ford, is that last year we gave him relief from a 100 acre saw mill, and I asked in the minutes that it reflect that it was for the portable saw mill, which this Board, or was it the Planning Board agreed, but it's not in the minutes when I looked. It doesn't say it. So I'm just asking that this year we change it, so that it's not, you know, if the Town has a zoning that says it's 100 acres for a regular big saw mill, which I've never seen in operation, I can't say that,the portable hasn't been bad,but I can't say what a big one would be. MR. KREBS-The reason I asked that question is I thought you were asking Mr. Threw to go out and remove the old building,okay,that's there. It's not an operational saw mill anymore. MS. FOOTE-There's no,yes, as far as I know there's no building related to it. I mean, he showed us, we went over and he showed us his portable after he bought it. Not him, I'm sorry,his dad. MR. BOGUE-No, actually we bought siding from him that he made for us. So, you know, that's not really the issue as much as it is. MR. MAGOWAN-Now,which saw cut the wood? MR. BOGUE-The BOCES saw. MS. FOOTE-The BOCES saw. MR. MAGOWAN-Where's that one, I'm confused. MR. BOGUE-That's the one that's in the pole barn that's on the property. MR. MAGOWAN-There's too many saws here. I'm confused. MR. BOGUE-There's two. MS. FOOTE-It's a lot of metal. MR. MAGOWAN-The one that's been over here in the woods, it's, probably everything's grown around it. MS. FOOTE-Well, it's clear now. Because they've cleared. You guys, if you walked it you probably saw it and didn't realize what it was,because I wouldn't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MS. FOOTE-Thank you. No,that's it. I'm done. MR. BOGUE-Is there any requirement to be able to verify, because of the kind of operation it is, and knowing that we have a very sensitive aquifer,you asked a question earlier, Mr. Ford. I don't know the answer to the question, but do we have any guidelines or parameters that you require in the zoning that would create a barrier or a safe zone, if you will, for an operation so it may not contaminate the aquifer? Because as you know, based on where we are, I mean, we're not too far from the river, and everything flows our way, absolutely our way. I own property right at the river on 79 Eagan Road. We depend on those feeder streams that come down each side of my property for our water supply. So I know the aquifer is flowing our way. MR. TRAVER-Well,there really are two, at this point two answers to that. One is the plan has to be approved by the Town Designated Engineer, which includes stormwater management, Number One, and, Number Two, you know, if there are pollutants going into the aquifer, that becomes a conservation, Department of Conservation issue, and it's actually a violation of law. So that would require, I mean, if something, some major spill or pollution or something, I mean, it would have to be, the land would have to be rehabilitated, and it would be quite a big deal. So the aquifer is 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) protected by environmental law, and the Town Engineer looks at the plans of how runoff and stormwater and all those things are managed on the site, and the requirement is that none of that leave the site. So, and before, this is beyond our approval. If and when we approve the application, it also requires a signoff by the Town Engineer that this is a sound plan from an engineering standpoint. MR. BOGUE-Okay, and I remember from the last Fall meeting that that was covered fairly comprehensively. MR.TRAVER-Sure. MR. BOGUE-With the change in the plans,has that driven a change to that water runoff? MR.TRAVER-Actually in the revised plan there's less of a stormwater issue than the old plan. MR. BOGUE-Okay. Fine. Good. Thank you very much,gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Board on this project? You said you had some written comments,Laura? MRS.MOORE-No,she addressed it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we had a number of questions from the neighbors,obviously. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. And I'll try to clarify on the saw mill issue. The old saw mill is being handled as scrap or as something that they're trying to sell as a saw mill. It will not be operated as a saw mill on this site. Correct? MR.THREW-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-And it's, they're in the process of getting rid of it as they're cleaning up that area. It's been back there. It's been stored. It hasn't been operated. MR. FORD-So the plan is to remove it from the premises? MR. HUTCHINS-The plan is to remove it from the premises. MR. TRAVER-And you probably wouldn't have gone out and bought the portable one if the old one were able to be rehabilitated,right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And as I recall, the old one was rather primitive and probably would cause a minor objection by OSHA. MR. THREW-Yes, because the original one was primitive, then he bought the gray one that's out in the woods,and then he bought the band saw. MR. HUTCHINS-The BOCES saw,the BOCES band saw. MR.THREW-That's in the pole barn. MR. HUTCHINS-Which is in the pole barn, and although it's not being operated,it's still part of this plan, and if we need to operate periodically in the future we'd like to be able to do that, as per this site plan and it's identical to the previous site plan in that respect. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,that saw's more easy to operate by one person than the other one. MR.TRAVER-And it's quieter,too. MR. MAGOWAN-It's quieter. I don't see dad out there trying to hustle those logs like he used to. MR. HUTCHINS-So the old one is getting removed from the site. The parcel to,the third parcel back there,yes,to answer one of the questions, I don't believe,technically,there is a front to that parcel. MRS.MOORE-I followed up for this. It's still,it's all considered sides. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So there isn't technically a front. We had reserved an area for storage of equipment in the previous site plan. That was in that area. It's Jeff's intention to get rid of all the equipment. However,we would like to reserve that area for continued storage of equipment if it's necessary. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there any reason why you have it on the left side? Is there, could you swing it over, you know, more towards the Queensbury side? It's just a storage area with white fencing, isn't it or green fencing? MR. HUTCHINS-We could do that. It was going to be a fenced in storage area,yes. MR. THREW-Well, it was originally for all the unusable equipment, but since then I've gotten rid of all the unusable equipment. I've kept the usable equipment. There's a trailer, two trailers out there that I'm trying to sell. So eventually it'll be all gone. MR. DEEB-What type of equipment are you going to store, Jeff? I think that was one of the questions. MR.THREW-Originally it was for all father's equipment. A lot of it that was unusable. MR. DEEB-What kind of equipment? MR. THREW-Loaders, back hoes, dozers, trucks. Since then I've gotten rid of all that stuff. We've still got some usable equipment that sits out or on that. We're using it for site development. MR. DEEB-One of the concerns was contaminants from the equipment, and I think that's what had to be addressed. MR.THREW-Right. There's none out there. MR. HUTCHINS-You're okay shifting that area to the other side of that. MR.THREW-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-We could shift this area. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and actually you can move it, I was going to say to within 30 feet of the property line,since there is no front boundary. MRS.MOORE-That's correct. MR.TRAVER-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-What if we could further add, you know, you have the rear setback along the neighbor's property. What if we were to say that, you know, that 30 feet should be a no cut zone? I mean, I know it's not fully treed right now, but there are trees there. Do you know what I'm saying? To maintain it as a natural buffer,that 30 feet along that property line. MR.THREW-Isn't that normally a 30 foot there? MR. HUNSINGER-But it's a building setback,but not a no cut zone. MR. HUTCHINS-If you were going to build a building there, you could cut within that 30 feet. We don't propose to build a building there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-At this point. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's basically your call for a 30 foot where that, the old proposed was. That tree line's just about right along that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-So you're just asking for like a 30 foot no cut zone along there, along the setback line? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, maintain a 30 foot buffer along the, you know, well, it's identified as the Lands of Maille. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean, right now, I mean, the clearing that's there, since they're moving everything over to the other side, and the old saw mill's going to go, and they really don't have any plans for anything right over there in Phase II now,right? MR.THREW-Not yet. MR. MAGOWAN-Except cleaning out. You'd have to come back again. MR. HUTCHINS-And cleaning up, it'll be vacant. We'll have to come back before the Board if we do anything there. If we build anything,if we do anything back there, we'd have to be back before the Board,yes. MRS. MOORE-So for Phase II you're saying that you'll come back for site plan review when you propose,when you do activity for Phase II? MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I guess we can do that. We had, yes, we can do that. Chances are it might get reconfigured a little bit from the way we're showing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. If you build it the way it's shown, I don't know. MR. HUTCHINS-If we build it the way it's shown, I don't know that we would have to. MR.THREW-Yes,because Phase 11 was done last year. MR. HUTCHINS-It was in the prior site plan,yes. MR. TRAVER-A follow up question on the old saw that's in the woods. You mentioned you were trying to sell it so that you can get rid of it. Is there a time window, I mean, I understand it's quite old and hasn't been used in a while. Is there a time window by which if you haven't sold it you'll get rid of it anyway,or are you just going to leave it there forever? MR.THREW-Before snow fly. