Loading...
09-24-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Site Plan No.45-2011 Kelly Carte 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. Site Plan No.42-2012 Daniel&Ellen Nichols 5. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19 Site Plan No.48-2013 Ms. Colleen Halse 6. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-66 Site Plan No.40-2013 Stewarts Shops Corp. 10. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-16.3 Site Plan No.49-2013 Rich&Jill Long 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.-1-16 Site Plan No. 51-2013 Dennis LaFontaine- Martha's Dandee Creme 18. Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3 Site Plan No. 52-2013 Hobby Lobby 20. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-47 Site Plan No. 53-2013 James Varano 22. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59 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 09/24/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER JAMIE WHITE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. I'll call the meeting to order on Tuesday, September 24, 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 the items this evening. Just in terms of the agenda, Stewarts had indicated that they were going to be late to the meeting. So we're going to postpone that one until they arrive, if we get to the item before they get here. We have three administrative items this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is Site Plan 78-2013 for Jeffrey Schwartz. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? I guess not. MRS.MOORE-I expected them to be represented tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's 12,isn't it? MR. HUNSINGER-Did I say 13? I'm sorry. I read 12. This was scheduled. This was tabled until this evening and it was pending engineering comments. I had a couple of conversations with the applicant. I did a project with him through work a couple of years ago, and he had contacted me about a month ago saying that there were some disagreements between their engineer and the Town Engineer, and basically saying he didn't think they could be resolved, but also looking at our Staff comments that were handed out this evening, there's still a number of other items that have yet to be detailed on the plans. I don't know if you want to comment at all, Laura. MRS. MOORE-I can tell you that I did meet with the applicant. Looking through the Staff Notes, I did meet with them. I apologize, on one of those dates. I'll say that I met with them recently. I went through the items of my letter with them. There was still some outstanding items that were not addressed or did not appear with the information that they carried with them to this meeting. So they still need to supply a stormwater report and the associated plans and documents to that. They still need to provide a stormwater maintenance agreement, and they, as we were looking over the drawings,there was indication of future loading docks, and they explained that those future loading docks are areas that are currently framed in, but there are no doors at this time on those spaces. That's why I said you need to clarify that so that, in the future, when someone looks at these plans, they're not seeing future loading docks, they're actually seeing, the only thing that needs to get popped out is that metal to put, insert a door in. There's not any other construction on the building in that sense. So I asked them to revise that, and they had indicated that they would provide me with two packets, one for our file, one for the engineer, as latest as Monday, and I still haven't received any information from them. They did share e-mail last Friday that they wouldn't get it in until Monday,and since then I haven't heard from them. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Originally the hope was that we would table it into an October meeting, knowing that there might be one or two items to be resolved with the Board. Do you know if they've addressed all the items that are on the August 231d engineering comment letter? MRS. MOORE-They've attempted to. I mean, the information they shared with me at their meeting gave a response to each of those comments. They have not submitted anything to the Town Engineer yet. So they've attempted to address all the items in a response. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did they give you a date? MR. KREBS-Table it to November. MRS. MOORE-They did not give me a date. They anticipated being on the schedule for October. They didn't anticipate. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,the date they gave you was September 16th,which has come and gone. MRS. MOORE-Yes,and I've asked them,what happens is that their engineering information needs to be forwarded to our Town Engineer, and they're, I don't have a lot of time to review the application materials that they're providing, and then forward that on to the Town Engineer, and then get them on the agenda. So I'm running out of time to do that for them. MR. TRAVER-Why don't we table them to November and let them know that we'll be denying it if they don't complete the application. This has been going on since December of last year. This'll be the 10th tabling. So I'd say let's hear it or deny it. MRS. MOORE-I would suggest tabling it or give them a deadline submission date, just as everyone else does for the November,is October 15th is their deadline for submission. MR. HUNSINGER-November we have meetings on the 19th and the 21St. MRS. MOORE-There's not any items pending at the moment. So you can place them on the first or second. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Place them on the first,maybe there won't be any items for the second. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I like that thinking. Okay. Would anyone like to move it? We'll table it to November 19th. MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the November 19, 2013 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline date of October 15th. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: MR.TRAVER-Do we want to add in the motion a recommendation that the applicant be notified that if they fail to comply after the 10th tabling they'll be denied? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't know if we need to do that. I mean,they seem to be very motivated. I just don't understand why they can't clean up some of these little items,really. MR.TRAVER-Okay. We'll address that in November. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan 45-2011 for Kelly Carte. SP 45-2012 KELLY CARTE KELLY CARTE, PRESENT MRS.MOORE-I do have Mr. Carte in the audience,if he would like to give you an update of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Carte,do you want to give us an update of where we're at? MR. CARTE-Evening, Mr. Hunsinger and ladies and gentlemen. Laura suggested I come tonight and update you more or less on why this thing is taking so long. I feel like the other person that you were just talking about here, only mine's even longer. As you know, I've been, about a year ago I guess I was before the Board here to request a continuance on this because the comments by the Town Engineer required me to get approvals from DEC, APA and the Army Corps of Engineers on this project, and it was about a year, took about a year to get the Army Corps engineer to give me a ruling on it. He came to the site three times over the course of a year, spring, fall, spring, and to tell you the truth, between the comments of the Town Engineer and what he came up with, I was feeling pretty discouraged that, spring and early summer here, about this project. Laura sent me a letter here telling me that this was going to be on the agenda for, you had tabled it until this meeting,which I wasn't aware of, and so I went in and spoke to her I think it was just last week, and pointed out the problems that I was having here and she suggested that I get a hold of Mr. Lupo at the DEC who is more or less I guess in charge of this, the regulatory aspect of this plan, which I did, and after speaking with him, I'm feeling a bit better about it because a couple of the major stumbling blocks he indicated weren't really as I thought. The Town Engineer, I don't know whether you folks are really aware of, I mean, I got a,you know, the conditional approval from the Board a couple of years ago, and pending review by the Town Engineer and satisfying whatever requirements that he, you know, came up with, and I don't think you folks see that, again, until we bring it before the Board here. Because they're under no obligation to make this reasonable, you know, reasonable in price, reasonable in deeds, and one of the major things that I came up with was I had paid a fair amount of money to Tom Jarrett Engineering to do the water studies on this, on the two streams that are on the property here to design the culverts and, you know, the system to be able to do what I wanted to do. The Army Corps engineer came, did his thing, looked at the stream in the back, which isn't really a stream. I mean, the DEC has said it's not a stream. It's just a runoff ditch for the springtime runoff, but he looked at it, didn't even look at the engineering study of the thing, and said,well,you can't put it all in culvert the way you want to. I'll let you put one section of culvert and it can't be 18 inches in diameter. It's got to be 36, off the top of his head, and I had already bought