Loading...
04-22-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22,2014 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-2014 Matthew&Samantha Ball 1. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2014 Tax Map No. 308.6-1-16.2, 25, 27, 28 Site Plan No. 19-2014 Bernardo DeJesus 3. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-56 Site Plan No. 21-2014 David&Lisa Doster 5. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5 Site Plan No. 24-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 15. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Site Plan No. 27-2014 Linda M. Hart 16. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-40 Site Plan No. 26-2014 Hacker Boat Company 18. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2014 Tax Map No. 303.16-1-76, 77, 78 DISCUSSION ITEM Proposed Subdivision so.side Peggy Ann Rd. 25. 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 04/22/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF BRAD MAGOWAN MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday April 22nd. We have several items of Old Business. Welcome members of the audience. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. All of our items, I believe, have a public hearing scheduled except for the discussion item at the end, and there is a handout there for public hearing procedures as well. We will go through those when we open the first public hearing in a few minutes. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 14-2014 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2014 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL AGENT(S) TOM CENTER, NACE ENG. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION EAST & SOUTH END MICHAELS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF 4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SITE PLAN: FILLING AND CREATION OF HARD SURFACED AREAS (DRIVEWAYS) WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE. FWW: DISTURBANCE OF LAND WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE AV 10-14, AV 9-14 SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION, PH. II APA, CEA,OTHER DEC WETLANDS,NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.36 AC.,6 AC., 10 AC., 1 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-16.2,25,27,28 SECTION 179-3-040,CHAPTER 94 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed the Site Plan application for the development of four single family home lots that require site plan review and a freshwater wetlands permit. The application was tabled previously because the Zoning Board had requested the applicant to look at Lot Two again and see if the home could be moved. The home has been moved from the designated wetland further away, and the Zoning Board approved that at their last meeting. So now it's back before the Planning Board in reference to Lot Two. The other lot there was no issues with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering representing Matthew&Samantha Ball. Not much has changed since the last time we were before you, except on Drawing Three, the location of the house was moved back. It's now 60 ft. from the wetland as opposed to 35 that was previously proposed, and also we've relocated the septic system further to the south. Still maintains 100 feet separation from the wetland. We're going to have to pump over to it, but that enabled us to slide the house further towards the west, and construct the driveway where we had previously located the septic system. We have soils information from the area where we re-located the septic system to. There should be no issues there, and the relocation of the house actually puts it more in line, facing the opposite house that Mrs. Ball currently resides in, and the driveway, like we discussed last time, will be a shared driveway, and after some discussions with Staff, since it's a gravel driveway now,we will locate the driveway so it's centered on the property line and it's using 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) both accesses, as previously was discussed in the previous subdivision,trying not to have,basically it would be four driveways right in a row. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-So we'll use the same entrance, but it'll be centered. We'll relocate that, and the final plans,when they're stamped and signed,will show that driveway centered on the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Anything else? MR. CENTER-Not at this time,unless there's any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open it up for questions, comments from the members of the Board. It sure sounds like you addressed all the issues that we talked about. MR. FORD-My compliments for being so responsive. I think it sets a good example for what can be done when people really try, if you work with us and they're aware of wetlands, and you really put forth an effort. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. FORD-My compliments to you and Matthew and Samantha. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR.TRAVER-It's actually more conservative than the first one we looked at. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and I don't see any hands up. Let the record show no comments were received. And we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is necessary, and with that, unless there's another question or comment, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 14-2014 FWW 1-2014 MATTHEW&SAMANTHA BALL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes development of 4 single family homes. Site Plan: Filling & creation of hard surfaced areas (driveways) within 50 feet of a shoreline. FWW: Disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. SEQR Type II -no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 2-25-2014; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4-16-2014; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-22-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2014 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2014 MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 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) Driveway to be centered on half of each lot. 3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. 4) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 5) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 6) 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. 7) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 8) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 9) 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 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I neglected to mention, if there's anyone here for the William & Pamela Roberts Site Plan 24-2014, that application will not be heard this evening. It was tabled at the request of the applicant. We will do a tabling motion later on in the agenda. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is this Dennis'fifth revision? MR. HUNSINGER-Probably. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2014 SEQR TYPE II BERNARDO DE JESUS AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 135 SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT ADDED GABLE ROOF TO EXISTING COTTAGE WITHOUT PERMIT. IN ADDITION, A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED THIS SPRING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-14, BP 13-581 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2014-NCI APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, CLASS B MARINA LOT SIZE 0.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-56 SECTION 179-13-010 DEAN HOWLAND,JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed the site plan review application to maintain an already constructed peaked roof from a flat roof. The applicant has not specifically requested waivers but noted certain items on the checklist as not applicable to the project. The variance has been granted for the setback relief for the shoreline where 50 ft. was required and 44 ft. exists and also the sideline setback where 20 ft.is required and 17.3 ft. exists. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HOWLAND-Good evening. Dean Howland. I'm here as an agent for the owner. I guess I can explain it again. The owner had a company from somewhere put a gable roof on this little camp, and when he was doing that, the Town of Queensbury got called, and of course the Stop Work Order, and he called me only because I had met him previously when he bought his lot. During this type of thing, we didn't know what the septic system was in the existing building. So he's had a new one designed for a possible future house, which he'll probably build sometime, and he designed it so he could have four or five bedrooms on a little bit of property. You'll see there's just some eaves stormwater management, just basically a Number Two stone trench on both the lakeside and the road side for his property. With the septic system he'll have to put a,have to put a driveway,actually the driveway would be less in size than it is right now. So just a stone driveway. That's about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Dean,did you say that the septic system is something in the future? MR. HOWLAND-No, it's going to go in as part of this approval. It's going to have to go in, because I don't think there's really much there at all. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's always a plus. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Especially down there. MR. HOWLAND-Down there,yes,it's tough. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? We'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and again, unless there's any takers,let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is also a Type II SEQR. Unless there's any additional questions or comments from the Board, Mr. Secretary,if you want to put forth a motion. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 19-2014 BERNARDO DE JESUS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant added gable roof to existing cottage without permit. In addition a new septic system will be installed this spring. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan review shall be required for any enlargement of a lawful non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. SEQR Type II-no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 3-18-2014; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 3-26-2014; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-22-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2014 BERNARDO DE JESUS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) 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. 