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So say before December this year? MR.THREW-Right. MR. FORD-It will be removed by then. MR.THREW-Yes. MR. FORD-One way or another. MR.THREW-I like things just tidy. MR.TRAVER-Good. Thank you for that clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-If I can ask again about the storage trailers. So I guess I misunderstood. I thought I understood,but I guess not. Are there some that remain? MR.THREW-For me. MR. HUNSINGER-For you. MR. THREW-My father's,all his trailers, all the old equipment,trucks,the trailers had scrapped and hauled out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. THREW-But for my business, I need storage trailers to keep steel in and stuff that I don't want to store in a shop. MR. HUNSINGER-And where are those now? MR.THREW-I have three right at my shop. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's why I didn't see them, because they're down on the southern, the smaller building. MR.THREW-Right. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So where would you propose to put those on the new site plan? MR.THREW-Towards the phase line. MR. HUNSINGER-So back where you show those 13 spaces with trucks lined up? See where I'm saying? MR.THREW-Yes. On the south side of this (lost word) area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.THREW-I only have three. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a condition from the previous site plan. Do we need to address that in any? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I would re-confirm what conditions you want placed on this application. Just to go back to the phasing, if you do Phase I and Phase II as part of this site plan, that means your infiltration devices need to be installed as well for Phase II. MR. HUTCHINS-Well,if we don't construct back there,or we don't build back there. MRS. MOORE-Then it's an open site plan. So that's why I'm just,if you want to make it clean so that you only have Phase I as part of your project review. MR. HUTCHINS-I understand. Yes,that makes sense. MR. TRAVER-I mean, if they're coming back, if they ever develop Phase II and come back, then they don't have to do stormwater now. Right? MRS. MOORE-The installation and the re-check of that installation of those facilities, when they do come back for Phase II, they'll probably need to re-confirm something about stormwater saying it's still a functioning system,still operational. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-That's fine. We're okay with that. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-I still have a question on the trailers. You were saying that perhaps we should eliminate that condition? MRS. MOORE-I did not understand what he was going to do with the trailers, and those are now for his business use. MR. DEEB-So just transfer them to Jeff's business for storage. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-And it's just going to be empty trailers that you're going to store steel. MR.THREW-Right. (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-But we approved that in the previous plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, at the previous site plan there were a vast number of trailers on the site, and we didn't,they weren't located on the site plan because they were portable trailers, and at that time we had agreed to get that number down to six, and we didn't really have a specified location for those. MR.TRAVER-And you ended up getting them down to three. MR. HUTCHINS-We ended up getting them down to three,yes. MR.TRAVER-Do you think you're going to need more than three,going forward? MR. THREW-Hopefully not, but I don't want to say three and have four or five in there, you know, and shoot myself in the foot. MR.TRAVER-Sure. MRS.MOORE-So at this point it would be no more than six,and I didn't, okay. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Would there be any oils or solvents or anything like that in the storage trailers? MR.THREW-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would just be parts and. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, Tom, I'm looking at the pre-cast concrete drywells in that. Is there any,you know,separators in case,you know,to separate any of the oils? MR. HUTCH INS-There's pre-treatment on all the stormwater devices that,in fact there's double pre- treatment because it is what DEC terms a hot spot, and that's a function of the use, vehicle repair facility. So anything that comes off the asphalt,there's what they term double pre-treatment before it's actually infiltrated into the trenches or the drywells, and that has been through Chazen, and we've had specific discussions on it and I've discussed with DEC as well, and I believe you'll find Chazen has been agreeable with the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? What's the feeling of the Board? I'm trying to now separate the two. There's actually two applications. MR.TRAVER-And we have SEQR to do,too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to just clarify, I have under Staff comments, I have those conditions of the previous resolution. The first one was a restriction of hours from nine a.m.to four p.m. Is that still applicable? MR.THREW-That was for the saw mill operation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Do you want to make that, identify that specifically, then? Okay. There's, the log storage area will be parallel and in the vicinity of the saw mill. Is that still, I'm assuming that's still applicable. Okay, and then there's to be deed language in reference to the parking usage. MR. HUTCHINS-Cross easement access, yes. There will be cross access between the two parcels, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-What will your hours of operation be on the repair center? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR.THREW-We advertise seven to five thirty,but sometimes we're there until six thirty. MR. DEEB-You've got to get it fixed and get it on the road. MR.THREW-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-The Special Use Permit,that was only applicable to the saw mill,is that correct? MRS.MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else that we need to clarify before we move on to SEQR? Any other questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not on that. MR.TRAVER-The previous SHPO and DEC letters are still valid, I assume? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Also I would note in here that the Board discussed the 30 foot buffer zone, the 30 foot buffer zone along the property line identified as the Maille property line. Is that correct? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Brad wants to run the SEQR tonight? Wow. MR. MAGOWAN-I just need practice. All right. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR.TRAVER-No. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Then I declare this a Negative Declaration for Site Plan No. 23-2014 for Jeffrey Threw. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-2013, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY THREW,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of, June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr.Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So I was just looking for some clarification in terms of SEQR and any motions. In looking at the agenda, we have Site Plan 23-2013 identified as the 2.2 acre site, but the project description is the larger site. If you look at the agenda, Laura. MR.SCHONEWOLF-At the agenda,the other one's 2.14 and 5.55, and that's the one. MR. HUNSINGER-So I just wanted to make sure that we get the motions and the resolutions, the correct project number. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,the correct project number is 24. MR. HUNSINGER-So 23-2013 is the larger site. MRS.MOORE-Is the larger site. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And the Parcel ID is, Parcel ID 13 is the larger parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Yes,because what they did was they merged 7,which is this smaller piece,with 13. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, just on the agenda where it lists the lot size those are transposed. That's all. MRS.MOORE-Incorrect,yes. MR.SCHONEWOLF-So this is 3.14 and 5.55. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So Site Plan 23-2013 is the larger site. We have to treat them as separate applications. So we completed SEQR for the larger site. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a number of conditions. The approval is for Phase I only. The applicant agreed to move the proposed fence storage area to 30 feet from the property line with the Town of Queensbury, and that they agreed to maintain a 30 foot buffer along the border of the property identified as the Lands of Maille. MR. KREBS-And they also agreed that the old saw mill is to be removed and will not be operated anymore as a saw mill. MR. HUNSINGER-And then we have the conditions from Staff comments, one through six, and just to be clear on Item Three,it's the storage trailers,no more than six storage trailers. MRS.MOORE-And Number One is to be associated with the portable saw mill. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And I believe the draft resolution would include the final signoff from the Town Engineer. MR. KREBS-Are we granting them waivers for stormwater management,grading? MRS.MOORE-There are no waiver requests. So strike Three. MR. KREBS-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 23-2013 JEFFREY THREW A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Project includes construction of a 16,000 repair facility with seven (7) bays; 9,600 sq. ft. warehouse building; 4,500 sq. ft. relocated building and existing pole barn to maintain saw mill operation and proposed 60 x 120 sq. ft. equipment and storage yard with 8 foot screened fence. Site improvements include upgraded parking arrangements, stormwater management devices and landscaping. Heavy equipment storage, sales, and service in a CLI zone require Planning Board review and approval. Engineering sign-off received 6/7/2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/18/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2013 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) 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, 4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 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) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 7) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8) We are adding the following conditions: 1) Portable saw mill hours of 9:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. 