all the 18 inch culvert I need to do this and,you know, so I'm looking, I'm thinking, why did I pay the money to Tom to do this study if somebody can come along and just look at the thing and say I don't think 18 is big enough,you know,we need the 36 inch. So that was one aspect of it, but the other aspect of it was the Town Engineer, besides having a whole list of things here that they wanted,many of which were mistakes,and after talking to Laura,she indicated that if they were mistakes or were not clear, that I could explain those and then explain them to you and perhaps we could come to an agreement as to whether or not these were necessary, but the major one was, Chazen's engineer said that the plan had to be drawn and signed by a licensed professional engineer, which obviously is not cheap, and I'm not, as I said, I was rather discouraged after seeing that. I've already spent way more money than I think I should have to spend to just try to level out four acres of my own land here that's not going to interfere with anybody,but one of the things that did transpire, after talking with Mr. Lupo up at DEC, is that that's wrong. I don't have to have an engineered plans for it. He pointed out that in the regulations here that said that if this is a plan that when it's completed will not need any further stormwater, what's the word he used, any further stormwater management or oversight that it didn't need an engineer's design or stamp on it. So to get to, I guess to make a long story short, I am progressing on it. I expect to be able to answer most of these things in narrative form or the areas that,things that were supposed to be put on the plan. I've spoken to Tom Jarrett again and I'm going to meet with him on Thursday and point out the things that, some of them were just mistakes. I mean, if something wasn't signed and I didn't sign something and, you know, things of that nature, but we think we're going to be able to supply all the stuff here that they're asking for, or supply a reasonable reason why I don't think it's necessary to do this. I mean,the engineer, Chazen's engineer obviously doesn't go to the site. So it's kind of strange that he can put down all these things. I mean, he put, I have, on the site plan, for instance, a pile. I'm going to strip topsoil and pile it, fill in where I want to fill and then put the topsoil back on top to grow grass. Well, he put a thing in, must have a silt fence around the pile of topsoil. Well, if he'd gone to the site and seen where I'm going to pile the topsoil is a lower elevation than all the land around it. So unless water can run uphill, I don't have a problem with runoff from the pile of topsoil, but it's things like that that, you know. So anyway, we're progressing. I will have the stuff in before the 15th of October for a meeting in November. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CARTE-Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, usually getting the Army Corps permit is the hardest and most time consuming thing. So, I mean, now that you have that, I would think the rest would be relatively simple. MR. CARTE-Well,he permitted, it was rather strange. The one area that's the spring that soaks into the ground,he ended up saying this is too small. It doesn't reach navigable waters so we don't have any interest in this. Only it took him a year to do that, you know. I mean, and the other one he wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do anyway, you know and the reasoning doesn't make any sense. It's like,well, I said,why can't I put this 150 feet in culvert? Why are you only going to allow me one 20 footer culvert? And he said, well, you have to leave the stream bed the way it is so the animals can get to it and whatever, and I said, if the animals are depending on this stream for water nine months out of the year they're going to be pretty hard up because there's no water there, you know,but commonsense doesn't enter into it sometimes. MR. TRAVER-I had one question about the culvert pipe. You mentioned you went out and bought culvert pipe,and apparently your plan was approved by us pending engineering approval. MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So you must have bought the, unless I misunderstood you, you went out and bought the 18 inch culvert without knowing whether or not that would meet the engineering approval. MR. CARTE-Well, it would meet engineering approval except for the Army Corps. I wasn't aware at the time that I had to have the Army Corps of Engineers in to do this. The design that Tom Jarrett did for it, I mean, he's a professional engineer,too. He did a design that would meet,you know,the Code as far as. MR.TRAVER-So you had a signoff from the Town Engineer. You didn't have a signoff from the Army Corps. MR. CARTE-No, it's the other way around. I didn't have a signoff from the Town Engineer other than the fact that Tom assured me that the way that it was designed would be acceptable by another engineer, as far as that goes, you know, but it's not like, I mean, I can sell the culvert. It's stuff I've collected over a period of time. It's not like I ran out and bought 150 feet or new culvert or whatever, but I did have to go out and buy a piece of 36 inch by 20 foot culvert for the thing, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? So I guess I would suggest we table this to the 19th of November also. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-With a submission deadline of October 15th. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-Now are we extending the approval or just? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm confused because the resolution, the draft resolution talks about extending approval of the site plan,rather than. MRS.MOORE-In the Staff Notes that you were,were mailed to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what I'm looking at. MRS.MOORE-The one I have says motion to table. Do you have a different one? MR. HUNSINGER-It says motion to further extend approval of Site Plan 45-2011. MRS.MOORE-It's attached to my tabling status. Then there's another one in your. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,the draft one is a motion just to table. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's that it says on the draft,stamped draft says just motion to table. MRS.MOORE-No,sorry,the one in your Staff Notes packet. MR. KREBS-I've got it right here. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#45-2011 KELLY CARTE MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2011 KELLY CARTE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: This is to be tabled to the November 19th meeting with a submittal date of October 15th. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. Good luck. MR. CARTE-Thank you. SP 42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS MR. HUNSINGER-The next item is Site Plan 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols. Is there anyone here from the applicant? MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter from the attorney that represents them. So I'll read that as part of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It says, "Dear Chairman Hunsinger: This project has been unexpectedly delayed while the applicant has addressed issues at his Blue Water Manor property on Lake George, and he has now contacted me and indicated that he is ready to move full speed ahead with this project. We have already begun pursuing the sewer district extension, and for that reason we request that this matter be tabled until November rather than be denied without prejudice. In the interim, the project engineer will address the Town Engineer review letter so that the Planning Board may conduct a SEQR review in November." MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and we also have the Staff Notes with the tabled items status. What's the will of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd move it to the second meeting in November, so we don't have, or do you want all of them in the first meeting? MR. KREBS-11/21. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,no,let's try for the 19th and maybe we won't have a meeting on the 21St. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Well,okay. MR.TRAVER-There's some note in here that the ZBA is not going to hear this again. MRS. MOORE-Correct. There is a note in there, but my understanding from the applicant's representative is that they will also make the same plea to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that they would like to continue. MR.TRAVER-And that's the ZBA's decision anyway. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MS.WHITE-And you said you had nothing else pending for the 19th meeting. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MRS.MOORE-At this time now there's two applicants. This would be the third application. MS.WHITE-Right,so this would be three. So it's still not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and of course, you know, if we get to the end of October and they haven't submitted the information and we know we're just going to table them,we can still continue to add things to the 19th's agenda. So, I think we're safe there. Would anyone like to make that motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#42-2013 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the November 19th Planning Board meeting with a submittal date of October 15th. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously this would be with a submission deadline of October 15th,just like the others. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Under Old Business, all of these items do have public hearings scheduled. Obviously for the tabled projects we will table the public hearings as well. We'll skip over Stewarts, since no one is here yet. The first item is Site Plan 48-2013 Ms. Colleen Halse. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2013 SEQR TYPE II MS. COLLEEN HALSE AGENT(S) JOE ROULIER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 25 BRAYTON LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 420 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE, REAR & SHORELINE SETBACKS,AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-13, BP 02-024 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-66 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 420 sq.ft. attached garage. Site Plan Review is required for hard surfacing within 50 feet. The applicant was granted relief for the minimum front, side and rear shoreline setbacks as well as the Floor Area Ratio requirement. In your packets there's information about the Zoning Board's granting the relief. They did require the applicant provide permeable pavers for the driveway and not pavement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I'm Joe Roulier. I'm representing Ms. Halse, and I have a current plot plan of additional plantings and also where we'll be doing the permeable pavers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROULIER- I'll just give you a little background since I saw you last week. We had a meeting with the ZBA, and as part of the ZBA requirement for approval, they asked that I increase the amount of permeability on the property. So to satisfy their requirement, we've agreed to eliminate the asphalt driveway, which was in the original plan, and that will be subsequently replaced with permeable pavers, and I've also met with Laura and we have discussed the buffer zone that was 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) part of the ZBA requirement that we meet the current requirement within the Town of Queensbury. So to do that I made some indications, starting on the left as you face the lake, what plantings we have there already, and going from the left over towards the right for the first 50 feet, there is included already one 10 inch cedar. That's approximately 25, 30 feet high. There's one 10 inch maple that's of a similar height. There's lilies, hostas, natural vegetation in that area, and that area is completely mulched, and I've indicated where that area is. It's on the left side, and it's also that dotted line that goes back to the small shed that'll be removed. So the requirement for that particular area is met with those particular items. Going over to the balance of the property, the additional 30 feet,there is an area of vegetation over to the right that we will be removing the fence. That's combination of hostas, lilies and natural vegetation, and there's also, where you see that approximately 14 feet coming back, there's a small shrub tree planted there already which satisfies the requirement of the Town of Queensbury. In addition to that, after I spoke to my client, we've agreed to, if you go to the left hand side, we've agreed to add in a hemlock type of shrub in the general area of the shoreline. I've indicated, it says P-Hemlock Shrub in that area, and then she also has ornamental type of grass that she would like to plant in that area, which will actually extend that buffer area over that much further. If you go over to the right hand side of the property, she's asked me to incorporate a blue spruce and a hemlock and holly berry bush, and I've indicated where those three plantings would be,as well as on the front of the shed that's going to be removed, on the right there's a group of lilies and also hosta. We'd be transplanting that hosta into that front area along the shoreline where it says proposed lily and hosta. So at the minimum we met what the requirement is within the Town of Queensbury, but extending that further, there's many additional plantings we want to do to eliminate any possible flow of any water by creating additional buffer zones, and we've decided that's how we're going to handle it. I think in terms of presenting this to the Board tonight really the most significant change as far as the Town of Queensbury goes,though, is the elimination of the asphalt driveway with the permeable pavers. We were able to, at that point, the calculation was made last week that we were actually, with that addition alone, we increased the permeability to, I think it's 60%. So it was a significant change. Overall the entire project is actually significantly benefitting the property and ultimately the lake. So at that point, if there's any questions that the Board feels that they would like to ask me, I would certainly try to answer them for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-The lake shore buffer, on the right hand side as you refer to it on the plan, did I hear you right that there's already some buffering in that area? MR. ROULIER-Yes. There is. What we have right now, if you go to the extreme right hand corner, there's an area approximately four feet wide that comes back approximately, I'll say five to six feet, and then it's channeled down, pretty much the entire length of that wood fencing by about two feet, and that consists of natural vegetation,hosta, and day lilies. In addition to what's, sorry, I just want to go back. So that, in conjunction to the shrub or small tree that we have over adjacent to the deck already satisfies that requirement within that 30 feet. It's our additional proposal to transport the lilies and the hosta that are currently in front of the shed down to that dotted area that I've indicated and I've put down that little asterisk that says proposed lily and hosta, and additionally adding in where those three circles are proposed blue spruce, a hemlock and a holly berry bush. MR. TRAVER-The reason I ask, I'm looking at the photograph up there of that area, and it doesn't appear to have any vegetative buffer or vegetation of any kind really, of course it may be the time of year that the photograph was taken, or it may be prior to the installation of that pre-existing buffer that you're referring to, but on that photograph, that aerial photograph there, it certainly does not look as though there's any buffering. MR. ROULIER-I don't know,when was that photograph taken? MR.TRAVER-They're usually taken in April. I don't know what year, and I don't know for a fact that it was April,but normally these aerial photos are conducted in the month of April. MR. ROULIER-Okay. I just don't know,other than the,can I go up there,is that all right? MR.TRAVER-Sure. MR. ROULIER-Okay. I mean,most of this vegetation in April,you wouldn't even be seeing it because sometimes we still have snow, but the two larger trees that I'm referring to are over in this area right here. Okay,and then the smaller bush, shrub is right in this area right here. MR.TRAVER-So it's just not very obvious on the photograph. That's fine. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. ROULIER-I actually think, there's a tremendous amount of shadowing you can see right in this area, and it's very possible that those two larger trees,you're just not seeing them because they are in the shadows,but the buffering is actually all in this area right here. There's buffering where, and this is,you know,this is really not,this picture is actually taken at this angle. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it's almost never straight down. MR. ROULIER-So like right in this area here where all this hosta and lilies are, that's going to be transplanted to the front, and then we're going to increase this area here as well as increase the area over there,but it's not really,you really can't make out(lost words). MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROULIER-You're welcome. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're going to end up with one of the best landscaped lots down there. MR. ROULIER-Yes,no,it's a great job out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments? MS.WHITE-Will there be any additional lighting on the outside of the garage? MR. ROULIER-We have no immediate plans for lighting. I would say this,that there would probably be two coach lights on the road side of it. I mean,generally when we build a garage and there's the front door right there to access it where the car would access it, we would have two lights right there, two coach lights, and I would think we would also put a light, there's a door proposed in the back. We'd probably have some type of lighting there, but in terms, and I know that on the house right now there is a set of floodlights that are for the deck, but there's no additional lighting prepared or considered, other than what I would be discussing with you tonight. People are pretty, I just want to say this, I live up there, and Paul lives up there I know, and people are very, and this has happened over at Fort Ann,and I'll bring this up to you. There's been some homes built over on the mountain in the course of the last few years, and they've done a lot of lighting, and they, and, you know, at night time they stand out. There's a lot of people that are upset, and most of the people that live down in the particular areas that we live are very conscious of this and don't want to create that type of a situation. So I know that whatever lighting we will be doing will be at the very minimum. MS.WHITE-Asking,you know,to consider the down shielded. MR. ROULIER-Yes. MS. WHITE-And I know it's come up that people are very sensitive about the glare for the neighbors. MR. ROULIER-I know in some cases of friends of mine that have properties on Kattskill Bay,they've actually called people across the Bay because they've put floodlights on the front of their boathouse and they're shining right into their bedroom right across it. So there's a lot of people that are very sensitive to that issue. Okay. MS.WHITE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we saw this excellent presentation last week on dark sky lighting, and they talked about, you know, the difference in downcast lights versus, you know, even some of the ornamental lights that are, you know, supposed to be period, look historic, if you can see the filaments in them,they cause glare. So,you know, it's important that whatever you put on have,be downcast,and that the filaments be within the fixture. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Yes, I wouldn't consider that to be an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. ROULIER-I'd just make one other suggestion. I have this at my own house. We have our exterior lighting on the garage and we have a post light there by the stairs. I have it on a dimmer. So,you know, we just turn the thing right down as needed and it spends most of its time that way. So that's a consideration you may want to have also down the road. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's amazing, though, the number of different fixtures you can get today. It's almost overwhelming,just the variety. MR. ROULIER-So you would prefer more of a down lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what the Town Code talks about,a downcast,yes,shielded. MR. KREBS-Yes, because it still provides the lighting that you need for safety, but it doesn't affect anybody else that way. MR. ROULIER-Absolutely. No, I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-You can also put that downcasting on dimmers,too,if you'd like,Joe. MR. HUNSINGER-You can, yes, absolutely. 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-I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEQR so no SEQR review is necessary. We do have the conditions from the Zoning Board as well as the lighting conditions that we just talked about. They have also requested waivers. MR. KREBS-For stormwater management,grading,landscaping,and lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#48-2013 MS. COLLEEN HALSE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 420 sq. ft. attached garage. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline and Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review needed; The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9-17-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 9-18-2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-24-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2013 MS. COLLEEN HALSE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) 2) Waiver requests rg anted: Granting waivers for stormwater,grading and landscaping,but we're indicating that we want the lighting to be downcast,so as not to provide any problems for other people; for J. - Stormwater; K- water supply and sewage facility; L - shrubs and plantings; and M - Fire access. 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Under Staff comments there were also waivers on water supply, Laura, does need to be in the resolution as well? MRS. MOORE-Yes. You should add those into the resolution as well. That's J, K, L and M, as an addition. MR. KREBS-Okay. We're going to add to this motion that the applicant has requested waivers from J. - Stormwater; K- water supply and sewage facility; L - shrubs and plantings; and M - Fire access. The project is also subject to an area variance for setback and permeability. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that was done by the Zoning Board. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to say anything about the installation of any sheds? I mean, that's in the Zoning Board resolution. MRS. MOORE-That's zoning. You can if you wish, if you want to echo that as part of your conditions you can. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,since it was their condition,it runs with the property as well,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-So it's not necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. I see Mr. Lewis is here, so we'll get back to the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2013 SEQR TYPE II, STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 402 BAY ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING GAS CANOPY AND REPLACEMENT WITH A 46' X 50' (2,300 SQ. FT.) CANOPY WITH AN INCREASE FROM 2 PUMPS TO 4 PUMPS. ACTIVITY INCLUDES AN INCREASE IN PAVED AREA AROUND THE CANOPY AND RELOCATION OF ONE PLANTING BED. SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 39-13, SP 36-13, SP 10-11, PZ 1-05, SB 17-04 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-16.3 SECTION 179-9-020 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes removal of existing gas canopy and replacement with a 46 x 50 sq. ft. canopy with an increase from 2 pumps to 4 pumps. A variance was granted for front yard setback, travel corridor and permeability requirements, and I do have comments from the Town Engineer that were e-mailed to me this evening. So I can read them into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,why don't you read them now,if you don't mind. MRS. MOORE- This is addressed to Mr. Brown. The Chazen Companies has received a submission package from your office for the above project. The applicant intends to remove an existing canopy and replace it with a 46 x 50 foot canopy with four gas pumps. The applicant proposes to extend the blacktop to accommodate the wider canopy. Submitted information includes the following: Plans and Details, Stormwater Calculations, and a Site Plan application with supporting documentation. Your office has requested that we limit our review to the design of stormwater management and erosion and sediment control items as it relates to compliance. Site Plan: 1. The proposed site improvements disturb approximately 3,700 square feet of land and will not be subject to NYSDEC Phase II Stormwater Regulations. 2. The Applicant performed test pit analysis of the soils on September 24th which Chazen witnessed. The soils testing showed groundwater mottling at one-foot below the existing ground surface. Also, the soil strata consisted of a high amount of clay. Thus, 6-foot deep dry wells are not necessarily the best application for stormwater management on this site. It is noted that the dry wells would violate the 3-foot separation distance to groundwater per the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual. With this said, any subsurface stormwater management design will not be effective at this site. The Applicant shall revise the stormwater design to match the site conditions. Perhaps the Applicant can explore the use of a small planted depression with an overflow or outlet to the existing stormwater system to provide treatment and attenuation of the stormwater. 3. The Applicant does not depict any erosion and sediment controls on the site layout plan. As such,the Applicant shall implement the use of silt fence downgradient of the proposed disturbed areas and it is recommended that the Applicant consider inlet protection on the existing catch basins.4. In order to verify that there are no conflicts from stormwater devices being located directly adjacent to water service lines, the Applicant shall show the approximate location of the water service line to the store. Conclusions and Recommendations It is our opinion that the applicant should provide clarification for the above items. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LEWIS-Hi there. Tom Lewis, Real Estate rep at Stewarts. I'm happy to say we got through zoning, which was unanimous, and their issue that I'm sure is in writing, they were concerned about the drainage because of less permeable blacktop. So I, and I'm not an engineer, and through all these years, all I know is water goes down. So in anticipation of this, I asked our design people for a site plan and show me how the water works and they said that it will not only be worse, but it'll be better, and they added some catch basins, and I brought the plans with me, which are over there, that showed how there'll be less drainage off the site and then I got a phone call from the person who was with Sean this afternoon and said everything we just told you is wrong, and my successor, who will take over what I do next April, they hired an engineer, which was very smart. So,he knows water goes every which way, and so he phoned me,having talked with Sean Doty, and said that if we do a rain garden and, whatever that is, I guess when it rains the water goes somewhere, that that should suffice to make sure that there's no additional water that goes off site if this is approved. Now this Board may find other reasons not to have a vote this evening, but we would ask that, as to the drainage, that anything the Board does would be conditioned on your engineer approving that, in fact, we have done what's said there. So, we have our variance. I went into, again, the reason for doing this is that this will improve the internal circulation that caused, there's one member here who wasn't here last time. Even though it seems counterintuitive that you're adding pumps, and so how could you say that that'll make things move faster. The woman who was on the Zoning Board when I said that instantly got it. She said that she's been at this shop many,many times and there'll be more than four cars that are there, and it's so successful that there are cars that are waiting in front of it and in back of it and get through, and having four islands rather than two, cars will be able to move in faster. So out of a $200,000 investment we're going to improve all the lights. All of the lights will be replaced with LED down lighting. The light at the canopy is flush and down lit. In addition to which, I thought this Board might ask for more landscaping,which happens occasionally. So I brought along something that I'll hand out as to what we submitted, and I asked our design people, would you do more, please. So let me just pass this out. It shows you before and after. You will see on top, last week, second sheet, this week. So to and behold I did not ask him why didn't you do this the first time. So you'll see we've just, you 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) know, put the whole front section and just landscape it all the way around, which we think makes more sense. MR. KREBS-And when we talk about a rain garden, basically what we're talking about is a planting of high absorption plants, so they use more water than the average plant. So if you do that, you don't have as much drainage into the ground. MR. LEWIS-And that goes into the system,then. So that's what we are proposing to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where is the rain garden? MR. LEWIS-I do not know,but if, again,it would have to be satisfactory to the engineer, Chazen, and this Board. If this Board wants me to come back again,that's all right. It's a short drive. MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, I'm always looking to ask new questions and different questions, and I finally got a great chance on this one. What are you going to do with the big rocks that are on the property? MR. LEWIS-What would you like us to do with them? MR. HUNSINGER-Keep them, I like them. MR. LEWIS-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I might be the only one,but I think they look pretty cool. MR. LEWIS-Yes,we actually do that a lot now. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you? Yes. MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. KREBS-But I do concur with the woman on the ZBA. I've been in and out of this many times, and four pumps will definitely speed up the process, because there are usually two or three cars waiting, particularly when you have your special day of the week where you have five cents off. Then it really gets,you know. MR. LEWIS-You'd be surprised, maybe, maybe not, how many times I've gone through this before in other towns, and they just look at me like,you expect us to believe that? Yes, I do, but some people are skeptical. MR. KREBS-Yes,it does work. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know what would speed it up more, one of my major pet peeves about car design,why don't they have the gas on the same side on every car? MR. LEWIS-That would make sense, I know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-As the pump? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That makes too much sense. It does, because most pumps you can go on either side of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it is on the left side and that's where the pump,just pull in. MR. LEWIS-No, I would think there would be a consistency. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He wants it on both sides. MR. HUNSINGER-My wife's car is different from my car. So like depending on which car I'm driving, I've got to think about which side to pull up on,yes. That would make life a lot easier. That would avoid a lot of conflicts. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. LEWIS-I wish I could fix that for you. MR. HUNSINGER-So,lighting, I mean,we really don't have a lighting plan. You said it would be LED, Code compliant. MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You know how much we like the one on Upper Glen. I actually think that this site is not lit well enough. MR. LEWIS-Well, I'm sorry, I'm not going to make it brighter. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,you might actually,you know,but I think it's actually too dim. MR. LEWIS-But it will be Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LEWIS-And those LED's, you know, are adjustable. So if it's, a Board member really thinks they're not bright enough after it's done,you know,call me or the shop manager. MR. HUNSINGER-So you can turn them down if they're too bright? MR. LEWIS-That was my understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-Really? Wow, I didn't know that. MR. LEWIS-This is what I've been told. I've never seen it,but I believe them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. I mean,we've told you before how much we like the one on Upper Glen and how we use that as an example for all the other stations. MR. LEWIS-Years ago that was very hard for the people back at the home office to get that, and actually this Town was the one which altered their thinking, because I think it was the one on 149 and Ridge that we had numerous meetings on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we did. MR. LEWIS-And then once we built it, and, you know, met what the Town wanted and the boss looked at it and said, oh, okay, yes, and the only thing we cared about was that cars don't hit each other or hit people,but it was fine,it worked. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the problem that I have with this store, and again, maybe I'm the only one, but if I'm driving down Bay Road, driving south on Bay Road, the overhead light that lights up the entrance,that's the one that I think is too dim. I think the canopy lights are okay. You can certainly see well enough once you're pumping,but the entrance. MR. LEWIS-Well, I think your Code, that that light is where your Code is. So you might want to consider at other locations at entranceways,because that really is a safety factor at an entranceway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no, I agree. MR. KREBS-And there's no immediate residential people who are going to be disturbed by that light. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or 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? Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? We do have outstanding engineering issues with stormwater. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Make them contingent. MR. KREBS-I mean, part of the draft is that engineering signoff required prior to signature by Zoning Administrator. So that kind of covers that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except for a rain garden. I mean, I would, I don't know where it's going to go on the site plan. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, I mean, we don't have all the calculations and everything, but certainly the increase is quite notable. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes. MR. TRAVER-They have been reported to be rain gardens, and we know they are an effective device. If there are, as presented, rain gardens, and we have no reason to assume they're not, then that should have a very positive effect on engineering. MR. KREBS-And I was just going to add,on Item Seven,lighting to be Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt? In reference to the landscaping, they're not noted right now as rain gardens. You can ask them to be noted,the areas that are increased in landscaping,maybe they can be created as rain gardens. Right now they're just landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-So maybe that's part of your. MR.TRAVER-Yes. Make that part of the resolution as well. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR.TRAVER-That the additional landscaping elements be designed as rain gardens. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,they may not need all of them to be rain gardens,but. MR. LEWIS-We will meet whatever the engineer requires or exceed it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Okay. Well, if the Board's comfortable moving forward,then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no further SEQR review is necessary, and you said you're going to leave the rocks. MR. LEWIS-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't really care where you put them, just, I think they add character. I don't think you were going to take them off site anyway. They're too heavy,too heavy to move. MR. LEWIS-I think,they usually tell me what they're going to do before I get here. MR. KREBS-Not unless the beverage company and the tire company need some more. MR.TRAVER-He's got the concrete buffer there. MR. KREBS-Yes, I know,and it's changed about three or four times since. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Prior to you reading your resolution,can I just clarify? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So I have some of the additional landscaping to be provided to be utilized as rain gardens,and then lighting to be Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-Okay,and do you want to leave the rocks in,in your resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think we need to say that. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Ready for a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#40-2013 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of existing gas canopy and replacement with a 46' x 50' (2,300 sq. ft.) canopy with an increase from 2 pumps to 4 pumps. Activity includes an increase in paved area around the canopy and relocation of one planting bed. Site improvements in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9-17-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 9-18-2013; SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-24-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO.40-2013 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 3) We are adding to this document the fact that lighting to be Code compliant; 4) The additional landscaping,some of them will be rain gardens; 5) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 8) 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 24th day of September 2013,by the following vote: MR. KREBS-And, Number Eight,the additional landscaping to be integral rain gardens. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MRS.MOORE-Some. MR. KREBS-What? MRS. MOORE-The word some, some of them, because I don't necessarily want all of them as rain gardens. MR. KREBS-Some of them will be rain gardens,okay. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. Good night. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 49-2013 SEQR TYPE II RICH &JILL LONG OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING LC-42A LOCATION 2407 RIDGE ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 757 SQ. FT.ADDITION AND TO ALTER A 351 SQ. FT. PORTION OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT INCLUDES A NEW PORCH ENTRYWAY. THE PROJECT INVOLVES AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM, UPDATING AN EXISTING BATHROOM, UPDATING AN EXISTING BEDROOM, ENCLOSING UTILITIES AND REMOVAL OF A SHED THAT PREVIOUSLY HELD UTILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LC-42A ZONE, PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 46-13, V 67-98, AV 2-96, BP 98-639, BP 97-048 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 APA,CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.4-46 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 RICH&JILL LONG, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested. The variance relief requested is for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, setbacks and permeability requirements of the LC-42 zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. LONG-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to tell us about your project? MRS. LONG-Not really. It's pretty self-explanatory. We just want to add on to something that's already there and upgrade what we have. My father has moved in with us. My mom passed away in June, so I had to bring him into my home. So I just have to enlarge a bathroom so I can get a wheelchair accessible shower unit in there for him and just get him his own little space. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,and just for the record,you are Rich and Jill Long? MRS. LONG-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. All right. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? I don't think we really had any issues with it. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-No one was here. MR. KREBS-When you're facing the property from Ridge Road, is the expansion going to be to the left? MRS. LONG-To the left,to the side,yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. KREBS-Okay. I see no problem. There's a lot of land to the left of it,too,that's unoccupied. MRS. LONG-There's woods there. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? It says on the agenda a public hearing. We don't usually do public hearing for recommendations. MRS. MOORE-You don't need to utilize a public hearing because today's the Planning Board recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-So it wasn't advertised as a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, so all we're doing is the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.Well,if there's no other comments or questions,we'll entertain a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#46-2013 RICH &JILL LONG The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a 787 sq. ft. addition and to alter a 351 sq. ft. portion of an existing home that includes a new porch entryway. The project involves an additional bedroom, updating an existing bathroom, updating an existing bedroom, enclosing utilities and removal of a shed that previously held the utilities. Site Plan Review is required for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Variance: Relief is requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure, setback and permeability requirements of the LC-42A zone.Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2013 RICH & JILL LONG, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And this goes to the ZBA tomorrow,right? MRS.MOORE-It goes to the ZBA tomorrow and then back to the Planning Board in October. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. MR. LONG-Thanks. See you next month. NEW BUSINESS: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) SITE PLAN NO. 51-2013 SEQR TYPE II DENNIS LAFONTAINE-MARTHA'S DANDEE CREME AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL OWNER(S) 1133 STATE ROUTE 9,LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1133 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 46' X 36' (1,656 SQ. FT.) ENCLOSED COLD STORAGE POLE BARN BUILDING ON EXISTING GRAVEL AREA WITH MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO LIGHTING AND PARKING. LANDSCAPING SITE WORK INCLUDES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF TREES AND SHRUB MIX ON SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. SITE WORK/BUILDING MODIFICATIONS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 71-11, SP 62-07 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 LOT SIZE 2.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-3 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS LA FONTAINE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 46 x 36 enclosed cold storage pole barn building on an existing gravel area with minor improvements to lighting and parking. Landscaping site work includes removal and replacement of trees and shrub mix on the south property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LA FONTAINE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LA FONTAINE-Sure. Dennis LaFontaine,owner of Martha's Dandee Creme. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LA FONTAINE-What I like to do is every year, you know, since I bought the place back five years ago, I try and do, you know, an improvement on the property. Last year we took the house down, which was falling apart, hadn't been habitated in 10 years or so, but in the house was a garage, a two car garage, you know, an oversized two car garage that all my cold storage went, ice cream machine, you know, I'll buy ice cream machines for parts and stuff like that, and I just have no storage. So what I do, on the left side of the property I have blue box, you know, the blue box that you rent, and I just think that makes it look awful on the property, so I wanted to put up a nice clean building so I can do cold storage on the left side. I'm willing to put a rock or two if you'd like, if that helps. MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering what the storage container was in the front,yes. MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes, well, you know, you have the umbrellas and stuff that I like to keep out of the weather during the winter,just,you know, a lot of small stuff that I have literally no place to put it inside. So I've been doing those rental boxes and I don't like the looks of it on the property. I want to do a nice clean building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LA FONTAINE-That's about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR.TRAVER-Sounds like it'll be an improvement to the property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on lighting? MR. LA FONTAINE-There's a row of pines there, and it actually really darkens up that side of the property. So,you know,the plans are to put three 12 foot poles with downcast lighting on that side, and the pines are going to come down to make room for the building, and then we're going to put in plantings,you know, and the three poles because that side of the property is dark, and just bring in the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other question I had was what color is the building going to be? MR. LA FONTAINE-White. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-White? MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes. MS.WHITE-And match the existing building. MR. LA FONTAINE-And match the existing,everything else on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or 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? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEQR. So unless there's any other lingering questions or comments, if anyone would like to put forward a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 51-2013 DENNIS LA FONTAINE- MARTHA'S DANDEE CREME A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of 46' x 36' (1,656 sq. ft.) enclosed cold storage pole barn building on existing gravel area with minor improvements to lighting and parking. Landscaping site work includes removal and replacement of trees and shrub mix on south property line. Site work/building modifications in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-24-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2013 DENNIS LA FONTAINE MARTHA'S DANDEE CREME, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff, 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt.,grading,landscaping&lighting plans; 3) The new lighting would be Code compliant; 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to add that the new lighting would be Code compliant? MR. KREBS-Sure. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. LA FONTAINE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,good luck. MR. MAGOWAN-Maria, I'll do a yes on that,too. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HOBBY LOBBY AGENT(S) P132 ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. RELOCATION OF THE TRUCK WELL (1,040 SQ. FT. ) FROM REAR OF THE BUILDING TO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED. PROJECT ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A 1,125 SQ. FT. VESTIBULE; A 332 SQ. FT. LOADING DOCK,AND A NEW SIDEWALK AREA WITH THE VESTIBULE OF LESS THAN 2,000 SQ. FT. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE MODIFICATION TO SP 21-13 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-47 SECTION 179-3-040 BECKY SHINGLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a modification to an approved Site Plan, relocation of the truck well to from the rear of the building to the side of the building is proposed. Project activities include the addition of the 1,125 square foot vestibule, a 332 square foot loading dock, and new sidewalk area with the vestibule of less than 2,000 sq. ft., and they're primarily here because of the relocation of the truck well. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Good evening. MS. SHINGLER-Hi. Becky Shingler representing Hobby Lobby. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MS. SHINGLER-That was it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought it looked pretty straightforward, but if there's any questions or comments from the Board. MR.TRAVER-We looked at it pretty carefully the first time. MR. KREBS-Yes, I don't see any problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I certainly agreed with Staff comments when I first started reading the narrative about the project, you know, the thought was, well, is this going to alter the traffic flow or,you know, change,you know, parking or anything else for any of the other proposed uses, and, quite frankly, I didn't see how it would, but I don't want to draw the conclusion for everybody. MR.TRAVER-Anecdotally, I've heard some conversations around that people are looking forward to doing some business there. MS. SHINGLER-We have the lease signed,so this is our last step. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that's good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the color, right? MS. SHINGLER-Yes. That looks a little green. It's a little more tanny. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-It will clean up the corner,that's for sure. MS. SHINGLER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a long time coming. MRS. MOORE-I have talked to the agent that represents the property itself, and we had discussed stormwater and discussed this Walgreens/Chili opportunity, and my understanding is that, in regards to stormwater, they are moving forward with that, getting an update of how that system works, and that report will be coming to us shortly. In regards to the Walgreens/Chili and how that interfaces with the parking, at this time they're not going to pursue the Chili/Walgreens. We'll probably see some other project in the future. So, I did confirm that there is not a parking issue at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. SHINGLER-And I have a note that the storm sewers is scheduled for this week, starting Wednesday,completed Friday,and the report will be next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Okay. Any additional questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well,if there's no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted. MRS.MOORE-You already did your SEQR. You can reconfirm your SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I don't think we need any other special conditions. MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So unless there's any other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 52-2013 HOBBY LOBBY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan. Relocation of the truck well (1,040 sq. ft.) from the rear of the building to the side of the building is proposed. Project activities include the addition of a 1,125 sq. ft.vestibule; a 332 sq. ft. loading dock, and a new sidewalk area with the vestibule of less than 2,000 sq. ft. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/24/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2013 HOBBY LOBBY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) We are re-confirming a Negative Declaration for SEQR; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) 3) Waiver requests granted: lighting, site utilities, stormwater, topography, landscaping, district boundaries, traffic flow, soil logs/water supply, waste disposal, and snow removal information; 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MS. SHINGLER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2013 SEQR UNLISTED JAMES VARANO AGENT(S) STUART J. THOMAS OWNER(S) JOHN R. FAZIO, JR. ZONING MDR LOCATION LOT 62, MONTRAY HEIGHTS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. INSTALLING/MAINTAINING A BUFFER LESS THAN 50 FEET BETWEEN ZONES (CI & MDR- 10 FEET IS PROPOSED) REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-59 SECTION ARTICLE 8 STUART THOMAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES VARANO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a single family home with a 10 foot buffer adjoining a commercially zoned property. Under Article 8 this information, the landscaped buffer can be discussed between the Planning Board and an applicant. The requirement is a 50 foot wide buffer natural vegetation area and the applicant has proposed a 10 foot buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.VARANO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record,please. MR.VARANO-I am Jim Varano. MR.THOMAS-I'm Stuart Thomas. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.THOMAS-I'm the agent. He's the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to tell us about the project? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Pictures would make it easier. There's a little abstract, Sheet 2 has a lot of the information you're seeking on it,but there is no building existing now. The lot was created in 1920 and it meets all current zoning if we had a building permit, other than the fact that the 50 foot buffer, based on Buffer C overlay, there's a commercial (lost words) MDR adjacent zoning and the 50 foot buffer makes it unbuildable, and so you take a look at Sheet 2, we designed the proposal as we can with reducing the buffer down to 10 feet because we need room to get to the back of the property,and he needs some runoff from the house, stuff like that,and it's pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. TRAVER-Well, it seems that's virtually the only way he's going to be able to construct the building,the way it's laid out. It's a very unusual piece of property. MR.THOMAS-They're all unusual. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So it would seem. It seems that they're getting more and more unusual every month. MR.THOMAS-They're not making any more like the one they just made. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it your intent to build something really quickly? MR. THOMAS-I think in the narrative on Page One, and on the sheet I handed out, the plan is to build this spring,in 2014. MR.VARANO-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only caution I make is, I mean, you understand the buffer is to really protect residential properties from non-residential properties. MR. THOMAS-If you look on Page One, Sheet One, top right hand corner, you'll notice that there's actually 100 foot of buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.THOMAS-And so we are still recommending a 60 foot buffer,but I think Jim wants to live there. So I think he can talk a little bit about his thoughts about the buffer. MR.VARANO-I'd like to say that the 40 feet is enough. We'd still keep vegetation to protect me from the commercial, meaning that the light pollution or from headlights. You can't sconce them down, so by the fence being in the location where it is now, I still would like to keep that there, as well as the vegetation all on that side so that we're protecting ourselves as much as possible from any parking lot issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. 