Loading...
12-19-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19,2013 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2013 Dodge Watkins &Larry Clute 1. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54, 55 Subdivision No. 8-2013 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25 Site Plan No. 67-2013 Michael&Tammy George 20. Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.1 Site Plan No. 69-2013 144 River Street, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-41, 42 Site Plan No. 70-2013 Lake George Northway, LLC 26. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-1 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 12/19/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB PAUL SCHONEWOLF JAMIE WHITE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Thursday, December 19, 2013. We're on the Town of Queensbury time so the clock says seven. We're going to start. For members of the audience,welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. Having said that, we are going to go out of order a little bit from the published agenda. That is we will hear for our first project Subdivision No. 6-2013 for Dodge Watkins and Larry Clute as our first agenda item. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 MODIFICATION TO SB 13-1972 SEAR TYPE II DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) MATT STEVES ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE, 5 TWICWOOD LANE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE & 5 TWICWOOD LANE. ACCESS WILL BE BY TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS -ONE EXISTING AND ONE PROPOSED. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE A V 64 & 65-13, BP 12-201, BP 08-438 LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES AND 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-54, 55 SECTION CHAPTER A 183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application is in reference to a lot line adjustment, in reference to this project, this is a lot line adjustment, and because of this lot line adjustment,there's items that need variance relief. So that includes the lot size for 3 Maplewood Drive, and then the two sheds,the one located on 3 Maplewood Drive and the other shed that's located on 5 Twicwood Lane because they don't meet the required setbacks, and the Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the variance relief. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing the applicants Larry Clute and Dodge and Sandra Watkins. As Staff has stated,this is for a lot line adjustment. You can look at the map, and again I apologize for the confusion for Tuesday not being here and pushing it off to Thursday, but the existing lot line kind of jogs around. It's not parallel to any of the existing structures,and we're just trying to accommodate not only the driveway exits for both lots to have their own driveway, also to accommodate where each of the existing structures are accessing for parking,and you create a more uniform lot line between the two lots. There is about a 900 sq. ft. difference from the 25,650 to the 24,604 of the reduction of Lot 90 on the corner, and the only way to really gain that back would be to swing that proposed lot line to the south on the road, and again, end up with a lot line that just doesn't make sense of where the usage is over there. If anybody's been there,there's, where the existing asphalt driveway, where the turnaround ends, and where the tree line ends and the plantings and everything,this works for everybody who's been utilizing their property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I'm generally not in favor of taking a shared driveway and making it into two separate driveways, but I certainly don't have a problem 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) with what they are proposing to do here. It kind of makes sense. I mean, it's a neighborhood where people drive slow anyway, and,you know, I don't think it'll cause any problems or anything else. It is an unusual lot line currently. MR.TRAVER-It sure is. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not like you're making it worse. Well, if there's no questions or comments from members of the Board,we do have a recommendation that's in our package. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR A V# 64&65-2013 WATKINS&CLUTE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes relocation of the common property line between 3 Maplewood Drive & 5 Twicwood Lane. Access will be by two separate driveways -one existing and one proposed. Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from minimum lot size and accessory structure setback requirements of the MDR zone. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 64 & 65-2013 DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE, 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. This is per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're welcome. We'll now go back to the published agenda and follow that right along. The reason we did this first is because there was no public hearing. All the rest of the projects do have public hearing's scheduled. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE N/A CERRONE BUILDERS AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR, VISION ENGINEERING ZONING MDR LOCATION SWEET ROAD - NORTH SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 29 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR 29 THREE BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMON HOA LAND AND PASSIVE RECREATION. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE TB RESOLUTION 210-2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NYSHPO LOT SIZE 29.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-21,22,25 SECTION CHAPTERA-183 MICHAEL O'CONNOR&DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-The applicant proposes a 29 lot conservation subdivision where 24.22 acres would be broken down so 29 lots occur on the nine acre portion and 17 acres plus or minus is considered open space, 2.5 acres is roads, and.202 acres is a sewer easement. This subdivision is considered a realty subdivision. So it's subject to a Type I environmental review, and the applicant has provided a Long Form. The Board has sought Lead Agency status and should consider acknowledging Lead 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) Agency status for this project. There is still information that is being reviewed by the Town Engineer. This evening I passed out a Map Plan and Report in reference to the sewer information. That's being reviewed by Chris Harrington, and he has, during his review he's provided comments back and forth to the engineer,and I believe those are all resolved at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little& O'Connor. I represent the developer. The principle of the developer,Al Cerrone, is sitting here on my left, and the engineer for the project, Dan Ryan, is on my right. We were here, I think,back in November,at which time we presented our plans for concept approval. We asked for a couple of waivers. There was a consensus among the Board that there would be waivers, and since that time, we haven't changed anything significantly. We've developed more information. Dan has worked very well with the water and sewer, and I think with engineering, and we've answered most of the questions that we have there. We also went to the Town Board because this does involve the extension of a sewer district. We got a consensus that there was no problems with it,they liked it, but it's a matter of the chicken and the egg, and they wanted us to have preliminary approval before they went forward with the formation of the sewer district. So we're here tonight looking for the preliminary approval, and I think you've first got to do your SEQR, and then we will go back to the Town Board, ask for the beginning of the sewer district extension, and hopefully simultaneously we can come back, when they both gel, and ask for your final approval. I don't know if you have questions on what you submitted. I also know that Staff and I talked a little bit about the nature of the housing, and what it would involve, and asked that we do some draft covenants and restrictions, and I've sent those electronically to Staff. They basically, and I have copy for everybody. In fact, I brought 15 copies with me tonight. They are general residential restrictions that says that you will use the property only for residential purposes. It has some restrictions on parking of commercial vehicles, they are the typical things that you will see in a subdivision. We will be forming a homeowners association, and I think we'll probably start that in the next month or so. That does involve some expense, and you end up with a book about like this, it's called a CPS 7 filing with the Attorney General's Office because we do have common areas and we have walkways and recreation area that will go into the homeowners association. One thing maybe unique about this is that we will offer all of the potential purchasers the right to sign up, if you will, for all exterior maintenance. So they're maintenance free. We will not require that, and we will probably end up with two levels of dues. We'll have one level of dues for the people that just join the homeowners association which get involved with maintaining the common areas, providing for insurance on the common areas, the annual accounting that has to go for that, and it will also probably include garbage pickup. We have found that, in another subdivision where we have one provider of that service, we get a much better price for the entire subdivision, and it's much more uniform as to the pickup. You don't have somebody coming every morning, and actually in that subdivision I think we charge $44 for the general membership, for the ones that don't have the maintenance free part of it, and if you actually look at the $44 and what they would pay for individual garbage pickup on a monthly basis, it becomes very economical to them, and it works well within the subdivision. It keeps traffic out of the subdivision. MR. KREBS-Well, I've tried several times to get the Town Board to pick up garbage by, and put it out for contract, by Ward, because I live on Masters Common North, and we have six different haulers. So environmentally, and that's six one week and then, because you pick up the recyclables separately, it's 12 trucks the next week that go through our subdivision. It's not only the wear and tear, but it's all the grease and oil, etc., and, you know, I would love to see a single contractor do that. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-Yes, we do that in another subdivision we have, and it works. You don't have those trucks every day. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a 28 acre site, and we're developing half of the site. Half of the site remains as open space. The area and the trees that are along Sweet Road pretty much stay in place. We have a very good buffer along Sweet Road. We have one entrance to the subdivision. We have a boulevard effect for that, so that we basically have two lanes to the point of intersection with the circular road that goes around. We have a walking system or walking path, if you will,through the subdivision. One of the waivers we asked for and you seemed to be acceptable, because of the limited amount of traffic in there,we are not putting in sidewalks. We will have the width of a road sufficient so that people can actually walk on that road, or they can walk on the internal paths if 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) they want to. Our setbacks, I think we have them all on the maps, and the plans that you have in front of you. We're talking about 10 yards, or 10 foot side yard setbacks, 30 foot front and 30 foot rear. The average size of a lot in there is .3 acres. I think the smallest is .28 acres. The average, or the mean lot width is 90 feet. We intend to have earth tone colors. Somebody asked that question when we were here for concept. Maximum will be two stories. Some of them will be one story. We've shown, in the Map Plan and Report for the sewer, each home being a three bedroom home. I will tell you that they won't all be three bedroom homes. These are homes that are built per contract. They aren't, we may have a model or two that we build, but we don't build on spec on a regular basis. Some of them might have four bedrooms. Some of them might have two bedrooms. Dan has talked to the water and sewer people and they're satisfied with the flows that we show based upon a three bedroom design, with the understanding that some may be two and some may be four, and that's basically it. I'd be glad to give the Board members copies of these restrictions if you want. At this point I'll just give it to you for the file. Because I know we're coming back. MRS.MOORE-Yes, I can hand them out to the Board members. So I'll take them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I don't think there's any harm in getting them tonight. MRS. MOORE-I was thinking that a set went to the Board members,but if they haven't,then now we have those copies. So,do you want me to forward this to you now? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we're not going to consider it tonight, but we can certainly accept them tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have questions for us, or where do you want to go? Dan, do you want to update them a little bit on? DAN RYAN MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean, I can give you a brief rundown. Obviously,from an engineering perspective, we've submitted all the technical documents, including 18 site plan drawings, reports for the sewer and stormwater, and certainly all the technical data has been provided on the cover page for your consideration related to the lot development. I think Mike summed up most of the parameters that affect, overall,the development. I think the important aspects are the pretty extension stormwater system. We do have proposed landscaping and obviously the 55%open space or green space that's preserved as a result of the smaller lots proposed. We do have interior lighting proposed which has been included in the set of plans, and certainly I'd be happy to answer any, you know, further questions you have related to the technical aspects of the documents. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do we stand on comments back from the Town Engineer? MRS. MOORE-A new set of information has been forwarded,will be, I believe it has been forwarded, but that information from the applicant was just received this week. So that information has to get forwarded to the Town Engineer. So we do not have a final comment letter from the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. MR. RYAN-I think one of the only other things I would reiterate is this is in accordance with the conservation subdivision regulations, which does allow for a small density bonus, and those computations are provided as well,and that's how we arrived at(lost words). MR. TRAVER-How do you calculate the, or what do you anticipate the impact on traffic on those roads to be? I know we touched on that when you were here way back. MR. RYAN-Yes, I think in the Full Environmental Assessment Form we provided we did provide an estimate of anticipated traffic. I don't have the number. I can look it up for you, but in terms of typical traffic, I want to say it was 100 trips per day would be the typical,it was calculated per ITE. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand the numbers and how they relate to the number of new homes. I'm thinking more of the impact on Sweet Road and, not just the numbers,but in terms of the actual practical impact on, or the changes in the character of that highway versus the way they are now, with 29 additional families. I say that because I know that there are some issues on that road. MR. RYAN-I think that road serves as a good shortcut for a lot of people, and that's where a predominant amount of the traffic is generated is coming from Route 9,cutting over to the east. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. RYAN-We haven't done an in depth traffic study of Sweet Road to know, really, how the development will integrate with what's going on now, but certainly being a residential neighborhood,the peaks are going to be early morning and afternoon, obviously with periodic trips throughout the day, but I really can't speak definitively about the impact, overall, on Sweet Road itself. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, part of the reason for my concern, is because of the density, the number of homes you're talking about. If you were doing the regular one acre per home,you wouldn't have nearly the traffic impact, I don't believe, and that impact would more likely be as you describe, in morning and evening, more typical residential,but with 29 residences, I think there's a lot,there's a much broader window for a variety of lifestyles and a variety of uses, and I think the impact is going to be much more diverse, you know, on that driving environment. I guess that's what I'm looking for,some reassurance about. MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean, we did provide, in Sketch Plan stages, I think last year, the alternative standard design, without the conservation subdivision concept, and without the density bonus. It only reduces it 20%. So you're talking four or five homes fewer of a conventional design versus what we propose,but you certainly lose out on all the added benefits of a conservation subdivision. So I would say if you're looking at it from a standpoint of traffic, I think the benefits of a conservation subdivision, with the added four or five houses, certainly outweighs, significantly, the counter effects of a few extra houses with traffic. MR.TRAVER-And last but not least, do you have any idea of, in terms of the phasing, I mean, I know it's market dependent, but do you have a vision? I would think that in your business plan you would have some kind of a vision for how long you think it might take before you actually have houses and you have residents there, about how long the whole build out would take, or are you planning on doing it in a phased? MR. CERRONE-No. How are you doing? My name's Al Cerrone. I'm the principle here. You can't phase this because it's one big loop, okay, because you have issues with the fire department and everything else, but we're looking to get started somewhere in April/May and start construction probably 90 days later is a good estimate. We're anticipating a three year build out. MR.TRAVER-Three years? MR. CERRONE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay,and did I hear you say you expected to have model homes for people to see? MR. CERRONE-Probably going to put up one model. MR.TRAVER-One model home? MR. CERRONE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. CERRONE-We have others on paper,you know,that we do. MR. TRAVER-Sure, and I know a lot of it's done on computer these days. I mean, you sit someone down and they can change the colors. You can change. MR. CERRONE-That's right,and we have in house on that,too. MR. O'CONNOR-The infrastructure will all go in at one time. MR. CERRONE-On that traffic thing you were talking about,the people that we're going to generate, the customers here, you know, are seniors, not seniors, but, you know, 55 plus. So they're not going to be coming in and out on those hours, those peak hours. They're going to still be home sleeping. MR.TRAVER-So are you, and I haven't seen your covenant paperwork,but are you,you're certainly targeting this,then,to seniors? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. CERRONE-No, we're not putting an age restriction on it, but when you do a maintenance free development,that's what you're going to attract. MR.TRAVER-You hope. MR. CERRONE-We're doing one right now and that's what we attract, people that don't want to cut, they go away. MR. TRAVER-So, then I guess I misunderstood some of the conversation earlier. I thought that it was optional to have a maintenance free. MR. CERRONE-It is. MR. O'CONNOR-It is optional. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So because it's maintenance free, you're going to attract one customer base, but then you're not requiring it to be maintenance free,so then. MR. CERRONE-What's happening is, and just based on experience, people who retire still have a lot of energy today. They want to cut their own grass, you know, they want to hang out and do something, okay. That's why, then it comes to a point that they don't want to do it anymore, they just join the system. MR. O'CONNOR-We set it up so that they can either elect when they take occupancy, or they can elect at any time on 90 days written notice. MR.TRAVER-So you'll have like an open enrollment periodically or something. MR. O'CONNOR-An open enrollment, and we anticipate that some will get into it and get out of it, some won't be into it,and then decide to get into it. MR.TRAVER-I see. MR. O'CONNOR-We just have to have some time period, some lead time so that the contractor that does this can handle what's going on. MR.TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-How about building design? You said you're going to have a model home and you'll have some other samples. Could we get some elevations? MR. CERRONE-Yes, I'm going to probably say, I think we submitted some. MR. RYAN-Yes,they're in your application,should be. MR. HUNSINGER-I missed it? MR. RYAN-Some floor plans and elevations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry. MR. CERRONE-I'm going to say 90%of the homes are going to be ranches. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay,here it is. MR. O'CONNOR-The seniors,again,want single story living. MR. CERRONE-We've been doing a lot, lately, of these two bedrooms, the home office. People are not looking for big homes anymore. They're looking for smaller. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-How many houses do you anticipate having four bedrooms? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. CERRONE-What happens when I say that four bedroom, you might get a customer that will want two bedrooms on the first level or two bedrooms in the back on the upper level,when the kids come home,when they're in college or whatever,they've got some place to go. MR. DEEB-But there's not going to be a large percentage? MR. CERRONE-No. MR. DEEB-Because they're going to be bigger houses. MR. CERRONE-The footprint would be the same,they'd just be taller. MR. DEEB-You're just going to go up. You're not going to build any four bedroom ranches. MR. O'CONNOR-With the setbacks and septic it would be very, we don't have septic, but setbacks it's difficult. MR. KREBS-But I think we can look at Michaels and Amedore and look at the population that's there, and the great majority of it is seniors who are,they do want the two bedrooms upstairs when the kids come home for Christmas, etc., but 98% of the time it's the two of them living there. So it has to have a bedroom on the first floor. MR. CERRONE-Yes, I would tend to say that this, any development in this area, Surrey Fields, they would have the (lost words). MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Should we accept the Lead Agency status first,or open the public hearing? Does it matter what sequence we do? MR. RYAN-You did Lead Agency last month, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-But we have to acknowledge it,yes. MRS.MOORE-But they need to acknowledge it. So you can do it either way. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can do the public hearing first. We do have a public hearings scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We have at least one person. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would ask that anyone that wishes to address the Board that you direct your comments to the Board and not to the applicant. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available for anyone to listen to on the Town's website. So I would ask that anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record and address their comments to the front. I think,ma'am,you had your hand up first. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JANE ARNOLD MRS. ARNOLD-Good evening. My name is Jane Arnold. My husband and I own a home at 102 Sweet Road,which is across the street from the proposed development. I'm very concerned about the traffic situation. The traffic's increased on that road a great deal since we bought our home about eight and a half years ago. I walk up and down that road frequently. I bike up and down that road frequently. Ever since the bike path has now got the nice new signs on it there's been an increase in bike traffic. There's no sidewalks on that road. It's really dangerous. I walked from Montray down to my house today,which is less than half a mile. I was walking facing the traffic, as I walked, 24 cars and one truck came up the road toward me, this was at about two o'clock in the afternoon. Not all of them slowed down. Not all of them swerved, and I would at least ask that sidewalks be put in on at least one side of that road because otherwise I think we're going to have a very dangerous situation. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. FRED FAGELMAN 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) DR. FAGELMAN-My name is Fred Fagelman. My wife and I live on Orchard Drive, which backs the piece on this property that says recreation area. This is, as far as I know, it's a three and a half acre total wooded area, which has, as far as I know, is pretty much unbuildable due to its location, and when we bought our house which backs this, I was under the impression that this couldn't be built on. I see on this plan there's a plan for what they call a recreation area which, to me, is like a park or something. I'm not sure. I'm very unclear as to what they mean by this,how this is proposed to exactly happen, and how this is proposed to be kept up if they do what they say they're going to do. This is, I think, a pretty unique habitat, it's full of birds and wildlife, and it would, in a lot of ways, I think would be best if it was just left alone and not cut a hole in the middle of it, which I don't see would ever get used or taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Just so you understand, though, that they're going to use nine acres of that twenty-six acres, and the other seventeen acres is going to be kept as conservation land. Do you understand that? DR. FAGELMAN-I understand that part of it. I'm only interested in this three and a half acre piece that's on the other side of the power lines. MR. MAGOWAN-The passive recreation area. DR. FAGELMAN-It's called a conservation area, and in the center of it, they call it a recreation area on their plans. MR. KREBS-Okay,but that's not a buildable,once this is passed,that will never be buildable. DR. FAGELMAN-I understand that,but to me a recreation area could mean anything,and,you know, it's just,they could cut a big swath of trees down. It would seem to me that there needs to be some kind of set rules for this piece of property, as to how it's going to be either left alone or dealt with, and also how it's going to be maintained. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll ask them to clarify that for you. DR. FAGELMAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think there was another hand earlier? Yes, sir. JERRY WELCHER MR.WELCHER-Yes, my name is Jerry Welcher. I'm at 92 Sweet Road, and the only concerns I have are, as Jay mentioned earlier, is about the traffic impact. I've been there 30 years and ever since they built the new road the traffic has certainly increased on the shortcut to Wal-Mart or whatever, and walking on that street is kind of not safe. I'm not sure how that really is impacted by the development,but I just want you to be aware that we're concerned about the traffic, and if there's a big impact, increase in traffic, that even makes it worse, as far as I'm concerned. The other two questions I have is the buffer zone that was mentioned, I'm not sure how deep it is. I live right across the street from where it's going to be. I've seen the engineer in the summer doing his thing, and I just want trees. I don't want to see any houses. I'm not sure how far back they'd go. I'm hoping it's 50 feet, and past that point I don't care what happens. It's not my concern,but I do want to see,keep it as natural as possible,because it's a nice road,it's a nice street. The other thing is the entranceway. I'm almost sure it's going to be right across the street from my house. I'm not sure exactly. I'd love to get some specific information on that. So if that comes out tonight, I'd like to hear about it,and that's pretty much it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Was there anyone else? Yes, sir. Do we have a map, Laura, of the subdivision that shows the entrance clearer,in terms of? MRS.MOORE-It does not show the entrances across from the,across the street from it. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For the record, my name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury. I note from your hearing schedule that this 29 lot conservation subdivision is 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) classified as a SEQR Type I action. Also that this Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status and conduct a SEQR review this evening. Accordingly I direct your attention to the actual negative environmental impacts this 29 unit residential subdivision will have on two surface water bodies, namely the Feeder Canal and the Hudson River. This Board has previously become aware that the domestic wastewater generated by this out of district project estimated at 9,570 gallons per day will flow through gravity sewers to Sweet Road where it will join the flow generated from the Route 9 corridor north to the Million Dollar quarter mile including the County center, the jail, Schermerhorn's property west of the Northway, and thence east on Glenwood Avenue to Bay Road, thence north on Bay Road to Cronin Road, to a point where it will join the flows from upper Bay Road, thence flowing east along Cronin Road, under Halfway Brook, to a point where it joins the flows from Upper Meadowbrook Road, which includes the Community College and its new 450 student dormitory, and all of the development on which at one time was 1100 acres of farmland. From the intersection of Cronin and Meadowbrook, the total of the central Queensbury wastewater flows into the Meadowbrook pump station,where it is lifted and pumped in a force main now north to Cronin and Meadowbrook, west on Cronin under Halfway Brook, to a point behind Quaker Road auto sales, then southerly between the auto sales across Quaker Road, thence westerly along Quaker Road, in and out of Homer Avenue to Bay Street, thence south along the west side of Bay Street, across the City line, past the cemetery, to a point at the intersection of Bay Street and Sanford Street,where all of the central Queensbury sewage, including this proposed project, dumps into one of the City's combined sewers, that is a single conduit, carrying both wastewater and stormwater on its way to the Glens Falls wastewater treatment plant. There are reports that during wet weather events combined with spring ice and snow melts it becomes necessary for these instantaneous combined peak flows, including Queensbury's untreated, undiluted concentrated wastewater to be shunted directly to the Feeder Canal and/or the Hudson River. Because of this illegal point source discharge, which discharge includes central Queensbury's raw sewage, into the waters of the United States via the Glens Falls sewage treatment plant, said plant is classified by both the DEC and the EPA as a combined sewer overflow, subject to the water quality based requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. In recent years,the average daily sewage flow to the Glens Falls wastewater treatment plant measures approximately 5.3 million gallons per day, including flows from Town of Queensbury. However, wet weather flows peak at 20.6 million gallons per day. As a result, the City has consented to the preparation of a long term plan to meet the best management practices of their SPDES permit. I have a copy here of that plan. They have signed a consent order, put this plan into effect. This three phase control plan, when completed, is currently estimated to cost $35 million. This Board will recall, with respect to the Town's reliance on combined sewers, that the recommendations contained in the EPA's 1983 Final EIS on the Lake George Upper Hudson, New York Final EIS did not envision connecting central Queensbury force mains to the City's combined sewer system at Bay Street and Sanford Street. Instead the EPA's recommendation was for new sewers from the yet to be installed central Queensbury sewage collection system to the Glens Falls Treatment Plant. We just never paid any attention to the recommendation of a Federal EIS. MR. HUNSINGER-What year was that dated,John? MR. SALVADOR-Both the EPA and the DEC recognized the City sewage treatment plant cannot function at a capacity which includes the treatment of wastewater generated in the Town sufficient to protect the water quality based recommendations of the Clean Water Act. Included as supporting documentation in the application for Subdivision 8-2012 is Part I of the Full Environmental Assessment which has been completed by the applicant. As you know, the referenced Part I serves as the foundation for the Lead Agency to complete Parts II and III of the EAF. Section D-2 of Part I of the EAF refers to the project's operations, whereas Subdivision D thereunder requires a yes or no answer to the following question,will the proposed action generate liquid waste,and the applicant has properly answered yes. Accordingly,the applicant was asked to furnish the number of gallons per day generated, which he has done and I mentioned before. Question III, will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities, and the applicant has answered, yes. He was required, then, to name the wastewater treatment plant, which he did. The next question, does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to service the project. The question should have received a qualified no, not at all times, rather than an unqualified yes, because of the need to shunt 100% of the Queensbury generated wastewater during the wet weather event to four locations along the Feeder Canal and one directly to the Hudson River. The storm sewer on Warren Street is 48 inches in diameter. Can you imagine the stormwater flowing in that directly to the Hudson River in a storm event? Providing the Board assumes Lead Agency status and recognizes, in completing Part II of the EAF, that there will be an impact on surface waters of the Feeder Canal and the Hudson River, Page Two of Ten asks the following questions, 3D, the proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining the banks of any other water body. This plan calls for construction facilities on the banks of the Hudson River. The proposed action may create turbidity in the water body, either from upland 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) erosion, runoff, or by disturbing bottom sediments. Can you imagine the turbidity in the river as a result of all that flow? The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water body within the downstream site of the proposed action, yes, those people downstream, and the proposed action may require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. It's all covered in this proposed plan. Also, as you elect to take Lead Agency status, I think the project should involve two other agencies. They are very real involved agencies. One is the Town Board,the Town of Queensbury,and the other one is the City of Glens Falls. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Sir? JIM TWYMAN MR. TWYMAN-My name's Jim Twyman. I live on Edgewood Drive in Queensbury, and my main concern, one concern, was just, again, what somebody mentioned before, have they considered the integrity of our neighborhood on Edgewood Drive? We border on that. Is there going to be a buffer between where we live and also the second thing I wanted to bring up, and again, I'm sure they, hopefully they've, there's a lot of springs, underground springs in that area, and I don't know what kind of water tests they've done because by digging them up they might create more problems down on Edgewood Drive,and that's pretty much it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS.WHITE-Can I just ask you where Edgewood is in relation to the project? MR.TWYMAN-Yes,it's going to border Edgewood. MS.WHITE-Is it in Twicwood,so it's like on the back side? MR.TWYMAN-Yes,if you look. MR. KREBS-If you look right here,it's right on the print, Edgewood Drive. MR. TWYMAN-It's a quiet neighborhood in there and I, you know, again, I don't know how close they're going to build to the back of that side,but it's, I was wondering if they,the integrity. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes,sir. PETE TARANA MR.TARANA-My name's Pete Tarana. I live on Edgewood Drive, 27 Edgewood Drive. I was sort of curious, apparently if this were not considered a conservation subdivision, still, there would be 24 or 25 lots from what I heard from the engineer of Cerrone. Does that assume that the triangle up there on the right,top right,that Dr. Fred Fagelman indicated is non buildable,would be buildable? It would seem to be very difficult to put 24 or 25 lots with the current zoning, one acre per lot, on the land that,exclusive of that three and a half to four acre triangle,with roads and whatever else is, you know, can't be built upon. Have you seen that calculation? I'm just wondering, has the Board seen that calculation? Has someone analyzed that? That seems to be a fairly significant question because if you kept it at the current zoning, and that lot still remained, that triangle still remained the buffer, unbuildable, wooded, and instead we saw only 15 or 20 lots maximum, that would be a significant difference, particularly in terms of traffic flow. So I would ask you to look at that analytically, to see just what could be built there, if it stays zoned the way it is, and if that triangle were not,you know, could not be built upon. I would ask you also to do some analysis of the traffic on the road. I've tried to get onto Country Club. I teach at the College at 5:45, so at about 5:20 or 5:30 I'm waiting for the traffic to clear so I can take a left on Country Club. The line of traffic may be five or six cars long. So I would anticipate that would be a significant problem. Of course we would need sidewalks, and of course I think that we'd be looking at a light at that intersection. I think that would change the nature of that intersection substantially. If this does go with the passive park in that triangle, I think it might be a good idea to plant some evergreens in the buffer area around the perimeter of that passive park, the open space that you see on the map. You can't see it up there, but there's an open space, and then around the outside it's supposed to be left natural, but it might well be a good idea to plant some evergreens as a buffer from the Edgewood Drive people and the people that have houses surrounding it. That's about all I have here. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Pete,before you go,where are you looking to put that light? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR.TARANA-Well,coming down Sweet,hitting Country Club. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TARANA-That intersection right there is really busy, and to tell you the truth I think it's pretty dangerous. I don't have access to data on number of accidents at that intersection. I know there have been some,and I know there are traffic jams there at various times of the day. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd have to talk to the Town Board about that because we don't have anything to do with traffic lights. That's not our. MR.TARANA-Yes,well,the ramifications of the building,though,it seems like. MR. SCHONEWOLF-May be, but if there's going to be a traffic light there or not the Town Board would have to decide that. MR.TARANA-Well,your decision might require it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We can't,we don't deal in traffic devices. We can't by law. MR.TARANA-Well,you do consider the impact of traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I drive that road every day. MR.TARANA-So you know what I'm talking about,and that ramification might be a concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. I have been contacted by, I can't remember his first name, I apologize. His last name is Congel, and he expressed a concern about the traffic, and I did have quite a few visitors review the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we will conclude the public hearing for tonight, but we will leave it open until we get through subdivision. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. There was certainly a few questions that would be directed towards you, including buffers and the plans for the recreational area,and some others. MR. O'CONNOR-A lot of the discussion was the same discussion that we had with you during the concept approval process. MR. TRAVER-I would just like to clarify for the record, there's no such thing as a concept approval, so please don't keep repeating that. MR. O'CONNOR-During the concept discussion,okay. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sketch Plan Review. MR. O'CONNOR-Sketch Plan Review. When we get to traffic, I think you are talking what Dan has said, based upon the conventional subdivision, taking out what you would have to take out for a conventional subdivision, you still end up with 24 acres on this site that are developable. I think you'll find in your files, I didn't have one with me tonight, a Sketch Plan map that showed a conventional design, which also included lots on that triangular area which people seem to think should be kept pristine. I mean, we could get an easement that would cross the Niagara Mohawk right of way and would, I think, three or four houses over there, and as to that area, we, I think, talked about doing a walking path in there, and in our discussion during the Sketch Plan Review, it was talked about maybe having a bigger area that maybe could be used as a playing field, if you had kids,or it also could be used as a community garden,to set up an area that people could go over and do gardens over there, as opposed to doing them immediately at their house. We certainly are open to the Board's thoughts as to what they think is the best way to balance that. We do think it has some potential for being a walking area, and that's really what we talk about for the passive recreation. The Town's got a pretty good developed plan for recreation fields here and there, and we weren't intending to make this a recreation area for the general area. That was going to be something that was going to serve these 29 lots, most of which probably won't have kids in 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) residence, if our theory on why people purchase this type of house is correct and is proven correct in another subdivision that we have. Mr. Arnold, or I think it was, I may be wrong on names. Somebody asked about the buffer along Sweet Road. The area that is in the homeowners association is approximately 100 feet deep. That's before you get to the lots, and then we have setbacks, those, the rear of those lots will have a 30 foot setback. So there is a pretty good area of buffer that's going to be maintained for what is there now. When you talk about sidewalks, we talked about sidewalks. We have 1100 feet, or approximately 1100 feet of frontage on Sweet Road. I don't mean to do it sarcastically, but a sidewalk along that 1100 feet would be a sidewalk from nowhere to nowhere. The property on each end of that is already fully developed. There's very little other vacant land, so I don't know, and I think as you get closer to Country Club Road,the area that's immediately adjacent to Sweet Road is very wet, my recollection of that. We asked for a waiver. We would continue to ask for that waiver, and the waiver for the internal subdivision sidewalk as well. If you looked at the map that Laura had up before, somebody asked a question as to how the entrance road would intersect with Sweet Road. It would purposely put so that the travel lanes would be between existing houses. The people coming out would not have their headlights pointing directly at a particular house. You can see where it is now and the aerial photo shows you where the houses are across the street. We tried to take that into consideration and did the best that we could do with it. Whether or not we will affect other people's water or stormwater, this has been engineered so that we retain all of the stormwater that's on the site now is still on the site when it's done, and it's an extensive stormwater plan that has been developed. There will be no increase of stormwater running off this site than what presently does run off the site by nature. There was a question about Edgewood Drive. We are quite a ways away from Edgewood Drive, if I understand where Edgewood Drive is. I think it's to the east of that, and the whole back of the subdivision area that we have is where the three acre passive recreation area is, and then there's an intersection of, I think it's 100 foot wide Niagara Mohawk line that we don't go near, and then on, before Sweet Road itself, we don't do anything. We kind of sweep away from that side of the site, so it's pretty extensive, the buffer. I don't have the measurements. We can give you the measurements of it. As to the capacity of the sewer system, we have gone over this with the Town Water and Sewer Department, and Dan might be able to answer that better than I can. I think the City is operating under a consent order. They have a contract with the Town that says the Town can provide X gallons of sewage, and what we're providing, even at 9,000 gallons a day,goes nowhere near that capacity that the Town has already contracted for. So I don't think the City of Glens Falls is a necessary, or certainly isn't an approving partner or agency, and shouldn't be part of the SEQR coordinated review. The Town Board, at the meeting where we went to them and asked them to begin the setup of the sewer district, actually made a resolution recommending that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency. So I think they are already part of the review process. So I think we've covered those bases. I don't know if there are other specific questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I actually have one. Just in terms of that, and thank you for commenting on it. My understanding, if there were serious concerns about the capacity of the Glens Falls sewer plant, then there would be a moratorium and new hookups would not be allowed. I mean, I'm not an engineer. You deal with this way more than I do. I don't know if you could just comment on that. MR. RYAN-Right. The City of Glens Falls, a moratorium would occur if they were operating outside their capacity limit,which has been approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RYAN-So considering the capacity of the plant, they've already taken into account all the environmental impacts that relate to that total capacity. So assuming they're operating within their capacity which they're required to do by their permit, certainly this project, and anything the Town contributes, is reserved by the City of Glens Falls. So the capacity that they have, ability to treat includes the reservation of the total capacity that Queensbury can supply to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean,that certainly doesn't diminish the consent order that they might be under,but if they were in violation,then new hookups would not be allowed. MR. RYAN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And there have been a number of projects within the City, all part of that consent order, where they have actually separated their stormwater new lines from their sewer. I think they've done Glen Street. They've done South Street. They did Bay Street. They started a little bit up Ridge. They didn't go all the way up Ridge,and they did Warren Street. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember there was a big issue on Warren and Glen recently,if I'm correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I mean, I think everybody's aware of what their restraints are and they're working within those restraints. MR. RYAN-Ultimately the City does have a plan in place to continue to separate storm and, you know, wastewater, and that is going to continue into the future so that each year additional connections where the storm sewers and wastewater sewers connect, they'll be disconnecting those to limit the infiltration runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Now I know the City also just recently completely re-did Bay Road. I think there was discussion that this connects into the sewer on Bay Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the whole central Queensbury sewer district hooks into the City Sewer District at Bay and Sanford. It gets there in various ways of getting there. There's another connection, I think, for some of the sewers that are on the west side of Town, but that doesn't go over to Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-So,they didn't separate the storm and waste sewer? MR. O'CONNOR-Queensbury doesn't have a leakage problem. So when Queensbury is sending it in, they aren't sending stormwater. You can't put, in the systems that Queensbury require,you cannot combine stormwater with sewage. In the City,you know,that didn't used to be prohibited. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-If you go down the City streets, you see all the catch basins that have open grates. Some of them go directly to the same line that serves the sewer, at least my understanding, and I'm not an engineer. I probably shouldn't go there, but my understanding was they weren't concerned about treating,the cost of treating stormwater with sewer. So, I think we can answer the questions that were asked. There's been a lot of discussion, a lot of attempt to make sure that we set this thing up in a manner that we preserve as much of the buffers that we can so that we don't have an impact upon any adjoining properties. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have to address the Lead Agency status. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The next step for us would be to Acknowledge the Lead Agency status. There is a draft resolution in our package. If you'd like to read that. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SUB # 8-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes a 29 lot conservation subdivision for 29 three bedroom single family dwellings along with associated utilities & infrastructure, common HOA land and passive recreation. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status and conduct SEQR review. WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEQR REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. B-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: This is per the resolution prepared by Staff. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next step would be consideration of SEQR. Do members feel that we have enough information to complete the SEQR Long Form? MR.TRAVER-Well,we still have some engineering issues under review to comment on. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Myself, I think it would be helpful if we had some additional traffic information. I'm not sure that I know, specifically,what to ask for,but that can get rather technical. I am concerned, I know we have counts and so on, but I'm concerned about, I know that there's a system where intersections are graded according to traffic flow and impact. I don't know if that's the kind of information that we could get to evaluate,in a more real world sense,the impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do we know what that intersection would be graded at? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which one? MR. HUNSINGER-Sweet and Country Club? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The big intersection's at the other end which has a light on it. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a light there,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sweet and Country Club has its moments,but it's, I can't(lost words). MR. KREBS-And is Sweet a Town road? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we know from, you know, the applicant has indicated that peak traffic would be 29 trips per hour maximum based on ITE calculations. That's in the SEQR form. MR.TRAVER-Right. I mean,they gave us a lot of information about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes. MR.TRAVER-No question. I'm just not sure how to convert that in my head, in areal world way, in this context, and that's my concern. I mean, it could be 10 and it might be significant in one area and it might be 100 in another area and not a problem. So that's where I'm. MR. O'CONNOR-They typically grade an intersection by the period of waiting that you are at the intersection before you can make your turn, and if you take a look at, if 29 is what we have, or what Dan has in his report there, and you discount some going west, some going east, I don't think, you get to a level where you're going to affect that traffic that's on there. I go up and down that road all the time. I use it as a shortcut. MR. HUNSINGER-So do I,yes. MR. O'CONNOR-You know, if you wait for two cars or three cars to get out, if you're coming across Sweet Road,that seems to be about what you're at. MR.TRAVER-Currently,you mean. MR. O'CONNOR-Currently,and if you add another 10 cars to it, I don't. MR.TRAVER-Well, I believe your application says 29 an hour average. MR. RYAN-That's in the peak calculations, 29 cars per hour. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR.TRAVER-And of course that's going up to Route 9,not just down to. MR. RYAN-You know, a certain percentage of them will go to the east and some will go to the west. So if half of them, 15 cars per hour, went toward Country Club,you'd have some additional waiting period, potential, but whether that's to the point of requiring a traffic signal or some other mitigation, you know, that would require a traffic study, obviously, but, you know, 10 to 15 cars in an hour, and that's at the absolute peak, and remember most of the other hours of the day that's not happening. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I've never really waited very long at that end,at the Country Club end. The other thing you've got to remember,and I noticed it today,people going down that street,they don't always go to either end. They cut off. MR. RYAN-Yes,there's side roads. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's side roads,one going to the gas station there which is what most people do. MR. O'CONNOR-That's the traffic going to the west, and I don't think there's any issue or problem with the traffic going to the west. The wait period that I think you're really going to hear and talk about isn't necessarily that's coming out of Sweet Road. It's the traffic that's going north on Country Club Road and trying to turn left into Sweet Road to get the shortcut, and you've got a constant flow of traffic coming down Sweet Road, particularly in the morning. I mean, I take that route on a regular basis. That's,this traffic out of this subdivision, is not going to affect that flow of traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,that traffic's people that are taking the shortcut coming off of Quaker. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they come off,go across by the nursing home. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-And then head north on Country Club Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And they're trying to take a left onto Sweet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then they mess up the intersection at Sweet Road. MR. O'CONNOR-And their problem isn't the traffic that's coming out of Sweet Road, because if you're coming out of Sweet Road, and particularly if the traffic's going right, I don't think you ever have a delay. You may have a delay going north, going left, but the main bottleneck, if there's a bottleneck of traffic on that road, is the constant traffic coming down Country Club Road. It's not really what's going to be generated out of here, whether it's 10, 15 cars, and I really don't think there's a substantial impact or any potential substantial impact, or significant impact, I guess is the terminology. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I suppose, hypothetically, you could say that if there's an increase of traffic here, that would discourage people from continuing to use that as a shortcut. So maybe there would be a net, over time,people would re-learn,you know,where to go,and they would say I don't want to go that way. I'm going to go Plan B or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's why I thought if we knew what the rating was at that intersection, it might be helpful. MR. O'CONNOR-People do go up to, up, and they still try to avoid the light that's at the end of Sweet Road,and they take that road up behind,that goes up by Cumberland,and comes out either there or comes out across from,right by the Skateland. Either area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The speed limit is a question there that I think needs to be. MR. HUNSINGER-That is the big thing. It's everywhere. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MS.WHITE-And it's not really the intersection. It's pulling out of your driveway that's a five minute wait, it can be, because of traffic. So the intersection's not as bad, I think, as for the residents getting out of your driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,but those are the people that live on Sweet Road. MS.WHITE-Well,that's what I'm saying. That's who's being impacted. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think, if you did a hard analysis, I don't think the traffic, for a 29 lot subdivision, is really significant, or can be significant, given the base amount of traffic that you already have on that road. MR. CERRONE-Then you have to also look at the age group we're going to attract,too. MR.TRAVER-Well,but we don't know what age group. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Single story houses with small lots are not going to attract people with large families. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, I know for State roads there's regular traffic counts that you can, that are available. Would there be traffic count available, traffic count information available for Sweet Road or Country Club Road? MRS. MOORE-I guess I would talk with Aaron of A/GFTC and the County and see if they've done any recent traffic studies,or the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes,okay. MR. KREBS-Yes,we might even be able to get that information from Tom Vanness. MRS.MOORE-That's what I said,Town Highway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Town Highway. Yes. Well, I heard at least two members say they want to see some engineering comments before we move forward on SEQR. MR.TRAVER-I think we have to,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So, we did the Lead Agency. You recently submitted new information to the Town Engineer. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think it has more to do with the map plan and report which is (lost word) the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I'm just trying to figure out when we would table this to. MR. O'CONNOR-And there was some additional stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-You could table it to one of the January meetings. Between this time and the January meetings,the applicant has that opportunity to go, now that it's within the process, at least they can work with the Town Board,but during January we could review the SEQR review and the applicant potentially has the opportunity to go to the Town Board,within the month. MR. O'CONNOR-If we're going to go to January, I would like to go to the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-What was that,January 28th? MR. HUNSINGER-It's the 28th,yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-January 28th. MR. DEEB-Can I just ask one more question? MR. O'CONNOR-You can ask whatever you want. MR. DEEB-For clarification,thank you, I appreciate that. You recently said your plan build out was three years? MR. CERRONE-That's what we're hoping for. MR. DEEB-Well, I'm looking at Section D, Subsection E, and you had an anticipated period of construction of 24 months. So that's what you would like. MR. CERRONE-It depends on the economy. It's a good possibility we'd be out therein 24 months. MR. RYAN-In terms of impact, 24 months would be the most intense, but not the longest duration. So I guess it all depends on what you'd prefer in terms of 24 to 36 months is probably what you would expect or anticipate. If things go really well,two years would probably still be a stretch. MR. DEEB-So optimal 24 months would be the optimal. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make that a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to table this to January 28th. Is there a second? MS.WHITE-I'll second. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 8-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 29 lot conservation subdivision to 29 three bedroom single family dwellings along with associated utilities and infrastructure, common HOA land and passive recreation. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12-19-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. B-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS.INC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jamie White: Tabled to the January 28, 2014 Planning Board meeting for engineering comments, and to provide the applicant an opportunity to submit any additional helpful information that they think. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to (lost words) for and you're asking for a tabling for engineering comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Traffic information, do you want the applicant to supply traffic information as well as Staff? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I certainly think more would be better than less. I mean, if there are some, you know,traffic counts or,you know,intersection information, I think that would be helpful. MRS.MOORE-So I guess Staff will work with the applicant and generate traffic information. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then, of course, engineering comments. Is there anything else that we'd be looking for? There's some Staff Notes,too. MRS.MOORE-Maintenance of the open space. MR. O'CONNOR-Maintenance of the open space will be a requirement of the homeowners association. MRS. MOORE-And then what happens, the passive recreation, is it ball field, playground, common gardens? So that information can be clarified. MR. CERRONE-I just want to talk about that open area there. Our intent there was just to keep a mowed area there, put some park benches in there. If the community wants to do a community garden, but keep it simple, nothing crazy about it. We don't have to do that. We could just do walking trails. So it's not something that has to get done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember when we talked about this before, you know, you had indicated that it wasn't your intention to put in a playground or anything like that. MR. CERRONE-No,keep it simple. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. CERRONE-You know, the grandparents want to take their grandkids to let them run around a little bit,yes,do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want us to put a narrative in, or what narrative do you want? Are you leaning to just walking paths or,let me say walking paths,community gardens. MR. TRAVER-Well, if it develops according to what you're describing, I think a walking path is probably going to better preserve the area and be used. I mean, I'm not sure that a lot of seniors are going to be out in the middle of the woods planting a garden, or playing ball or whatever, but they probably would use a walking path,and that would have the least environmental impact. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the thought is if you put a garden in there, how would you, you know,if you needed to water it,how would you water it? MR. CERRONE-And you're right,because then we might have to drill a well out there or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. CERRONE-It gets a little involved. MR.TRAVER-Yes,keep it simple. MR. CERRONE-If you keep it simple, and that, in doing that, makes it also cheaper for the association fee. MR. KREBS-Sure,less to maintain. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-The buffer measurement,was it just providing that distance so that we know that it is 100 feet. I can scale it on the drawings. MR. RYAN-I mean,the limits of disturbance is showing that, and if you want a couple of dimensions added, the scale of the plan is on the drawing. It gives you the 100 foot, but we can, you can add whatever you want. MRS.MOORE-I just want to be clear. MR. O'CONNOR-This buffer along Sweet Road? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MS.WHITE-And Edgewood. MR. O'CONNOR-Edgewood's 300 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, but we had some concerns what the buffer is to like the little open area there. MR. CERRONE-If we do the walking path,we don't even have that. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be simpler. MR. O'CONNOR-And the big part of the discussion on sidewalks,which is true,we'd have to clear an area outside the Town, and that would eat into that buffer area for like 1100 feet of sidewalk, and that was one of the arguments that we made. If everybody wants to preserve that, you won't see much of the subdivision from Sweet Road,waive the sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The sidewalk,you can't go either way,so it's,what good is. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, my recollection about the sidewalk discussion was more internal in the subdivision, and, you know, I think we definitely agreed with you that that wasn't really necessary,but,you know, I don't know, I might be the only one. MR. CERRONE-The problem you have with the internal sidewalk is who's responsible for it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-So we won't,we'll leave it as is. MRS.MOORE-You're still requesting a waiver from the sidewalk. MR. O'CONNOR-We're still requesting a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,well, and where I was going was,you know, I think it's a bigger issue, a bigger discussion about sidewalks. I mean, to walk Sweet Road is, can be dangerous because of the speed of the traffic, and it's really outside of your project. I mean, you're just another homeowner on Sweet Road,you know,you're one of many,you know, I think it's a bigger discussion than just this project. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just trying to see if I get a checklist to come back so that we have your information. What's the filing date? MRS.MOORE-For January? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,January 15th? MRS.MOORE-To get on February,it's January 15th. MR. O'CONNOR-Pardon me? MRS.MOORE-To get on February,it's January 15th. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's why I asked. I think, you know, there was just new information submitted to the Town Engineer. That's why I asked. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you're correct. I guess, do you want to look at it and table it until February's meeting, I guess? MR. RYAN-December 15th was the deadline for the January meeting. MRS. MOORE-There's room on the January agenda to continue this because you still have the public hearing open. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MRS. MOORE-So I guess the only information that's coming from the applicant, Staff has generated is the traffic,and the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes. MRS.MOORE-I anticipate that being resolved prior to a January meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, that was my, I mean, right now we don't have any comments back from the Town Engineer. So my thought, and I can't speak for the whole Board, is that's really kind of what we're waiting on right now. MR.TRAVER-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So 1/28. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I think the other stuff we could actually flesh out between Preliminary and Final,if you still have things that you think need to be detailed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we didn't vote yet. So we had a motion and a second. We had a lengthy discussion. MS. GAGLIARDI-I hate to ask you,but could you do the motion again because I want to make sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the motion was only to table it, and then during the discussion we added all the things that we want the applicant to submit. So, they really weren't part of the tabling motion, but, I mean essentially we're tabling it for engineering comments. MR. TRAVER-And to provide the applicant an opportunity to submit any additional helpful information that they think they want to consider. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Nicely said, yes. Again, more information is better than less I think, sometimes,not always. So I think we're ready to call the vote, Maria,if you're set. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you next month. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And just for information for members of the audience, the public hearing will be held open. We will take public comments on January 28th, and we will continue to take public comments until a decision is made on the project. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2013 SEAR TYPE II MICHAEL & TAMMY GEORGE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION BAY ROAD, APPROX. 0.08 MILES NORTH OF RT. 149 BETWEEN HOUSES AT 1376 & 1456 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING VACANT 54 ACRE PARCEL WITH A 2,302 SQ. FT. 4 BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W/ATTACHED GARAGE AND 2,000 SQ. FT. SECOND DETACHED GARAGE WITH 300 SQ. FT. WORKSHOP AREA. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. FURTHER, PROJECTS CLASSIFIED AS MAJOR WITHIN THE LG PARK RELATIVE TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE A V 62-13, SB 14-06 (O'REILLY-1-16-07) WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 54.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73.1 SECTION 179-9-050, CHAPTER 147-11 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes the development of a single family dwelling on a 54 acre parcel. (lost words) attached garage as well as a detached garage that was approved with a variance, and the Planning Board made their recommendation on Tuesday with regards to the variance. MR. HUNSINGER-And the Zoning Board said? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Yes, I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Tammy and Mike George on this application for a single family residence. I hope not to be as long as the prior project. MR. HUNSINGER-We do,too,no offense. MR. MAC ELROY-As indicated, we were at the ZBA last night and received approval for the second garage. We have a site plan that's been presented for the residence for the second garage, with associated driveway, wastewater system, well location and stormwater management. It's all there on the plan and compliant with Town regulations and what not. I think it's a proper plan. Again, this is a 54 acre lot that will serve this,by this single family residence. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I think we pretty much fleshed it out Tuesday. MR.TRAVER-Yes,we sure did. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type II SEQR so no SEQR review is required. And with that we can entertain a motion. Unless there's something else the Board wants to ask or address. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a draft motion? We do not have a draft motion. Work off this and just change the Site Plan numbers. I mean,we do have a standard format for resolutions,there just was not one in our package. Yes, if we were to refer to the standard resolution,would that be clear as to what that is, and we just replace the, I mean, we have other resolutions this evening and we can just replace the site plan numbers. So you can just use that and say the site plan number. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 67-2013 MICHAEL&TAMMY GEORGE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes development of an existing vacant 54 acre parcel with a 2,302 sq. ft. 4 bedroom single family residential w/attached garage and 2,200 sq. ft. second detached garage with 300 sq. ft. workshop area. Site Plan review is required as a condition of subdivision approval. Further, projects classified as Major within the LG Park relative to the Stormwater Management regulations require Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II-no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 12-17-2013; the ZBA approved the variance request on 12-18-2013; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-19-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2013 MICHAEL & TAMMY GEORGE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the Staff usual information. 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, 3) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2013,by the following vote AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Happy holidays. MR. MAC ELROY-Happy holidays to you all. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two projects,this evening,under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 69-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED 144 RIVER STREET, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 144 RIVER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF A 650 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING AND ESTABLISH IT AS AN OFFICE OR RETAIL USE. OFFICE AND/OR RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 13-264, BP 11-465, BP 11-369, BP 11-368, SP 26- 09, SP 15-08, SP 43-92, UV 90-92 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NYSHPO,NYSDEC LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES, 3.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-41,42 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&PETER ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes renovation of a 650 sq. ft. existing building for retail and office space. The structure will be 609 sq. ft. with porches to access the building. The site for parking and travel is being developed to accommodate four parking spaces. The applicant has also indicated overflow parking will be able to utilize the adjacent site. The traffic travel on River Street is utilizing an in-only on the west side and exit onto the adjacent parcels driveway then back out to 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) River Street. Parking is located on the eastside and to the rear of the building. The plan shows the landscaping, lighting and signage to be placed on the site. The applicant has requested a waiver from the stormwater management and has indicated the site will be drained to the adjacent property's stormwater management device. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, on behalf of 144 River Street. With me is Peter Robinson,the principle of 144 River Street,with his son James, and together they presently operate their insurance business on the,within the bigger building of the property. You may recall we were here in 2008/2009 with a site plan review for them to relocate their office there. Tonight we wish to discuss the, call it the remaining building which is the small building on the small parcel which is located near the road, same property, same owner. They're actually separate parcels,but it is their building, and they had to make a decision to, they were either, needed to save the building or they were going to lose the building. So, they decided to save the building and renovate it for a commercial use, and in that process, we've been referred here. We don't have a final commercial user. We are in the process of renovating the building and we've laid out a parking plan that is compliant with the size of the building. It's only four parking spaces. There are additional overflow spaces on their adjoining property, and of course there would be cross easements to allow access across the property lines. This building does have a brand new septic system that was installed in 2010. So it's fully compliant. It's never been used,but it's ready when they wish to use it and they have a user, and, Peter, do you want to add anything? Okay. With that, we'll turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-The last time I drove by there, I saw that you had been working on the building. I was wondering,you know,what the plans were. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, we had to, the roof was gone and the back wall was beginning to cave. So we got permission to stabilize it pending a review here, and it's always been commercial but it's been more than seven years since it was in a valid commercial use. MS.WHITE-Can you give us an idea of maybe who you're talking to or what type? MR. ROBINSON-We haven't talked to anybody yet. We had to come here first. A small office or a little shop of some sort. It seems to me that a retail with the traffic on that road,you know, would seem to have a lot of viewing. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Gee,it's only one story,too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. I think the only real comment I had is on the driveway and parking plan, and the way the three spaces are angled. Wouldn't you want to angle them the other way so that you'd pull in? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it depends on which way you pull in. We're showing them, you pull in from the road and they're like back in parking spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Isn't it easier to pull in straight and then back out to leave,you know, angle it,instead of this way,angle it that way? MR. HUTCHINS-I hear what you're saying. MR. MAGOWAN-What were you thinking of when you decided to angle them? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we had them perpendicular, and they had to be so far away from the building that they were basically over to the other driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-So in order to tighten it up and bring it closer to the building, they had to be diagonal. So diagonal, we chose the direction they're in. I guess they probably could be the other way. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think if you're pulling in and you see somebody backing out,you know, your natural inclination is to wait for them,but if you're backing in to the parking spot, I don't think 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) you have the same, you know, I think it could cause, plus I don't think people are very good at backing in to parking spaces. They're good at backing out of them,but not in to them. That was my only thought. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,they could be. We're trying to get them off River Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean,we did look at a bunch of alternatives on parking. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure,yes. MR. HUTCH INS-There's a fair gravel area along River Street,but we don't really want to park there. We want to get them off River Street. So we couldn't go on the, call it the Zack's Drive-in side, the west side of this thing because there's a septic system there. So that sort of limited us in that area. So we did what we could,and I think,yes,that might be a better idea to angle them the other way. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone from the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments? MRS.MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEG DEC SP# 69-2013 144 RIVER STREET, LLC The applicant proposes renovation of a 650 sq. ft. existing building and establish it as an office or retail use. Office and/or Retail use in a Cl zone requires Site Plan review and approval by the Planning Board; The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 69-2013 144 RIVER STREET,LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-And motion to approve, well, before we do that, just going back to the driveway and the parking, if there's a change in the site plan, we need to have that referenced in the resolution. MRS.MOORE-If the Board agrees that the parking should be altered so that it's. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we can rotate those so that they're the drive in, they're perpendicular, or they're diagonal the other way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-It would be a 60 degree rotation. MR. KREBS-I'm just going to say change angle of the parking spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds good enough. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman,you didn't close the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Thank you. Maria,you always keep us honest. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Now we're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 69-2013 144 RIVER STREET, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes renovation of a 650 sq. ft. existing building and establish it as an office or retail use. Office and/or Retail use in a Cl zone requires Site Plan review and approval by the Planning Board. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-19-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2013 144 RIVER STREET, LLC, 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) 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: stormwater mgmt.; 4) We are adding to the draft the fact that the parking spaces will change the angle away from River Street. 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 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) 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 19th day of December, 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. ROBINSON-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 70-2013 SEQR TYPE II LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT c/o SOBERT REALTY ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 1424 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES SIGNIFICANT RENOVATIONS TO THE PLAZA TO IMPROVE THE AESTHETICS OF THE FACILITY-FACADE AND ELEVATOR ARE INCLUDED. EXPANSION, REMODELING OR CHANGE OF USE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 30-89, SV 92 & 82-91, SV 1363; BP'S - MANY WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 LOT SIZE 5.