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 5) 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 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2014 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & LISA DOSTER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 94 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONVERSION OF EXISTING ATTIC SPACE TO LIVING SPACE - 686 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A LAWFUL NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. _CROSS REFERENCE AV 23-14, BP 14-052, UV 48-98, BP 98-256, 98-364 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-5 SECTION 179-3- 040, 179-13-010 DAVID&LISA DOSTER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed the site plan application for the renovation of the attic area. This includes an area in the attic area of 686 sq. ft. increase for living area. The board may consider the waivers requested from stormwater management, topography, disposal of demolition waste, and snow removal. The applicant did receive the FAR variance requested relief from the Zoning Board where.22 is required and 23.5%is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. DOSTER-Good evening. David Doster for myself and my wife, Lisa. Don't have many updates from our last meeting. I guess that's good news. I just wanted to reiterate that this is just the, we currently have a building permit which we're doing the first floor on, and then this is for just the second floor, to continue that permit that we initially have, also includes the addition of a new septic system which is a 2,000 gallon septic system with an Eljen leach field which is larger than needed, but, you know, might as well, when you're there doing the work, you might as well do it. So, looking forward to getting out, now that the weather's finally broke, looking forward to getting started on this and just as a refresher, this is the former Glen Lake Casino property, which was public is now private. So thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments? MR. MAGOWAN-We went over it pretty good on the recommendation there. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Since they have approval from the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing for this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay. We do have one, if you can give up the table, please. Sir, if you want to come up. The purpose of the public hearing is for members, interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to comment to state their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is available on the Town's website. The tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. So whenever you're ready,sir. THOMAS ULASEWICZ MR.ULASEWICZ-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. MR. ULASEWICZ-Good evening. My name is Thomas Ulasewicz. I'm an attorney with the firm of Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker and Firth. I represent three different neighbors to the Dosters residence, subject of this hearing. They are Russell & Mary Hilliard; David & Cathy Cerney; Susan Tyrer, Laura Tyrer; and Kimberly Lyon. First I would want to inform this Board that a lawsuit has been filed by my clients against the Dosters as pre-court Warren County seeking a ruling from that court that my clients have deeded access rights over the Dosters' property to Glen Lake, and my clients have been crossing the Dosters' property for decades, long before the Dosters owned the parcel, and therefore my clients have prescriptive easement rights to access the lake. If this Board grants site plan approval to the Dosters, it will be approving development which will directly interfere with my clients'legal access rights. This is especially true in that area where the Dosters propose a septic system. On behalf of my clients,we respectfully request that this Board either deny this site plan application or table it until the Supreme Court rules on the litigation. Furthermore, if my clients to legal access over the Dosters' property are confirmed by the court, then the site plan application needs the consent of my clients as co-signators. As such, until the court rules, this application is incomplete. Finally I would like to point out that in the principle structure application filled out by the Dosters, on the second page they're asked the question are there easements on the property, and they answered no without even advising this Board that litigation has been commenced and is currently before the Warren County Supreme Court. I have copies, if you would like,of my statement for the record,and I'd be happy to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a map or anything that shows the easement? MR. ULASEWICZ-I have copies of two of my clients' deeds with the easement language in them, and I believe we can provide a map as well. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.ULASEWICZ-I can bring them up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to have you give it to Laura. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-What did you say this easement was for? MR.ULASEWICZ-Access to the lake,both for boating,there was a dock which has been mysteriously removed by the Dosters, but it was accessed through this lot to Glen Lake, for purposes of beach access,boating and so forth,and it's been there since at least the 1980's that I'm aware of. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it a walking path? MR.ULASEWICZ-Part on one location on the property and then a walking path,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't see it. MR. ULASEWICZ-What are you looking at? You'll have a map that I just submitted that will show the easement on it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is all I have. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, on Sheet Nine there it says something two foot wide easement to be conveyed to something Properties, LLC. Right there on the corner. Can someone read that on Sheet Nine? Am I reading that right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got Sheet Eight. That's what I was looking at. MR. TRAVER-Is your suit to establish these easements by the court, is that basically what you're going to do? MR. ULASEWICZ-Yes, to get an interpretation that we have both deeded access and prescriptive rights access. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So there's no recognized easement legally at this point, and that's what you're trying to establish. MR. ULASEWICZ-We're trying to interpret the deeds that I just submitted for the record, which say we have access. We want the court to confirm that that access in fact exists. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Why would they need to do that if it's a recorded deed? MR. ULASEWICZ-Because the property is being blocked. The dock has been removed, and my clients are being prevented their rights that they've exercised for roughly 30 years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But that's a legal decision, and that can be decided at any time. That doesn't preclude us from considering the project. You can go to court any time you want. MR.ULASEWICZ-That's not true,but we are in court. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don't have to go before this. MR. ULASEWICZ-The important note here is that you're being asked to render a decision that could affect,adversely affect my clients'rights. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, the court can make a decision at any time whether that easement's good or not. MR. ULASEWICZ-But if that septic system goes in, a portion of our easement is lost. I'm just suggesting to you that if you're going to affect more than one individual's rights in property, they have to be part of the application, and if they're not part of the application because litigation has ensued,you should be waiting for that litigation to be resolved. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-If we waited for litigation,we'd never get anything done. MR.ULASEWICZ-Well,if you looked from this side of the table,you wouldn't say that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,because I'm not a lawyer. MR. KREBS-Looking at the map, though, what Brad was saying is it says two foot wide easement conveyed to Hill Properties, LLC, and Hill Properties is to the left, or on the adjacent lot from what we're talking about. MR.ULASEWICZ-I don't know anything about that owner. I don't represent that owner. MR. KREBS-Well,it looks like the two foot easement is on Hill Properties,not on the other property. MR.ULASEWICZ-That's an easement that,it's not even the subject easement that I'm talking about. MR. MAGOWAN-Are you on the other side of the property? MR.ULASEWICZ-I'm talking about three different easements on the side of the property where they want to put in the septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's where this is,too. How wide is the easement? MR.ULASEWICZ-Fifteen feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Are you on the Toga side? Do you want to come up to the table,too? MR. HUNSINGER-No,it's the other side,where the septic system would go. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,he's saying that that's on the property of the Hill Properties, LLC. MARY HILLIARD MRS. HILLIARD-I don't know who Hillis. I really don't. MR. MAGOWAN-So,if I'm looking at this map,the septic's over here,and I see Toga. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Could I get your name for the record,too? MRS. HILLIARD-I'm sorry. I'm Mary Hilliard, and I live at 79 Ash Drive and I'm one of the people who has exercised rights to this property since 1990 and the other folks have exercised it before that. MR. MAGOWAN-So I see a 15 foot right of way on this side, and then over here it says a two foot easement for the Hill Property. So we're a little confused. MRS. HILLIARD-I don't know who the Hill Property is. MR.ULASEWICZ-Would you like us to show you where? MR. MAGOWAN-I mean,yes,point,just so we all have an understanding. I'm confused. MRS. HILLIARD-So, this is where, I don't know where the Hill Property is, but this right down here is how we've always accessed this lake. Here's the dock that used to be there that was taken out by the Dosters, and we have this area all down here to get down to this water. That's the dock on the east side. This is the west side dock that was removed. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're saying that you have an easement all the way right down to the center of this property? MRS. HILLIARD-Correct, and I think we gave you a copy of that deed, and actually the Cerney's have their copy as well. MR. MAGOWAN-With a 15 foot right of way here and a two foot easement over here. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MRS. HILLIARD-I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by two foot easement. That is not, again, I don't know who these people. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,this is the Hill, LLC,the neighbors. MRS. HILLIARD-Okay. So then they have that. That has nothing to do with what we have. Our map and the deed is in writing that we handed in. MR. MAGOWAN-You have a map that shows this right down through the center of the property. MRS. HILLIARD-I'm a rotten map reader. I can tell you that right now, but I will show that this is the area that we've accessed since 1990, and then we come, this is Ash Drive, right, this is where our house is, and we just come right down the center of that property since 1990 to access, and of course the parking where the septic is going to be taking up that whole area where the Cerney's park,the Tyrer's park. MR.ULASEWICZ-And this is the path,by the way,that they walk down. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you pass that around? MR. MAGOWAN-Please,explain that to them. MRS. HILLIARD-We walk right here, come right down, there's the lake. This is the beach where we've accessed in the prior, this is where our dock was before it was removed last year, and this is where,this parking,this parking and this parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So why can't you walk over the septic system? MRS. HILLIARD-It's a raised septic system. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So? MRS. HILLIARD-Can you park on them? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can't park on it,but you can walk over it. MRS. HILLIARD-Well,you might be able to walk over it, I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have a lot of them in Assembly Point. MR. ULASEWICZ-The easement that's being described to the court includes that parking area. If that septic goes in there,we lose the parking area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If that's true,you know,the judge will have to make that decision. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think if the court were to find in your favor, they would probably have to restore your access. Right? MRS. HILLIARD-They could never restore this,because. MR.TRAVER-I think they could. MRS. HILLIARD-Can you put some blacktop over it? MR.TRAVER-Well,there's no blacktop there now,but I think that they would have to provide some remedy. MRS. HILLIARD-Yes,there is,there is blacktop there now. MR.TRAVER-There is? MR. MAGOWAN-Absolutely. He'd have to cutout the parking lot to put in the system. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Again,it's a court decision. MR.TRAVER-I think we have to act on what's before us. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR.TRAVER-That's certainly been the practice. MR. FORD-What was the date of this presentation to the Supreme Court? MR.ULASEWICZ-It hasn't been presented yet. MR. FORD-It hasn't? MR.ULASEWICZ-The papers have been filed and it's proceeding. MRS. HILLIARD-If I can just tell you when this occurred. The Dosters moved in on October of 2011. We had enjoyed this area through the Ledfords,Jan Ledford,the owners Marion and Charles Ledford, since 1990, and I think the Tyrer's since 1985, and after they moved in in '11, we began using our property, or tried to use it, and this is when the dispute arose. So we had,you know, no knowledge that there was any problem here until we got a letter from their attorney saying that we were to cease and desist from using their property because we had no deeded rights. We've not only had deeded rights, which I presented, but we also have prescriptive rights since we're using it the way the owners intended, and then they took out our dock last year, further preventing us from using this property, and now, you know, when does it end. Now they're asking for a variance, which I guess you could vote on, to further restrict,you know, our rights, which,you know, to park as well. It's very,very disturbing to all of the families involved, not to mention,you know, the loss of use. I mean, and this is an undoable thing. If this is granted tonight, and I understand the whole litigation stuff. It's horrible. It's not where we wanted to be, but when people come in and start restricting access to people who have used it, you know, we're in an untenable situation here, and this is undoable. If it's granted that they have septic,we can never get that back. We can never get that parking and that right back. MR. FORD-When were you first denied access? MRS. HILLIARD-May 24, 2012. MR. FORD-Almost two years ago. MRS. HILLIARD-Yes,and that's how long this has taken. MR. FORD-It took two years to file this with Supreme Court? MRS. HILLIARD-No. The Supreme Court was, the actual lawsuit was filed July, mid-July of 2012. We received what's called a temporary restraining order preventing the Dosters from doing the things that they've been doing. They took my boat. I had a boat there. I went out to the lake. I came back and they had put their boat in my, on our dock. There's been a lot of nonsense, up to and including harassment, but that date of July is when the lawsuit was filed. We received a temporary restraining order, and it was,the judge ruled,you know, I guess punted and said,look it, you've got to take this to court. Neither one of you has proved your case. So now it's in court. MR. FORD-And when was that determination made? MRS. HILLIARD-September of 2012, and then we. MR. FORD-So it's taken from that date until now and it still hasn't been filed? MRS. HILLIARD-No, everything's been filed. We're in what's called discovery, and we're going through paper discovery, and then you have depositions and then you get motions and then you get a trial date and then you get a decision. We're probably looking at 2015. We hope it's sooner. We certainly have approached the Dosters on a number of occasions to try to resolve this without litigation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the fact that the judge didn't order a restraining order ought to tell you something. MRS. HILLIARD-Well,he did,but he just didn't decide on a permanent basis. That's correct. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have to, I think we have to deal with what we've got in front of us, and you have to go to court,and if that, and if you win there,you win there. If you lose there,you lose there. That's the way it is. MRS. HILLIARD-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have a lot of cases that come through here. We've had more than you'd like,but what happens is what you just said,you know,we make a judgment. That doesn't stop the court from ruling. Doesn't stop somebody from appealing that court or going to the bureau of municipal affairs. We've had all that happen in the last year. So, we try to deal with just what we've got in front of us. MR. ULASEWICZ-I just want to comment on that, is that I want to repeat myself that you making a decision on this application,which,first of all,has erroneous information in it,in the fact that it says there are no easements on the property, and you effect, or could effect, the rights of other individuals who are here telling you that you could damage their interest in property, I don't see that as saying I have to render a decision. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Conversely the judge could reverse it, and he could effect it, too. That's his right. We're not judges. MR. TRAVER-And he could direct that some remedy be undertaken to restore whatever rights he finds. MR.ULASEWICZ-But that's not before us tonight. MRS. HILLIARD-True, but the thing is if you decide that the septic system goes in, let's say you decide that,then there's noway the judge can undo. This is irreparable. MR.TRAVER-Sure there is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sure,he can move it. MRS. HILLIARD-You can move a septic system? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. We just had a case like that where somebody tried to move one for another reason. MR. TRAVER-And we're not an adjudicative body. We have to act on what's in front of us. So we certainly understand, sympathize with both parties that this is under litigation, but we have an application that has gone through the process and gotten on our agenda and we have to deal with it as it exists in front of us. We can't speculate on what might happen down the road. I can only assure you because, as other members have said,there have been cases where suits have been filed before, during, after these types of projects, and there have been a number of cases where remedies have been directed by the court to restore the rights of individuals who have made claims that their rights have been damaged. So that's the whole purpose of the judicial system is to guarantee the appropriate rights and so on, and there are remedies, as part of that process, as your attorney, I'm sure, will advise you, but we're not an adjudicative body. It's not our position to make a judgment whether you're right or the applicant is right. We simply have to act on the application that's been presented to us on behalf of the Town and act on that,or not act on it. MR.ULASEWICZ-But you are a decision making body that could help in many ways both sides of the litigation if you do not issue a decision at this time, given the knowledge that you have that there are easement disputes with regard to this property. MR. TRAVER-What you're offering is an opinion, not knowledge. There's a difference between knowledge and opinion. MRS. HILLIARD-But it's not opinion that this is under litigation. MR.TRAVER-No,that's true. MR.ULASEWICZ-That's what I was referring to. MR.TRAVER-Sure,understood. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR.ULASEWICZ-And you also have the deeds with the language in it. MR. FORD-And not making a decision is making a decision. MR. HUNSINGER-That's true. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me. I did open up another piece of paper here and I got a finished reading of everything that was there. It's proposed two foot wide easement to be conveyed to Taylor Hill Properties, LLC. That's what that whole little part said over there. MR. KREBS-But the point is, also, that we've had two meetings before Town Boards, one at the Planning Board a week ago, and then it went to the Zoning Board and you people did not come to either of those meetings. MRS. HILLIARD-Yes,we did. MR. KREBS-You did? MRS. HILLIARD-Yes,we came to the Zoning Board. MR.TRAVER-Well,that's not relevant whether they came to any of the meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that really doesn't matter. MR. KREBS-Well,we're now trying to make a decision. MRS. HILLIARD-And the first meeting I didn't know that there was any public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-There wasn't,yes. There's no public comment for recommendation. Yes,you're correct. MRS. HILLIARD-The only point I want to make is maybe you're not, you know, you're not going to rule one way or the other on the decision of easement, but you are going to rule and allow to put a septic system in there,that's true,either yes or no, and if you yes it,then that does affect everything. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We just had one in the reverse of it. MR. MAGOWAN-And also, too, now that you have brought it up and they know that we know, but we can't really make a decision,but he might decide to do his septic area,because it's an occasional parking. It's not like you park your cars there all the time. MRS. HILLIARD-No,certainly not in the winter. MR. MAGOWAN-And in the summertime, I mean, I'm sure,you know,you walk back and forth to the lake. MRS. HILLIARD-Well, not the other three parties, or, you know, you're talking, there's five other people besides myself and my husband and my family. So there's a potential for four cars there easily. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,they might be able to design so you could,you know, park over the leach field or something,you know,make it a permanent thing,I don't know. MR.TRAVER-But that's not the application that's before us. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,that's not the application. MRS. HILLIARD-Right, other than your decision effects rights that other people have, and I think I've said that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,understood. Anything else? MR. KREBS-And those rights are what you're projecting, but we don't know those rights. We've never seen the deeds. MRS. HILLIARD-I gave you the deeds. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. KREBS-Yes,tonight you gave them. I have not seen those deeds. MRS. HILLIARD-I mean, Mr. Krebs, can I ask you, when I would have had an opportunity to show you these deeds. I got a letter a week ago saying that there was this planning meeting tonight. How would I have gotten the opportunity present? MR.TRAVER-You said this has been in litigation since before 2012. MRS. HILLIARD-Correct,but who knew that they were going for a variance? I mean, I didn't know. Believe me,if I had knew you would have had them,trust me. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-Well,yes,last week they were here for a recommendation. MRS. HILLIARD-And I was there. MR. HUNSINGER-There was no public hearing. MR. MAGOWAN-There was no public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Not for the recommendation. MR.ULASEWICZ-We're finished. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Appreciate it. Anyone else want to comment? MRS.MOORE-Can I just clarify for the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-The information that was provided to me includes deeds, two stapled copies, and then a copy of the septic system, and I don't know if that's exactly what you meant to give to me, or whether you were giving me another map. MRS. HILLIARD-Do you happen to have the big map? MR. HUNSINGER-I handed it back to you. MRS. MOORE-And that's up to the applicant if that's what they want in the record, in the file. I just wanted to make sure that it was the right drawing that they wanted. MR.ULASEWICZ-This is the map that. MR. HUNSINGER-We were looking at,yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other public comments? Okay. If the applicant, if you want to come back to the table,please. Laura? MRS. MOORE-I do have information provided by, under public comment. I can read the first one. This was to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan under April 15, 2014. It says,The letter and signed petition of support serves as submittal of public comment to the Board. The proposed variance for interior renovation of an unused attic space into added living space, to the 94 Ash Drive waterfront property will have no negative impact on the surrounding area as it is within the inside of the existing building and poses no exterior changes or exterior increase of size. The letter and signed petition is to serve as support to the property renovations and further future improvements to be made to the property including the installation of a new septic system. This is 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) a positive note as Queensbury does not have a municipal sewer in the Glen Lake area and the quality of the lake and lakefront properties is a major concern. Second, the property has been in neglect for some time now. It is nice to see that steps are being initiated to clean up, repair and bring the property up to Code with today's standards. As a neighboring property, we are in support of the positive changes to the above listed property and ask the Board to approve the variance requested. MR. KREBS-Who was that from? MRS.MOORE-Let me count the names,hold on. MR. FORD-Thank you. That's what I was going to ask. MRS.MOORE-There are 11 signatures on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-And I'll defer if the applicant would like the other information read into the record. MR. DOSTER-I don't think it's necessary. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. DOSTER-I just wanted to clarify, just for a point of clarification, and I appreciate you bringing up, our attorneys have informed us, and that was the letter that was there, that you don't have jurisdiction over this litigation that's going on now, and just want to focus on what we're here for, and that is for the living space of the second floor that we're looking at, and in fact the building permit is already approved for the septic system. Additionally,the easement that you were reading from, Hill Property, is for the shed, the shed roof that is on the left side, there's an overhang, and I wasn't sure at the time that that was filed or finalized,but we did give him an easement just to clean that up. Additionally,you did see on our map that 15 foot right of way to the right of our property that is by deed the right of way they're talking about not through the center of our property, and as far as parking goes,you can see the multi acres on the other side of the street that they all own, and there's plenty of parking there. So to clarify matters, this was brought up in front of the judge and they were denied preliminary injunction for this. So I'd just like to get everybody back focused on why we're here this evening,and it's for the second floor attic and not for. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I appreciate your comments and I guess if I could just provide a little further clarification for the Board, as you pointed out, you already have the permit for the septic. That is not something that is necessarily a part of site plan review. The reason the applicant is here is because of the Floor Area relief. MR. KREBS-Right. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's really the focus that we should be thinking about. MR. KREBS-And that's what's been approved by the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's what the Zoning Board had to act on as well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Your approval is completely contained within the original footprint of the site? MR. DOSTER-Yes, that's correct. The analogy is like finishing off the basement. There's no structural changes, interior. We don't have a basement on the lake or it would be an indoor swimming pool. We have an attic and that attic is quite substantial in size and I think in last week's meeting, one of the Board members said, phrased it best,we were in the middle of re-modeling and we discovered this space that we wanted to utilize and open up and add some natural light into that system. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No,there were not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is also a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is necessary, and unless there's any further comments or questions from the Board, Mr. Secretary, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 21-2014 DAVID&LISA DOSTER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant has begun conversion of existing attic space to living space - 686 sq. ft. floor area. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan review shall be required for any enlargement of a lawful non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. SEQR Type II-no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 4-15-2014; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4-16-2014; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-22-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2014 DAVID & LISA DOSTER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater management, topography, disposal of demolition waste and snow removal. 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MRS. DOSTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. DOSTER-I wanted to take a second to thank Laura and your Staff. They're phenomenal. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes,we appreciate that. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2014 SEQR II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 4 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COTTAGES PREVIOUSLY 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) APPROVED FOR REPLACEMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AREA. MAIN COTTAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6- 050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-14, SP 8-14,AV 2-14, SP 33-13,AV 36-13; BP 13-513, 512 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-64 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-6-050 MR. HUNSINGER-As I mentioned earlier, this project will be tabled at the request of the applicant. There is a draft resolution. Did they provide any indication when they'd like to come back, Laura? MRS.MOORE-The Zoning Board has tabled them to June. MR. HUNSINGER-To June. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so that would give them enough time if they were to submit something by May 15th. MR. HUNSINGER-So we should table them to our? MRS.MOORE-A June meeting,whether it be the Tuesday or that following Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so it probably should be the following Thursday if they're coming to the Zoning Board. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So this would be tabled to June 26th. That's the month we have the weird meeting dates because of the election. So if you'd like to make that motion. MR. KREBS-Yes, I would. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 24-2014 WILLIAM&PAMELA ROBERTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of two cottages previously approved for replacement within the existing footprint area. Main cottage to be constructed within 50 feet of the shoreline. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II-no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 4-15-2014; the ZBA tabled the variance requests to a June meeting; A public hearing was advertised,public hearing opened and left open on 4-22-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2014 WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the June 26, 2014 meeting of the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2014 SEQR TYPE II LINDA M. HART AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR OWNER(S) LINDA M. HART ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 4 CRONIN 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 385 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO INCLUDE A NEW ENTRY FOR TAKEOUT AND KITCHEN EXPANSION; IN ADDITION A NEW EXIT ONLY OUT OF REAR PARKING LOT ONTO CRONIN ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF THE USE IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-14, SP 51-09 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 2.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-40 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9- 020 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has completed the site plan application for the proposed addition. The applicant has submitted revised plans as discussed during the planning board recommendation review. The drawings show 20 ft. additional planter to the existing planter along Bay Road, new access point on Cronin Road is an exit only drive alignment with the Social Security building on Cronin Rd., planting arrangement on south side of building. The board may consider the waiver requests as submitted by the applicant for lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping,traffic,construction,soil logs,and snow removal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Matt Cifone from Cifone Construction company. They are the contractors for the project. This is two small additions to the existing building of the Harvest Restaurant. Various issues have come up during the different presentations that we made before we were before the Zoning Board and back when we were before you for your recommendation. I think that we've answered all those to Staff's satisfaction. If you have questions, we'd be glad to answer them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So now we don't have to go to the bar to get our pizza, we can take it out of the back,is that what you're saying? MR. O'CONNOR-You're still in the same proximity. This is just next to the end of the bar. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The waiting area,but you won't be standing on top of somebody. MR.TRAVER-I think one remaining concern that we have is during this development of this project, will the kitchen have to be closed at any particular time? MR. O'CONNOR-I hope not. I don't think so. I know Linda wouldn't allow that. If she does the guy next to me will be dead. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. Anyone in the audience want to address the Board? No comments. Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS.MOORE-I have no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments. Let the record show no comments were received. We will open the public hearing and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there's anything else from the Board. Mr. Krebs? MR. FORD-I had my say last week. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 27-2014 LINDA M. HART A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 385 sq. ft. addition to include a new entry for takeout and kitchen expansion; in addition a new exit only out of rear of parking lot onto to Cronin Road. Site Plan: Pursuant to 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance expansion of the use in a Cl zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II-no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 4-15-2014; the ZBA approved the variances on 4-16- 2014; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-22-2014 This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2014 LINDA M. HART, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. 2) Waiver requests granted: lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, construction,soil logs and snow removal. 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-2014 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2014 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HACKER BOAT COMPANY AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN/WARREN CO. EDC ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LOTS 1-3,STONE QUARRY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 90,000 SQ. FT. MANUFACTURING BUILDING (1sT PHASE);AND A 40,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING (2ND PHASE). SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NE USES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: CONSTRUCTION OF SITE TRAVEL WAYS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM & LANDSCAPING WITHIN 100' OF A MAPPED US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS. CROSS REFERENCE SV 30-14, SB 12-03 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLAND LOT SIZE 2.67 ACRES,4 ACRES 7 12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1- 76, 77, 78 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-020 TOM JARRETT&MIKE DOWD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,whenever you're ready. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 90,000 square foot manufacturing building. This is the first phase, and then a 40,000 square foot building which is the second phase. Site Plan is required for Planning Board review for new uses within this zone. It also requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit,due to the proximity to the wetlands on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, and with me tonight are two representatives from Hacker Boat, Mike Dowd,who's the project manager and. KEN RAWLING MR. RAWLING-Ken Rawling,marketing. MR. JARRETT-Hacker has a number of facilities around Lake George, and they wish to consolidate their manufacturing and restoration at a site in Queensbury just off Queensbury Avenue, Stone Quarry Road, in the Golden Arrow Business Park. The project we're hereto present to you tonight and we seek approval for, is Phases I and II of that project. Ultimately we presented to you three phases that encompass their long term needs. Phases I and II probably are a five to ten year horizon we believe, and with excellent business development it might even be shorter, but we're here for Phase I, which is 90,000 square feet of manufacturing and restoration, Phase II is another 45,000 square feet, and in addition to that is a 9500 square foot open three sided boat storage building along the southern property line. The subdivision is supported with utilities. So we will connect to municipal water and sewer. We've provided landscaping on the front of the building for aesthetics and visibility to their showroom and a buffer along their south property line to protect adjoining neighbors. That's a residential neighborhood to the south, immediately south along Queensbury Avenue, and our stormwater system takes advantage of not only that buffer but areas adjoining the building, in compliance with DEC regulations. We're managing stormwater as close to the source as possible, and without any more disturbance than is absolutely necessary. We've been in touch with DEC regarding some of the technical comments that you saw from your Town Engineer, and we resolved the two, what we considered potentially significant issues, one the hot spot issue. We've resolved that. We are not a hot spot under DEC standards, and we've resolved their, what the Town Engineer called the vegetated swales. There were some questions regarding those, and we've resolved those issues in conformance with DEC standards. So we think we've got a nice neat package that we think meets your standards and meets the Comprehensive Plan goals, and we're here to answer any questions you might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I take it you're going to be doing varnishing and everything else. Right? What kind of, do you have a permanent booth, or do you have one of those portable booths or how are you going to handle it? MR. DOWD-If you can hear me okay here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can hear you. MR. DOWD-We have, there's several processes within the factory that will utilize finishing. The booths,we have two planned booths, one for boats and one for finishing some smaller items. Both those are semi-permanent, and I mean semi-permanent, it would take a crew of many people to dismantle and re-mantle. It will be permanent in the building for sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they vent it outside with filters. MR. DOWD-Yes,correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it's a fully sprinklered building,of course? MR. DOWD-It is. MR.TRAVER-There are quite a number of engineering comments, as you noted, and do you see any, I mean, some of them are obviously technical, grammatical types of things, but some of them are potentially impacting on design elements. Do you see anything that is? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. JARRETT-There are only two that we felt impacted design, that's the hot spot issue and the question regarding the vegetated swales and the bottom width of those swales. We've resolved both those with DEC. The rest are all minor comments that we'll clarify. We did discover that a couple of things on our plans were not as clear as we'd like, and that will be cleared up with the responses to the Town Engineer. That's probably who generated the comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you talk about the landscaping buffer,the one to the south? MR. JARRETT-Certainly. What would you like to know? We're planting trees in conformance with the Type C Buffer, a Town Buffer. The trees immediately south of the, we'll call it the front of the building, immediately here where it adjoins the residential neighbor. We're planting strictly evergreens that were requested. Here, along these borders, we're thinking of a mixed buffer that would be planted to basically Town standards. No real waiver there along those two lines. Now, we've consolidated some of the street trees that are required around the perimeter of the building. We've consolidated some of those here in the areas where we have stormwater management proposed, because that enhances stormwater management. It keeps the soils permeable, and transpires moisture. In the front of the building, we've got landscaping for aesthetics. Does that answer your question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You know, I know you said that it would be to the Town Code, the Type C Buffer,but I didn't see where the types of trees were defined on the plan. MR. JARRETT-We basically reiterated the list from the Town standard, substitute a couple of them where we've gotten rid of the ash trees and some of those things that we've discussed over the years,but basically we've used the tree list that Queensbury has generated. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. Other questions from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is Phase I and II? MR.JARRETT-We're requesting approval for Phase I and II. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And where is III going to be,over to the side? MR. JARRETT-That basically shows just Phase I. Phase II would be in the back to the right. It doesn't really show, and Phase III, Phase III would be here on the east end of the building, and we don't really know what size that would be yet. So we're not seeking that approval. We don't know what it would be, but for purposes of planning, we're telling you that we think a Phase III is necessary. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It depends on business if it's necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-What type of surface will you have in front of the shed? MR.JARRETT-The shed right here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Right now that is proposed as a reinforced turf. So it'll be a grass appearance, but it'll be structurally sound. MR. HUNSINGER-And how often do you anticipate moving boats in and out of there? MR. DOWD-Some of that's going to be seasonal. Obviously in spring when people want their boats or we finish their boats in the wintertime and they take delivery of them in the springtime,you use that more often, but you're likely to be out there a couple times a week, a few times a week in the summer and the winter months. MR. HUNSINGER-So just tell me what type of boats are in there. Are they customer boats that are waiting to be repaired or are they boats that are waiting to be delivered? MR. DOWD-They'll be built. There's some finished goods,inventory within that space. As we build inventory in the wintertime,they put them in those racks. When customer boats are finished,we'll put them in those racks and there's likely some times that we'll have boats that are in the process in different phases. We'll put them in, take them out. So it'll be a mixed use for several of our processes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many boats are you going to store there? MR. DOWD-Geez,the final count? MR.JARRETT-I don't think we have that number off the top of our heads. MR. DOWD-We've actually shrunk that quite a bit to allow for some access for the fire department, the fire department needs. MR.JARRETT-It could be on the order of 50. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I've looked at, 50 to 60. MR.JARRETT-In that range. MR. FORD-What is the timeline for full build out of Phase I and II? MR. JARRETT-Phase I is going to start sometime this year. It depends on this Board as well as weather condition, and you're looking to finish some time, as early next year as possible. Phase II would be three to five years down the road potentially,depending on business. Is that a fair? MR. DOWD-It could be sooner if business comes good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you moving anything from Ti down? MR. DOWD-We will be moving most of our operations from Ti down. MR.JARRETT-The marina in Silver Bay will stay for the moment at least. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. Well,that's just nice. MR. JARRETT-We do need one waiver, and that is from topographic information. When the subdivision was done, there was no topographic information gathered for this portion of the site, but it is relatively flat, certainly flat going north/south. So we've asked for that waiver, and Staff has suggested that's reasonable. I don't want to speak for Laura. MR. FORD-Building construction will be up to usual Hacker standards? MR.JARRETT-Not the same materials,though. Slight waiver there. A lower grade mahogany. MR. KREBS-They're not building a wood building. No, but having built, some 30 years ago, a steel building,they're wonderful. I mean,they just last and last and last. MR. HUNSINGER-I know it's really not part of the application, but it is referenced. Can you talk about the sign waiver? MR. JARRETT-Yes. In fact, I think we have documents under building there which probably show what we're looking at. MR.TRAVER-It's basically a much bigger sign than normal. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-If you go to the building directory, 30 square feet is allowed by Code for a building mounted sign,and this building is so large,that's the monument sign. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the monument sign. MR. JARRETT-Go to the route directory, go back out one more. The building and sign. The one above it, I think. This sign right here, there would be no white background. That white background is misleading. That's the actual sign we're asking for on that building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, I saw it on the elevation. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR.JARRETT-It's three feet high by twenty-six feet long. If we put a compliant sign there,nobody's be able to find it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I saw it on the elevation. I thought maybe there was something else they were going to submit. MR.JARRETT-We don't feel this is overwhelming,and this is the variance we're asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm glad I asked. MR.JARRETT-Yes, I'm glad I asked as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Laura? MRS. MOORE-I can just add that because this project was part of a subdivision, previously done, there was an archeological study done. That information was shared. It was in the file. I know Chazen picked up on it asking for that information as part of the SWPPP. That information is available. So it's compliant with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,it's good business for the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, let the record show no comments were received. What's the sense of the Board? We did have extensive engineering comments. Personally, I didn't see where any of them would affect design. MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-They're more technical in nature. MR. KREBS-Right,and they've addressed some of that by the fact that it is not a hot spot. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they've represented that there are only two that potentially could affect design, and they've evidently reconciled those. MR. FORD-Yes. MR.JARRETT-Actually I provided that documentation to the Town Staff. Laura has seen that. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Does it change any of the designs that were submitted to the Board? MR.JARRETT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So is the Board comfortable in moving forward? MR. FORD-I am. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted SEQR. If we're going to move forward, I will close the public hearing. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And we'll move into the SEQR review. They did submit a Short Form,though. MRS.MOORE-They did. Do you want the language for that resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, did you give it to us in the draft resolution, Laura? You can give it to Mr. Krebs. Just plug in the application number. It should be on the other resolution. MR. KREBS-Yes. Okay. SEQR resolution to approve a Negative Declaration for Site Plan 26-2014. The applicant proposes construction of a new manufacturing facility. RESOLUTION RE SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RE: SP# 26-2014 FFW 2-2014 HACKER BOAT A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 90,000 sq. ft. manufacturing building (1St phase); and a 40,000 sq. ft.building (2nd phase). Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance New Uses shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Construction of site travel ways, stormwater management system & landscaping within 100' of a mapped US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands. 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. 26-2014 HACKER BOAT COMPANY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize,we're still getting use to the new SEQR forms. MR.JARRETT-As we all are. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other final questions or comments from the Board? Hearing none, if you're ready to go. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 26-2014 FWW 2-2014 HACKER BOAT COMPANY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 90,000 sq. ft. manufacturing building (1st phase); and a 40,000 sq. ft. building (2nd phase). Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) Ordinance New Uses shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Construction of site travel ways, stormwater management system &landscaping within 100' of a mapped US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-22-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2014 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2014 HACKER BOAT COMPANY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 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: topographic survey; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 8) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 9) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 10) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 11) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 12) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 13) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Welcome to Queensbury. MR. FORD-Yes,welcome to Queensbury. MR. MAGOWAN-Welcome to Queensbury. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-An offhand comment to the Board, those of you who attended the Smart Growth workshop last week,this site plan incorporates a number of those standards. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's a nice site plan. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's very well done. Thank you. MR. KREBS-And the product is a fantastic product. MR. HUNSINGER-Last item on the agenda is a discussion for a proposed subdivision on the south side of Peggy Ann Road. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SOUTH SIDE OF PEGGY ANN ROAD,BETWEEN PHEASANT WALK& QUEENSBURY FOREST SUBDIVISIONS 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS; MDR ZONING JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if you want to add anything else for the introduction, Laura, or if we're all set. MRS.MOORE-No, I think we're all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you're ready. MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center and the Leuci family is behind us in the first row. This was one of the parcels that the City of Glens Falls had in their watershed property that wasn't needed for their watershed, and the Leuci's bid on it and purchased it, and we've been talking to Craig about doing a residential subdivision, and essentially this is in the MDR two acre zone,in an area where all the lots next door are about six tenths of an acre, and that's what Tom has there, but before spending all the money on the detailed engineering, Craig thought it would be best to come and get your input. So that's why we're here. We're seeking a density, or we expect to be seeking a density variance to do, not what's shown there,but what's shown in front of you, and the justification for that is that if we were to do this as zoned, we would have six lots fronting on Peggy Ann Road, which is, you know, one of those connector cut through roads. So instead of having, even to do it as three driveways with double, with two lots sharing a common driveway, to have three curb cuts and people driving out onto Peggy Ann, it's certainly safer to put in a cul de sac,but more than that,this is what's in keeping with the rest of that neighborhood,with the subdivisions right next door. So, both Queensbury Forest and Pheasant Walk are the two on either side, which nearly all the lots are the same size as what the Leuci's are proposing here. On top of that, there's a junkyard in the back of this which is called Ray's Salvage which has to be buffered, but it's really just in terms of what you'd see if you drive up Peggy Ann Road. Instead of seeing three driveways,you're going to have a cul de sac, and then these lots would be really exactly what the neighbors are on either side, and you can see that just from taking a look at the concept map that Tom prepared. So we really just wanted to run this by you and see what you think. The MDR two acre zone makes sense for a lot of places, but estate size lots here really wouldn't be salable to market. It's more for something in the low 200's in this area, but then on top of that, in terms of justification,this is really good sandy soil. So it's perfect for septic systems. It's got public water, but not public sewer, obviously, on the west side of Town, but these soils are perfect. So there won't be any issue and we just feel that this is compatible with the neighborhood, although of course it requires a density variance. So we're always careful to tread lightly and come talk about it first. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. FORD-So,again please,the average lot size? MR. LAPPER-Six tenths of an acre. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many lots? MR. LAPPER-There's 18 lots, and I'm wrong, because the smallest lot is .67 and four of them, three of them are over an acre. MR. HUNSINGER-So two thirds of an acre. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. KREBS-I think that's fine. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's certainly true that the lot sizes are in character of that neighborhood. No question about that. Somebody that's going to buy a two acre piece of property is probably not to buy a house surrounded by.6 acre homes. So that point also is well taken. MR. KREBS-Plus the fact that today the market seems to be in that price range. So if you're going to build a subdivision and you expect to sell the homes, that's the price range you're going to have to be. MR. TRAVER-Well, to some degree it's both, but I mean the people that are in the market for a two acre property aren't going to buy it in the middle of a bunch of subdivisions. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I would be negligent if I didn't ask the question. Have you explored all possibilities to interconnect this with some other road in the vicinity? MR. LAPPER-I can go back, I don't think the possibility exists,but let's look at the map. MR. CENTER-Because of the salvage yard, the closest connection would be Pasco Ave., would be right there, and I believe there's already a house built on that lot right there, and I think this subdivision is already built out also. MR. LAPPER-It is. So those are separate ownerships. MR. CENTER-So those are all separate ownerships, separate lots that aren't a vacant lot where you could connect, and I don't think you want to connect to Pasco Ave. by the salvage yard. That's all owned,they're all individual parcels,but they appear to be owned by the same person or entities as the salvage yard,but it's not continuous Pasco Avenue. The street isn't continuous to our lot. MR. LAPPER-So there's really no road available that intersects. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well,you know it is a recommendation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and,you know, if all of the other neighborhoods around this weren't built out,you know,we'd have a much more serious conversation about that. MR. LAPPER-No,you're right. It's the right thing to do when you can. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and like I said, I felt I would be negligent if I didn't ask the question and get it on the record. MR. FORD-Chris,you're anything but negligent. MR. HUNSINGER-I try to be. MR. FORD-I know. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions,comments? Laura? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MRS. MOORE-I just had questions in reference to stormwater septic systems. I know it's well drained soils. So is that, are you, do you have any perceived issues with septic systems or stormwater in t that area? MR. CENTER-No, we would work with Mike Shaw, DOH, to do the, obviously realty subdivision, do our test pits and I would imagine similar to the LARAC subdivision, because of the well-drained soils,the drawings for the septic systems would be at the time the house is located,prior to building permit, is to come out and do a dedicated perc test in the area of the septic system and confirm the perc rate,whether we have a minute or we have to do modified soils. We may have to do modified soils here, and that's one of the things, having gone out in the LARAC subdivision between Luzerne Road and Sherman, we did probably eight to ten test pits, did perc tests for all of those, and then Mike agreed it didn't make sense to come out and do a bunch of perc tests in the middle of nowhere where you don't know exactly where the system was. We have a note on the drawing that we'll use that same information for these septic systems that prior to installation we'll have to do two per tests to confirm the perc rate. MR. FORD-I like that in anticipation. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have to modify any of the ones at LARAC? MR. CENTER-They will be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-Yes, there will be plenty of them that will need to be modified. Some of them we're cutting down a few feet. Some of them, there's soil being moved around, move into, so,you know, we're probably going to have to do modified soil, and we have details for both of them, but all lots get perc tests prior to installation of the septic systems, and that was one of the DOH required notes. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you have to modify the soil, what does that entail? What do you actual have to do? MR. CENTER-You have to box out the area for the septic system, depending on the number of bedrooms. You have to bring in a red loamy sand, mix that in and reduce the perc rate that's faster than a minute to somewhere between one to five minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Since you asked, just for the record, you approved that on the LARAC, and recently The Michaels Group purchased that from. MR. HUNSINGER-I saw that in the paper,yes. MR. LAPPER-So I don't think they're going to start on it for another six months because they've got plenty of stuff going on,but they're excited about it. MR. KREBS-Good. MR. MAGOWAN-For my own knowledge,Tom,what happens if it peres too fast? Does it siphon? MR. CENTER-No, the State requires, the Residential Code requires us to have the soil perc between one to sixty minutes. Anything faster than one minute needs to be modified to slow the soil down, so you're protecting the groundwater surface. It doesn't matter whether you're two feet from groundwater or you're sixty feet from groundwater, you can't have a perc rate that's less, that's faster than one minute. MR. MAGOWAN-They're afraid it will just drop right into an aqua line. All right. MR. CENTER-Yes, there's a lot of discussion trying to get them to do, if you have six feet of soil and you have thirty second perc rate to not have to modify it because we have seen some problems,you know, with those in certain, in other areas with some septic systems, you know, but these are, the soil's pretty good. Sometimes we can get it just by compacting the soil that's there and get it to a minute. MR. LAPPER-But by comparison,if you have clay,you're dead,you can't do anything. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. LAPPER-If you have sand,you can always make it go slower. MR. CENTER-You can always get it down to one to five minutes. MR. MAGOWAN-I just thought, you know, if it went so fast it would just siphon out the tank or something. MR. CENTER-No,it's for protection of the groundwater. MR. MAGOWAN-The aquifer. All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. MR. LAPPER-We'll do some engineering and we'll be back. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? Mr. O'Connor. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-I just have a question. Cerrone subdivision on Sweet Road received its final order to establish the extension of the sewer district on Monday night. The immediate question came, they have a contractor that's available. He's got the schedule and everything else,that he would be to their great advantage if they went in and did some clearing. Your stage of approval is Preliminary approval. We will have the documentation in here for final approval. We've missed the April filing. So we're going to have it in by the May 15th. We're not going to get before you until June. So we're going to basically miss the opportunity to jump start this thing. Is there a way that, I know under Site Plan you're not supposed to disturb the property during the period of the application, but what is outstanding right now is response to engineering comments, and we've got the response. The response will go out, probably before the end of the week, to engineering. So we should be all ready just to come in and pro forma I think, I don't think we're going to change the design of the subdivision at all, to get approval in May or June. Is there a way to allow the, some clearing to take place, I'm talking about the roads basically? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean clear cut? MR. O'CONNOR-The road areas,yes,as designed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-To get down to 9? MR. O'CONNOR-No,this is on Sweet Road. MR. FORD-Off Sweet Road,the loop road you're referring to. MR. O'CONNOR-Put the loop road in. MR. TRAVER-I think my concern would be, not with this project necessarily, but if we establish practice of allowing that, then if we have a project that is controversial or that people are objecting to, that involves environmental concerns, hypothetically, and we allow, at Preliminary Stage, you know,large clear cutting of trees,that's going to be a problem. So I guess I. MR. O'CONNOR-All those points, I think, are what makes this maybe doable, because this is not controversial. MR.TRAVER-I understand that. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. O'CONNOR-There's no environmental issues. I mean, you take each application as a separate application. People that get up here to oppose an application always yell about precedent. There is no such thing as precedent that binds you. MR.TRAVER-No, I understand that as well,but what if there are individuals out there, I mean we've had individuals complain that they don't feel as though they've had adequate notice. So hypothetically there could be someone out there that has an objection that we haven't heard, and I'm just throwing it out there. I'm not saying necessarily that it applies to this case, but I'm just concerned that if we allow, at Preliminary Stage, people to go in and begin altering the site and doing things that are not permitted until Preliminary Stage is concluded, that we have changed the practice of the Town, and I don't know that we want to. I understand your concern and your justification seems reasonable,but I'm just, I'm very cautious about changing these. MR. FORD-I agree with you, Steve, but personally I feel that we should look at these as individual cases. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We've had two or three public hearings, correct me if I'm wrong. We came in for concept. I don't think that's a public hearing. We came in for Preliminary, and I think we might have been here twice for public hearing, and the public hearing was kept open. We had a public hearing before the Town Board, actually maybe two before the Town Board on the sewer district extension. We did have some neighbors come. We listened to them and we modified our subdivision to answer them. If I remember right,we took all the playing field where the real active type recreation away from the subdivision. MR.TRAVER-Yes,made it a walking path. MR. O'CONNOR-Changed the driveway so that it didn't hit somebody's house. It went between the property lines or it was headed at the property lines. MR. TRAVER-I remember those discussions, and I know that the applicant did make some accommodations to some of those concerns. I mean, I guess maybe I need to take a step back. Is this something that we could even, I mean,how could we grant someone? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if we can. The question I was going to ask Laura, and I don't mean to put you on the spot,but what's allowed under the Code in terms of clearing? MRS. MOORE-Any movement in a project that is clearing is typically subject to review. So maybe there's an opportunity to discuss with Staff does it come in as a discussion during our upcoming meeting in May as an amendment to the Preliminary subdivision? Things like that. Under an Admin issue. I don't know. We don't typically do allow, you know, changes so that you can clear the day,you know, we try to work with the applicant so that they can clear at an appropriate time. So I'm concerned that we would be saying yes to something that our Code definitely doesn't allow. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,you know,just listening to the comments that have been made, I'm going to ask to refresh my memory a little bit,but we did grant Preliminary approval? Correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes,they're at Final Stage. MR. HUNSINGER-So they're at Final Stage. So that means we approved the SEQR. MRS.MOORE-The SEQR. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-We approved the design. MRS.MOORE-But they were still pending the engineering,them addressing engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-So, I don't know,again. MR. HUNSINGER-I suppose engineering could change the design a little bit. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a subdivision that will be serviced by water and by sewer. So there's not septic. There's not a lot of engineering. Some of it has to do with the swales and stuff like that. I 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) have no, I'd love to have you say yes tonight, but I want Staff to be on board, too. I don't want you to say yes and then Staff to come back and say we can or we cannot do it MR. HUNSINGER-I think this is an interesting discussion, and I guess I'd throw it back to Staff to see if there's a way to maybe add it. MRS.MOORE-I'll look into it. MR. O'CONNOR-Could I ask if there's a consensus that it would be all right if Staff says it's okay? My fear is, I'm aware of the restrictions under either SEQR or under the Site Plan thing that says that if you have a site plan application pending you're not supposed to modify the site. You're not supposed to jump the gun on the site. I don't believe there's that restriction in the Subdivision Regulations,and so that's why I'm asking. MR.TRAVER-Well,we have between, I mean, I suppose we have between now and the May meeting to try to come up with a solution. Right? So if we can set a goal that you work with Staff and Staff, you know, look at the regs and try to, I mean, I'm sure that they're going to try to come up, their best to come up with a solution. I don't, I mean, I don't feel comfortable saying anything on this tonight, but perhaps you can come up with some creative solution with Staff and it could be something that we could approve in May. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would be great. MR. TRAVER-I mean, again, I'm not, I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing this application, because I'm not, but I can remember, maybe a couple of years ago, we had an application where people came in very upset because someone had some kind of preliminary approval and they knew that it was controversial, and they were actually setting up lights and chopping trees down and working at night, the wee hours to try to get as much of it done as they possibly could, so that it couldn't be recoverable,to use the term that the other family had. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember that. MR. TRAVER-And I'm not saying that that's what's happening here, but, you know, there's kind of mission creep a little bit. So I think it has to go back to the Planning Department and let them recommend a solution that we would then feel comfortable with, and I think the soonest we could do that would be our next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-I like that idea. I feel comfortable with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If it was up in Assembly Point,people would just do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. FORD-I'd feel comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I know that's not exactly the solution you're looking for, but maybe it's a compromise. MR. FORD-We've still have the potential to give them about a 30 day head start. MR.TRAVER-Yes,you'd still get a head start a little bit. MR. O'CONNOR-Any possibility we can get a waiver on filing? That would solve all the problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,do you have signoff from the engineers yet? MR. O'CONNOR-No, we have a response for them. The way we interpreted your Preliminary approval was that we couldn't file the Preliminary approval until we got the Town Board extension of the sewer district. The Town Board actually issued their order early, trying to keep things moving. They typically don't give a final order of approval until after construction,believe it or not. We started to get into that chicken and egg, and they finally said that they volunteered to approve it now,as opposed to after construction. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/22/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because, I mean, I don't mean to speak for the whole Board,but,you know, from my perspective where we are at this point in the game is it's pretty pro forma. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We already gave you Preliminary. Unless there's some dramatic change, there's no reason why we wouldn't grant Final,provided you meet those conditions. MR.TRAVER-Not that I'm aware of,but I don't have that in front of me. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-If I get you an engineering response, can you ask for their review now instead of waiting until you send out the May package for review? MRS.MOORE-It's possible. MR. O'CONNOR-Because that answers 99%of the questions. MR. FORD-Is it Friday before our meeting? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. O'CONNOR-And if you're not in the office you don't read it until Monday. I thank you for your time. MRS. MOORE-Information will be forwarded to the engineer. Typically when someone submits their comments,they're typically forwarded the next day or that day. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but the engineering looks at it and says it won't be on the agenda until such and such. MRS.MOORE-That's you're responding to one,versus anew application. That's a different process. MR. O'CONNOR-My experience has not been that, Laura. You've got to put a little special message on it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else to come before the Board? We have a draft resolution. MR. KREBS-Yes. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 22. 2014, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. MR. FORD-Thank you, students for showing up tonight. MR. KREBS-Yes,thank you for joining us. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 31