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? We do have one. I would ask if you could state your name for the record and speak into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is available on line and it's also used to transcribe the minutes. So,thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KURT KOSKINEN MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. My name's Kurt Koskinen. I live at 171 Montray Road,the home immediately to the right on this picture here, and I have no problem with doing what you're looking to do. Just along my fence, I have a wooden fence that goes from the road basically just to the side of my home there, and I just thought maybe 20 or 25 feet along the fence you could leave a few of those trees so it kind of blocks the noise from the road. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. MR.THOMAS-There's no structure for variance. MR. HUNSINGER-They did submit a Short Form SEQR. MR. KREBS-Jim, are you moving here so that you can be, you don't have to cook anymore, you can just kind of walk through the backyard over to? MR. VARANO-I've been there before. They've got good food. Actually it's very convenient for that purpose. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. KREBS-The food is very good and inexpensive. MR.THOMAS-We're trying to wiggle in a little free comedy nights thrown in. 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. MR. DEEB-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. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-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.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) 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. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-With that we will declare a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 53-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JAMES VARANO,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of, September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question in regards to, I know that a member of the public asked about a 20 foot buffer or an area where there would be trees, and I just want to clarify, you have a 25 foot setback, and is the Board concerned about maintaining that buffer on that side with a specific distance or number of trees,maybe you could answer that question. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's not a buffer. What he's talking about is to the right of the property facing the property, which would be next to the house. Let me show you what I'm talking about. The buffer that we're talking about only goes to the center line here. So he's talking about these trees here, and this is not part of the part that we're asking the Planning Board. It's this section that's adjacent to the commercial. So it's this section here. What he's asking for is more of a neighborly thing. It's not something that's at question here. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MRS. MOORE-My reason for asking is whether the Board wants to include that as part of their resolution and when we look at the word buffer as part of our Code you cannot clear, you cannot store,you cannot do anything in something labeled the buffer. So if we're just going to put, if you're going to identify a series of trees along that side of the property that you're going to maintain, does the Board want to include it as part of their resolution, or are they comfortable with the applicant working that out with his neighbor? MR.THOMAS-It's not part of the application. MRS.MOORE-It can be. That's why I want to clarify it with the Board. MR. THOMAS-There's setbacks in place. What we'd have to do is we'd have to follow the rules of the setbacks in order to get a building permit. What the guy is talking about is he has some, a fence here and some trees here. The truth of the matter is, if you walk the property, there are not that many trees within that 25 feet. However, that would create a buffer, a new buffer zone, or a spot zoning that doesn't exist currently, because the buffer is 50 feet on this side, 50 feet on that side, and he's referencing this section which is not in a current Town buffer. MS. WHITE-I think what Laura's trying to say is that Jim has, Mr.Varano has agreed to leave those remaining, and Laura's asking if we should just include that agreement as part of our recommendation. MR.THOMAS-I think it's a neighborhood thing and I'm not quite sure that, I mean,Jim's a guy that's going to get along with his neighbors. MR. VARANO-I may be able to answer that a little bit. Because of the size, we've given ourselves a decent sized home. I want to keep as much trees along every side. I don't want to really have anybody seeing in or seeing out. So, in answering his question, meaning the fellow that was here, neighbor,yes, I'm going to leave some of them. I don't know how that applies to what we're doing with the buffer, so to speak,because that's on the other side, Buffer C,but the setbacks naturally are 25 on that side. I don't plan on cutting trees right up to that,by no means. I want to make sure that I can't be seen. I want to be able to run around there a little bit. MR. THOMAS-And there's a fence there. That wasn't part of the application, but what he was talking about is there's a fence. It's about 60 feet long,and it runs actually,it doesn't run all the way in the woods. It runs. MR.VARANO-From the front of his house,a little bit in front of it. MR. THOMAS-It runs from about here to about right there. Right there is the fence line he's talking about, and so I think this is just about being good neighbors. I think we can get too far. I think the question's a good question, but I think that this is something, when he does this house plan, and he gets a building permit,he's going to want,you know, it's going to take him a little while to build this house. He's going to want his neighbor to be happy and watching over the site,too. I mean,he's not going to say I'm going to bulldoze everything, and also if you look on Page 3 of Sheet 3 of your application package, there is a cutting plan there the Town asked us to submit. So it's not, if you take a look at it,we're not proposing to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,thank you. You already gave us a cutting plan. So I think that covers it. MR.THOMAS-Thank you. I mean, I do understand the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I think we're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 53-2013 JAMES VARANO A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Installing / maintaining a buffer less than 50 feet between zones (CM & MDR- 10 feet is proposed) requires Planning Board review and approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) A public hearing was advertised and held on 9-24-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2013 JAMES VARANO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: This is 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: 10 ft.buffer area versus a 50 ft.buffer; 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR.VARANO-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board? It seemed like there was some issue that we had to talk about. MRS.MOORE-I can,the SEQR forms that are up and coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what I was going to ask. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. When are we going to start to see those,do you know? MRS.MOORE-You will see them for your November submissions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Those that are already in the queue are still using the existing form. Does that make sense? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-At your October meeting I have, if I can carve out a bit of time, I will go through some of those forms with everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Indicating where we need to fill in. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-Things like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't know how many people sat through the discussion at the new forms. MR.TRAVER-We'll start using those next month. MRS.MOORE-No,you'll use them in November. MR. HUNSINGER-November's meeting. Yes. That was the other question I have, you know, we're sitting here, we go through very single question on SEQR. Is that really necessary? Can we just make a resolution? MRS. MOORE-I can talk with the Town Attorney. I have seen some communities indicate their own SEQR and do a blanket motion without addressing all those questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it makes sense on the Long Form to have some discussion on items where there's a small to moderate impact or potential large impact, but, I mean, especially on the Short Form. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we're all so familiar with the questions and it just seems like it would be easier if we could just go right to the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Yes, at least, my question, too, if we could maybe avoid the sub-questions, unless somebody has,you know what I mean, all individual. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. I mean, now's a good time to consider those things, since we're looking at new SEQR forms. MRS. MOORE-I'll confirm with the Town Attorney if there's anything that we readily need to read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Good. Any other discussion? Anything else that needs to come before the Board? Paul, I thought you were going to make a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. Two meetings next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 28