Loading...
04-28-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 12-2015 Just Beverages 1. Tax Map No. 294.-1-1 Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Site Plan No. 16-2015 John Weber, Sr. & John Weber 7. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-87 Site Plan No. 17-2015 Kimberlee Polunci 9. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 Site Plan No. 20-2015 Kevin Walkup 11. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-42 Subdivision No. 13-1986 Ryan Wild 13. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.10-1-65 Site Plan No. 22-2015 William Winters, III 25. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-15 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB JAIME WHITE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE FERONE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, April 28, 2015. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. The first item on the agenda is Just Beverages. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 SEAR TYPE 3/24/15 NEG DEC JUST BEVERAGES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING LC-10A LOCATION EAST OF BUTLER POND ROAD ALONG EXISTING LOGGING ROAD WITHIN WATERSHED PROPERTY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A WATER EXTRACTION OPERATION ON CITY OF GLENS FALLS OWNED WATERSHED PROPERTY ON BUTLER POND ROAD. THE OPERATION WILL INCLUDE SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE EXTRACTION, LOADING AND TRANSPORT OF WATER FROM THE WELL SITE TO THE APPLICANT'S WATER BOTTLING FACILITY IN THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WATER EXTRACTION IN THE LC- 10 ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 686.41 +/- ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP NO. 294.-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to read that, please? MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, before you begin. I would just like to remind the Board that I had to recuse myself recently from this application in that the nonprofit agency that I work for informed me that they may be potentially getting involved with a vocational program for people with disabilities that may in some way involve bottled water. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-This resolution is: WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to establish a Water Extraction operation on City of Glens Falls owned watershed property on Butler Pond Road. The operation will include site improvements to facilitate extraction, loading and transport of water from the well site to the applicant's water bottling facility in the City of Glens Falls. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Water Extraction in the LC-10 zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval; and, Whereas, as required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation -No County Impact 3-3-2015; and Whereas, the Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance on 3-24-2015 as amended on 4-21- 2015; and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) Whereas, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3-10-2015 and continued the public hearing to 3-24-2015 and 4-21-2015 when it was closed; and Whereas, the Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4- 21-2015; NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Planning Board has reviewed a full Site Plan Review application for conformity with the requirements for a Water Extraction use as established by the Town and, The Planning Board has confirmed that the subject property is located within a Land Conservation zoning district and that such landholding consist of a minimum of 200 contiguous acres and, The Planning Board acknowledges that the appropriate application fee has been submitted by the applicant to the Town and, The Planning Board has been provided with a copy of an application for the modification of the existing City of Glens Falls New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Water Withdrawal Permit and has found the same to be consistent with the Site Plan Review application materials submitted to the Town. The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed maximum daily quantity of water to be extracted, the specific extraction point, the method of extraction, the hours of operation, projected traffic volumes relative to the proposed extracted water volumes, projected noise volumes, area lighting and other similar site conditions and has found them to be acceptable. Additionally, the Planning Board acknowledges that the applicant has submitted a permit application to the New York State Department of Health as necessary for the water extraction and, The Planning Board has reviewed the independent hydrogeological investigation which includes information relative to; • the rates of draw down and recharge as established by pumping or a stress test, • characteristics of the aquifer including rates of draw down and recharge, sustainable extraction rates, aquifer boundaries, recharge areas, impacts on the water table, impacts on any and all water bodies including, but not limited to lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and wetland areas and private wells or other existing locations within the extraction zone, • possible effects on the aquifer or to the ground water resources which might result in the disturbance of existing minerals including but not limited to iron, manganese, arsenic and uranium and any health hazards raised by such disturbances or other impacts including issues such as drinking water, turbidity, clarity and aroma, • proposed extraction volumes that are sustainable as demonstrated by the study based upon the landholdings being significant enough to produce a sustainable draw of at least the proposed amount from the project landholdings and, The Planning Board has reviewed a site plan depicting water bodies within 500 feet of the extraction point, the precise surveyed location of the extraction point, the existing network of roadways in the vicinity of the extraction point, any proposed roadways, and any other relevant and material details bearing on the proposed extraction process and, The Planning Board has analyzed the proposed access to the extraction site to consider necessary safeguards against hazards to traffic, pedestrians, congestion and other safety risks and, The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed traffic impacts on existing town roadways with regards to the potential for premature failure, aging or other diminished utility of such roads and, The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed plan relative to limiting the environmental impacts associated with site clearing and roadway development and, Therefore, the Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and specific standards for a Water Extraction use as set forth in Section 179-9- 085 of the Zoning Ordinance and, Site Plan 12-2015 Just Beverages is either approved or denied upon the following conditions: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) As part of the application review process, the Applicant has proposed, considered and accepted various project modifications and restrictions intended to mitigate potential impacts of the Project. In confirmation of these modifications and mitigation measures, this Site Plan approval is subject to the conditions set forth below. The Applicant/Permittee has consented to these conditions and, in the event of any inconsistency between these conditions and any earlier representations of the Applicant, whether written or verbal, these conditions shall control: 1. Applicant/Permittee's water truck transport to and from its facility shall not exceed 6 round trips per weekday for the first 12 months after Project commencement and shall not exceed 12 round trips per weekday thereafter. 2. Applicant/Permittee's water truck transport to and from its facility shall not exceed 6 round trips per day on weekends and Federal holidays. 3. Applicant/Permitee's vehicles utilized for water transport shall be limited to single body/dual axle trucks with the maximum capacity not exceeding 4500 gallons. 4. Applicant/Permittee's trucks shall not be equipped with compression release engine brakes, also known as "Jake brakes." 5. While the Planning Board lacks the authority to establish speed limits for roads, Applicant/Permittee shall not operate its trucks on Butler Pond Road in excess of 25 miles per hour. 6. Noise generated from the Applicant/Permittee's facility shall not exceed 20 decibels (dba) as measured from the nearest single family residence on Butler Pond Road. 7. There shall be no more than two storage container units at the facility. 8. All drivers of Applicant/Permittee's trucks shall at all times possess valid commercial "CDL" driver's licenses. 9. Applicant/Permittee shall, within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this approval, pay the amount of$10,000 to the Town Budget Officer as Escrow Agent to be held in escrow in a separate interest-bearing account ("Escrow Account") opened in the name of the TOWN with the Town of Queensbury having sole signatory authority on the account for the express purposes of providing a repository of available funds to guarantee payment by Applicant/Permittee to repair or improve degraded roadway conditions proximately caused by the water transport vehicle traffic on Town roads within two miles of the water extraction site. 10. Applicant/Permittee shall tender an additional $10,000 for deposit into the established Escrow Account within fifteen (15) days of the anniversary date of the effective date of this Agreement for each subsequent year up to a total of five (5) annual payments totaling $50,000. 