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 4.(c) JON LAPPER&TOM MACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a remodeling and site improvement to the Lake George Northway Plaza including facade changes and the installation of an elevator. The Board may consider the waiver requests for a topographic survey, stormwater, erosion sediment control, grading and drainage,floor plans,traffic,and soil logs. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Nace, the project engineer, and Corey Shanus,who I introduced you to when we were here in July to get approval for the center across the street where the Montcalm used to exist. Before Corey bought that in 2012 he purchased the center that we all know as the Polo outlet center, and essentially because the new center across the street, architecturally, is going to be so much nicer, this existing center hasn't really had any investment in a long time for the prior owner, and he determined, this Fall, to retain the same architects that did the work across the street and to basically re-do this center for, you know, a pretty sizeable investment so that it'll look, it'll match across the street and just be an upgrade to what's there. So, in terms of the site plan, Tom'll go through that, but there's nothing that's changing in terms of impervious. In fact, it's going to be very slightly less impervious because we're adding a couple of planting beds in the corners where it's just a lot of pavement right now, and adding some plantings materials, but in general this is architectural. What's not architectural is the opportunity, here, to use the underground parking that I know that you're all familiar with but many people in the community who go to the outlets don't know it's there don't have any reason to drive behind there unless, you know, it's Christmas time and you can't find a place up on top, and so Corey's idea was to take out one of the stairwells and exchange it for an elevator which would just facilitate people wanting to park in the back, but also that structure is just a couple of rusty stairwells that are open to the elements, just not inviting, not something that you'd want to use. So we came up with a plan to tie this all together, enclose that area, make it visually attractive with a center tower, which is what's up there, and just generally improve all of the surfaces. I sent Laura, which hopefully came through, the renderings that I have printed, but they'll be easier to see on the board and we can just go through them quickly. This is what's existing now, that you'll all be familiar with. One thing I didn't mention, which is a very slight change from what we submitted, but this changed in the last few weeks when we had a site visit. This area here is on the left side, in front of where Nautica is, which is a stairway to a downstairs area,which is rarely utilized, and Corey had contemplated building a roof structure so that it would be protected from the elements, and it just seemed, visually, that it was going to be, that it was going to take away from what's over here,that tower in the center, and it wouldn't be balanced. So, ultimately,with a field trip with the architects, it was determined, instead,to just fill that in and add seven parking spaces, which are going to be important upstairs, just because there's never enough 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) parking on the main area,but in terms of site plan,that's completely impervious now. So it doesn't do anything. There's no plant material there. It's just going to be a matter of reinforcing that with concrete, filling it with soil and paving it. So that's a slight change which I usually wouldn't show up with any change at the Queensbury Planning Board, but that really is of no importance in terms of the site plan itself because it's impervious,but that's just an improvement. So, Laura, can you go to the next one. MR. MAGOWAN-There's not a couple of stores? MR. LAPPER-There are now. They've been kind of underutilized. MR. MAGOWAN-There's like a bargain basement store down there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I remember going down there. MR. LAPPER-So that's going to go away. Corey basically decided that it's just the rent that he would get for that kind of low ceiling, hard to find space, that it would be better to just use that for rental space for the tenants that want to store product, and they would access it from the back, from the parking lot,so there's no reason to have this stairway,and it just lets this all go away, and makes it a better looking center. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think I've ever been down that staircase,and I was just there other day. MR. LAPPER-So this is just an overview. The big picture,you can see in the center the new tower, digital focus. MR. HUNSINGER-You know it's interesting, I didn't notice how, and I almost hate to say this publicly, but I didn't realize how ugly the center tower is now, until I went up to do site visits. You just don't even really notice it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's just blah,visually blah,you know. MR. LAPPER-There it is, right in the center, and if you look at it, the stairwell is rusting on top, on the right photo, underneath that it really doesn't protect it from the winds and the rain that come in from the west. Not very helpful. You can see,the plant material, all that's going to be changed out. It needs a lot of TLC. Okay. Next one. This is to make it look like what's across the street. So the significant changes are taking down that kind of cheesy, vinyl awning, replacing it with a structure with wood underneath the columns. The stone at the bottom for the splashing, and then the white clapboard which is, again, what's going to be across the street, changing out all the fixtures, which Tom will discuss, but that's also the same thing that you saw across the street, both the parking lot fixtures, and the wall mounted fixtures. Okay. This is what it will look like from downstairs, to take out one of the stairwells, replace it. The stone treatment on the outside to just make it all more attractive and to paint some of those spaces so it doesn't all look like poured concrete, but also to add the glass so that, just for safety, so that it's just more visible and people will feel more comfortable using the elevator. These are, you know, pretty expensive improvements, but this center deserves it. Right now there are two stairwells. So the stairwell,when you're looking at the center from the road, on the right, will be replaced with the elevator. The one on the left will still be there. And if you look at the top left,where you can see through the glass,the left side is still the stair, and the right side is where the elevator will be, but they'll all be accessed from inside, not from the drive aisle. What I didn't mention, also, is right now all of the sign panels are on the vinyl awning, and so there's going to be a new parapet wall behind that, and the sign panels will be replaced up on top so they'll be more visible. Same conforming size, but just so that they're not printed on the vinyl canopy like they are now. The second one on the left, the bottom on the left side, is what it would look like from inside which is in front of where Izod and Bass are, the stairway on the right and the elevator on the left, and on the top right is what it looks like now with that stairwell that's going to be replaced, and the bottom right is what it'll look like with the seven parking spaces to replace that, and so that's the architectural, and,Tom, if you could go through the site plan. MR. MACE-Very simple site plan. As Jon said, it's mostly an architectural renovation. What we're proposing on the site plan is to replace all the plant material in these planting beds, the existing planting beds. There will be new planting beds added back in the corner adjacent to the elevator to 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) the center tower, and the lighting we're also changing that. Out in the front we're changing out all of the light fixtures to match what's across the street,and in the back there are presently a couple of big, probably 500 or 1,000 watt spotlights on the back that are just sort of aimed out toward the parking lot. Those will be replaced by pole lights with downcast fixtures on them. Real simple. MR. LAPPER-Corey,would you like to make any comments? COREYSHANUS MR. SHAMUS-We felt that the centers that, the one we bought last year, the one we're constructing now, they're sister centers, and architecturally they should match, and this center is, that we bought, it has good tenants. It's a good center. It's tired looking, and it's time that some money was invested in it, and that's what we intend to do to try to match the style across the street and match make a significant upgrade, and also, to add to what Jon said, I think that the parking garage is one of the best kept secrets in that center. I mean, nobody knows it's there. We want to change that, because if you think about it, on a rainy day and snowy day, why wouldn't you want to park inside? On a hot day, why wouldn't you want to park inside? We're going to have better signage. It would be painted. The lighting will be a lot better. It will be just very friendly when you go down there. We upgraded the security system. We now have,we had a system with eight cameras. We now have 24 cameras. So basically you can't go anywhere in that center, except in the restroom, where you're not being watched. So, we feel security's very important. So when you're in the common areas, besides the open elevator area, because people like to have glass around them, there'll be signs saying don't even think of it,you're being watched. So we just want it to be a very safe environment for customers and our tenants. MR. LAPPER-One other thing that you had asked when we were here for the center across the street to add a crosswalk, which DOT did ultimately approve, and one of the benefits is if you park here, you know, downstairs underneath, wherever, you can cross with a crosswalk and go to the new center, and the other centers in the area, and not have to move your car,which will help everybody in terms of access management. So,that's the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.TRAVER-I think it's a big improvement. MR. KREBS-So do, I, and I can only think that if you had that parking garage when we had those 12 inches of snow,you'd have a lot of people in that parking garage. I've used it before. MR. HUNSINGER-The only real question I had in terms of, you know, any engineering or real review,is on the lighting plan,and it really didn't give us,you know,like the foot candles and stuff. MR. MACE-It actually does. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MACE-It's just in a little different format. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had a feeling it was and I missed it somehow. MR. MACE-The contour lines can be read, here's a typical, the heavy line is a one foot candle level, the middle is half foot candle, and the outer is a third foot candle. So if you're in between (lost word) somewhere, you can add, say, a half foot candle, or one foot candle in this light, and a third foot candle in this light. So you're about one and a third in the middle. This is a simpler way of presenting it. We didn't feel the lighting was that much of an issue here since we were replacing existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-Tom,could you mention about the lighting (lost word). MR. MACE-I did. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what he's showing me,yes. MR. MACE-There, presently, are some huge spotlights back here. They're just kind of aimed off into infinity. They'll be replaced by the downcast. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Those are for the people that escape from jail. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. Keep the inmates awake at night. I always knew that that staircase was there,but I never knew where it went,the one that you want to fill in. There's actually a store down there or something? Yes. I mean, the other two I've used many a time, but, and quite, I was there recently and I saw that one of the stairs,the one that you want to put the elevator in, is roped off. Yes. MR. LAPPER-You don't want to walk on that. MR. HUNSINGER-And I was like,geez, I wonder what's going on here. MR. MAGOWAN-There was one time I was there shopping and there was a sign, come down and visit us downstairs. So we went down and, like is said, it was a little bargain basement, but the prices were, for, you know, it was like a T.J. Maxx but, like, you know, whatever they got they had, and it was a unique little store, but the prices were phenomenal and the lady was, you know, all right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I tell people at work quite frequently, if you want to go Christmas shopping, the time and the place to go Christmas shopping is go to the Outlets after work because they're open until nine o'clock, and most of the time when you walk in the store you're the only one in there. It couldn't be better. If you wait until Saturday and Sunday,you fight the crowds. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a zoo. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Anyone in the audience want to address the Board? Any written comments? Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 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, and unless there's additional questions or comments from the Board, in terms of the changes that they've suggested,how do we address that? MRS. MOORE-(lost word) knowing that there's a change under the project description that the stairwell to the north is being removed, (lost words) paved as part of the parking area, and the downstairs portion is being converted to storage. MR. LAPPER-Well,storage and office. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a tenant in there now? MR. SHAMUS-They're moving out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Okay. So what I've written here is north staircase removed and area to be used as storage for other tenants. MR. LAPPER-Storage and office. MR. KREBS-Storage and office. Okay. MRS.MOORE-Did you say paved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and it will be filled in and paved for parking. MR. KREBS-Area paved. Okay. MR. DEEB-When are you looking to start? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. LAPPER-Immediately. They want to be under construction by February 1St at the latest and get this done and completed by Memorial Day. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SHAMUS-So if we're not done by Memorial Day, my tenants are (lost words). So we're going to start soon. MR. HUNSINGER-So most of the tenants, how much of their sales do they generate during the summer months? MR. SHAMUS-Those are the strongest months. I mean, the holiday season is very strong, too, but Memorial Day really kicks off,and July and August especially. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I know the Spring is the worst,that's when they even close early. MR. KREBS-Go by there on a rainy day in the middle of the summer. MR. HUNSINGER-Forget it. MR. KREBS-And the place is packed. MR. SHAMUS-But January/February, I mean, once the holiday season ends, sales end, clearance sales in January,say mid January through mid-April is really the quietest. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Best time for you to do the construction,makes sense. Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 70-2013 LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes significant renovations to the plaza to improve the aesthetics of the facility - fa�ade and elevator are included. Expansion,remodeling or change of use to existing structures and uses in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-19-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2013 LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC, 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: Topo, stormwater mgmt., E & S control,grading&drainage, floor plans,traffic&soil logs; 3) We are adding another statement to the draft. The northern staircase will be removed and the area will be used for storage and office for other tenants. Area will be filled and paved for a parking lot. 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. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) 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 19th day of December, 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. SHAMUS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. MAGOWAN-You bring wonderful,quick projects to us. I mean,the Montcalm went like that. MR. LAPPER-The steel went up,today,on the Montcalm. MR. HUNSINGER-Did it,really? MR. LAPPER-The steel was erected on a big part of it. Chris, I have one other comment under Other Business on another project. Just take a second. You heard Hannaford on Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And I was just contacted by the new owner of the CVS plaza, and apparently I think there was a statement that they had talked to CVS about that interconnect location and how that would work out,but apparently they talked to the tenant and not the owner. So I was contacted by the owner, and I'm going to send a letter and ask to have that on the Board for a discussion. What they're interested in is if there was a way to get Hannaford to consider the connection in the front by Quaker Road, the CVS owner would be willing to give up that, the curb cut on their property, to just use the traffic light, and that, just because that's so close to the intersection, that might be an improvement on Quaker Road if that could work. So I'm going to send a letter and ask to get that on next month as a discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we would all endorse that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think Hannaford would not,but it's certainly worth the exercise. MR. LAPPER-Well, under the Code they have a requirement to reach out, just like Corey did, to the site on the north, we're building the stairs there, and apparently somebody went to CVS, but that's the tenant. So that's not appropriate. They've got to talk to the landowner under the Code. So I think that's a reason to just get back in and talk about it. If there's a way, you know, I go to Hannaford,you know, every other day,obviously,and when you see the people,just that it's all torn up where people are driving across there anyway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,plus it's dangerous. MR. LAPPER-It's crazy. MR. DEEB-And they'd go out by the light,too. MR. LAPPER-Yes,or you'd go out and you'd come in. So at least it's worth talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I couldn't agree more. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Okay. Thanks,everybody,have a good holiday. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you,you,too. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. KREBS-I think there's enough space, too, that you could make one entrance and one exit from the CVS,which would also make it much safer. MR. LAPPER-Yes,exactly,and they'd be willing to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider an adjournment, Mr. Salvador had asked if he could address the Board for five minutes. Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. There's good news tonight. The, I don't know what they are, three tanks went in the ground at the San Souci restaurant today. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MR. SALVADOR-And they're backfilled. I don't know what the plans are to hook them up or anything like that, but at least they're in the ground. I don't know if members of this Board get a chance to read this publication,The Lake George Mirror. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Used to. MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes,not always. MR. SALVADOR-In any case, for the December issue there's an article appeared here, Legislation to Restore Local Town's Authority Over Docks/Boathouses Sent to Albany. What's this restore? You can't restore something that never was,right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,defacto. MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. HUNSINGER-Defacto we've had it. I mean. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not legally. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven't legally had it,but we've practiced it. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case,there's a lot of discussion inhere about what they're going to do and all, and one of the concerns is that they've got to be sure that whatever they do doesn't conflict with the Lake George Park Commission regulations. Well, just about everything we do conflicts with those regulations. So I don't know why that has to be a concern. The other, just one other item I'd like to mention tonight, and this is almost a private discussion with Mr. Hunsinger because you were the only one around when this was going on. Everyone else on the Board has been newly assigned, but in any case, you recall, Mr. Hunsinger, back in 2003, the Town Board modified their regulations,the Zoning Ordinance,to include the requirement for a Special Use Permit for marinas. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Remember that? MR. HUNSINGER-I do,and we struggled with that for quite a while,yes. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I know. In any case, there was a provision in that regulation that if you could substantiate that you were a pre-existing, nonconforming use, you didn't have to go through a site plan,full site plan review. You could get that. MR. HUNSINGER-You could be grandfathered. MR. SALVADOR-Well,not grandfathered. They used the term, I forget it now. It'll come to me. MR.TRAVE R-Expedited review? MR. SALVADOR-No,it was. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Well,prove that you had legal standing for the review. MR. SALVADOR-Well, in any case, it was recognition. You could get recognition of being a pre- existing,nonconforming. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. SALVADOR-And so I made application for this recognition, okay, and so that came out all over on me. Remember that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-My neighbor, the Warren County, the Park Commission, the Attorney General, they all weighed in, and my problem at that time was, we were one of the last properties on the lake to be notified by the Lake George Park Commission that we needed a Class A Marina permit,and it was fully, let's see '88 to '96, eight years after they had promulgated the regulations that they knocked on our door for a Class A Marina permit. Well, I looked at this and I didn't think I needed the Class A Marina permit. I had a DEC permit. It was valid. There was no reason. The permit said if there were any modifications,if there were any changes in the facility you had to get a modification to the permit. There were no changes. So I resisted this and that was going on at that time. So, in any case, there was a concerted effort to prevent us from getting this Special Use Permit, and what happened was finally, it went on for about a year and a half, and finally the Planning Board Chairman at the time was Craig MacEwan. He closed the hearing, after denying our permit without prejudice,and he said,John,when you get your ducks in a row, come on back. I'm saying now,with the understanding that our,and,by the way,this a letter I've written to Craig Brown,and it,the final paragraph says,with the understanding that our ducks are now in a row,we request your advice as to how and with what additional information we can come back in order to substantiate the pre- existing, nonconforming use status of our Town defined Class A Marina permit. That was the problem everyone overlooked. The requirement was that you had a Town defined Class A Marina permit, not a Lake George Park Commission Class A Marina permit, since the adoption of Local Law 1-2002 and the filing of Article 10 for Special Use Permits in the Office of the Secretary of State. So the ball is in Mr. Brown's court,and we'll wait to hear from him,but I have my ducks in a row. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, 10 years later. MR. SALVADOR-Ten years later. It takes a while. Frankly, I was waiting for the court to make a finding in the Hoffman case. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-And that would have satisfied my problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, only if it was ruled a certain way. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I mean,they were making the claim. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, they were making the claim. So, wait, wait, wait, nothing happened, but however, in Lake George and Lake Placid, they made these, the courts have answered these questions. So now I'm ready to come back. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Before you leave, John, I was talking with Dan Stec today, and both he and Betty Little are trying to look at the lake area and come up with some new legislation that will better define who's responsible for what in the shoreline area. MR. SALVADOR-We have it all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's already defined. MR. SALVADOR-It's already been done. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's already defined. It's State,it's the waters in the. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2013) MR. KREBS-Yes, but the problem that many people face is, as John was just saying, the Town says yes,and the Lake George Park Commission says no or the APA says no or,you know. MR. SALVADOR-No the courts have said no. The courts have said, not the Park Commission, they haven't said. MR. KREBS-That's because the legislature has not changed the rules. If the legislature changes the rules,then you can change that. MR. SALVADOR-Fine,that takes care of the future. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. SALVADOR-What about the past? And what do we do in the meantime? This has been going on for over a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can't imagine a State legislature giving up anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not going to happen. MR. SALVADOR-I mean, if it was going to happen, look, when this came up, Dan was still our Town Supervisor. He had been elected to the Assembly. He's now on the Assembly Environmental Committee. Come on,what else does it take? If it was to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not going to happen. MR. DEEB-Have a good holiday,John. MR. SALVADOR-You,too. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Haven't you got that house built, re-built yet, across the street from you? MR. SALVADOR-I've got all the pieces and parts. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Just like a tinker toy. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. DEEB-I make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2013, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Ms.White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Merry Christmas,everybody. Happy New Year. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 34