Loading...
10-28-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28,2014 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-2014 Joseph Leuci 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.15-1-19 FINAL STAGE Special Use Permit No. 63-2014 Spencer Montgomery 5. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29 Site Plan No. 65-2014 Israel Deltoro 22. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-7 Site Plan No. 66-2014 Phinney Design Group 25. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-16, 17-19 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 10/28/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER,VICE CHAIRMAN THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury on Tuesday, October 28th. Just as a reminder, I'd like to remind everyone to put their cell phones on mute or airport or whatever they feel like doing so they won't be disruptive. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We will have public hearings scheduled on most of the items this evening, and we'll get into more details when we get to the first hearing. First item on the agenda is an Administrative Item for Site Plan 24- 2014 for William and Pamela Roberts. Is there any more information? MRS. MOORE-They have actually withdrawn that application. So there's no further action of the Planning Board. So they have withdrawn. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes it easy. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why did they do that? MRS.MOORE-They submitted a letter withdrawing their application. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item is under Tabled Items. TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOOTHILL BUILDERS,LLC ZONING MDR LOCATION PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.8 +/- ACRE LOT INTO NO MORE THAN 16 LOTS WITH A MINIMUM OF 0.85 PER ACRE AS APPROVED BY AREA VARIANCE 61-2014. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE A SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-2014 LOT SIZE 14.8 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.15-1-19 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 16 lot subdivision on a 14.8 acre parcel with lot sizes of 0.85 acres. The plans provided detail the lot arrangement,the location,design of street and the relation to the topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot sizes and the arrangement and placement of utilities as outlined in Chapter 183. Staff would suggest a condition the applicant receive the necessary approvals for connection to the water main prior to property development. The Zoning Board did grant the variance approval dated 9/24/14 for the 16 lots. The original proposal was for 18 lots,and now there's 16 lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Center and Joe Leuci is right behind us. When we were here last month for SEQR and for your recommendation, you had recommended that we jockey some of the lines to make the first lot by Peggy Ann Road bigger, and when we got to the Zoning Board, what we agreed to was to eliminate two lots, which spread 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) everything out and probably makes it a better subdivision for the purchasers at the end of the day. So we're hoping with that you're in favor of the subdivision. We got a pretty basic letter from the Town Engineer with just some stormwater changes. They had asked about SHPO and we're not in any of the sensitive areas for SHPO. We have a letter already which we'd submitted for endangered species. So that's not an issue, and the rest were just some really minor comments on some changes to the stormwater plan that Tom will take care of. All of the property adjacent to this is in the water district,but because this was owned by the City there was no reason to put it in the water district. So we'd have to apply for that,but the water main is right along Peggy Ann Road. So that's no big deal,and that's really it. We can go into any detail that you'd like. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I think the changes in the lot sizes you made are, I know it's a reduction in number of lots you're looking to have but I think it definitely improves the overall development. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? I had a comment on Lot One, and it's really kind of the same discussion we had last time. I notice when you laid it out differently,you changed the orientation, the numbering. So it's the new Lot One which is on the west side, not on the east side of the proposed new road. You still have a narrow, you have a narrow frontage instead of a narrow backyard,and on your,where you have the houses laid out,you have that house sitting back a lot further than the others. So I was just wondering if you gave any consideration to, you know, again, similar to the comments last time of running those property lines parallel with Peggy Ann Road,instead of perpendicular to the new street. MR. CENTER-I did talk with the surveyor in regards relocating those property lines, and he felt that that would skew the subdivision from the road, and not be geometrically a good idea. We did look at it. I did talk to him, and based on what we needed to do to meet the.85 per lot,this was the best layout that he could do to meet the .85, but I did ask him to look at that, and he said as far as, it would have skewed several of the lots and been a difficult layout because they wouldn't be perpendicular to the road. You'd start the houses parallel to the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-That he was going to have some issues there. Certainly we can take into consideration the house design. Again, we've used some typical houses. That can change for that lot in particular to orient the driveway or the garage differently with the design of the house that may, you know, so that the driveway isn't, the house isn't so far back. We can certainly look at different house styles would be something on those lots, because it is a smaller lot, and the houses, they are built in the lower range or medium range houses. So you may be looking at a walk out or a split level type where you could move it closer and shorten the box a little bit so you can move it more forward. Again, I tried to show some typical houses that would be a four bedroom style on the lot,but it may end up being a three bedroom house. It may be a smaller one closer to the road. MR. LAPPER-The bottom line is it's .85 acres. So they're all decent sized lots for that neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it might not have been so noticeable if,you know,all of the other houses were right in a row,you know, and then except for that one where it's set way, set back a lot further than the others. MR. LAPPER-They may not all wind up there because that's just how you placed. MR. CENTER-Yes, that's just how, that's how I placed them and laid out the septic system. Again, these are estimates by me where the houses would be and trying to minimize the driveway, but someone may want their house a little bit further back from the road and do more plantings in the front and hide the road a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. FORD-Particularly on Lots 8 and 10. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CENTER-When we get back there,those are back a little bit more from the road. MR. FORD-Right,where the lot is wider. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other questions I had was on the engineer's signoff. MRS. MOORE-I have not received an engineering signoff. There's an additional plan that needs to be submitted from the applicant to forward that on, and after tonight's meeting it would be still a condition of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-How far back are the houses right now in the picture? MR. CENTER-The front setback, I believe,is 30 feet. The minimum front setback. MR. LAPPER-Tom just showed them at the minimum. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm just saying,yes. MR. CENTER-So the front setback is 30 feet. I tried to keep them as close, similar to our other subdivisions where we find that these, this mid ranged priced house, we'd want to shorten the driveway as much as possible to keep the road as close to the front, but when you get to the, you know, especially the pie-shaped lots, where it's narrow in the front, you have your side setbacks. The house naturally has to come back a little bit further, and again,these probably show worst case scenario with the garage side by side. There are some designs that could limit that,where someone that maybe doesn't want to be that far back can change the design of their house and go to a split level type where the garage would be incorporated into the main body of the house,the box shrinks down and the house moves forward. MR. MAGOWAN-Gotcha. I never thought of it as the type of development, I just always like to see a little bigger front yard than just right on top of it, but, no definitely going down to the 16 from the 18 really made a big difference in,you know,lot size in the way it lays out, and,you know,the front one is,you gained as much as you could and,you know,like I said, I like it much better than before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you definitely resolved the issue on,now it's Lot 16. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No,there are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Do I see any hands? Okay. Then if there are no commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. We already did SEQR on this. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? I mean, we know there are some engineering issues, but,did you have a letter? MR. LAPPER-We have a letter to the engineer responding to their comments, just agreeing to do what they ask. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm sure they're going to follow through with what they needed, because they've got to come back and see us again,and,you know,we can always hold it over them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. We pretty much did the design issues and resolved those. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So if there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB # 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.8 +/- acre lot into 18 lots ranging in size from 1.46 to 0.58 +/- acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from density,lot size, lot width requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status, may conduct SEQR review and may provide a recommendation to the ZBA. SEQR Negative Declaration approved on 9-23-2014; PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 9-23-2014; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 9-24-2014; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9-23-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this is for the Preliminary Stage. Did we have a sample resolution for Final, Laura? No,because we had to resolve the. MR.TRAVER-It was a tabling motion last week. MR. HUNSINGER-We had to resolve the engineering issues. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-We're hoping you'll go on to Final,a condition on engineering. MR. MAGOWAN-You want that tonight? MRS.MOORE-I do not have a sample resolution. You can utilize your Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-The only special condition, which is a standard condition, is the engineering signoff. So I think we can just do a standard resolution with the standard terms and conditions for Final, Don. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.8 +/- acre lot into 18 lots ranging in size from 1.46 to 0.58 +/- acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from density,lot size, lot width requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status, may conduct SEQR review and may provide a recommendation to the ZBA. SEQR Negative Declaration approved on 9-23-2014; PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 9-23-2014; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 9-24-2014; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9-23-2014 and 10-21-2014; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: This will require that they get engineering signoff,and this is per a future draft provided by Staff. 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 3. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 4. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of qny site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 5. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final 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 Subdivision, 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 subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. We knew you'd like this one better. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it is better. Absolutely. We have three items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2014 SEQR TYPE TYPE UNLISTED SPENCER MONTGOMERY AGENT(S) APEX CAPITAL & WEST MT. SKI CENTER OWNER(S) APEX CAPITAL, LLC ZONING RC LOCATION 59 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING A 5 YEAR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW 10 SINGLE DAY EVENTS AND 8 MULTI-DAY EVENTS OUTSIDE THE SKI AREA'S NORMAL OPERATING SEASON (NOVEMBER TO APRIL). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OUTDOOR CONCERT EVENTS IN THE RC ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 11-13, SUP 72-12 WARREN CO. PLANNING OCTOBER 2014 APA, CEA, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 365.43 ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP NO. 307.4-29 SECTION 179-10-070 SPENCER MONTGOMERY, PRESENT; PAIGE SIBLER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to utilize West Mountain during the off season for outdoor concert events. The applicant was previously granted a Special Use Permit for two years, and an overview of off season operations due within the year. The applicant has now requested a five year Special Use Permit to allow 10 single day events and 8 multi-day events. I'll read,the Fire Marshal comments have indicated that they do not trigger an inspection at this time other than when there is a special event, such as tent inspections, and no use of smoke generating equipment. The County Planning Board comment was the County recommends that no parking be allowed on West Mountain Road, that prior to any events written notification be provided to the Warren County Highway Superintendent describing the particulars of the event and that notification be provided to the Warren County Sheriff, and in Staff summary I suggested that the Board request clarification for the following: confirmation about traffic details such as RV parking, vendor storage area,vendors on site, overnight area, site access point for parking as well as location where traffic will enter and exit, and the second bullet I have is consideration may be needed to determine if there should be a patron RV limit as the patrons are limited to a portion of the site where the event takes place. Not all of West Mountain is to be used, and the third item is in reference, we'll need to confirm security arrangements as well as needs for emergency services for fire and EMS and the fourth bullet is confirming if camping will be allowed in location, and also if camping will need to meet DOH requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MONTGOMERY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. MONTGOMERY-I'm Spencer Montgomery and I'm the General Manager of West Mountain, and one of the owners and managing member of Apex Capital that owns the ski center. MR. HUNSINGER-And with you is? MS. SIBLER-Paige Sibler, Marketing Assistant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anything else about the project that you wanted to convey to the Board? MR. MONTGOMERY-Not particularly. We had had a Special Use Permit in the past, and as of this year we used it to host a Fall Festival that we're currently hosting. I think most of our events would be in line with that. I know there's a fair amount of flexibility and scope to the permit. I am aware of the past issues there's been with the Town, and also with the surrounding community, cognizant of those and it's our intention to hold events that don't cause a problem where there's been problems in the past, and I think a lot of that stems from extremely heavy base type music festivals and that's really not our intent to host that type of festival. I can't say exactly what we would look to host going forward. We're doing a Fall Festival now which is a family focused event. One of my managing members who's also an owner of the Mountain with me, one of his biggest clients is the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer. They do some pretty major events, but nothing that would be obscure or offensive, I believe, to the surrounding people. So I don't know the exact scope of what we would like to do. I can speak to the fact that we aren't looking to host events that would cause a noise problem to the neighbors. If there were any type of music, I could see us hosting concerts, and normally those events would be done by 9:30 or 10:00. If there were any type of continued music it would be within the lodge space. I know that's been a concern in the past,and we're trying to find some things that will help us bridge the gap between the Spring and the Fall when we re- open, and we have a few things in mind, but specifically we don't have any events that I would foresee hosting that would be similar to the problems that we had in the past with noise pollution and that. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you receive a copy of the Staff Notes on the project? Some of which Laura just summarized. MR. MONTGOMERY-I saw the permit. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments on the Staff comments, any answers to the Staff comments? MR. MONTGOMERY-No,not particularly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There were questions about traffic details, for example RV parking,vendor storage area, a vendor on site overnight area. MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, we've had vendors, even at this past event. I don't envision us ever hosting an event that was RV specific. It would be very bizarre for me to see a lot of RV's in the parking lot of West Mountain. Obviously those require some sort of disposal hook up and power hook up. So I don't ever envision that happening. That's not to say that there might not be an RV occasionally that might come with a vendor. The vendors that we've had so far have been around in the lodge area, behind the lodge area, with a specific tent, fairly small venue, and then pack up and leave. Most of them are day vendors. They don't have a lot of stuff with them. We would store that where it wasn't obtrusive to anyone driving by, but I can't imagine us having an RV type of event. We might have crafts there, which would have more vendors than we currently are having, but most of those are,you know, a couple of day specific. As far as traffic, we would notify the Sheriff's Department if we saw any type of overflow issue. The EMS issues, we would address all those. The Fall Festival, and hopefully it grows in size, and I anticipate it will, but it's been maybe a third to two thirds full within the parking lot. Nothing that's flowed out into the West Mountain Road area. MR. HUNSINGER-The other questions was if there would be either a patron or a vehicle limit. Basically,you know,the size of the event. MR. MONTGOMERY-We would limit it so that it didn't spill over. I mean, I assume that maybe we would have an event where we had to utilize the triple chair parking lot, but nothing that would spill out onto the roadways. We've yet to have an event that would spill over, although this season, you know, during our normal operation,you know, we had some full parking lots, which was good to see. I don't know if there's ever been an event that's flowed outside of the parking lot, but we would control that flow. We wouldn't let it flow onto, you know, any of the other streets or other people's property. MS. SIBLER-I think that happened in the past because there weren't parking lot attendants, and so as long as you have somebody directing everyone and having them park like in certain spots, you can fit the maximum amount of cars in the parking lot, and also in the triple chair as well. So we would have parking lot duty people on to make sure that there weren't cars just parked randomly which I don't think really happened in the past. MR. FORD-What happens if you reach the limit of those parking areas? MR. MONTGOMERY-Well,we'd restrict the size of the event. MR. FORD-You'd turn people away? MR. MONTGOMERY-We would. I mean, there would be a capacity, and I don't know the exact capacity issue for the outside of the ski center. Let's say that we were to have a fairly popular band, and I would say maybe we would do a blue, if I were to see something of a concert nature, it would probably be bluegrass, or, you know, more of a live music setting with one or two events versus more of the synthetic music that, you know, goes on for a period of two or three days. I wouldn't ever see us hosting an event like that, and it were popular enough to overflow the parking lot, we would restrict access, if it met capacity. Now there is the triple chair parking lot that, in the old days, used to meet capacity in the skiing. Hopefully that will happen again, we could always park people there as an overflow, sort of as a safety valve, but if it became an issue, we would restrict access to the event. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you know how many cars your main parking lot holds? MRS.MOORE-In the Staff Notes it indicates 500 plus. MR. MONTGOMERY-I was going to guess around 600. It's a fairly large parking lot. There's a main lot and then it sort of extends over to the right. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I know it's pretty huge. I mean,like I said, if you had someone that controlled parking and got people tighter and, you know, you could probably pack in, I could easily see, you know, 600 cars in there. MS. SIBLER-Yes, and the triple chair parking lot, in the past it wasn't really maintained where like the woods were sort of encroaching on the sides of the parking lot. So as long as we maintained it, we would be able to like fill spots by the old triple lodge and sort of extended out towards the woods a little bit more. MR. MONTGOMERY-And there's a lot of capacity there. The main parking lot, as Paige pointed out, we would use parking attendants if it was going to be, even, we even use them in the winter skiing. We have had a couple of capacity days during Presidents Day week. MR. KREBS-And you do have a nice circular control of it. You go in one location and come out the other location. MR. MONTGOMERY-We do, and we're putting up, there's always been signs at the edge of the parking lot that sort of directed entrance and exit. Those either dilapidated away or were taken down. There is one still hanging over by the triple chair that's in sort of rough shape. We're just, we're not putting up anything new that had been there, but as you'll see the chains hanging down, the signs have either fallen off or stolen, the old crests. So those will be more clearly marked this year. There'll be an entrance and an exit sign where they always were to control that flow, and maybe we'll even do some smaller stuff as far as that goes. MR. KREBS-Well all I can say is I went over Saturday to visit the site, and the festival was just absolutely wonderful for families. It was oriented, I would say you probably had 200 cars in the parking lot at that point, and you had a single person doing country and western songs,but the kids were having the time of their lives, sliding down the hay bales. The one that got me most of all was that little pig that the kids could take and walk. I mean,there was a little, it was about that big,pig, and they put him on a leash, and the kids could walk around and take the pig, and the pig actually was leading them around,you know,but it was just a wonderful family oriented event, and if you're going to do things like that, I think it's wonderful for the community. MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, I think if West Mountain is to survive, and I honestly believe it will, it will probably revert to some of what was there when the Brandts were running it,which was more of a, I don't know if anyone remembers. We brought back the old crests. We've brought back, we've tried to re-invent it as a family, sort of like a Bolton Mountain in Vermont, and bring that theme back to it. I also think that one of the reasons it'll be successful is because a lot of the skiing has become incredibly expensive,whether it's out west or Killington or anywhere else. So even a slight pull back in the economy probably favors West Mountain because we can still be a middle class mountain,be a school program mountain, and so that event would be in line with what we're trying to do going forward. There might be, I could see like I, I don't know, a James Taylor or something if we could ever get a name like that. So that would be the only issue I could see where we would hopefully have a whole parking lot but it would be definitely something that wouldn't be, it would be,you know, performed music versus the synthetized music which it almost, if you could hear that in the background with a guitar and an acoustic it's not offensive versus the pounding of the synthetic stuff that had been there before. MR. FORD-Are you going to totally exclude the heavy bass and the synthetic music as you're referring to? MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. MR. FORD-Are you going to exclusively go with acoustic? MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, I suppose there could be a band that had more of a heavy base to it, but it's not our model to do the synthetic music. So I'm not trying to evade the question. I probably haven't thought of every possible scenario, but I would not,you know, we're not looking to subject the neighbors to heavy bass. MR. FORD-That's one of my largest concerns, because we've dealt with this in previous years and I know that concern. I share that concern. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, and it's a low frequency noise, which really does cut through all mediums and it's not something that we would produce there. There could be a band that maybe did something,but it would not be a synthetically driven bass music, and if anything were to go outside 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) of normal like standard operating hours, any of the type of music would be within the facility. I mean, West Mountain's a little different than a lot of the ski centers because it does have a neighborhood population in close proximity, and,you know, I personally wouldn't want to listen to bass in my house. MR. FORD-Hearing it is one thing. Being close enough to feel it is something else. MR. DEEB-Along those lines, I'm wondering, we were talking about the music and fending off any problems, would you give any consideration to moving the music inside say an hour earlier, at 10 o'clock,instead of 11? MR. MONTGOMERY-Sure, and I think that might depend particularly on the type of music, but if it was a louder music,we could end the event earlier. I don't think that's a problem. MR. DEEB-Okay,because I think that would be,that would solve a lot of problems. MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay. MR.TRAVER-Well, I think you said this evening 9:30 or 10:00 for outdoor music. That differs from your application which says 11. MR. DEEB-It says 11 on the application. MR.TRAVER-That was one of the questions I was going to ask is clarification on that. MR. MONTGOMERY-It was allowed. In the past it was 11 o'clock was the cutoff, and it takes a little while to wind down. The last event that we hosted that I was involved with, the only way I really contributed, I don't remember the exact amount, but I said for every minute it goes past 11 there'll be a $1,000 fine. If it was something like that that I had the curator of the event agree to in writing beforehand that basically removed,you know, not anything disingenuous to them, but basically put West Mountain in charge of that. So that if it continued past that, it was a substantial enough fine where it wouldn't continue past 11. I would assume if we had a band on,we were shooting for 10, you know, sometimes people do an encore. So if we were shooting for 10 and I made sure it was 100% down by 11,but I understand 11's later, and I wouldn't expect an event like that on a Sunday night or any weeknight. On Saturday maybe there would be a band that might play past 10 o'clock, but we would have it. MR. TRAVER-Well, my question is, in response to your statement tonight, that the outdoor music would end by 9:30 or 10,is that your position tonight? MR. MONTGOMERY-My formal position would be I guess that it would be completely wound down by 11. If that were to, if we had to amend, we could consider that. I would say that if there was a band playing I would say, listen, we would expect the music to start, you know, you guys need to wind down. We would like it to be over by 10, sometimes that would maybe be an encore or something, but it wouldn't protrude past that. I just don't see us having, most events I could see would start at 6:30 or 7 when it was still kind of light out,so people could put their blankets out and do whatever,and then be wound down. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what we agreed on before was 8 to 11 outside,and inside 11 to 4. MR. DEEB-For clarification,you're not going to move the music inside. You're going to end it at 10? MR. MONTGOMERY-No, we potentially would have music inside. Like the restaurant, even in the on season, is open sometimes until,you know, midnight or one in the morning, and we do have live music inside. MR. KREBS-But that's inside. MR. MONTGOMERY-It's inside, and it wouldn't be, obviously it defeats the purpose of having it inside if there's such loud bass it's reverberating through the building. So anything that went inside would be music that would be contained within the building. I suppose if you were standing out in the courtyard you could hear it, but it wouldn't be something that would be rattling people's dishes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. FORD-This is a departure from some of the problematic presentations from previous years and I applaud that and I like the way you're talking and the sensitivity that you're displaying,but you're also looking for a long term approval,are you not? MR. KREBS-Five years. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, it was submitted as a five year approval. I don't know the exact logistics of how this works and how long they normally are. I know the permit process I think was submitted. MS. SIBLER-So we had a two year permit before. MR. KREBS-Right,yes. MS. SIBLER-And didn't have too many complaints or anything. MR. FORD-My personal feeling on that would be because this is a transition to a new approach, a new philosophy if you will, I would like to see it in operation,without giving a five year approval. MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay. MR. FORD-And then that'll be a test case, and for everybody concerned. MR. MONTGOMERY-Perfectly fine. Understandable. What would you consider acceptable for a time? MS. SIBLER-Three year possibly? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What we don't want to do is have to approve every concert. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-And not only that,but I think it was pointed out before that people don't necessarily put a concert on, they don't sign up for it within a year or a year and a half. We've got to give them a reasonable. MR. FORD-I was thinking a couple of years, something like that. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MONTGOMERY-I think two years would be fine. MS. SIBLER-I would like, I mean, Warrior Dash is something, it's a day event, it's,you know, a little obstacle course race. We want to do that, but they plan a year or two ahead of time. So it's hard for us to plan. If we're trying to get a national promoter and to be serious about West Mountain. So I would say three years,but, I mean,two years would be okay. MR. FORD-Two years would be okay? MR. HUNSINGER-No,we're not in the business of booking promotional events. So we don't pretend to know what the lead time is on some things. MR. MONTGOMERY-And I don't have a lot of experience there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd go broke if we were booking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. DEEB-Well we've heard this same thing before in previous presentations about the time span. We realize you need that year and a half to two years to get, especially if you're going to get a national booking. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, two years might be cutting it close. I mean, you know, he's done a phenomenal job of pulling the mountain back and bringing the crests and bringing it back more into a family,what it,you know, originated. I've followed you in the paper and all you've done and,you know,your reputation. You know where you stand with the Town and the people behind you, but 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) in promotional purposes sometimes it could be events up to three years,you know, out in planning that would help. I'd have to tend to say,you know, I'd be happy to go with a three year. MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, but the last two years of their permit we've had absolutely no negatives from it. We had the negative beforehand, but since that permit was given, there's been no negative response from the communities that I know of anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we'll find out. MR. FORD-We'll find out tonight. MR. KREBS-Right. I personally think that, you know, giving a, for planning purposes, that a five year period is reasonable, and if you really want to say that it is revocable if we have adverse situations. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, I wouldn't have any issue with, in other words, if we don't do what we say we're going to do, we were to change it up, we'd re-examine. So maybe if it was a three year and we could promote out two years for an event. Obviously, you know, the Town isn't signing away their rights here,if we're doing something that's causing problems. MR. KREBS-What I'm saying, Spencer, is we'll give you the five years. If during that period of five years there's any significant adverse effect because of the concerts,we can revoke that permission. MR. DEEB-I think that's a slippery slope, though, to try and go that way. I'd feel much more comfortable. MR. MAGOWAN-Because they could get into contracts and then have to cancel and it would cost them a bundle. How about three years, all right, a three year deal with, or five year, but if nothing major comes in,you know,after the three year grace,then it extends to another two years. MR. DEEB-I was more comfortable with two years,but I'd be happy to go with the three years,but I don't know if I would want to go to a five year at this point, and I think you're amenable to that,too. Right? It would give you some leeway. MR. MONTGOMERY-And would potentially, let's say we come into the third year and there hasn't been an adverse, or, and we're starting to look out, now, into the fourth and fifth year, maybe it would be granted that leeway,or we could come back in front of the Town. MR. FORD-Then, as we approach two years, and it's all positive,then I would have no problem at all with extending it, well, you know, three, four, five, whatever, but I'm not ready to commit to that tonight. MR. KREBS-But I think the past two years we have had no problems. Right? MR. FORD-We'll find out tonight. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the first time we looked at this, we talked about two years for this very reason,to have them come back and talk about long term. So I think there have been some changes and the applicant is representing a redesign of some aspects of it. So I think a three year period is, I can certainly support that,and they don't have to wait until the end of that three years to come back and brag about how well they've done and ask for a longer term. MR. MONTGOMERY-And we would come back in Year Two, thinking that we would need a year of lead time. MR. DEEB-That's fine. I think a three year term works well then. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,it's a floating three year term. MR. FORD-And you can come back in two. MR. KREBS-I guess I was looking at the fact that if you gave him a five year permit, you might end up with they need to make some decisions on infrastructure to support concerts, what do you do for staging, etc. Well, if you only have a two year permit or a three year permit, can you invest that money for that short period of time. That's the question I have. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR.TRAVER-I would think as part of that decision making process they would come back before us and ask for a longer extension, and we could then review the record of what they were presenting tonight. MR. FORD-They'd comeback in Year Two anyway. Then we could project it out three years beyond that or whatever. MR. DEEB-And you should have a handle,in two years,as to how it's going to go. MR. FORD-Yes. Right. MR. DEEB-I would think. MR. MONTGOMERY-A little better projection. MR. DEEB-Yes, and hopefully it will go well. MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we ask you if camping would be allowed? MR. MONTGOMERY-You did not. We have had camping at some of the other festivals. The most recent one that, when we were involved, we didn't have an incidents with that. I know that the example I gave earlier of the Avon walk for Breast Cancer that Mark LoBianco does, that is an overnight event. I know in the past there's been a certain number of campsites. I'm not looking to turn it into a campground. I guess I could say that, but I could see an overnight event happening where, you know, it was well handled where people were allowed to camp and they weren't out camping in the parking lot obviously near people's homes. They would be restricted to the base area and would be regulated the number of people. The last event we had there which was the last event that had been pre-booked before we took over, there was camping and I didn't notice any incidents with that from a noise perspective. Now that music was very loud, but the camping element itself didn't, I don't even think it was noticed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You have an RV parking area,right? MS. SIBLER-I think on the old permit there was a spot marked. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what it said in here,yes. MR. MONTGOMERY-There's no power hookups out in the main area. MR. MAGOWAN-Most units are all self-contained either with a generator and their own,you know, holding tank. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, the vendors have had those in the past. So, yes, I suppose people could, like I said, be in there with an RV in the front parking area. I don't envision having an RV themed event,but if we had a craft show or craft fair, most of those people probably come with that type of vehicle, I would guess. MR. HUNSINGER-And then how about,one of the other questions on the Staff Notes were additional generator lights. Do you see a need for that for any of the events? MS. SIBLER-I don't think it would draw anymore than our snow making does in the winter. MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, from a power usage I don't think it would be an issue, and I don't think, I mean, the ski center has adequate lighting pretty much for anything that you want to do just because of the night skiing. There wouldn't be any cause for any additional generators, and you're speaking specifically noise from generators. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,it's the noise and the light. MR. MONTGOMERY-The noise and the light,yes, no, not outside of the normal lighting that already exists. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,the current rule is they have to be brought in and taken out. MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-You've arranged for the security details and things? That's,okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Sheriff's Department is patrolling. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else before we open the public hearing? Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board that they speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is available on the Town's website. The tape is also used to transcribe the minutes which are provided on the Town's website. I would ask anyone to state their name for the record, clearly into the microphone, and to address their comments to the Board. And if you wouldn't mind giving up the table. I assume there'll be at least one person that wishes to comment. Does anyone to address the Board? Yes, sir. Good evening. BOB JONES MR.JONES-Bob Jones, 200 West Mountain,resident in that area for 47 years. Hallelujah for the Fall Festival. A major transition from negative things. I have few questions, comments. I think we need to address this in a cautious manner, because simply looking at it it's talking about 18 events in a 22 week span per year, and that comes down to about a week and a half between events based on the proposal submitted, counting multi day ones. I think it takes time to clean up the roadside, at least I know I have to go out and clean it up frequently. The sound. I'm an old guy with cancer, I'm falling apart. I do need some sleep. My grandson who lives with me also needs some sleep and other residents. We like music,yes,we camp. We have a motor home, okay. So we're not against people. As it was mentioned by the gentleman over here,it's a slippery slope to approve something and then say in case we get X number of comments or negative comments, to back up on it. So I would urge the two year span. That gives the residents a chance to be reasonable. No one's asking to be unreasonable I don't believe, and give the ski center a chance to develop a new agenda and a new program and a new approach, which I think most of us out there would be very much in favor of it, and yes I was a skier for 45 years, and I skied across the street. The noise has been, as you've mentioned, the mountain is a sound reflector and if you live out in that area, you can hear a car coming from a mile away, at least I can with my old ears, and a motorcycle you can hear from a mile and a half or two miles sometimes. So these are the realities of the environment that we're asking to be considered. The congestion I think was addressed by the sheriffs, and yes, we've had people parking in our front yard in the past, and they're mostly polite and they'll move out and not go down the route where I have to tow them out, but that's something that we need to be concerned with because of emergency access through and this past year emergency access had to get through and it was extremely difficult. Opening the triple chair parking lot might alleviate some of those problems, and once again, we're talking about a five year. That's a minimum of 100 events, based on their proposal, and I think that's being on that slippery slope of approving something for 100 years over a period,or 100 events over a five year period,and with that,thank you ever so much for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am Good evening. MARA POWELL MRS. POWELL-Hi, I'm Mara Powell. I live right around the corner from the ski slope. I just, I want to say I appreciate the new management and their efforts to meet with the local neighbors and residents, but we still have concerns. I just want that to go on record that there are neighbors still concerned about trusting the new management, because like you guys were saying, we've heard this before. I'm not trying to say they are the past management,but clearly,what do we have to go on, other than what used to happen. So I hope that all of the stuff that they said is true, and I agree with Mr.Jones who was just saying that the five year permit and the 100 events is quite a bit leap of faith to say, okay, you can have all of that. If we limit it to two years or three or what, you know, sounds reasonable would be much more comforting to people that live nearby. I had a couple of comments about the noise level that weren't necessarily