11. The Escrow Account shall terminate upon the cessation of use of Town roads referenced above by Applicant/Permittee for water transport vehicle traffic, with the balance of funds released to Applicant/Permittee at that time. Termination and release of funds shall occur only upon determination of the Town Highway Superintendent that maintenance and repairs required as a result of Applicant/Permittee's use of Town roads have been completed and paid for. To the extent that any such repairs and/or maintenance have yet to be completed, appropriate funds in the amount determined by the Highway Superintendent shall be retained for that purpose. 12. The Town Highway Superintendent shall monitor and inspect the roads on a regular basis and provide prompt notice of any degradation believed to have been proximately caused by the Applicant/Permittee's water transport traffic. 13. The Town Highway Department shall establish and document a road baseline condition so that any future degradation alleged to be attributable to and proximately caused by Applicant/Permittee's vehicles may be properly demonstrated. 14. In order to create and implement this Escrow Account, an Escrow Agreement shall be entered into between Applicant/Permittee and the Town subject to Town Board approval. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) 15. Applicant/Permittee shall comply with any future directive of the Town Highway Superintendent for any viable alternate traffic route and engage in the process of seeking modification to site plan approval for any change should such modification be determined to be required. 16. Applicant/Permittee shall continue to investigate the feasibility of utilizing a pipeline to transport water from the site instead of truck transport. Applicant/Permittee shall provide a status report of this investigation to the Planning Board on an annual basis and, if/when deemed feasible, Applicant/Permittee shall seek modification of its Site Plan Approval to implement this alternative method of water transport. 17. As already provided by applicable law, all representations and conditions "run with the land" and are valid and binding on any successors of Applicant/Permittee. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You've all heard the draft motion. Would anyone like to move it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to establish a Water Extraction operation on City of Glens Falls owned watershed property on Butler Pond Road. The operation will include site improvements to facilitate extraction, loading and transport of water from the well site to the applicant's water bottling facility in the City of Glens Falls. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Water Extraction in the LC-10 zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval; and, Whereas, as required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation -No County Impact 3-3-2015; and Whereas, the Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance on 3-24-2015 as amended on 4-21- 2015; and Whereas, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3-10-2015 and continued the public hearing to 3-24-2015 and 4-21-2015 when it was closed; and Whereas, the Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4- 21-2015; NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Planning Board has reviewed a full Site Plan Review application for conformity with the requirements for a Water Extraction use as established by the Town and, The Planning Board has confirmed that the subject property is located within a Land Conservation zoning district and that such landholding consist of a minimum of 200 contiguous acres and, The Planning Board acknowledges that the appropriate application fee has been submitted by the applicant to the Town and, The Planning Board has been provided with a copy of an application for the modification of the existing City of Glens Falls New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Water Withdrawal Permit and has found the same to be consistent with the Site Plan Review application materials submitted to the Town. The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed maximum daily quantity of water to be extracted, the specific extraction point, the method of extraction, the hours of operation, projected traffic volumes relative to the proposed extracted water volumes, projected noise volumes, area lighting and other similar site conditions and has found them to be acceptable. Additionally, the Planning Board acknowledges that the applicant has submitted a permit application to the New York State Department of Health as necessary for the water extraction and, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) The Planning Board has reviewed the independent hydrogeological investigation which includes information relative to; • the rates of draw down and recharge as established by pumping or a stress test, • characteristics of the aquifer including rates of draw down and recharge, sustainable extraction rates, aquifer boundaries, recharge areas, impacts on the water table, impacts on any and all water bodies including, but not limited to lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and wetland areas and private wells or other existing locations within the extraction zone, • possible effects on the aquifer or to the ground water resources which might result in the disturbance of existing minerals including but not limited to iron, manganese, arsenic and uranium and any health hazards raised by such disturbances or other impacts including issues such as drinking water, turbidity, clarity and aroma, • proposed extraction volumes that are sustainable as demonstrated by the study based upon the landholdings being significant enough to produce a sustainable draw of at least the proposed amount from the project landholdings and, The Planning Board has reviewed a site plan depicting water bodies within 500 feet of the extraction point, the precise surveyed location of the extraction point, the existing network of roadways in the vicinity of the extraction point, any proposed roadways, and any other relevant and material details bearing on the proposed extraction process and, The Planning Board has analyzed the proposed access to the extraction site to consider necessary safeguards against hazards to traffic, pedestrians, congestion and other safety risks and, The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed traffic impacts on existing town roadways with regards to the potential for premature failure, aging or other diminished utility of such roads and, The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed plan relative to limiting the environmental impacts associated with site clearing and roadway development and, Therefore, the Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and specific standards for a Water Extraction use as set forth in Section 179-9- 085 of the Zoning Ordinance and, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As part of the application review process, the Applicant has proposed, considered and accepted various project modifications and restrictions intended to mitigate potential impacts of the Project. In confirmation of these modifications and mitigation measures, this Site Plan approval is subject to the conditions set forth below. The Applicant/Permittee has consented to these conditions and, in the event of any inconsistency between these conditions and any earlier representations of the Applicant, whether written or verbal, these conditions shall control: 1. Applicant/Permittee's water truck transport to and from its facility shall not exceed 6 round trips per weekday for the first 12 months after Project commencement and shall not exceed 12 round trips per weekday thereafter. 2. Applicant/Permittee's water truck transport to and from its facility shall not exceed 6 round trips per day on weekends and Federal holidays. 3. Applicant/Permitee's vehicles utilized for water transport shall be limited to single body/dual axle trucks with the maximum capacity not exceeding 4500 gallons. 4. Applicant/Permittee's trucks shall not be equipped with compression release engine brakes, also known as "Jake brakes." 5. While the Planning Board lacks the authority to establish speed limits for roads, Applicant/Permittee shall not operate its trucks on Butler Pond Road in excess of 25 miles per hour. 6. Noise generated from the Applicant/Permittee's facility shall not exceed 20 decibels (dba) as measured from the nearest single family residence on Butler Pond Road. 7. There shall be no more than two storage container units at the facility. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) 8. All drivers of Applicant/Permittee's trucks shall at all times possess valid commercial "CDL" driver's licenses. 