2) No further expansion of the portable sawmill operation. 3) No more than six storage trailers on site for business use only. 4) Log storage area parallel to the saw mill. 5) Deed language for cross easement access to be approved by Town Counsel. 6) Engineering signoff and Special Use Permit to be permanent. 7) 30 ft.buffer to exist along Maille property line. 8) Fenced storage area to be relocated to 30 ft.from Town's property line towards Big Bay Road. 9) Old sawmill to be removed by December 31, 2013. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) 9) 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. 10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 11)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 12)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 June, 2013,by the following vote: MR. KREBS-And we are adding the following conditions: The old sawmill is to be removed and will not be operated anymore as a sawmill, and it will be removed by 12/31/2013. Another one will be storage area will be moved within 30 feet of adjoining the Town of Queensbury property line. Another one will be maintain the 30 foot no cut zone adjacent to, I said the Bogue property, but it could be the Maille property, whichever you want to say. And the last one is that the six storage trailers will be allowed for storage of owners material and equipment. MR. MAGOWAN-I second it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to include the Staff comments? We have a motion and a second. Discussion. I was just asking if we need to include the six Staff comments. MR. KREBS-I thought they were basically conditions,prior conditions. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The condition regarding the trailers, I think the original motion was no more than six,but that's not what I heard when you read the condition. MR. KREBS-Well,I just said six storage will be allowed. It doesn't mean he has to have them,but. MR.TRAVER-No, I know he doesn't have to have them,but,okay, I guess that works. MR. HUNSINGER-The Staff comments,have they already been incorporated? MRS. MOORE-Incorporated? No, you need to specify in your resolution that the Staff comments, Items One through Six,plus the three new ones,are part of your conditions of the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you want to amend your motion. MR.KREBS-Yes. MR. KREBS-I'll amend my motion to include, under the Staff comments, the Items Number One through Six. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. KREBS-And we have a Negative SEQR Declaration. MR. MAGOWAN-I second it. MRS.MOORE-Do you want to just identify that one as portable sawmill? Because right now it's not. MR. HUTCHINS-The hours of operation one,is that what you're referring to? MRS.MOORE-Yes,that it's just for the sawmill. MR. KREBS-The hours of operation are for the portable sawmill. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to second that further amendment? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second it again. MR. HUNSINGER-So we're voting on the amended motion. It actually has two amendments. Any further discussion. Hearing none,call the vote,please. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I believe I did not. I will close the public hearing. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) WILLIAM THREW ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. PROPOSAL INCLUDES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH PARCEL 309.17-1- 13 FOR SITE COMPLIANCE. USE ON THE SITE AS A HEAVY TRUCK REPAIR OPERATION REMAINS THE SAME; SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND PARKING ADJUSTMENTS. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 1-12,AV 1 &2-12, SP 2- 12, NOA 3-10, SP 80-90, SP 67-89; BP 07-753, 246, 229, 00-631, 96-720, 89-410 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2013-NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 2.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17- 1-12 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And this is just the boundary line adjustment. Is there anything else that's included as part of that? MR. HUTCHINS-The southerly parcel, no. The buildings will remain. The building changes were completed under the last one and the buildings will remain in their current configuration. We modified the drive a little bit to,we needed a little more green space, so we introduced a little more green up at the front so that we could meet our requirements with the modified lot line configuration. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any questions or comments that you had, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. I'd just note, just a comment, in reference to SEQR, you can reconfirm your previous SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. One of the Staff comments is that any lighting be Code compliant. Has there been any additional lighting added to the site? MR.THREW-Just whatever is proposed. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,everything was building mounted over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And,yes,they'd be downcast lighting,yes. That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, oftentimes we kind of throw that in as a condition of the approval because there weren't lighting plans submitted, or we weren't sure what you were going to do. So we just kind of throw that in,and the burden's on the applicant. MR. HUTCHINS-We didn't have, I don't believe we had any non-building mounted lighting over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? This is on the smaller parcel to the south. We do have a public hearing scheduled. This is on the lot line adjustment. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on that? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. Did you want to make a comment,sir? DAVID BOGUE MR. BOGUE-I did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,and if you could identify yourself for the record again. MR. BOGUE-Once again, David Bogue, 79 Eagan Road. First let me start with a positive comment. I know Jeff has worked hard to clean up that part of the parcel, and it really does look good. It's not finished yet, as you already attested to in the previous discussion, but more to come. I guess the only concern I have is that there isn't a defined Phase II plan yet, and they have agreed to come back to the Board and present one when one is finalized. In the meantime, are there any conditions that apply to this parcel so that it doesn't become another storage site as it was? MR.TRAVER-Well,they can't develop the, I'm sorry, go ahead, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I was going to say, you know, any activity that would be conducted back there would have to be in compliance with all of the zoning and planning rules and regulations of the Town of Queensbury. So unless there's a specific activity that's been identified in the site plan, and approved in the site plan, you know, any activity would not be allowable. So basically right now the only thing that could go on back there is the operation of the sawmill and then further clean up and then relocation of the proposed storage yard. MR. BOGUE-Okay. All right. So any mobile storage units or anything else couldn't be expanded to that part of the parcel in the meantime,without prior approval. MR. KREBS-There's only six trailers allowed total for the storage. MR. BOGUE-Maybe I'm confused. MR. KREBS-And we've indicated that those have to be adjacent to the Town of Queensbury property line. MR. BOGUE-This is a separate parcel, right? So, will this separate parcel come under separate conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BOGUE-Okay. MR.TRAVER-Yes. Any development requires a return to this Board,another opportunity for public comment and review,just like we did with the last, Phase I. MR. BOGUE-Okay. Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so when he wants to do Phase II, we'll have another public hearing, another site plan review. You'll be notified because you're within 500 feet of this property. MR.TRAVER-And another engineering review as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BOGUE-Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? And you said there were no written comments? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any issues with SEQR that we may need to be re-visit? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.TRAVER-Well,if they haven't done anything yet. MR. KREBS-We're talking about vacant land,basically. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Or we will be talking about vacant land by the 31St of December. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,on the last application. MR.TRAVER-But not on this lot line adjustment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well,if there's no further discussion,then I guess I'll entertain a motion. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to continue the conditions that were previously indicated for this site? One, that the operation not be in violation of junkyard law, that any lighting be Code compliant as discussed,and any application receive engineering signoff. Is there any other conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they're conditions of the previous approval, wouldn't they still apply, if all we're doing is modifying the lot line? MRS. MOORE-Because it's a new resolution associated with that number, I would encourage you to include it in the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don't think it does any harm. MRS.MOORE-It does not do any harm. MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to the SEQR, is there any need to re-address the SEQR? We can affirm the prior SEQR review. MR. KREBS-Reconfirm the previous SEQR. MRS.MOORE-And then I would strike Item Three where it says waiver requests. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 24-2013 JEFFREY THREW A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan. Proposal includes a boundary line adjustment with parcel 309.17-1-13 for site compliance. Use on the site as a heavy truck repair operation remains the same; site improvements include stormwater management and parking adjustments. Modifications to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. Engineering sign-off received 6/7/2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/18/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2013 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: We are amending the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) 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) Reconfirming the previous SEQR; 3) 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, 4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 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) We are reconfirming that the applicant has previously received a no impact letter from New York SHPO and a no occurrence letter from NYDEC. 7) Staff reviewed the previous resolutions and the following conditions were included: a. The operation not to be in violation of the junkyard law; b. That any lighting be Code compliant; c. And the applicant receive engineering signoff. 8) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 9) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 10) 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; 11) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 12) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 13) As built plans to certify that the site plan is develop according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR.THREW-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You're all set. Good luck. MR.THREW-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2013 SEQR TYPE II MAYNARD BAKER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 462 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS TO RELOCATE A 2,696 SQ. FT. FUNERAL HOME WITH CAR PORT ON THE SITE. SITE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ADJUSTED TO NEW BUILDING LOCATION. LIGHTING FOR SIGN HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CONFORM TO THE CODE. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 13-114 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2013-NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 2.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-34 SECTION 179-9 KEVIN HASTINGS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MAYNARD BAKER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to conduct a new site plan review for this modification for construction of a funeral home and associated site work in a new location. The applicant has been preparing the lot for development and has been working with our Code Compliance Officer for site compliance. The Planning Board should condition the application the site is to be in compliance with the plans as presented. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. BAKER-Good evening. MR. HASTINGS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. BAKER-I'm Maynard Baker. What more do you want? MR. HUNSINGER-That's enough. MR. HASTINGS-And Kevin Hastings, site civil engineer. The application as summarized in the package to the Board is a modified site plan based on Mr. Baker's assessment of the cleared lot. Once he had the previous approval and he started his construction demolition work, the situation offered him some ideas of how he might make it look better. So the layout that we presented in this application is basically everything but turned and re-located, and as listed again in our application information, most of the site, statistic wise, has not changed. It's just re-packaging, re- shaping. So we thought it was a very simple and straightforward project at this point. So we're open to discussion or comments that you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Just curious. Do you feel that the front of the building facing the road, you're better off having it that way? MR. BAKER-Right next door to my property is a big church, and they're back shaped the same way, and I kind of wanted to match that. I felt it was an asset to Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that whole section already looks a lot better than, you know, from what it did a few years ago, you know, before the church construction and before your property was approved, and it's obvious, you know, you've made a lot of improvements to the site already. The only question I had is, when you look at the site plan, and you have the walkway here, it doesn't really go to another sidewalk. I mean, is there going to be a sidewalk there? I didn't really see a sidewalk,or is it just a walkway through the parking lot? MR. HASTINGS-Well, typically, as with a funeral home business, that area is under control of the director, as far as vehicles pulling through there, pulling up there. So as far as pedestrian safety or walking from a parking spot to the front door, it didn't really lend itself to a sidewalk because it's already, that whole area of the pavement would be safe for walking because there'd be nobody parking there, and obviously the hearse would be at some point there, and all the cars would be stopped. As far as a safety issue,like I said,it didn't really lend itself to a sidewalk application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the only question I had. MR. FORD-Could you address the terminology(lost words) identifying potential water shed. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HASTINGS-On the colored drawing? That was a holdover or a care over from the previous application where Chazen had comments about the water shed. So that was a sketch that I presented to show that we're not influenced by something off the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. HASTINGS-So it was more to show Chazen that we were kind of isolated, as far as a water shed, and that we had those cut offs that diverted pretty much all the runoff that might come from West Mountain direction. MR. FORD-That helps clarify. MR. HASTINGS-Yes. Thank you for asking that. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? It was really helpful to see the old site plan,too,you know,for reference. MR. HASTINGS-Yes. We took Staff's encouragement to attach some of the previous sketches so that the Board would be at least versed in what we originally had approved, and could clearly see where we're really not changing much. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't see any hands going up. Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. Unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 25-2013 MAYNARD BAKER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to a previously approved site plan. Modification is to relocate a 2,696 sq. ft. Funeral Home with car port on the site. Site activities such as landscaping and parking to remain same. Lighting for sign has been changed to conform to the code. Any modification to a site plan requires Planning Board review and approval SEQR Type 11-no further review needed; Engineering sign-off received 5-29-2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/18/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2013 MAYNARD BAKER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The 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, 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) 3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 4) 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; 5) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project. 6) 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 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 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; Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: MRS.MOORE-You want to strike Item Two. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say,there were no waivers requested. MR. KREBS-Yes,but there weren't any listed,either. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there weren't any listed,either. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BAKER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LAKE GEORGE RV PARK, INC. AGENT(S) CLA SITE LANDSCAPING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RC-RECREATION COMMERCIAL LOCATION LG RV PARK, 74 ST. RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,728 SQ. FT. PAVILION WITH A SEMI-ENCLOSED PORTION FOR DOG WASH RESTROOMS; INCLUDED IS AN IMPROVED 1.53 ACRE FENCED DOG AREA. ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE PARKING AREA, CONNECTOR DRIVE TO EXISTING CAMPGROUND ROAD, IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATH, SEPTIC SYSTEM, BUILDING LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES. DOG PARK/NEW USE IN AN RC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 13-114 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2013-NO COUNTY IMPACT APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 123.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-9.1 SECTION 179-9 PETER LOYOLA&DAVID KING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,whenever you're ready. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under Summary, the Planning Board is to conduct SEQR for the project as an unlisted action using the short form and to conduct review for a proposed dog park where a 1, 728 sq. ft. pavilion is to be constructed and about 1.S7 acres of the project is to be disturbed. The applicant has submitted a revised SWPPP plan that is currently being reviewed by the engineer. That's all I have. I'd turn it back over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LOYOLA-Good evening. I think the way we'll start is just let Dave talk a little bit about the purpose and the need of the dog park as an intro,and then if there's any technical questions,we can move forward with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could identify yourselves first,though,for the record. MR. LOYOLA-Peter Loyola, of CLA Site. MR. KING-And David King, President and CEO of Lake George RV Park Incorporated. It's a pleasure to present this application to the Board tonight. As you may or may not know,the Lake George RV Park has been a leader in the industry nationwide for 47 years. We've built a reputation on maintaining a high quality facility that offers amenities and services on the cutting edge, so to speak, and this is a dream, another dream we've had, to add additional facilities to cater to the guests with dogs in our facility. It's kind of funny, when I look at the application process and we look at the Recreation Commercial zone, and we say this is a new use, in a way it is. It's a dedicated facility, but the reality is for 47 consecutive years we've catered to guests with RV's, of which over half of them always have dogs with them. So the dogs are currently in the facility. They're currently enjoying the premises with their owners. We've created a huge number of amenities there already that they enjoy with their dogs, including three miles of paved bike trails that are closed to cars,but those are all leash on activities for the dogs. There's a trend in our industry right now to provide off leash running facilities. One of the reasons we do this is, again, it's, you have a high density of guests in an area with RV's. We know that well exercised pets are quieter pets. Providing facilities where they can actually run off leash in a secure area with other dogs,you know, gives them the exercise they require to then spend the rest of their stay on a campsite or in an RV. So it's not just to, you know, present a place just for them to fool around. It actually is to enhance the guest experience for the humans in the park as well, and again, we've always gone above and beyond the expectations of guests when we provide services. So going a little bit further in wowing our guests when they plan a vacation to Lake George and choose an RV park, the idea has been to kind of go a little beyond what the expectation would be, and that is to a little larger facility, you know, a fenced in running area, really, with some shelter. We know we have thunderstorms here in our guest season a lot. So we want a place where people can quickly get out of the weather,need be,for safety, and also to provide just the comfort of a rest area,you know,basically a restroom, and an interior dog wash station, which is nothing more than a table where people can actually walk their dogs up on a ramp into a washing table. A lot of our guests,too, senior guests, are finding it more difficult to wash the dogs with the hose on the site, but all the activities that we're proposing to occur in the dog park area are actually already occurring in the campground. The same number of dogs, we're only catering to dogs that are in our own park. They're being washing in our park, you know, by jumping in the pond or getting under a hose or whatever it may be, and so it's just really a reconfiguration of a, taking really a nice, beautiful spot in the park that is underutilized right now, doing minimal, and what we really want to do is minimal, you know, invasion of the nature setting, because we are a park, first and foremost. Some people ask us why we don't call it Lake George RV Resort. We're still a park, and very much a park setting, and we do everything we can to preserve a very beautiful landscape, and this area, in doing what we're doing with it, we're doing very little impact to the nature landscape. We're trying to utilize this area for that purpose, because it's not intrusive, and it's a quiet area between all of our campsites. We have 390 campsites,and this dog park area is literally centralized,away from the campsites,but close to all of them. So people can easily access it by foot or by bike, and we are kind of continuing our trail system in through that dog park area. So I just wanted to give you kind of a whole idea of why we're here and why we're proposing a dog park and that, in a way, is a new use, but it's just an enhanced use, I think,of what we're already doing at the park. MR. LOYOLA-Right. Well, I know that there were some questions about exactly where the project is located. This is a location map. This is the area for the dog park. This is 149. We're actually about 200 feet, although,you know,the scale of this is about 2,000 feet. We're about 200 feet from the edge of 149, and within our interior of the property line, the northern most property line. There is an actual access road that comes through here that goes to the theater, and we're in between the theater and then additional residences and uses throughout the park. The site plan, 3S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) again, as Dave mentioned, all of this is wooded, with the exception we had to have a septic area here. This was the area that we really needed to clear out. Part of the pavilion that we're proposing,part of it was in the wooded area and part of it was an already existing open area. There is an existing dirt access drive that comes in at this location. This is kind of an upper terrace in here. There are three natural low areas,and I don't say this lightly,but this is probably the best soil I've ever worked in in 26 years. It's sandy. The groundwater is down about 300 feet. Our perc tests were about a minute perc. With all the new regulations that are out there, we knew we had to,you know, we could use green infrastructure practices for infiltration without a hitch, and we're getting to a little bit of the stormwater,and the robust stormwater management plan that we had to do for this which, you know, we really tried to avoid having to overdesign. This is a natural low basin that, for a 100 year storm event, our calculations show there is no way that water is going to ever discharge out of this basin. This is a low area as well, and a low area in here that shows that even during a 100 year storm event, we're not going to get any discharge out of these basins because of the infiltration and the good infiltration. Under worst case scenario, if these ever became silted up to the degree where they weren't going to infiltrate,water would kind of flow into this low area of the road in here and actually enter into a little bit of a low area in here and kind of go back and forth, and we're talking massive storm event. A 500 year storm event naturally occurring here would not even discharge off site. So when we were looking at this as a project, I was actually surprised. We put a report together asking for a little bit of a waiver here on the whole stormwater management SWPPP, because there's no discharge off site, and that's the first and foremost criteria for a SWPPP. Even though we are over an acre of development, when you look at the access road and the parking lot, this would be paved, this is an existing driveway that goes to Dave's sister's property over here. This is an existing bikeway that comes over and connects with the rest of the park. This is an existing access road. So the only thing that's really additional here is really the parking lot and the impervious for the parking lot, and the impervious in the concrete pad for the pavilion. We are changing a little bit of the ground cover condition from the heavily wooded to open lawn area to accommodate for the small dog area,but all of this in here is really, these would be pathways that would be all underneath the over story of the mature vegetation. So we're not changing anything in this area, other than actually adding some mulch and creating some designated walkways in throughout all the existing vegetation, and it's thickly wooded. The service access that we would need behind this to just access into the large dog park area, goes to this natural basin, and again, we show it as impervious because, you know, for stormwater management purposes, gravel or sandy surfaces would be considered impervious, but when you take a look at all of the combined runoff, we're looking at a, during a 100 year storm event, three cfs, which is really minimal runoff. So, again, looking at it from a professional standpoint,I think,you know,looking at Chazen's comments,and I understand Sean and Chazen are doing their job. We tried to meet all the intent of the stormwater management plan. We're hoping that here we don't have to submit an NOI. We can follow the plan. We can make any improvements that we need to with regard to the infiltration basins, so that we know that they're going to work long term. Dave is someone that maintains his facility. It's not like this is a developer coming in, building the commercial facility and then leaving and then leaving the, you know, the area. It's all within the confines of the park. Some of the comments from Sean, and I haven't had an actual discussion with Sean yet. I think, you know, maybe after this meeting, in order to accommodate, and we have no problem accommodating the comments that Sean mentions here in his letter. However,we just think it's a lot of over design. Pre-treatment,for instance,that's a requirement as part of your SWPPP. During a 100 year storm event, we're not even going to be able to exfiltrate out of the pre-treatment structure. So the pre-treatment structure to help eliminate any sediment or erosion control out of the infiltration basin is not even going to discharge to the infiltration basin. So it's over design all the way around. We can do some things to help during construction with some sediment loading, like check dams, temporary check dams in the swales. A lot of the comments here, we do anyway, and we have no problem meeting that, but we're hoping that we can get a waiver here with regard to the NOI,because there is no discharge off site. The closest ravine that is to this whole entire area is in this location,and it's heavily wooded,it goes down to, and I'll actually go back on the site plan here. Here's our site. There is a ravine that starts about here and comes down into a manmade pond here, and then there is a little bit of a weir outlet that discharges here that eventually makes its way to Glen Lake. The chances that a drop of stormwater from this facility that actually enters into the ravine and even gets to the pond and impacts the pond and overflows,and this is. MR. KING-There's two ponds. It would go to the first pond,first. MR. LOYOLA-The first pond first,yes, actually here, and then to the second pond, is so remote that we feel that we can honestly say that there's no discharge off site on this thing, and not even discharge off the immediate area. So, you know, again, in all my years of working and providing stormwater management plans, this is probably the best case I've ever seen where you really should get a waiver on this, and even