brought up. Moving the events inside in the past made no difference in the noise level that we heard where we live. I mean, maybe it was because the bass was transmitting through everything, but the inside, you know, whatever, you 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) couldn't tell whether they had moved in or not, just sounded like the band took a break. If it had been discussed at another Board meeting, maybe to get some baffling or something or maybe just turning the volume down. I mean, I've never been inside the lodge during one of those events. If it was as loud in my yard, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in there. So if these could be quieter once they get inside maybe that would be,you know,a solution. So the other thing that if you think about the 18 permits in the 6 month time period, which it is equivalent to having a neighbor who plays loud music in their yard every weekend. So that's kind of what we were thinking. Okay,you know, it's nice that they're acoustic, but your neighbor's still playing music in his yard every weekend, or every other weekend for, you know, six months. Okay. That could get really annoying. I mean, maybe, as a solution, I'm not trying to say don't have these venues, but maybe we could restrict the number of music playing venues, you know, if you wanted to have the, whatever that race was or the walk-a-thon or that kind of stuff. Maybe that is based on another event, and maybe it has some acoustic music being played at it, but it's not, you know, deemed a music event. Because that,you know,you can understand,you know, some soft music or whatever for the people who are coming to do their walk-a-thon or their race or whatever, but, you know, having a concert is clearly the music will be louder because that's all the people are doing is listening to the music. So maybe we could put that as a solution that not every event out of those 18 is a music event. Maybe only a certain percentage could be,you know, put in the paperwork as you know, this can't be so many music events, some of them have to be other types of events, and then the one other comment that I wanted to make that hadn't been brought up was about the camping. I don't have any issues with camping. I'm a Girl Scout, I camp all the time, but the last camping event I think was the, not with the current management, but the past, was this 420 event, which is really just another name for marijuana. I don't know if anybody knew that, but we could smell pot from our house, and there were people in the woods behind us that we kind of,you know, kicked out that were smoking pot, and that's just not at all appropriate for the community or neighborhoods that have children or that don't have children. So I think that is also kind of a concern that,you know, are people watching who's camping and what they're doing and what kind of activities they're doing after hours,that kind of stuff. So those are some of my concerns. I thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else? No other comments? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Paul? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I just wanted to make sure there's an understanding, because it always comes up. There's always an understanding about noise. This Town unfortunately does not have a noise ordinance. So, unlike other towns,where you can go out and take a reading and if the noise is too loud, it's a summons and they bring it down,but we can't do that here,because we don't have a noise ordinance, and also the limitation that they're limited to is,yes, 10 events,but 10 single day events in a year, and that's it, and if they have a multiple,like a two day event, and this doesn't say a two day or three day, they can only have 8. I don't think that, I haven't seen them come anywhere close to that,but,you know,that's,those are the parameters that we're working with. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,if there's no other comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-If the applicant wants to come back to the table. So, I mean, you heard some of the concerns from the neighbors. I don't know if you have any specific comments or thoughts. MR. MONTGOMERY-Specifically, I listened to their concerns. They're all valid, that's a concern I would have if I lived in that neighborhood. If we were going to have events, and let's say it were eight,there would not be a scenario where we would have eight back to back concerts,where you'd be hearing,the example that was given,a neighbor playing music. At the most,and I guess this isn't scientific, but my guess would be around a third or something. We're not looking to turn it into SPAC. There might be a craft fair there. There could be like a Fall Festival. There may be a concert that would fit sort of the genre of what we're trying to do at West Mountain, but we don't want to turn it into a concert venue where we're hosting events every weekend with loud music. Moving the music inside, very valid point. I'm not sure there was a lot of difference. When there was a heavy bass it really did project outside of the building. I myself,you know, I was there at the one event that we hosted that was of the heavier, and the organizers were good people. They did a good job. There wasn't,you know, some of the other stuff that was brought up in the past, I wasn't there for that, but the guys were very conscientious that held the event. They got it inside. It was 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) just the nature of the music. It was difficult to be on site, for me, not because I'm anti a particular type of music, but after a period of time, that low frequency bass,you know, would get to anybody. So that didn't, when that moved inside. So I think if we were to have an acoustic guy or someone outside and they were to move inside,maybe you could hear something off the background,but you would not have that low frequency bass going through there, and I understand the other concern that was mentioned about their being a slippery slope if we had a ton of events,and we basically are coming in under the veil of doing all these events,get the approval and having a wild,we don't have any intention of doing that, and we'll be cognizant of the public feedback, especially the people in close proximity to the Mountain. I'm not a massive noise fan myself. So,yes,we'd be cognizant of it and if it were disruptive we would pay attention to it and we would modify whatever was going on, and within reason I'm sure that someone could hear the music off in the distance, but we're not looking to keep people up or disturb people's sleep patterns. MR. FORD-Do you have a comfort level with our discussions pertaining to coming back at the end of two years and we would look at the history, the intervening time, and then be looking down the road,potential extension beyond every two years? Are you comfortable with that? MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, I'd be comfortable with that, and I could even see a situation where, let's say that we did come into a situation where we did realize that to promote these events it was two years. Well obviously in Year One we would have to come back because we'd be looking to schedule something in Year Three. MR. FORD-Yes,in Year Three. MR. MONTGOMERY-So I don't think it's too much to ask to come to these meetings and have a discussion. I don't have a problem with that. MR. FORD-I'm anxious to give you an opportunity to build a history with this new philosophy, new approach. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, and we really aren't trying to re-invent the wheel. I mean, our only philosophy from the beginning was to try to,you know, people always remember the good and not always the bad, but, I mean, to try to get back to a family centered ski center. Paige has worked here for 10 years, and a lot of people that are there really truly believe in West Mountain from where it came from,that it may morph a little bit but,you know, I think that's kind of what will save the Mountains. People are kind of looking for that now. MR. FORD-Morphing for the better is okay. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. MR. FORD-It's good. It's positive. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. Infrastructure is definitely on the front burner of what we're trying to do there, because the Mountain speaks for itself. It's beautiful. It's got very, great terrain. We could compete with anybody as far as terrain goes, and venue, people coming up, whether it's from New York City or New Jersey, they don't want to have to chase their kid off here. They want a localized mountain. You can either look at Windom,look at Holiday Valley,they've had tremendous success, and we've got 1,000 vertical. We've got plenty of mountain there. It's just the infrastructure and all that needs to sort of come on line. So that's no small task. MR. TRAVER-I have a concern with regards to the discussion, our consideration of the amount of time that we would let them go forward. I know the first time around it was two years, and they're asking for five. I am still, and I understand what Mr. Ford is saying, it clearly makes sense. On the other hand, the concern I have is that with new and better management, restricting them to two years I think indirectly may work against us,because it may limit the quality of the acts that they're going to be able to get. I think that by giving them a three year period, they're more likely to be able to get people that are in demand enough, and therefore quality enough concert that they're going to be in demand and they're going to need to have that timeframe looking forward. If we restrict them to just a couple of years, they're going to have to try to find groups that are willing to come at the last minute, which probably is more likely, in some respects, to be less well managed and ironically create some of the problems that we're trying to avoid by having it be two years. I would like to see three years. 1s (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. FORD-I hear what you're saying, but I also question specifically Spencer and asked him about that, with the understanding that if they need to project out into Year Three and they needed to come back in Year One,he wouldn't have a problem with that. We wouldn't either,would we? MR. DEEB-Yes, but I think in order to help them be successful with something like this, I think we talked about the three years, having to come back in two, but with the three year term, they have a better chance of recruiting, and I think that's what Stephen was saying, what they need to get, rather than last minute bands,or whatever event they would have,not necessarily band. MR. MONTGOMERY-So to be clear, we'd have the three year permit, but we would be expected to show up here again either in Year One or Year Two to discuss how things are going? MR. TRAVER-Well, that would be up to, excuse me members of the Planning Board, that would be up to you. MR. MONTGOMERY-Right. MR. TRAVER-You don't have a permit yet. We're discussing the term now, but hypothetically if it were three years, your permit would end in three years, but you could certainly come before that. When you did that would be up to you,but certainly it would be to your advantage, I mean, I would think, just from the management standpoint, to maybe come in, if you had a three year permit, certainly plan, in the second year, to come in, so that you would never be facing a time where you wouldn't be able to tell, plan an event the following year. You would always have at least a one year window. The first time around, as I mentioned, it was two years, with the idea that if there weren't significant issues that we'd look at a longer period. We do have some changes now, so,you know, I think a slight extension to three years is,you deserve that, I think,but in terms of when you come back, that's really up to you. I mean, that's not up to us, that's up to you. You just need to know that your permit would end, again, if we approve the three year period, your permit would end at three years. So you would not want to let that expire. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, so if we were getting traction and we were starting to get the bigger names that may require a two year lead time,then it would be within our interest to be back here in Year Two. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And, to my point, if you had an act that needed a two year or a three year lead time, you wouldn't be able to get that if you only had a two year permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-Right. MR.TRAVER-That's why I'm suggesting that we offer,give you a little bit more leeway. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. MR. FORD-May I ask,what kind of scheduling timeframe are you looking at, realistically? What are you finding? Are you finding people that need to be scheduled three years in advance? MR. MONTGOMERY-I, personally, haven't explored that. We're just really starting to think about this now. Mark LoBianco, who's one of the managing members, who's one of the owners of the ski center who did the Fall Festival, and Paige as well, have a lot more experience with that than I do, and I think that I think for bigger names you do have to at least be out a year to two years, is what I've been told. We haven't booked any big names yet. MS. SIBLER-So none of these events are booked. The only thing that we're banking on for next year is the Fall Festival. We know we want to make that a yearly event. So that takes up eight of our days. So we just want to make sure that we have enough time in case we want to do a Warrior run or a Spartan run or the Avon Breast Cancer walk, that we have those dates available, and I don't think we would do more than two events a month in the summer,honestly. I don't think we'd want to do more than that,because it's a lot of planning and the execution takes a lot of time. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, it's a lot of work for the events, and there is a lot of lead time and preparation, and, you know, this event that we've been working on now, that Paige has run with Mark,has been planned for months and months and months,if not a year basically,since we started to conception. So to book those back to back would be fairly difficult, logistically, but more important than that, you know, we're a ski center, and our focus is on fixing the ski center, and we do want to have some events sprinkled in, but there's no way to say it other than those events sometimes are a distraction to the task at hand, which is fixing the ski center, because we have people on the property. So we're putting in a new chairlift, God willing. Maybe we won't have events that summer because there'll be heavy construction going on. So it's not our primary focus by any means, but it could become more of an area, I haven't experienced it yet, but I've been told that, you know, some of these festivals, whether it be an October festival, whether the Fall Festival turns into that,you know,could,you know,be high revenue generators. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MONTGOMERY-Which would be welcome during the summer. I haven't seen that yet. So that obviously influences whether or not we want to host them,but other people do do this successfully. We haven't had that experience yet at West Mountain. MS. SIBLER-But if we want to go after national promoters and have them look at our site seriously, they want two years in advance, at least. So a Warrior Dash, their application,you have to have it in two years in advance. So, I mean, a national promoter you wouldn't have, I mean, they cover all their. MR. FORD-And in order to have the lead time to start to formulate it conceptually,then you're really up against it with a two year time frame, if you're trying to bring somebody in. Okay. I can see the value of the three years. MR. KREBS-Well, and,Tom, my point is that if you're going to look at these people, and these people are going to require maybe a better venue than you have today, so therefore you have to invest money to bring the venue up to the standard that these people are willing to accept. That may take more than three years investment. You may not want to make an investment based on three years. As a businessman, you know, we usually look at 20, 25 years return on our investment. So, I, personally, I would go along with giving them a five year with a review after three years,but I think that if you want any capital investment made, you're not going to do that on a two year or three year permit. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, most of these promoters are going to come in with a,you know, if it's going to take a stage or something that they need. I mean, some of these, if they're going on a national one, this is what they do. They're going to venues that they can set up and do what they have to do. So, I mean, I see them putting their money in their chairs and back into the mountains, and I think the promoters are set up to do that, and like I said, it's been brought up before is that to get a national chain, they want to see, you know, a permit of, you know, X amount, and in all due respect, I think he's doing a phenomenal job on the Mountain and he's got the heart of the people all around him, too, and he just wants to make it work. So a three year, come back in two for your extension, and then we'll tell you what you're doing wrong. How's that sound? MR. FORD-And hopefully what you're doing right. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, and I'm totally, with a capital investment, and I think that naturally would lead us back to here anyway,because if we were going to try to do some development, it does need, we're going to be in front of the Town again,obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-All I know is when I drove through, and I was only there an hour Saturday, there were three cars from New Jersey, two cars from Vermont, and four cars from Massachusetts, because I drove up and down the parking lot to check that out, and that is bringing revenue into the community. MR. MONTGOMERY-And we started to see that towards the end of the ski season, it started to catch on. We've been doing more of a national, not national, but east coast promotion. Mark's been handling all that, and my wife would go around to the ski center, and we are starting to get people from much further away starting to come there. So there's been a bit of a paradigm shift just in the clientele that's coming and then,you know,a lot of the locals are returning as well. So we'll see. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other discussion? MR. KREBS-I have to say that I'm a skier,so I'm trying to protect my ski place. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. Can we re-affirm prior SEQR? Because I didn't see a SEQR resolution. Although they submitted the Short Form. MRS.MOORE-I have a draft SEQR resolution that I do have,if you want to use that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. MR. KREBS-But the draft approval also says that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a Negative Declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,well,we've got to do that first. MR. KREBS-Which is part of. MRS. MOORE-You actually have to do that resolution. I just want to confirm that you did close your public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I did close the public hearing before I brought the applicants back to the table. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEQR FOR SUP# 63-2014 SPENCER MONTGOMERY The Applicant is seeking a 5 year Special Use Permit to allow 10 single day events and 8 multi-day events outside the ski area's normal operating season (November to April). Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-070 of the Zoning Ordinance Outdoor Concert Events in the RC zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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, 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 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2014 SPENCER MONTGOMERY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Part I of the Short Form has been completed by the applicant. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If anyone would like to move the Special Use Permit, and Item Four, the term of validity,this would be a temporary permit. Correct? MRS.MOORE-It would be a temporary. MR. KREBS-For three years. MR. FORD-For three years,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would it be temporary? MR. HUNSINGER-Because it's not permanent. Those are the two choices. MRS.MOORE-I have some questions for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-The information may need to be updated on their map to address where they potentially could put RV parking. Sort of like the RV parking vendor area,that storage area, so that it's identified where the patrons are parking,versus where their employees or their vendor parking is, and then the only other one I have is the information should also include information about where camping will be located, and that should just be updating the drawing, and so that could be a condition of your resolution. MS. SIBLER-I sent you another map,after the first initial one. MRS.MOORE-And I didn't see it in that one either. MS. SIBLER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So was it any different than what was previously approved? MS. SIBLER-No, camping, if we did do it, which, you know, probably, you know, we're not going after that, is over in the beginner area where it was before on the previous permit, and then hopefully, I don't believe there was vendor parking. I think they had an RV spot marked out. MRS. MOORE-Right. In the previous map it just identified a general area where they would put those individuals so that they would have their location,versus where the patrons parked. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you just need to send a new map. MR. MAGOWAN-That was all the way over here on the little jog,wasn't it, I believe? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thanks, Laura. MR. MAGOWAN-The south end of the parking lot? MR. MONTGOMERY-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other special conditions to discuss? MR. DEEB-What about the music,the timeframe of the music? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's in their application. MR. DEEB-Up to 11. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, you heard what he said, that they would start winding down at 10 o'clock and that it wouldn't go past 11. MRS. MOORE-The other, in the previous application, the Board had asked the applicant to come back in the two year period, or the one year period and provide an update to the Board. Do you want to include that in your resolution, that you'd like them to come before the Board and give an update report,versus, unless they come back with a new Special Use Permit. So in the past you've asked them to come up with an update, and that worked out very well, but it's up to you as a Board to decide that. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it seems like they're going to be back in two years anyway, if everything goes smooth. MR. HUNSINGER-I think they'll be back before that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,for the other expansions that will probably be going on. MR. MONTGOMERY-If we look to extend, if we were trying to book an event that went further out than a year, we would have to be back here in Year Two, at the latest, and for some reason we got into this and we were booking, you know, short term events, and, you know, we really hadn't become part of our business model,but, I mean, if we wanted to book anything out,we'd have to be here prior to the contract expiring. MR.TRAVER-Well,you would be able to book, if it's approved for three years,you'd be able to book out three years. MR. MONTGOMERY-Correct, but if I were going to go out past one year I'd have to be back here in Year Two,if I wanted to get to Year Four. MR. TRAVER-No, because then you'd be having an event in Year Two of a three year permit. So you'd be fine. MR. MONTGOMERY-Right, I guess I misspoke. So if it was going to go out two years, if we had to go two years,we'd have to at least be back here in Year Two to project into Year Four. MR.TRAVER-Then you'd be in Year Three. MR. FORD-Because you're scheduling out into Year Four. MR. MONTGOMERY-Correct. If we were looking to do something. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you want to do something four years down the road,you'd want to renew that permit in advance to be sure that you're,you've got that cushion. MR. MONTGOMERY-So I guess at that, say that that doesn't develop, and we aren't looking to promote events out that require two years in booking, we are coming back regardless in Year Two for an update. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,no,that's your,well,we gave that your option. MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Is if you want to come back in two years to extend it, or if you'd like to just come back and say hi and tell me how things are doing, I think we'd love to hear that. MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm trying to say is if you would like them to come back in two years,you need to put that in the resolution,explaining that they need to give an update report in Year Two. MR. FORD-And at that time if we'd be so inclined to take action that extends it,we'll do it. MR. KREBS-I thought the term we agreed on was three years. MR. HUNSINGER-Was three years,yes. MRS. MOORE-So then they come back in the third year. If something immediately changes in Year One or Year Two,they'll come back with a new Special Use Permit. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I'd rather just keep it clean. I mean, if they come back to give us a report, how is that any different than just a two year approval? Because if they come back and people in the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) audience show up and say there's all these problems, we're going to pull the permit or make them do something different. MRS. MOORE-All right. I just wanted to be clear, so that I wasn't expecting information when it wasn't needed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Clarity is good. MR. HUNSINGER-Clarity is always good. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Are you ready? MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP# 63-2014 SPENCER MONTGOMERY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant is seeking a 5 year Special Use Permit to allow 10 single day events and 8 multi-day events outside the ski area's normal operating season (November to April). Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-070 of the Zoning Ordinance Outdoor Concert Events in the RC zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10-28-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2014 SPENCER MONTGOMERY, 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: signage,utilities,stormwater management,two foot contours,traffic flow,new construction/alteration details,floor plans,soil logs,demolition waste and snow removal. 4) Type of Special Use Permit: Temporary. 5) Term of validity: 3 years (to October 28, 2017). 6) The applicant must indicate on the drawings where the camping or RV's would be located. 7) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. So is the Fall Festival this weekend as well? MS. SIBLER-Yes. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. This Friday and Saturday. It's not going to be Sunday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. SIBLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. MONTGOMERY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2014 SEQR TYPE TYPE II ISRAEL DELTORO OWNER(S) FRANK COLLINS ZONING CI LOCATION 46 COLLINS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE 5,000 SQ. FT. OF AN EXISTING 25,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR A TRAINING CENTER - ADIRONDACK CROSS FIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE OF USE AND LACK OF SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE UV 14-91, SP 29-91 WARREN CO. PLANNING OCTOBER 2014 LOT SIZE 6.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8- 1-7 SECTION 179-3-040 ISRAEL DELTORO &FRANK COLLINS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to use 5,000 square feet of the existing 25,000 square foot warehouse building for a training center called Adirondack Cross Fit. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, as the applicant is not changing any exterior building or site conditions. Additional waivers are requested for the two foot contours, construction/alteration details, showing location of utilities, land use districts and soil logs. The Board may consider a condition to meet all requirements necessary or applicable for a connection identified by the Water and Wastewater Department, and that's in reference to a comment that I received from the Wastewater Department indicating that a connection has not been completed to that warehouse portion of the building and I have communicated with the applicant about the situation, and I've asked for a status update. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DELTORO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. DELTORO-I'm Israel Deltoro,the owner of ADK Cross Fit. MR. COLLINS-I'm Frank Collins,the owner of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything that you wanted to add? MR. DELTORO-Just that we did,we do have a status updated about wastewater. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. DELTORO-So Frank has met with IBS Septic and they've found the connection they're going to hook up to. They've found where it's going to go. They've gotten it all parted out, everything. I have a letter from him stating that they've already, Queensbury Sewer Department is working with them and they will get that taken care of no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Just make sure you leave a copy of that with Laura. MR. DELTORO-Yes,sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to add anything else? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. DELTORO-No,sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. So I guess the question I have to ask is, you know, driving around the site, do you really think many people will drive up Collins Drive to visit your business? Don't you think they'll come in from Hannaford and that way? MR. DELTORO-I would tell the members not to drive in through Hannaford? MR. HUNSINGER-Really? MR. DELTORO-Yes, I can just tell the members which way to come and they'll listen. I have a good personal relationship with all the members. I'm there, I'm the lead instructor,too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DELTORO-So I work with them daily, and as for like traffic patterns and stuff, I cap my classes at 10. That doesn't mean there's going to be 10 every hour, and I only have eight classes in the day, four in the morning and four at night. During the day, nothing's there. So I cap my classes at 10. That just means the max could be 10. I have classes two, four, six, it doesn't matter. I mean, some days,you know,we're obviously busier than others. MR. HUNSINGER-How big,how many people could you accommodate in this space? I mean,that's a big space for just 10 people. MR. DELTORO-Yes, I could fit 20 people if I wanted to, but like I said, I cap it at ten, just to be safe. It's me and, it would be two other instructors. I just want to make sure, obviously for the safety of people,we can't have 20 people lifting things and things like that. It's a group fitness. It's not just a gym you come into. It's very specialty training. They pay,you know, a significant amount more to have that one on one,an instructor for them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I wasn't clear on the specific use. MR. DELTORO-Yes, it's not just a gym where people come in and I don't know them, they sign up and they just come in randomly whenever they wanted to. It's not open to the public throughout the day. It's a specialty training. People seek it out. So, it's very popular on the west coast. Beyond belief. So it's getting bigger up here now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Laura, I just had a question. It said on the information from Staff that the location was 59 Fitzgerald Road. You had the same thing. MRS.MOORE-It's Collins Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,on your Staff Notes. MRS.MOORE-Typo. MR. KREBS-Okay. I just wanted to correct that. Also let you know that I'd read it before I came to the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's why you were so confident in the hours of operation because you know exactly when you're going to have the classes. MR. DELTORO-Yes, sir, exactly. I have a six a.m., a seven, eight and a nine, and actually we switched the classes. So I have a 4:30 p.m., a 5:30 p.m., and a 6:30 p.m. Classes are an hour tops. Gives them time for a warm up,workout. MR. HUNSINGER-But what if you wanted to do more? MR. DELTORO-They could come to a second class,but the classes still. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean you personally. What if you wanted to add another class? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. DELTORO-If I want to do one on one training and things like that, I can still do that during a class time. I have other instructors. So I could have other instructors there, and the space is big enough where, if the class has seven, I could do my one on ones, because I also do, I do strength conditioning for the local athletes. Queensbury Lacrosse girls team and things like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DELTORO-So if I wanted to have them in,you know, I have three or four of them at a time, so if there's a class of five,then I can say,okay,you know,you guys will be here for this amount of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. KREBS-I think it's a good use of the property. I mean,you know,it's not a lot of traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean,what I was getting at,there's tons of the parking there, and he could have 20, 30 people at a time. MR. KREBS-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-So I was asking,why limit yourself. MR. DELTORO-Yes, it's just, like I said, it's just more of a safety thing. I mean, I would like to have more members, obviously, but, like we raised the price a little because it's more one on one and we actually kept the same amount of, you know, we thought we'd lose some members because of the cost going up,but it didn't work out that way. We actually kept the same amount. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Well, if there's no other questions or comments from the Board,we do have a public hearing scheduled. Did anyone want to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. And unless there's anything else from the Board, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 65-2014 ISRAEL DELTORO A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to use 5,000 sq. ft. of an existing 25,000 sq. ft.warehouse building for a training center - Adirondack Cross Fit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance change of use and lack of site plan review within the last seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10-28-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2014 ISRAEL DELTORO, 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; 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., two foot contours, construction/alteration details,showing location of utilities,land use districts,showing soil logs. 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014,by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-You might want to mention the completion of the pipe connection. MR. KREBS-Okay. Is that a requirement? MRS. MOORE-You no longer need to put that as a condition in the resolution if that's been addressed. MR. KREBS-Right. That's what I thought. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DELTORO-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2014 SEQR TYPE TYPE II PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP OWNER(S) JAMES MACKEY ZONING WR LOCATION 27 BIRCH ROAD/5 GARRETT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 560 +/- SQ. FT. COVERED BOATHOUSE WITH A SHORELINE DECK AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PLANS ALSO INCLUDE CREATION OF PATH AND PATIO AREAS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-5- 060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND BOATHOUSE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 13-14,AV 16-14, BP 14-155 APA CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 22,202 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-16, 17-19 SECTION 179-3-040, 179- 6-050, 179-5-060 JACE BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to construct a 560 square foot covered boathouse with deck and shoreline plantings. Plans also include creation of a path and patio areas on the site. Waivers have been requested for showing land use districts, construction/alteration details, snow removal and designation of location of construction materials. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BROWN-Good evening. My name is Jace Brown. I'm here representing Phinney Design Group on behalf of the applicant, James and Kathleen Mackey. If it's alright with you, I'd like to stand an give the presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,absolutely. Take the mic with you,though. MR. BROWN-Just for clarity,we were here a few months ago when we obtained site plan review for the residence that's currently under construction as well as this site plan. You can see before you, I thought I'd show that to you just as a reminder of what's currently approved and what's currently under construction. The owner has requested a couple of modifications to the site plan as Laura 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) identified. Foremost of which is addition of a boathouse on Glen Lake and demolition of the two existing dock piers which Mother Nature took care of last winter actually, and they've been retrieved from the lake so they actually don't exist at the moment. The other modifications that the client is looking for to the site plan is actually addition of additional shoreline buffer material, and slight modifications to the landscaping plan. When the house was originally designed, there was a pergola and an outdoor fireplace. Those have been removed and other site amenities have been added in lieu of that. So this is the site plan as it stood. Septic up here and permeable paver driveway. That's where the plan stood previously. As proposed, as you can see most of the major features are currently in place from the previous plan. Most notably, of course, the addition of the boathouse structure. All of the site development data, in terms of permeability, lot coverage, the various other metrics of zoning conformance, have either remained exactly the same or have changed in a statistically insignificant way. The boathouse itself, when we were approached to do this, we discussed with the client some of the, obviously what the zoning rules are for a covered boathouse. We convinced them, through a number of discussions in terms of what their needs really are for this structure, to really approach this in as minimal a way as possible while still accommodating their needs. Consequently, all of the site development data you'll see for that, nothing is maximized. We've really kept everything inside of that. The boathouse itself is an open- sided structure and we're trying to utilize some of the existing infrastructure improvements, including this staircase that already exists, to actually access the dock. We're also not asking for any kind of deck on the top of the boathouse. It's just a simple roof structure. The roof structure is intended to mimic some of the architecture on the building, and again, is unenclosed. One other thing that the client would like to do in the process of this, there's an existing kind of red, CMU retaining wall along the shoreline. That retaining wall is this kind of L-shaped structure right here, and there's another one along here, and another one here. They propose to remove this one, to naturalize the shoreline, and the others they would like to replace with native stump to naturalize the way that the shoreline looks. It's also critical from a preservation standpoint. There's a, I don't know if any of you have taken the opportunity to look at the site, but there's a major oak tree right along the shoreline right here. It's very precariously located. This retaining wall is actually holding that tree in place, and we do have structural concerns about whether that wall can actually continue to withstand the weight of the tree. So we would like to, in the process of re-building this wall, naturalize it, but we do need to maintain it or that tree will be lost and that's definitely an objective of the owner is to maintain that as much as possible. So that's the site plan, and lastly the boathouse itself. Again as I described,the intention is as minimal a cover as is possible to cover the boat slip. The design of the roof matches the sunroom on the house. The height meets the minimum requirements for headroom. We're not looking to maximize the height. It's been held down as far as it can while it's still accommodating the pitch of this roof to kind of match the architecture of the building as well. I'd be happy to address any comments or concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it accurate to say you've got a boat slip with a roof over it? MR. BROWN-That's correct,yes, and the slip is not a maximized slip. It's for a modest size boat. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not a maximized boat either. MR. BROWN-No, it's a,you know, conventionally sized boat. Obviously,you know, in keeping with the size of Glen Lake. MR. HUNSINGER-So the question I had is you were talking about the existing retaining wall holding up the large tree. How are you going to take the wall, if you think the wall's holding the tree up, how are you going to take the wall down and re-build it without? MR. BROWN-Yes. Our intention, right, from a re-building standpoint is probably actually to probably only disassemble the top half or third of the wall, leaving most of the structure in place. We would then probably form a small footing in front of the wall, and then build the new retaining wall in front of it so we get the added strength of what's there as well as what's being added, and then the top third would probably be dry laid,as it is right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR.TRAVER-Is there any lighting or electricity in the boathouse proposed? MR. BROWN-Yes. We would bring power to the boathouse. They do intend on using a submersible pump during the summer months to irrigate the lawn, thus minimizing the amount of, which is what actually was there existing previously. So there would be power, and we would 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) probably have a minor amount of non-visible fixtures for landscape lighting along those steps, mostly from a safety standpoint, but we're not looking to put large decorative light fixtures of any kind. Any lighting would be indirect. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MR. FORD-The maximum height would be? MR. BROWN-I believe the height,as it comes out to be, I think is 15 and a half feet. MR. FORD-No,on the lighting. MR. BROWN-Maximum what? MR. FORD-Height of the lights. MR. BROWN-Yes, again,the lighting would all be indirect, so the lighting would be from the soffit of the boathouse down or just little step lights along the, so you actually wouldn't, so it would be the same height as the soffit of the roof,which would be approximately nine feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or you could just have the little 15 inch lights with the solar lights going up the steps. MR. BROWN-Correct. Yes. It's mostly from a safety standpoint,you know,just to be able to use it, you know,in the twilight hours. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I have those. They work great. MR. BROWN-They would be dimmable as well, so that, you know, not talking about a garish light fixture at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? MR. FORD-How many do you anticipate,how many fixtures in the soffit? MR. BROWN-It really wouldn't require many to satisfy that safety requirement. I think along that you might need three,maybe,small recessed lights in the soffit. MR. MAGOWAN-Three each side? MR. BROWN-No, you really only would need it along the one side, just to access it. So, again, just thinking minimally,that's as much as really would be required, and then they would have power for things like a vacuum and,you know,other necessities. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Charging the battery when the battery goes dead in the boat. MR. BROWN-Exactly, yes. Bubbler, that kind of thing for the winter. I didn't mention also the structure would be the environmentally preferred open crib type dock structure as you see typically on Lake George now days. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? If you could give up the table,please. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM BABCOCK MR. BABCOCK-Good evening. My name is Tom Babcock. I'm herewith my wife Marybeth Babcock. We reside on 15 Chestnut Road,and before I go into making any comments, I want to thank the past Boards as well as the present Board for the actions that you've always taken in the past to look out for the benefit of all of us who enjoy Glen Lake. I've been a resident there for 27 years and can't even begin to tell you the improvements and the things that have really taken place on that lake with the commitment of the tax structure and everything that's going on there. So I just, once 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) again, I want to start the conversation with that. So thank you very much for your efforts. With that, I have something that we've just written up that I'd like to read,if you don't mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. BABCOCK-And it starts basically, I think a lot of us, okay, who are neighbors, all right, of our new neighbors Mackeys, we'd like to get some clarification from the Board, if we may, in terms of what was originally approved by the Town Planning Board in reference to the house and the enormous deck that runs on the back of the house. I guess my question specifically is this. Was there a 50 foot setback, okay, encroachment by the present deck that's being put on the house that was already approved? Was there a variance issued for that, or is the present deck that they're building, that the Phinney Group just alluded to, is that 50 feet back from the shoreline presently now,the one that's being built? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. BABCOCK-Okay. All right. The second thing would be, what would be the exact square footage of it, and I guess that just comes in general reference because it's a pretty substantial structure, not just the building itself but obviously the deck that runs across 80% of the back of the building. With that being, those questions being asked, okay, we are very concerned about the boathouse that our neighbors, okay, the Mackeys want to build. We feel that because our properties are so close together, okay, a boathouse would negatively impact our view and our enjoyment of the lake. This would also decrease the surrounding property values for our own properties. We hope that the Planning Board and the Mackeys respect that we are a small, close knit community on Glen Lake and enjoy and appreciate the serenity and the views of the lakefront living. There are over 260 properties on our lake. If everyone built their properties, overbuilt their properties and added boathouses, okay, it would dramatically change the shoreline of Glen Lake. I think we can all agree with that. Recently canvas covers, okay, have been put on docks without necessary Planning Board approval as well. We're starting to see that take place, and as residents we're concerned about that as well. We're also concerned about the request to add several walkways, a patio, okay, which are not in code with the 50 foot setback requirement. With this grand garden scape comes the application of pesticides and fertilizers which adversely affect the ecosystem of Glen Lake. We need to educate newcomers of the dangers and the overdevelopment of our sensitive environment. The Mackeys have plenty of space in their three lot development and their inside and outside living space that they already have been approved. Therefore it is not necessary to infringe upon the shoreline and go against the Code. Overdevelopment has a detrimental effect on the lake. We respectfully ask for these proposals to be denied. With that, an adjacent resident, a neighbor of the project as well, Mr. Corrigan, he has me to speak out this evening. He had become ill earlier this afternoon and was unable to attend, and he just wanted to, once again, express his concerns about the boathouse and the development of additional patios and walkways and encroachment of the 50 foot setback. Now with that, there's another, okay, individual who's the direct neighbor of our new neighbors the Mackeys and those gentleman's names are Mr. William Chase and Mr. Peter Chase. They earlier, I guess within the last two days, okay, they have sent a specific letter that they want to have read at the Board meeting,and I was wondering,will you be addressing that,or would you prefer that I read the letter from Mr. Chase? MR. HUNSINGER-Well standard protocol is if there's a written comment that's been received by the Town that it would then be read into the record. MR. BABCOCK-All right. Fine. So you are aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I haven't seen the letter. MRS.MOORE-I've got it. MR. BABCOCK-You've got it. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do that after the public,after the live comments. MR. BABCOCK-Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure. Once again I want to thank you for all your efforts and I appreciate all the good work that you do. Does anybody want to ask me any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just wanted to comment. You had asked the question about whether or not the deck was 50 foot from the lake. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. BABCOCK-Yes,sir. MR. HUNSINGER-And according to the plans that have been submitted,it is. MR. BABCOCK-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll let the applicant address that. MR. BABCOCK-Okay. All right. Fantastic. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-There wasn't any variances for this project,was there? MR. HUNSINGER-There was for. MRS.MOORE-Frontage for the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Road frontage. Because it's on a private road,a private drive. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Nothing else. PAULSHEEHAN MR. SHEEHAN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SHEEHAN-Paul Sheehan, 31 Birch Road, up on Glen Lake. I think I'd like to start with a question, because the 50 foot buffer that was put in, what is the science behind that? My presumption is that it's a filter to keep nutrients and things on the lake. Isn't that true? Does anyone have a history of that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I don't think there's anything magic about the specific number that was selected,but it is the number that was written into the Town Code. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I mean I don't know if,you know, 50 foot is the preferred distance, if you were to poll 100 scientists or anything like that. I'm just saying that's what the Code is. MR. SHEEHAN-All right. The only reason I bring it up is if you look along the shoreline on Glen Lake, especially along the, I guess it would be the west side,there are very,very few homes that are in compliance with that 50 foot setback, primarily because they're all older homes, and, you know, they weren't in effect at the time they were built, but the idea that they are older homes, I've got to think that down the road, 10, 15, 20 years, you're going to start to see people tearing those places down and re-constructing, and to me, because there's so few homes,you know, compliant with the 50 foot setback, it's an ideal opportunity for the Board to start making sure that everyone is in compliance with this. The idea if you don't, if you make exceptions now, I mean,you're just going to get probably bombarded with people, and there's not very many right now along the lake that are compliant with that 50 foot setback. So that's a concern of mine. I'm not exactly sure what they're talking about putting in there,creation of a path. I don't see that as a huge problem. I don't know about patio areas,though. I don't know,the size of the patio with the. MR. KREBS-The patio is on the backside,away from the lake. MR. SHEEHAN-It is? MR. KREBS-The permeable,yes. MR. SHEEHAN-And it's also creation of path and patio within 50. MR. MAGOWAN-I think he's talking the patio. MR. KREBS-The patio by the boathouse. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-The boathouse. You mean the little deck on the boathouse, is that what you're talking,or the patio out back? MR. SHEEHAN-Well,the only thing I have is what's,what was,what you sent me. Plans also include creation of path and patio areas within 50 feet of the shoreline. MR. KREBS-Okay,path. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, right up there, but on the boathouse, and I think this is what they were talking,you know,is a deck area, a little. MR. KREBS-I see what you're talking about right here. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, a little deck on the boat, you know, an area where I guess you could call it a patio over an extension of the deck. MR. SHEEHAN-The patio would be constructed. MR. MAGOWAN-Out of wood. MR. SHEEHAN-Wood? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-No, I'm sorry. Could I just interrupt you? If you look at the screen up here,this patio area is this area. It's made of permeable pavers and it's a pathway that goes down to the boathouse, and this deck area and these two deck areas of the boathouse. So it's specifically this patio area that's within the 50 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-The stone up there. MRS. MOORE-And the Code requires something that is hard surfacing within 50 feet triggers site plan review. It is not before the Zoning Board. It only triggers the Site Plan Review process, and that's before the Planning Board. So this is the only area is this patio area with the path going down to the deck to the boathouse. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay,but I assume it's an infringement on the 50 foot setback. MRS. MOORE-It's only triggering the site plan review. It is not,this project does not trigger an Area Variance from the Zoning Board which is what, I apologize, I don't know exactly what you're trying to get at,but this only triggers Planning Board review. MR. SHEEHAN-I guess my only concern is if we're infringing on the 50 foot buffer zone with some materials that is going to prevent what the 50 foot buffer zone is intended to do,then I think I'd like to understand it better. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay, and the other thing on the boathouse, again, I have to agree with the previous speaker that that's going to impact the views of people on both sides of the boathouse, especially looking north down the lake. I think everybody would like to have a boathouse. Did you say the height is 15 and a half feet? Is that what I heard him say? MR. HUNSINGER-Fifteen nine and five-eighths inches is what this. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay,almost 16 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SHEEHAN-Yes. So, I would be concerned with that. Other than that, it's a beautiful place, and they're real good people. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SHEEHAN-Thank you. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Ma'am. Good evening. TERRIE MANSMANN MRS. MANSMANN-Good evening. My name is Terrie Mansmann and I'm at 19 Chestnut Road and I'm here to speak on behalf of myself and my husband William. We are right next to this property that you're discussing. I come with ambivalence because I know the Mackeys and I know that their son and daughter-in-law want to be good neighbors,but I have concerns also. I'm concerned about building the boathouse, which will change our view and negatively affect the assessment of our property, due to the loss of a view. We've been on the lake for 20 years now, and in all that time, I don't think there's been one new boathouse on the lake. In fact, when my husband and I were trying to think about how many boathouses there are, there are about seven boathouses on the lake,with 300 properties that have access to the lake. So we would like to see us maintain the low key nature of the lake and reject the building of the boathouse, and not set a precedent for boathouse at every single place on the lake. As to the patio area, I, too, had concerns and tried to figure out what they were talking about the patio. What they're actually talking about, I think, is the, a fire pit,you know, a fire area that Laura has indicated, and the 50 foot setback from the high water mark was established for a reason. We believe that the Zoning Board's intention was to maintain the quality of the lake water. Currently Glen Lake is working hard to keep the lake free from invasive species, and control the runoff that goes into the lake. Therefore we are not in favor of allowing structures within the 50 feet of the lake. As the previous speaker said, this is the opportunity, now, for you to be able to enforce that Code that was put there for a reason. We know that the Mackeys want to be good neighbors, and we would hope that they would consider their neighbors'comments and concerns and amend their plans based on those comments. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes,ma'am. Good evening. ALICE GENTHNER MRS. GENTHNER-My name is Alice Genthner and I have property at 35 Birch Road. One of the pleasures of residing on Glen Lake is to sit on my front porch and have a panoramic view of the beautiful lake. I feel that the proposed boathouse will obstruct my view and also that of my neighbors,and therefore I'm against the proposal to build,to erect the boathouse. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS.MOORE-I'll read the public comment in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the Zoning Department and Planning Board. It says, "Dear Board Members: We write regarding the application submitted by Phinney Design for James Mackey (SP 66-14) to construct a boathouse on the Glen Lake property owned by James Mackey. The application will be discussed at the 28 October 2014 hearing. We have serious concerns about the proposed boathouse. But before turning to our concerns, we want to express our frustration and disappointment that we, as owners of adjacent property (29 Birch Road),were not informed in writing of the proposal or hearing. As you know,this is a violation of standard procedure. We can only hope that this was an oversight, and does not reflect a change of policy. Had we not been contacted by neighbors at Glen Lake today (27 October), we would not have known about the application or hearing. Regarding the proposed application, we have two primary concerns. The first is that the construction of the boathouse, especially one of the proposed size,will block off our view of a good portion of the northern end of Glen Lake. Such an obstruction can only diminish the value of our property. We are therefore strongly opposed to the construction of the proposed boathouse. We are also concerned by the request for a waiver of the 50'from the shoreline rule for a patio and sidewalk(s). One of the rules that protects the quality of Glen Lake and its shoreline at a time of increasing construction is the Zoning Board's wise rule regarding a 50' setback. We urge you not to violate that rule. Sincerely,William J. Chase Peter S. Chase PS: Effective 1 November, the new mailing address in Pittsburgh is: William Chase and Peter Chase, 5810 Aylesboro Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15217. Would you be so kind as to change your records?" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there another letter? MRS.MOORE-No,that was it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know anything about the notice? I mean,were notices sent out as usual? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MRS. MOORE-The notice was sent to, and we looked this up,both Pam and I, and it was sent to 621 South Lang Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA,and on the bottom of this letter it indicates a new address. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe they're not there until November 1St and maybe that's why they didn't get it? MRS.MOORE-I'm not quite certain why they didn't get the notice,but it was sent to that address. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-I think it's explainable. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if the applicant would like to come back to the table. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. I don't know if you have any comments based on some of the comments from neighbors. MR. BROWN-Sure. I can first speak on behalf of the Mackeys in saying that I think that they appreciate neighbors' comments about their intentions to be good neighbors. They do recognize that they're moving in to a close knit community. I think that's, quite frankly, one of the biggest draws for them is that, in addition to being,you know, close to their father and mother. So I know that they feel that way and would want me to express that. I can tell there's also a good deal of lack of clarity in terms of what is both proposed in the previous approval as well as the content of the current, and I'd like to just take the opportunity to first address that lack of clarity. The staircase structure that you see, you know, leading east and west there, again is an existing structure. It's there right now, and again, all we're proposing to do is to refurbish that with native materials. So that does not constitute a change of any kind. That then leads to what we've entitled the patio area that is in fact made out of native blue stone. It is entirely permeable and as such does not constitute a structure within the 50 foot setback. It's no different than basically, and we've discussed this with the client, basically putting a piece of blue stone in your lawn. There would be very large joints between it. It's a very environmentally friendly way of creating a surface where your lawn actually doesn't get trashed from overuse. It preserves the lawn. It also permits permeability to occur within that area. The deck, there was a question raised as to the size of it. The deck is 1335 square feet. The client has actually made it smaller since the previous application was accepted. So it actually has shrunk slightly. They did that in the process of removing that pergola and the outdoor fireplace that have gone away. MR. FORD-So instead of 1335 it is what? MR. BROWN-Actually previously it was approved to be, I think, 1440. So it's gone down by about 100 square feet. I'd have to look that figure up to tell you what that was. The entire structure of the deck is well within the 50 foot setback, and we've surveyed that and have that confirmed that that is, in fact,the case. In terms of the intention,while I wouldn't want to speak to what the Town of Queensbury's intentions are with respect to the 50 foot setback, I can tell you from an architectural firm that focuses on environmental design, it is certainly our purpose, when we're working with a customer like the Mackeys, to inform them of the environmentally sensitive issues of building on a place like Glen Lake, and to us, that 50 foot setback represents a few things. Number One, a natural buffer between any structure and the lake from an aesthetic standpoint. Number Two, the ability to absorb stormwater, as opposed to generate it, within that area, which does prevent the leaching of any kind of nitrates into the lake. Everything we've proposed does not change that in any way, and in fact what we've done is we've actually added more shoreline buffering, in the form of large shrubs, trees, plants, along the shoreline than was in the previous proposal, and that was part of our discussions with the client in this process. So we've attempted to, again, improve the performance of the lot, with respect to that. With respect to, you know, views, I can understand neighbors' concerns about view sheds. It's certainly, when you live in a community like Glen Lake, and the close knit nature of being in such a community, that things become established and become familiar, and I don't know exactly when the last time a boathouse was erected on Glen Lake,but I can say that it is something that is entirely within the law. It is also something entirely possible for any neighbor to do, should they own property as such, and the fact that it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it shouldn't or isn't allowed. So, we've attempted to, again, stay within, in fact we've succeeded in staying within all of those rules and I would, you know, respectfully ask the Board to confirm that. I think I've addressed all the questions from the public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions,comments from the Board? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I just want to clear up a couple of misconceptions. Number One, the Town does have an ordinance on fertilizer,that no use within 50 feet. So fertilizer leaching into the water is pretty much not going to happen. The second thing is I live on the lake myself, but just because I live on the lake doesn't give me the right to have everything clear cut so I can see up and down the lake. I have to live with my neighbors and what they do, so long as they do it legally, and I've had new houses built on both sides of me since I've been here, and a neighbor has a deck. Does that block part of my view? Yes, but he's entitled to it. Another neighbor has more trees than I'd like, but he's entitled to it. That cuts down my view looking the other way. So, when you live on the lake, you don't, just because you've been there or because you happen to be living in a spot where there's nothing in front of you, doesn't mean that you're entitled to that. So long, as this gentleman says,that it's done within the Code,then it's permissible. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments,questions from the Board? I didn't formally close the public hearing. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR,and if there's no questions or comments. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Could I clarify one item? The applicant has requested a waiver from lighting, and in this case we know that there's going to be lighting. Instead of granting the waiver, I would ask that the applicant supply that information as part of the application materials. MR. FORD-That makes sense. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-I'd be happy to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was actually, I actually run a lot on Glen Lake Road and last night was running home just as it was turning dark, and there's a there's a particular property that's kind of on a point,and the whole shoreline is all lit up,and I'm sure they probably love it,but I was thinking to myself, I wonder how the neighbors feel and, you know, the other lake residents feel about having that shoreline all lit up the way it is? I mean, they're low lights, but there's got to be 10 or 15 of them,right along the shoreline. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a lot of those,since Harbor Freight came along. MR. HUNSINGER-They might be solar lights. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that's usually what they are. We did a little count, just in our block up there, and half the houses have lights on the stairs, okay, obviously for safety reasons,but it's really hard to see them from out on the water. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,this one you would. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The ones that trouble me is that some of them put up, on a tree or something they put one of those big street lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That you can see across the lake,and there's nothing I can do about that. MR. BROWN-The lights that we would provide, in terms of the step lighting,there's a retaining wall on each side of that set of stairs, and we'd be happy to specify that those lights go on one of the sides and not actually on the steps themselves, which would make them even less visible from the lake. That would be our intention. I just wanted to give you that clarification. Again,the intention of the lighting is entirely just safety,not,you know, not decorative effect or that type of thing. MR. MAGOWAN-A little more clarification. Is this one the existing property now? MR. BROWN-Correct,that's the previously approved version. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and then as I'm looking over this, and I was,kind of thought the patio was down there. Now I see the patio up there, but I also saw that round thing up there, which was a custom built hot tub with cover. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-One, is that a bromine or chlorine hot tub? How many feet off the lake? How are you going to drain, discharge that, re-filter, you know, when you change the water and all that. I mean,that's too close the lake up here. MR. BROWN-That structure is entirely within the setback. So it's within the allowable area. In order to offset the permeability requirement of that, we actually changed the front driveway from being an impermeable surface, the front walkway, from being an impermeable surface to a permeable surface. So that offset that. In terms of the specific mechanics of the hot tub, we've done a similar one recently. The filter and everything was entirely self-contained within a vault that went next to it. That can easily be plumbed into house's,the drain in that vault,which is where the overflow comes, could easily be plumbed into the house's plumbing. Although I can tell you practically speaking that doesn't really happen. This would be designed for year round use. MR. MAGOWAN-You still have to change the water periodically. MR. BROWN-Well,yes,you do lose quite a bit with these with evaporation. So if anything you end up topping it off a little bit, but the, again, we could plumb it into the house's system and not, you know,worry about that. MR. FORD-Right,but it is not plumbed in currently. MR. BROWN-No,it doesn't exist yet. We haven't started building anything. MR. FORD-Is that part of your plan? MR. BROWN-I'm basically saying,yes,we can make that our plan,due to that comment. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean,it's right outside the 50 foot,but, I mean, everything slopes down and, you know, looking at the size of it, you know, what is it, a six or an eight person, but that's a lot of water, and I know,you know, I know typically you drain them, and,you know, refresh the water at least once a year. So, you know, what do we do with that water at the time? You know, being chlorine or bromine, it doesn't matter, it still has an effect on the lake. So I would ask for that to be piped into the system, and I have asked for that in the past with any hot tub that's in a,you know, in a lake area. MR. BROWN-We can definitely do that. We can pipe it into the house. That's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-Especially because that slopes in a downward direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The other thing I'd like to comment, too, you know, you did a really nice job designing the roof structure and keeping it down as low as you can. I don't see it overly obtrusive where it would block,you know, a major view,but it will obstruct, unfortunately, someone's view if they're sitting down there, but it is a low roof and it's open sides, and really if you look at it you're talking, you know, nine feet to, say eight feet, to, you know, say 16, you know, that's just an eight feet window,but that's a peak where it's going to be taking it out depending on where you're sitting on your chair or whatever, but, I mean, you made it low and open where you can see through if you're sitting down low, and if you're up above. So I think you did a good job trying to keep it as low and as simple as possible. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I've got a couple of other questions. You could design those, put that design,it would be much appreciated. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Ready, Don? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 66-2014 PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/2014) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 560 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse with a shoreline deck and shoreline plantings. Plans also include creation of path and patio areas within 50 feet of the shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-5-060 of the Zoning Ordinance filling within 50 feet of the shoreline and boathouse shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10-28-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2014 PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP, 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: signage, land use district, construction/alteration detail, snow removal,designation of construction materials. 3) Lighting plans are to be provided as part of the plan submitted to the Town of Queensbury. 4) The hot tub will be piped in to the main home for drainage purposes. 5) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2014, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. Two meetings in November. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 35