though, again, as I say, it's over an acre and a half, because 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) there is no discharge off site, I can easily put my stamp on that to say that to satisfy,you know, any stormwater. So I can't be more adamant about that,because I really think that anything more than we do, like, for instance, the swales that we've incorporated as part of the grading plan that comes down into the infiltration area, this is all very heavily wooded. If we put riprap in the swales and we actually create check dams, we're going to be disturbing more areas in here than actually not. More riprap in any of these locations are going to mean that we're going to have to eliminate more trees. So commonsense tells me from a design standpoint that less is more in this particular case, and because there's, again, such good infiltration of the soils that really is going to be a request. So with regard to the heritage, there was a question, and, Laura, I do have the submissions to SHPO. We've not heard back from SHPO, but we did hear back from the Heritage Program. There's a submission and our letters of non-jurisdiction. Heritage Program came back, surprisingly, with a letter stating that within a half mile radius there's timber rattlesnake den somewhere. So we contacted Lance Durfee of wildlife, DEC wildlife region in Warrensburg, and he assured us that there was not going to be any impact with regard to the rattlesnakes. We have a letter confirming that, saying that it was an old den and that the chances of re-colonization of the timber rattlesnake were next to nil. So they sent us a letter back saying that there's no impact. MR. HUNSINGER-I hope it was up at French Mountain. MR. LOYOLA-It was a half a mile away from our property,yes. It's not in the backyards of anybody. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm about a mile due east. MR. LOYOLA-Are you? Well, I think you're safe, and I was happy to hear that that letter came back negative. So with regard to the Heritage Program, I think we are,with regard to environmental,the only other pieces here that are part of the resolution that we don't have an official waiver requested, landscaping was something that we did not include as part of the site plan package, because again, quite frankly, we are going to be landscaping, but Dave wanted to reserve the right to transplant any trees that are in along,he has a ton of hemlocks throughout the park. He can pick those up, and he's planning on buffering out this parking area from the roadway a little bit more. So we just,they plant so many trees in the park every year as it is. MR.KING-A couple of hundred trees a year we plant. MR. LOYOLA-We felt that to add a landscaping plan to this was a little bit overkill. Again, it's a unique situation here because we're not impacting anybody from a municipal standpoint. I was actually surprised that we were requested to come to the Planning Board in the first place. I thought maybe we were going to get a building permit and a septic system design signoff,but again, it was recommended that we go to the Planning Board. So that's why we're here. Lighting plans. There are lights along the access road here. There is a light somewhere in, right in here. We are proposing a couple of lights at the entranceway. This is a dawn to dusk operation. Didn't feel the need to add parking lot lighting or any additional lighting. If, in fact, you know, Dave finds that there's going to be some issues, you know, in this back corner, because what we're trying to do is integrate all the trail systems throughout all the facilities, we'd add a flood light or some kind of a downcast light, you know, at an intersection where appropriate, but, again, this is a situation, and I've been helping Dave and the park for many years now, that if there's a light that's needed in an area, he will just move a light pole and add a light, with no impact to the outside community whatsoever because we have such good buffer areas within the park. The idea is to keep it as night friendly as possible. MR.MAGOWAN-Well,we don't like the word flood light. We like downcast light. MR.LOYOLA-Downcast light. Okay. That's right. MR. KING-They do downcast. MR. LOYOLA-I think that's it. That is our presentation. MR. HUNS INGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have a question. The planting of 200 trees on site per year? MR. LOYOLA-Trees or shrubs. I should say plants. I shouldn't say trees. MR. FORD-Plants? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. LOYOLA-Yes, really from the attrition of the natural forest. So what happens, due to the natural attrition of our existing 120 acre forest, you know, just dying trees, you know, storm damage,that kind of thing. MR.FORD-What are some examples of some of the trees or shrubs that you've planted recently? MR. KING-The types of trees and shrubs? Everything imaginable from, you know, trees, maples, oaks, for hardwood are primary, in terms of, evergreens, the confer pine has been a popular one, the hemlock,the spruce. MR. LOYOLA-Spruce fir. MR. FORD-Approximately what size? MR. KING-It depends on the planting area, you know, we would plant, typically they're not, you know. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, I mean, the pines have been, the hemlocks have been anywhere from six to eight feet, sometimes a little bit smaller than that, depending on where we're actually locating them,but we've, over the last, I want to say 10 years, I'm not sure how many 100's of plants, but they've all been burlap, things like dogwoods, viburnums, things that are naturalized to the site, a lot of dogwood. MR. KING-Low grow sumac is a very popular kind of ground cover we use,where we don't want a lot of height but we want to cover a lot,you know,to prevent erosion in areas and so forth,to create a nice, thick ground cover, but low grow sumac is very good in our soils, you know, it grows very quickly. MR. LOYOLA-And we use blueberry as well, low grow blueberries, and just a lot of wildlife type native,indigenous species. MR. KING-Everything we put in it, we want it to look like nature put it there. So we choose a species that don't look like we put them there. We want them to, after they've been planted and established,to look like they were there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you aren't, I would suggest that you look at the plantings list that's in the Code that talks about invasive species. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, we're avoiding. We just, I have that list, and that's been really (lost words). We're going with stuff, I mean it's a little bit, the only challenge is that RVers are very territorial, and they like their space clearly defined, and, you know, the more overgrown it kind of appears to be, there's less space for them to actually recreate and put their bump outs in. It's amazing the trend in RV and how big it's gotten, but they do like, you know, their lines to be clean. So, you know, a lot of the material that we use is really hardy, all non-invasive. The biggest problem, I think, that we've had over the years is the white pine, and the mature white pine, you know, the branches coming down and they are spears, and so we're constantly removing white pine and adding spruce fir, trying to bring it back to a spruce fir,you know, mature stand. So, well aware of the invasives. MR. TRAVER-I think the one concern I have is regarding the stormwater management, and I know that you, in your presentation, indicated you work with Chazen, and of course we do require a signoff, but there are some very specific comments from the engineer in the material that you've already submitted where it looks as though they are asking for some more detail with stormwater. So, not being an engineer, I don't know how I would feel comfortable giving a waiver for stormwater management. Now if you can work things out with him,that's fine. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. Like, for instance,if you go to the last correspondence,this is the June 10th letter, and comment three,for instance,the silt fencing around structures inlet point. We're well aware of that. There was actually just a little line that we didn't clip of silt fence that crossed over a channel. We would never actually build silt fence in the middle of a channel. So it's that type of thing that we just need to sit down with Sean and just go over that with him. MR. TRAVER-No, that's fine. Yes. I'm just saying, you know, we take them out of the loop, the engineer out of the loop, as far as stormwater, if we give you a waiver on that, and because he specifically mentioned some issues and some concerns that, granted,you're going to work out with him, but, and again, I'm just speaking for myself, but I, recognizing that the professional engineer 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) has already recognized some issues that need further clarification, I, personally, would not be comfortable waiving stormwater management. MR. LOYOLA-And we have all, like comment six through eight, we actually show on the plan already. There was a couple of things that he missed that he didn't see. Some of it is clarification on riprap detail for instance,riprap slope protection. We have riprap slope protection detail on the plan. He wanted us to label it differently as riprap channel, and provide a separate detail, but our detail is not going to really change at all. So those are things that I think we can work out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LOYOLA-I think the biggest thing that we have here, and what we're asking for lenience from Sean on, is with regard to this pre-treatment. This is comment four, regarding pre-treatment, and 90% of the storm events produce no inflow in any of the three proposed infiltration devices, and then he's saying that, yes, and we agree with him, that normally, if we're using infiltration, we would have to pre-treat 100%. We do that and we oversize, we have to put these massive four bays in, when you look at the overall calculation, and again, so we're doubling up on these infiltration basins unnecessarily because the water will never get from the four bay into the infiltration basin. So the flows are just, with the infiltration, are so,they're so good that we're just not going to see any discharge out of these pre-treatment structures. So we're doubling up on these structures for the sake of what sediment buildup, which we can capture in possibly some permanent check dams. I mean,we can attenuate the sediment and the silts that he's talking about that, you know, the fear is that over time, the infiltration basins are going to silt up and they're going to create an impervious layer, and now where does the water go and it's not going to infiltrate into the ground. In this particular case, there's so little erosion and there's so little stormwater that's actually coming off the impervious areas, that we can capture them in some temporary swales, some temporary check dams, and we can do what's called plunge pools before the basins. That'll make it easy for Dave to maintain without going to the extent of designing a whole other infiltration basin,you know,in those areas. MR. TRAVER-Well, hopefully you can satisfy, in your, you know, ongoing discussions with him, perhaps you can satisfy him. MR. LOYOLA-That's the whole,that's the whole. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it makes sense. MR. LOYOLA-But then the issue of submitting the NOI, and again,it's an argument that hopefully we can come to terms with Sean on. MR. HUNSINGER-I had even highlighted that,you know,the approved pre-treatment device sized to treat 100%of the wastewater,to ask about that. MR. LOYOLA-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KING-We just want to minimize disturbance, and to do the pre-treatment in this area, and I think, I know it isn't, we don't always have the Town Engineers coming on site. Obviously I know there's reasons we don't do that,but if you were there, and you see that, the lay of the land and the way that works, you can understand why you want to minimize the disturbance, and you can see, you can see how the soil, I mean, it's all rock and stone there. It's just so quick, those soils, and I mean,I've lived with it for 47 years. So I know,you know,and I realize when you submit a plan and you look at it,you don't see that reality,but it is a reality, and it's never going to leave that property, and it's never going to overflow. I don't think we'll ever even see any, in a 100 year storm even, any retention of any water in these basins. I mean,it's that quick. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think you'll find that Sean's a pretty reasonable guy, and, I mean, I have confidence that they'll,you probably do as well. MR. KING-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you can't work it out, you just have to come back and, you know, we'll do what we need to do, but I'd be shocked if you couldn't come to a meeting of the minds and, you know,his interest is really the same as yours. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. FORD-I believe that the applicant has shown over the years, the Lake George RV Park and its ownership and management,have been good stewards and good neighbors. MR. KING-We've certainly tried to be. MR. FORD-Good stewards of the land, and I think this is a cutting edge facility in the industry,and I, for one,applaud your effort. MR.KING-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You might make a presentation or something on like Animal Planet or something. If this is truly unique,they might get a kick out of coming and seeing the facility. MR. KING-There certainly is a marketing edge to everything we do. So if it looks good on the brochure and on the website,it might actually bring people here. MR. HUNSINGER-And I would say, as the owner, as the happy owner of a dog who was recently skunked,at about 10 o'clock at night,you can appreciate an outdoor dog wash station. MR. LOYOLA-The only other comment I wanted to make was with regard to comment five from Sean, regarding the need to go to Warren County Real Property on the property that's internal, and again, I'll go back to where that property is. The property that we're referring to is here, and that's Dave's sister's place, and there are real,well,you can talk a little bit about. MR. KING-Yes. When my father built the property,he built two private residences inside the park, you know,really designed it as the owners homes, and both those properties,the circular one to the south and the rectangular one, both of those have significant deeded restrictions as to the transfer of those properties. So they only can be actually sold to the corporation,back to the corporation,in the event that the owners of those parcels are not officers of the corporation. It's very, they can never go to a third party. In other words,what I'm saying is they can't be sold,they can't be put on the market and sold to anyone. The corporation will always preserve the interest of those residents. It's inside the facility. Most people wouldn't want to probably live in there unless they were associated with the park in some way. So that kind of precedes, perhaps, a drainage easement, in the sense of there's already a legal relationship set up in the ownership of those properties, and in this case, that one infiltration basin, it's the edge of it that's, this is, just a very small sliver of it is on my sister's property. It's the slope of the basin, if you could imagine a bowl, it's not the majority of where anything would be stored. She's signed a letter, a notarized letter saying it's total fine with her and her husband to have this on there, and of course she's a corporate officer as well. So, should it be required,we certainly could go to the trouble of,you know, filing an official easement. It just seemed like,there's already language there in the deed that kind of. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an existing infiltration. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, this basin is just a low area right now that receives stormwater, and so it's going to continue to be there. You can see the property line here, and then here's the outline of the basin. So we've,in the layout plan we identified this area as just being. MR. KING-For residences only. MR. LOYOLA-Right. Yes, here's the driveway to the residence that comes in, and the house is, you know,located quite a ways a way from that. MR. TRAVER-Well, this sounds like another example where you can probably get that comment removed just by sharing that information. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure he's not aware of what you just mentioned. MR. KING-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments, concerns? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Did you wish to address the Board,sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) PAUL MORRIS MR. MORRIS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MORRIS-My name is Paul Morris. I live right across the street from the subject park. We've had a good relationship all these years. No problems,but if they're going to have a couple hundred dogs screaming and hollering all the time, that could be a different story. So I want assurance that you're not going to bring other dogs,it won't be a public facility,in other words. MR. KING-That's absolutely correct. It would not be open to the general public. It's not a kennel facility, in the sense that no dogs would be left there without their owner's presence, and we've actually done a lot of research. MR.HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,I'll need to get you on the microphone. MR. KING-I'm sorry. I just want to put you at ease. We've looked at some models in the industry of other campgrounds our size that have dog parks, and what we found, in our research, is that in parks with two or three hundred campsites, occupied campsites, where the average number of owners of the RV owners have, say 50% on average, pets. In ours it's between 50 and 70% on a daily basis. MR. MORRIS-That high? MR. KING-It always has been. I mean, and you probably don't even notice there's that many dogs in the park. MR.MORRIS-No,I never saw a dog,no. MR. KING-I mean, I'll bet you there's probably, on a daily basis, in our summer, historically in our park, at least two to three hundred dogs in the park at any given time, but there's over 120 acres, you know. So the idea,though,is that people will come in to the dog park facility together a certain times of the day. There is a socialization that occurs with the owners themselves. They kind of want to talk to each other and share with each other,but the reality is the average stay in a dog park is about 15 to 30 minutes, and the average number of dogs in parks our size in other campgrounds is about 15 to 30 dogs at that time in the dog park facility. MR.MORRIS-Well,what would they do? MR. KING-I don't expect you'll ever see 200 dogs. I don't think there would ever be, you know, a reason for people to want to gravitate with that many dogs at once. At different times of the day they'll come and go, as they take their walks around the ponds and they do what they normally do, but in terms of seeing a congregation, there wouldn't be any event there that would cause them to all want to come with all their dogs at once, nor would the facility really be, you know, it wouldn't be desirable, I don't think, for dog owners to utilize that area when there are too many dogs. It would probably hinder their, more activity, the more the population grows, people would see, oh, there's a lot of dogs in there, maybe I don't want to come now. It's like, there's a lot of people in the pool,maybe I don't want to get in the pool now. It's the same kind of idea. MR. MORRIS-But they would wash their dogs there and everything like that,by the restroom you're talking about? MR. KING-Well, no, it's a human restroom. So we will have a, as we do right now through our whole facility, we have, you know, dog stations, waste stations, where you can pick up a bag and you can actually take your dog waste and dispose of it. We compost that waste. Those are the stations that have existed in our park for decades. We'll just be actually bringing dogs specifically to this one and a half acre park where they can, they'll have dog stations there, too, where they clean up,they're encouraged to clean up after their own pet. When they don't,we do that for them, because that's the kind of service we provide. So there's a handicap kind of restroom, just for all guests, the owners of the dogs to use, just a one single restroom, and then dog washing, it's really just one single table where you could actually come and wash a dog. The reality of that, it's an amenity that will look good in the brochure and on the website. Our expectation of use is fairly low. We don't expect people to use it much. When I'm on vacation, I don't know if I really want to wash my dog,unless it's been skunked,perhaps. That would be a good reason to do it. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-And I had a dog get skunked on vacation once,too. MR. KING-But we, again, we just want to create a place where you don't have to put them in the small, often RV's have very small bath tubs or showers, and so the idea is to,you know,give them a bigger spot to. MR. MORRIS-How far, from my house up at the top of the hill, big, red house there, especially the two ponds on the picture there,but how far from my house would you,would this dog station be? MR.KING-Well,you know where the Halliday house is,Hal Halliday's house is? MR. MORRIS-It used to be Briggs. MR. KING-Briggs'house,yes. Steve Briggs. This building is 250 feet behind his house. MR. MORRIS-So it would about 500 feet at least? MR. KING-It's at least, I would say. Maybe 1,000 feet, I mean, by the time we get across the road. So I don't think you'll hear or notice anything different. Like the fact that you didn't even know we already had that many dogs in the park. MR. MORRIS-No,no. MR. KING-Is a compliment, in the fact that we have a very large facility that diffuses the activity. I think most people that live in this Town don't realize how many guests are in the park, including how many dogs. MR. HUNSINGER-1 had no idea you had 390. MR. MAGOWAN-And also, people are going to be walking their dogs and tending with their dogs, and a lot of times they don't want to hear their dog yapping and yelling. A lot of times the dogs get together with no supervision, it's kind of like kids with no supervision, they get a little crazy and a little loud. MR. MORRIS-Well, like the SPCA place where they have cats and dogs down by the airport. Fifty feet away you cannot hear. MR. KING-That's like a kennel, though, right, which is a very different use. I can understand the concern being that it would be a place where there'd be lots of barking dogs. Believe me, nobody, none of my residents in my park want to hear a lot of barking dogs. They don't want to hear them on their site, off their site, or anywhere in the park, and we spend a lot of time making sure that doesn't happen. So that wouldn't be any different in this facility. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think you offered an interesting comment,too,that you felt, or hoped that one of the impacts of the park would be less barking because the dogs would be run and therefore more exercised. MR. KING-And studies really have found that it really works. I mean, you know, you think about urban dog parks, I mean, that's the whole idea,too. They're in an apartment building, high density, lots of dogs. They need exercise. They can't get it in their dwelling. They go to the urban dog park. They come back, they're rested, and it's the same reason. The supers of those buildings or the landlords of those buildings want to be sure that they're kept as quiet as possible. So that's our reason. That's the reason is to just make it a more peaceful environment. MR. MORRIS-Now this terminology, the description says dog park is considered a new use in the zone. Is this something new or what? MR. KING-Well, that was my comments were that I don't see it as a new use because we've always had dogs using this park since 1966. I believe the reason they say it's a new use under the zoning is that in the zoning language, for Recreation Commercial, there's no place where it says dog park. I mean, it's a fairly new development in communities, community planning. So I think that's the reason,but it is found in campgrounds everywhere now. Campgrounds nationwide have dog parks. MR. TRAVER-Well, and you offered the clarification as well that it's not open to the public, and that might be related to the zoning issue as well. Dog park typically could conceivably be open to the public. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. KING-But when I see Recreation Commercial as including campgrounds, then I think of all the common amenities and services associated with campgrounds. This is now one of them,but at the time we drafted the Code, it wasn't as prevalent. So, you know, it's an evolution. I would think in the future it will be. It'll be just part of what campgrounds do. MR. MORRIS-Okay. I'm satisfied. MR. KING-Terrific. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KING-Come on over and we'll sit and watch the dogs some time. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to comment,sir? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I had a conversation with a neighbor, and I talked to Peter about this. She wanted to make sure that the park did not access Glen Lake Road, and I understand it doesn't, and I called her back and I mentioned that to her. So she's okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there's a gate there. MRS.MOORE-So I took care of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. I believe the applicant submitted a Short Form. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want me to do it again? MR. KREBS-Sure. Go ahead. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-I declare this a Negative Declaration for Site Plan 26-2013. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-2013, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LAKE GEORGE RV PARK,INC.,and 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of, June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 26-2013 LAKE GEORGE RV PARK, INC. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,728 sq. ft. pavilion with a semi-enclosed portion for dog wash restrooms; included is an improved 1.53 acre fenced dog area. Additional site improvements include parking area, connector drive to existing campground road, improved pedestrian access path, septic system, building lighting, and stormwater control measures. Dog Park / New Use in a RC zone require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/18/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2013 LAKE GEORGE RV PARK, INC., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration 3) Waiver requests granted: grading,landscaping&lighting plans; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 7) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 8) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9) 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. 10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 11) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 12)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 June, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan,Mr.Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. KING-Thank you. MR. LOYOLA-Thank you so much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to bring before our Board? Mr. Krebs? MR. KREBS-I would like to have a discussion. The fact that I would like to request that Staff provide us with a debrief as Keith used to. MS.GAGLIARDI-If this is part of the meeting, I kind of need to have one conversation. MR. HUNSINGER-Could we have order,please. MR. KREBS-Laura, I thought I asked you this once before, but I would like to formally request, as a Board,that you provide us with a debrief as Keith Oborne did. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-The reason for that is that when we're looking at something that happened three months ago, six months ago, I have stacks and stacks of paper in my office that have to do with things that we have delayed or we're waiting for the Zoning Board to approve, and when I go through that paperwork, I don't have a quick reference point to go to,but I used to go to the debrief book, and I kept a three-ring binder with all of them so I could, let's say something like Clute came up, which we had done last year. I would go back and read the debrief notes from the previous year,so I had an idea of what was happening. MRS. MOORE-Right. I do. Actually I have them already set up. I just have not distributed them yet. So I have actually January to June. I'll have June completed, and then I'll give you the batch. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2013) MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So they're done, because they're part of Staff, and I just have not gotten to distribute them to Board members. MR. TRAVER-While we're talking about that, another thing that would be helpful would be the draft resolutions prepared by Staff. If, for example, that Number Three we've dealt with quite frequently, where the applicant has requested waivers but waivers are part of the draft resolution. If maybe you could remove that. MRS.MOORE-I am supposed to do that. So that's something I'm just catching up on. MR. TRAVER-Well, whether you're supposed to or not, it is something that can help us stumble a little bit when we're,you know,going through these things. MRS.MOORE-But those will be edited. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've found the summaries of the Zoning Board meeting can be equally important,especially lately,knowing what's going on over there. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We send stuff over there, and we don't always know why they turned things down. MR. HUNSINGER-Or why it's delayed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd like to know what's going on. MR. TRAVER-Or sometimes they even approve things, but they will say, you know, we would like the Planning Board to make sure that,you know,this condition or that is looked at in detail. MRS. MOORE-I mean, I bring that to Staff Notes, but I'll follow through with the debriefing notes. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good thank you. MRS. MOORE-I can do it either way. I can either have them delivered within your packet. I don't know how Keith did it in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-He e-mailed them. MRS.MOORE-He did? You get it as an e-mail? MR. HUNSINGER-He just e-mailed them to us, yes, usually it was within a couple of days from the meeting. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. FORD-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2013, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 47