9. Applicant/Permittee shall, within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this approval, pay the amount of $10,000 to the Town Budget Officer as Escrow Agent to be held in escrow in a separate interest-bearing account ("Escrow Account") opened in the name of the TOWN with the Town of Queensbury having sole signatory authority on the account for the express purposes of providing a repository of available funds to guarantee payment by Applicant/Permittee to repair or improve degraded roadway conditions proximately caused by the water transport vehicle traffic on Town roads within two miles of the water extraction site. 10. Applicant/Permittee shall tender an additional $10,000 for deposit into the established Escrow Account within fifteen (15) days of the anniversary date of the effective date of this Agreement for each subsequent year up to a total of five (5) annual payments totaling $50,000. 11. The Escrow Account shall terminate upon the cessation of use of Town roads referenced above by Applicant/Permittee for water transport vehicle traffic, with the balance of funds released to Applicant/Permittee at that time. Termination and release of funds shall occur only upon determination of the Town Highway Superintendent that maintenance and repairs required as a result of Applicant/Permittee's use of Town roads have been completed and paid for. To the extent that any such repairs and/or maintenance have yet to be completed, appropriate funds in the amount determined by the Highway Superintendent shall be retained for that purpose. 12. The Town Highway Superintendent shall monitor and inspect the roads on a regular basis and provide prompt notice of any degradation believed to have been proximately caused by the Applicant/Permittee's water transport traffic. 13. The Town Highway Department shall establish and document a road baseline condition so that any future degradation alleged to be attributable to and proximately caused by Applicant/Permittee's vehicles may be properly demonstrated. 14. In order to create and implement this Escrow Account, an Escrow Agreement shall be entered into between Applicant/Permittee and the Town subject to Town Board approval. 15. Applicant/Permittee shall comply with any future directive of the Town Highway Superintendent for any viable alternate traffic route and engage in the process of seeking modification to site plan approval for any change should such modification be determined to be required. 16. Applicant/Permittee shall continue to investigate the feasibility of utilizing a pipeline to transport water from the site instead of truck transport. Applicant/Permittee shall provide a status report of this investigation to the Planning Board on an annual basis and, if/when deemed feasible, Applicant/Permittee shall seek modification of its Site Plan Approval to implement this alternative method of water transport. 17. As already provided by applicable law, all representations and conditions "run with the land" and are valid and binding on any successors of Applicant/Permittee. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Our next item on the agenda is Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE TYPE I - COORDINATED REVIEW MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 TO 1.45 ACRES. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) SUBDIVISION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.28-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MRS. MOORE-At last week's meeting you tabled this application to May 21St, and so you may open the public hearing and further table it to May. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing open and do we need to affirm that resolution? MRS. MOORE-Affirm that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to affirm the resolution to table this to May 21St? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled until May 21, 2015. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone SITE PLAN NO. 16-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER OWNER(S) KINDRED GROUP, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 352 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 900 SQ. FT. OUTDOOR PATIO AREA FOR 8 TABLES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOOD SERVICE & CHANGE OF USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-15, AV 107-1989 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-87 SECTION 179-3-040 JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 900 sq. ft. outdoor eating area for 8 tables. Food service and change of use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The applicant did receive the necessary variances for the parking, and the last item we need to discuss, I provided information to the applicant, was to work on obtaining an agreement with the neighboring business plaza. That's the last item. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WEBER, SR.-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. WEBER-Sure. John Weber. MR. WEBER, SR.-John Weber, Sr. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. WEBER, SR.-Not at this time. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any new information? MR. WEBER, SR.-No, not anything that's changed from last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WEBER-Yes, we had to add just the bike rack. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Did you contact the neighbors? MR. WEBER-Yes. We did. We haven't heard back yet. MR. DEEB-Nothing yet. MR. WEBER, SR.-They haven't returned our call. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? Are we concerned about the, not having discussed the project with the neighbor? MR. TRAVER-They have the zoning for it on site. MR. DEEB-If it works out, it goes the other way. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant, if the driveway spaces are not viable anymore, the applicant would be most likely coming to one Board or the other to amend their site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-To amend their site plan. Okay. Well, then I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We did SEAR last week. Is there any additional questions, comments or concerns from the Board? If not, there's a draft resolution in your package. MRS. MOORE-You did not, I don't have that you completed SEAR last week. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don't remember doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't do SEAR before they went to the Zoning Board? MRS. MOORE-Because they're independent actions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Then I'll make a motion to approve a Negative Dec. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DEC SP # 16-2015 WEBER The applicant proposes a 900 sq. ft. outdoor patio area for 8 tables. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 of the Zoning Ordinance Food Service & change of use 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; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) 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; 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 16-2015 JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: In accordance with the draft prepared by Staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 16-2015 WEBER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: A 900 sq. ft. outdoor patio area for 8 tables. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Food Service & change of use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; As required by The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. the Planning Board has provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 4-22-2015; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on 4-28-2015 and continued the public hearing to 4-28-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4-28-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2015 JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: In accordance with the draft prepared by Staff conditioned upon the following 1. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. WEBER-Great. Thank you. MR. WEBER, SR.-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 18-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED KIMBERLEE POLUNCI AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN EXPANSION OF A KENNEL FACILITY. THE NEW BUILDINGS INCLUDE A 2,400 SQ. FT. PLAY & TRAINING ROOM WITH TWO EXTERIOR PLAN/TRAINING AREAS; A 2,600 SQ. FT. LEASE BUILDING FOR THE SPCA HOLDING AREA WITH FENCED-IN LOADING/UNLOADING AREA AND OUTDOOR RUNS. A 23 X 26 SQ. FT. SCREEN ROOM AREA TO BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING CAT FACILITY AND TO ADD 8 OUTDOOR RUNS TO THE EXISTING KENNEL BUILDING. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE KENNEL IN AN RR ZONE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ALL USES THAT REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUP KENNEL REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 14-15, SUP 15-09, AV 48-08, SUP 30-08 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-070 MR. HUNSINGER-That project was not acted on by the Zoning Board, so we will not be hearing the project this evening. I would seek a tabling resolution to table that to June 16tH RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 17-2015 & SUP # 18-2015 POLUNCI -TAILS WAG INN On April 22, 2015 the ZBA tabled the application to May 20, 2015; therefore MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 18-2015 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to June 16, 2015. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing will be held open for that project. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me. When was the public hearing opened? You have not heard any public comment yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't have a project yet. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Did you open the hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-We don't have a project yet. It has to go through the Zoning Board first. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You've already voted on this once last week. You haven't had any public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-All we did was recommend it to the Zoning Board. That is the normal procedure, that's the normal process, just like on every other project that goes to the Zoning Board. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, there's a problem with the process when you make decisions without hearing anything from the public first. MR. HUNSINGER-You can go talk to the Zoning Board when it's before the Zoning Board for the public hearing and when it comes back here we'll have a public hearing. We're not trying to limit public comment. We don't have a legal project before us to consider, and we're not going to hear public comments on a project that may not ever become a project. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, the problem with this project is it's not compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-1 respect your opinion. We'll hear public comment when we open the public hearing, if it ever comes back to us. MRS. MOORE-You did open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did. We left it open. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-It's still open. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED KEVIN WALKUP OWNER(S) JOSEPH WALKUP ZONING CLI LOCATION 1 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING 1,264 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR FURNITURE RESTORATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RETAIL USE IN THE CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 10-765, 00-053, 98-038, 99-773, 91491 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040 KEVIN & KATIE WALKUP, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has completed a site plan application for the reuse of an existing building to operate a furniture restoration business. The applicant has indicated there are no changes proposed to the site and the existing building will accommodate storage of furniture and the work that needed for restoration. The applicant has requested a waiver for stormwater management and soil logs. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. WALKUP-I'm Kevin Walkup. MRS. WALKUP-Katie Walkup. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us about your project? MR. WALKUP-We want to do antiques and old clocks and chairs and stuff. That's pretty much it. Just refinishing them. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Chemicals, what kind of chemicals are you going to use? MR. WALKUP-I'm using, it's called GAC Geckos. It's a non smell stripper. Usually everything's hand sanded. If I use a chemical, I'll mix it with sawdust and I'll put it in a paint container, and the paint stays down in South Glens Falls. I don't use a lot of chemicals. I don't do any dipping. I don't have anything like that. Nothing big. I do everything by hand. So I buy all my chemicals at Lowes, and it's all FDA. MR. DEEB-What kind of disposal methods will you use? MR. WALKUP-After I get done mixing it, I'll mix it in sawdust and after I get a five gallon bucket half full, I'll cast it and I'll just bring it on paint days, and that way nothing's open. I don't have any open chemicals. I use a lacquer thinner to wipe down and that's it. Those are the only things I use. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. WALKUP-And it's all pretty much hand sanded. I do gluing chairs and stuff. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. WALKUP-You're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-It's nice to see that corner re-open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. WALKUP-They say I'll put a goldmine in. I've had a lot of older people say that. MR. MAGOWAN-No, it's a dying art. I think it's wonderful you're doing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Would anyone like to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-1 have no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. There is a draft SEAR resolution in your package. Are there any concerns with SEAR, other than the one you brought up? Would anyone like to move the SEAR resolution? RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DEC SP #20-2015 WALKUP The applicant proposes to utilize an existing 1,264 sq. ft. building for furniture restoration. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Retail Use in the CLI 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; 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 20-2015 KEVIN WALKUP, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the resolution prepared by staff 1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) AYES: Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments or concerns from the Board? Staff? Would you like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #20-2015 WALKUP The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance to utilize an existing 1,264 sq. ft. building for furniture restoration. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Retail Use in the CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance, The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4-28-2015 and continued the public hearing to 4-28-2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4-28-2015, The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2015 KEVIN WALKUP, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following. 1. Waivers granted: stormwater management and soil logs. 2. Adherence to the items on the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-We do have waivers to consider. Does that include the waivers? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Stormwater management and soil logs are granted. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. WALKUP-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. MAGOWAN-So when are you opening? MR. WALKUP-I'll turn my sign on tonight. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1986 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED/REAFFIRM PREVIOUS SEAR RYAN WILD OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN c/o LEXIE DE LEURY ZONING MDR (SR-20) LOCATION HERALD SQUARE, PH. II APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO DEVELOP LOT WITH A 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 13-86 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 22.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10-1- 65 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RYAN WILD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is actually a discussion item. We do have a public hearing for this. I wanted to make sure the Board understood it was a discussion because it could potentially have a variance requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-But we wanted to make sure you were aware of what the project could potentially be. The applicant has an agreement to purchase the property that is part of the Herald Square Subdivision. The applicant has explained the lot was not part of the building lots in the subdivision and contains wetlands on much of the property. The applicant proposes a subdivision modification to allow for a single family to be constructed on the lot where and not infringe on the wetlands. The parcel history indicates the parcel in 1996 was offered to the Town for land dedication in lieu of rec fees and the Town Board did not accept the land due to topography, wetlands, and the brook. The plans show the location of a proposed home, driveway, and a septic system potentially. The plans also show the location of the wetland buffer and the home is within the buffer area. The road frontage is existing at 28+/-ft. as shown on the drawing where a 50 ft. road frontage would be required. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, representing the applicant. This project involves two different actions. One is an area variance, Section 179-4-050 requires frontage on a public street or private street, 50 feet for any principle dwelling and the access that we have is 30 feet. So we need an area variance for that. Probably when this subdivision was approved, 30 feet was the requirement of the Ordinance. I haven't checked the time on that that used to be the requirement for frontage. It changed recently within the last year or two years to 50 feet. So this is a pre-existing parcel. It's not a pre-existing lot. It's land that was part of the Herald property that was subdivided into the subdivision, and for whatever reason this parcel was not included as part of a lot or part of the subdivision per se, although it's on the subdivision map, but it is a pre-existing parcel. The second part of the project is modification of the existing subdivision plan, and that's why we will be here after we go through the variance. We'd like to get a feeling from you, if we can, as to what your response is or what your feelings are on this thing before we spend an awful lot of time on it. I think tonight you're here to make a recommendation, to make a formal recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I didn't have a clip. I have this if you want to take a look at it. This is the existing subdivision, an aerial photo, and I'll put in yellow the area where the driveway would be constructed. It's about 180 feet long before it gets wider. It's not much longer than many other driveways. I think the driveway restriction is you can have a driveway up to 1,000 feet before you need some other type of variance. There's 20, on the tax map, and on this map it shows the back parcel is 22.88 acres. This thing has been before the Board a number of times, and if you look at the minutes, it's varied from 21, 20.8. It's never been less than 20 acres. The site where he's going to construct his house is about four acres. Beyond that is Clendon Brook. There's some wetlands beyond that and then there's some lands that are on the other side of Clendon Brook which are part of this 20 acre parcel, but immediately off of the subdivision road, 180 feet from it, is a good site to build a single family home. In fact, I went back, or Ryan went back, part of the reason that this may have been set aside is the thought in 1992 was that it would be offered in lieu of recreation fees as an area of recreation. The Recreation Commission, in June of 1992, recommended against it. I think at that time they were looking at ball fields. If they didn't have an area big enough for a ball field and what not they wouldn't approve it. Also it might have been common at that time that because there's only 30 feet of frontage on the road, if people were going to use that as open recreation for Town recreation, there would be no place to park, and there were comments then and in 1996 it went back through the same process again because the Town had accepted a strip of land along Clendon Brook in the Mike Vasiliou subdivision and in the Cerrone subdivision which would have been a connection all the way up to West Mountain Road, down to Luzerne Road. There was a small section on the south side of Luzerne Road that intercepted the connection. I think it was owned, according to the minutes, by somebody by the name of Barber, but in 1996, again it went through the whole process and it was not accepted for recreation. At that time I think they were doing Section Three of the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) subdivision. This subdivision had three different sections, three different approvals. The County ended up owning this because the developer quit paying taxes on it, and the County bought it at a tax sale. The County, as far as I understand it, doesn't want to own it. They put it up for auction. Mr. Ryan was a bidder on it and has an understanding with the County that if he can get a permit for a single family home he will go through with the purchase of the property to build a single family home on there. It would put the property back on the tax rolls. It's not presently on the tax rolls, is what I think is one of the motivations. The house that he's going to build is no gigantic house. On the first floor it would be about 1400 square feet, and with the garage and some area for a second floor, the total won't be more than 2400 feet. When we get through this process, we will actually have some plans for you to look at, but it's going to be a single family home with a driveway of 180 feet, sitting on about four good acres of land, and that's basically what we're looking for is a variance so we could use that 30 foot access for the driveway, and then we'd come back to you and ask that you modify the subdivision plan so that it can be marked out as a building lot and he can go ahead and build his home. Probably, and it may be a controversial issue. Nobody likes change. I've done a couple of these before where you have an established subdivision, and it can generate some interest. We're hoping, what he's planning to do is just to do a single family home, it won't be controversial. So that's my pitch. We don't see any real impact. I don't know how you're going to handle SEAR. I think on a recommendation you don't do that. MRS. MOORE-Well, it's not before either Board in the sense of a recommendation because no application has been filed. So neither the subdivision modification letter. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought Ryan said they filed a one page that told, filed a one page letter for modification? MRS. MOORE-Right, but not the application. He'd have to file also the variance application. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The variance application hasn't been filed. That I can tell you. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is basically a discussion item. MRS. MOORE-It's a discussion item. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I should mention there are no restrictions on the land. There's no homeowners association within the subdivision. There's no vehicle where it could be owned by all the owners within the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-So this doesn't show up on any recreation plan or any trail plan or anything like that? MRS. MOORE-Not that I've observed, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And it wasn't marked out on the subdivision. You do have smaller copies of the subdivision? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And you're purchasing four acres? MR. O'CONNOR-No, he's purchasing the whole piece. MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty acres. MR. DEEB-Twenty acres. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-But immediately off this 30 foot strip is four acres of good usable land. MR. DEEB-And that's what you want to use to make a lot and build your home? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DEEB-And what about the other 16 acres or whatever? MR. O'CONNOR-It would be left vacant. MR. WILD-It's wilderness. That's the way I would like to keep it. I'd like to keep it untouched. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. DEEB-So then the whole parcel goes back on the tax rolls? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. MR. DEEB-It's an interesting dilemma. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's forever wild? Does this go back as forever wild, the 16? MR. O'CONNOR-We'd accept the restriction. We would show you probably a cutting zone and not have any disturbance outside the cutting zone. I would think that at some time or another when he establishes his house there he might want to put a footbridge across Clendon Brook, someplace where it's feasible to go to the other side, but I don't think any other improvements. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting, yes. So I guess I had a couple of questions I guess for Staff. It appears as though we have a public hearing scheduled, even though we don't have an application. MRS. MOORE-Correct, and it was with the understanding that this lot has never been seen any development, even as a part of the proposed subdivision. We thought it was in the best interest to at least advertise it that way, just to get some comment on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. DEEB-It's a strange one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't know where you do your research, but what a find. MR. WILD-That's what I thought, might as well try it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we did publicize a public hearing for this project this evening. Ma'am, you want to make some comments? The purpose of a public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website. So anyone who wishes to address the Board, I would ask that you speak clearly into the microphone and give us your name at the beginning and address any comments or concerns you have to the Board. So you can be the first commenter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREA SIMMONS MRS. SIMMONS-My name is Andrea Simmons. I live at 11 Mabel Terrace. I'm one of the properties that this backs up to. I have a concern that the proposed development is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated repeatedly that he has 30 feet of frontage on the road when in fact it is not contiguous. He has 15 feet on Herald Drive and he has 15 feet on Wayne Court. The property is irregularly shaped. So for all he says he has four acres to develop, it's not your standard rectangle. He has many boundaries to consider. When we purchased our property, it was with the understanding that the developer was only able to develop that lot, and that it would be kept undeveloped. We like the privacy of our lot, and that's my personal statement is I feel I have a very private property and I'm not pleased to have the potential for development back there, but I know from talking to my neighbors, nobody's happy. Everybody has the same understanding that this was not the intent when we bought the property. Everybody was given the same story, people that own property. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-But nothing in writing, right? MRS. SIMMONS-Nothing in writing. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MRS. SIMMONS-But I did look at the property lots and the history and did do some research into the neighborhood, and I was satisfied at that time with what I had seen. So based on that I didn't' have anything to question. I didn't ask for anything in writing. I thought it would be unnecessary. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, could she identify her lot? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MRS. SIMMONS-Do you want me to walk up? I'm on Mabel Terrace. This house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir? Thank you. Good evening. PATRICK MANNIX MR. MANNIX-I'm Patrick Mannix and I live at 34 Herald Drive, right adjacent to where Mr. Wild would like to put his driveway. Mr. Wild, I do respect the fact that you'd like to build a single family home and I would not like to deny anyone that opportunity, but I'm the newest landowner to this development, just last November, and it was our understanding when we purchased the property that it was a wetlands forever wild piece of property back there, which was a big attraction to us purchasing our property. We talked to a lot of neighbors about that. The area to access up front, as the previous lady had just mentioned, is not 30 feet. There's two electrical boxes that adjoin my property and between those two electrical boxes there's only 16 feet for that, and between those two electrical boxes there's a storm drain that takes care of all the runoff in the springtime and when we have the rains and things like that where the driveway is proposed to go through. There is wetlands in the back. There is a recreation area where all the children take place and recreate and things like that. We do have some documentation from one of the landowners here which would take a while to read and things like that, but it was set aside back in 1996, in lieu of taxes and fees, as a recreation area for that development. The four acres, I don't know how that is being described back there, but I can't see where there's more than an acre and a half to two acres of developable land because of the wetlands and the hill that goes down to Clendon Brook. Any development in that area would have to have an adverse effect on the wetlands below. The density issue is another thing. There's eight homes that will be looking out their back window to a home planted in the middle of their backyard. I don't know of anywhere in the Town of Queensbury that exists or should exist to have that. Again, I don't like to be the complainant against Mr. Wild about building a home, but it's just unusual that in 20 years this has never happened. Our assessment we are getting now is full assessment. Ours is going to go up a thousand dollars from when we purchased this home. Of course we're trying to grieve that, but if this home were to be put in there, I know it doesn't have an effect on the, you know, what Mr. Wild wants to do, but it's going to negatively affect all the real estate values of our home by having something in our backyard. We're literally going to be looking out our back window, eight of us, to a home planted in the middle. It's like a cut de sac with a house in the middle. It just doesn't fit, and I did mention the recreational. I know there's more people that would like to speak here about it tonight and I hate to be the person denying someone the opportunity to build there, but it just doesn't fit. It doesn't fit. It's not a good fit and it would disrupt the real estate as it stands today, and it has been, not that it matters to the Planning Board, or maybe it does matter to the Planning Board. I've never been here before to discuss this, but I've spoken to the neighbors and they've approached me and I said why don't we finally put this to bed. I didn't realize how many tax sales have taken place with Warren County owning this property because as I said I'm the newest person to the property, but I said why don't we take this off the tax rolls? Why don't we take this piece of property that is being used by the children and things like that that is a recreation area as it was so desired to be in the beginning and why don't we purchase that and however that can be done legally and donate the wetlands as where it should be to the Nature Conservancy or someone who can appreciate the wetlands and take care of it. So that is all as it is. It's not a developable piece of property, wetlands, as we all know. There's a small piece, maybe two, two and a half acres back there that is being used by the adjoining neighbors and the children, things like that. Why can't we just buy that, put it on our tax roll somehow and put this thing to bed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm sorry. What I wanted to ask you was you referenced a 1996 document. I assume that's what you have with you? MR. MANNIX-Yes. This was comments and things like that about, in lieu of recreation fees the Town Board did not accept land due to topography, wetlands and the brook. The deed was viewed on the County website does not indicate any restrictions. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you bring an extra copy to leave with Staff? MR. MANNIX-Not unless someone else has. MR. HUNSINGER-If not, could you get a copy of that to Staff? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. MANNIX-1 will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Thanks. MR. MANNIX-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. JEFF ZIEGLER MR. ZIEGLER-Good evening. My name is Jeff Ziegler and I live at 5 Wayne Court. If you follow Wayne Court, I'm the third property in. I'm probably the longest landowner here tonight in the Wayne Court area and Herald Square. When, again, much like you heard tonight, when we purchased our house back in 2000, we were the second landowners. We were assured, talking to the developer, because at that time Phase 11 of Herald Square had not been finished yet. So prior to our conversations with the developer through that, it was on my understanding that that land was not developable, which is why they didn't propose developing it, and that was a big attraction to us to have this forever wild behind us, that it was going to remain forever wild, and when I see this development and I understand the process, I understood that it was supposed to be a recreation area developments of a certain size were supposed to have recreation areas attached to them. The Town didn't accept that, for whatever those reasons were, and I just, you know, my concern with it is I've been back there a lot. The hill is massive that drops down to Clendon Brook. The wetlands are there. I mean, it's constantly, you know, that hill just keeps moving back, you know, and we've been there and, you know, my concern is you put a house back there, and that forever wild access where people have had access to Clendon Brook is now gone, doesn't exist. It's an interesting piece when I looked at the maps and I've looked at the 30 feet frontage and I walked off that frontage on Herald Drive. I don't know where you get 30 feet from. From the driveway to the first house, Stan Rummel's house, at best is 20 feet. It's 16 feet between the electrical boxes. I don't know where 30 feet comes from. Because it was never intended to be developed the easements that are there, that lead back there, I'm sure were never planned to meet the criteria to put a house back there, let alone a driveway coming off of Herald Drive. I would have thought that Guido, when he was developing his property, and we all aware, he likes to develop and would have developed that if he could have, but it wasn't set up for that. The property, the easements don't, at least, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm not anything, but I would think that that easement wasn't ever intended to be used as a driveway to put a house back there, and I think if you put a house there the wetlands are all over it. If you've seen it, if you've walked it, it's one thing to look at it on a topographical map. It looks great. You can Google it and it looks wonderful. It looks like a great piece of property, until you walk it, until you walk it in the spring, until you walk it in the winter, until you actually see what's back there, and I just don't understand where a house can go there. I really don't. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who told you it was not developable? MR. ZIEGLER-Who told me? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Was it somebody in the Town? MR. ZIEGLER-No, it's when I was talking to the developer, contractor, the developer and the real estate person who was running Herald Square at the time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it was nobody officially from the Town that told you it was not developable? MR. ZIEGLER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And who put the title forever wild on it? MR. ZIEGLER-That's how they advertised it through that process. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They being the real estate? MR. ZIEGLER-They being the real estate developer, when we moved into the development, and I think that's how it was sold to everyone. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because there are lands in the Town that forever wild that the Town has so designated in there on the maps. This doesn't sound like one of them. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. ZIEGLER-I don't know that. I know that that's how it was presented to everybody that I'm aware of and I know that's how it was presented when we first moved in to the development. So whether or not it's actually that I have no idea, to tell you the truth. All I know is I just can't see a house there. That's my personal opinion, I suppose. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're entitled to it. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why we have a public hearing. Thanks. MR. ZIEGLER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. JAY MC ADAM MR. MC ADAM-Hi, I'm Jay McAdam. I live at 9 Mabel Terrace, and I built my house in 1992. 1 was in the first phase. At the time when the house was built, there was only Mabel Terrace and Herald Drive. After that Wayne Court was added and Phase 11 started, but I'm here just to say that for the record I do not suppose this process right now. They've covered everything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate that. Anyone else? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 do have one written comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MRS. MOORE-This is from Mark DeLor. It says, Good Morning - as per our phone conversation I have some questions on the application before the Board. I live in the vicinity of the parcel (6 Wayne Court). The Proposed sketch plan that has been provided to the Board currently shows a possible septic area going over a 30' steep bank that exists. Additionally, the wetlands and buffer area shown on plan may be much closer to the proposed house location than this sketch shows. The slope may need some analysis to be sure that there is no instability that might cause problems with the house. I would think a complete topographic survey, soil analysis, wetland delineation plan should be performed to see what the conditions really are that will affect this lot's building ability before a decision on this can be made. A site walk with the Board would also be very telling of conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions." MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want me to respond in part? MR. HUNSINGER-In part, yes. Because I don't think you can in whole. It sounds like there's some research. MR. O'CONNOR-We are asking for no variances for the house itself. The house will comply with the setbacks, including the setbacks from property lines and wetlands. On the sketch that we've given that was on this size paper, that was done by Wayne Raymond, or Darrah Land Surveying, they actually located the wetlands and there is a setback that's shown on there, and the house as it's located is well outside of the 100 foot, or I think it's 100 feet from the septic and 75 feet from the structures. There's other places within that area where we can go forward. We can better detail it. We will have to do what everybody else does. We'll have to do a perc test. Because you're not in the subdivision, you'll have to get a Town septic permit. As far as easements, this is not an easement to the back. This is an ownership, and I'm not aware of any easements on the back. I think Mr. Wild is aware of the utilities that are placed at the front of it, but you're talking, even in their measurement, we think our measurement's a little bit better than theirs, you're talking at least a clearance of 16 feet for a driveway, and that's what you're talking about is putting in a single house driveway through that strip of land. It's not going to be a Town road. It's going to be a private driveway. So you really don't have a problem with the utility boxes. You don't have a problem with the drainage basin. So those things are all mechanical and they all can be taken care of. We can be happy to meet with the neighbors and talk about screening when we get to the point of doing the final plans. If you take a look at the aerial map you'll see that along the boundary line of many of those properties there's a pretty good amount of trees already. I don't think it's as wide open as everybody, one speaker seemed to indicate. The only problems are that one of the speakers I think has built his lawn well into that parcel, which may have created his own problems as far as this building. The comment by Mr. Mannix, I think he corrected himself. He said that he thought that this had been dedicated for recreation but then when he read it he said they would not accept it. That's my understanding of the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) record. Mike Swan is here, the County Treasurer. The County owns the whole piece. The Town doesn't own it. It's all County property. It's never been accepted for recreation. There are people prior to me that have gone to the Recreation Commission at least twice and Town Board once. The Town Board, they would not accept it. MR. TRAVER-When this was offered for sale or auction this last time, how was it described? I mean, where there adjectives placed on this parcel like, you know, wetland or buildable lot? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, can we get you on the record, please. MICHAEL SWAN MR. SWAN-My name's Michael Swan. I live at 7 Bayberry Drive. I'm the County Treasurer. It's actually my name on that deed because I'm the County Treasurer. The property has been through four auctions. We've not been able to sell it. It's been successfully bid out, but as soon as the people went to the Town to see if there was any way that they could use the property and told that they couldn't, they walked away from it. It was advertised as vacant land, period. That was it. We do not make any, during any of our auctions, we do not make any statements as to what you can or cannot do with the property, whether it's buildable, non- buildable or whatever. We just list it either as it has a house on it or it's vacant. That's it. We let the people do it themselves. MR. TRAVER-For the previous bidders that tried to make use of the property and were denied, can you describe what those proposed uses were? MR. SWAN-1 have no idea. They basically came in, they were the high bidder. They went to the Town, discussed it, came back to us and said that we could not do what we wanted to do with it and forfeited their deposit and walked away. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. SWAN-You know, I just, while I've got the floor here, we have been trying to get rid of this property for quite a while. It's owned by the County, but it's still on the tax roll. In other words, all the people in Warren County are paying the taxes on this. We have to pay the school district and the Town the taxes on it. So every year there's a tax bill that comes out, and all of the people of Warren County pay the taxes on this, and we're just trying to do something to get it away from the County, so the people don't have to keep paying the taxes on it. Any thoughts on what to do with the property if this isn't going to work, I would appreciate. One gentleman back here said that they would like to try to buy it. There's been an auction sign sitting on the, right by those two boxes for four years now saying it's up for sale. MR. DEEB-The sale is not finalized, is it? MR. SWAN-No, what we did was we made it, decided to try something outside of the box and made a, basically an agreement with Mr. Wild that if he could get approval, we would sell him the property. If he can't, then he walks away from it, and it will have to go to auction again. MR. HUNSINGER-See, this is why we always require homeowners associations and all that kind of stuff. I mean, 20 years ago, some of those things weren't. MR. SWAN-Well, this has become, this is a big problem that I have and we have as the County. I mean, there's several subdivisions where there's pieces of property like this that are not usable for whatever reason, and as soon as the developer is done selling all the lots, then they stop paying the taxes on these chunks of land that are in there. MR. HUNSINGER-How many would you guess are in Queensbury? MR. SWAN-Probably we have probably 35 or 40 of these pieces of property. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SWAN-In several different subdivisions that are just, they're pieces, remnants, buffer strips. Lehland Estates has several of them. There's a buffer strip between West Mountain Road and the development itself. They stopped paying taxes on those. They're sitting there, which has become quite a problem for us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SWAN-To try to do something with these pieces of property. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SWAN-Those smaller ones we just have to kind of live with it. This one is a 20 plus acre parcel. So Mr. Wild said he wanted to take a chance, and we said let's go for it. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like it wouldn't take a lot of effort for somebody, either at the Town or County to inventory those parcels and to approach those neighborhoods and see if you can't set up a homeowners association or something, some vehicle, you know, to take care of it. MR. SWAN-We've tried in some of them, but it's very difficult to get it going. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's why it's always easier to do it in the beginning. MR. SWAN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who's the Planning Board who let them get away with that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't think any of us were here in 1996. Thank you. MR. SWAN-You're welcome. MRS. SIMMONS-May I re-address? MR. MANNIX-Yes, I'd like to as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead. MR. MANNIX-The eight homes that are affected by this, the backyard. If you were to come over and do a site survey of it you would clearly see that it simply doesn't fit. The 16 feet in the front also brings up another issue of emergency services. On that two lane road, if a firetruck had to turn the corner to go down a 100 and some odd foot driveway that may not work as well. You talk about the former bidders that walked away. They walked away for a reason. It's just not a good fit. It's not a usable piece of property. As far as the taxes and the County, as I previously addressed, I was new to this as I mentioned. We have sincere effort that we want to put forward to do just as you discussed, to take this parcel off the tax roll or off the delinquent tax roll if you will and put it to proper use, put it to the adjacent landowners where it should be and pay our fair share of taxes on that property, put the wetlands in the hands the property of wetland advisors, whomever they may be. That I think is the most feasible thing to do with that piece of property. If a developer could have feasibly built on this piece of property, I surely think, with the price of real estate in the Town of Queensbury, it would have been done by now, and I hope you agree that in the 20 year history, that there's a reason this hasn't happened, or it shouldn't happen, and the right thing to do is to have the adjacent landowners come to an agreement. I do have a consensus of most. I have not spoken to all because it's been such an abrupt, short opportunity to do this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MANNIX-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Ma'am, did you want to make another comment? MRS. SIMMONS-Thank you for letting me re-address. I'm not sure if this is the right place or forum to make these comments, but I'm hearing it from my neighbors that we all agree that this isn't what we expected. It doesn't fit with the character of the neighborhood. I think at least some of us would be willing to do something about getting it off the tax rolls, whether it's extending my backyard. Is there a way to divvy up those eight, the land that is not wetlands in front of our houses? I mean, I would certainly be willing to do that. I was unaware that before the auction that it was available, and I saw that the property was being put up for auction, but it was 22 acres, and it never occurred to me that someone would buy it with all the wetlands attached to it to develop, but if the Town's interest is in getting it off the tax rolls, why not offer the area homeowners a little bit larger backyard. Again, I don't know if this is the right forum to make that suggestion, but if that is your underlying concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Well, I mean, we're responding to an application that's been filed, well, partially filed. MRS. SIMMONS-Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. DEEB-That's the County's concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the County owns that property right now. MR. DEEB-And the property has been up for auction for, what, four years? How long have the signs been out there? MRS. SIMMONS-There's no signs now. MR. MANNIX-There's no signs. MR. SWAN-The sign goes up at the time of auction. MR. DEEB-The time of auction. MR. SWAN-And for some reason they disappear within a day or two. MRS. SIMMONS-1 thought they were kids taking them down. MRS. SIMMONS-We were buying the house and I saw the sign and then my husband called the County and then when they had an open house, they put that sign, it disappeared, by the real estate agent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Well, officially this is sketch plan review. So there's no, you're not going to get any motion or anything. MR. O'CONNOR-No, I know we're not going to get a resolution. Mr. Ryan is the first one who is willing to make an investment to see if he can do something on that property. Basically that's the difference between he and other bidders, and he's willing to make that investment. He has this understanding with the County. So the area variance, which is actually what is before, will be before the Zoning Board, is not a substantial variance. He's asking to have a private driveway, 170 feet, 179 feet long. I don't expect there's any real reason that that would get turned down, but he's got to go through the process and that's an expensive process, not something you submit on a paper bag or brown paper bag we used to say. That's where we're trying to get, you know, we understand that there's change, and some of the neighbors aren't going to be happy with it. They've had an opportunity and they haven't taken it, and Mr. Wild has stepped forward to take care of it, to try and do something with it. That's basically it. Environmentally I don't think there's a great deal of problem. I think we get into the same box that the Polunci application is in when do you start your SEAR? I know that the area variance for a single family residence is a Type 11 action, but I'm not sure what a modification or what an existing approved subdivision is. In the minutes of the prior meeting they actually amended the subdivision a couple of different times, for various other reasons unrelated to this lot, and they've said that they were not subject to SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes say to reaffirm SEAR. MRS. MOORE-It would probably be a reaffirm. We've look to evaluate the current, the SEAR under what's being proposed. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you reaffirm the original subdivision SEAR? MRS. MOORE-That's where this property shows. MR. O'CONNOR-If the lift is too heavy, we appreciate your thoughts early on, so we don't spend an awful lot of money that's just going to end up, and I know you can't make any commitment. If you think it's workable, we can work on the screening. If the screening is necessary, we can work on the location of the house to not intrude on anyone's privacy, those type of things. MR. TRAVER-Well, you might want to look at what previously has been proposed for this property that apparently didn't succeed, just to get an idea of what doesn't work for you. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't think that anything was ever formally presented. I think they were just told you can't get a building permit unless you go through a variance application, and they weren't willing to undertake that. That's my understanding. Now I don't know if there's any, I didn't see any prior. MR. TRAVER-They'd need a building permit anyway, I mean, wouldn't they? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but they couldn't walk in and just say, here's my house plans. I need a building permit. They were told that, no, you can't do that because this is a nonconforming pre- existing parcel. You're going to need a variance for it. I mean, this is a lot like, how many lots are around Glen Lake, Lake George that are on a 10 foot wide 12 foot right of way. Rose Lane is 12 feet. MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess that's part of my, what I'm not understanding. If it's that straightforward, why hasn't it been done before? I mean, if somebody's saying we just need to get a variance for the frontage or, I mean, we see that on a fairly regular basis. There must have been more to it than that, and I'm just offering to you that you might want to look into that. MR. O'CONNOR-I think nobody was willing to go for the survey to try and locate the wetlands because they are also a point of contention. You've got to be sure that you can find the spot on there, and that's why I said it's going to be like a four acre building site at most that are exclusive of the wetlands, setbacks to the wetlands. There's been money spent already, and people just go on to an easier lot, get involved in the development process. MR. MAGOWAN-What are the average size of the lots now in that development? MR. HUNSINGER-It's required at half acre I think. AUDIENCE MEMBER-About three quarters of an acre. MR. MAGOWAN-So most of these are three quarter. Because I'm looking at this aerial, all right, and you've got kind of a clear spot there in the middle, and then right along that tree edge is where it starts to drop right off. MR. WILD-That's right. It drops right at the tree line. MR. MAGOWAN-So if I take this, you know, one of these lots and I put that and corner that off, you know, buildable, I don't see four acres. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you're going to see probably the actual building site, probably the half acre, but if you take a look at it on this map, according to the surveyor, this area right in here is big enough to fit the house with all setbacks. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This side is almost 200. This is 172. MR. O'CONNOR-In this area right here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-If you square that off. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Square that off, that's one of the biggest lots in the whole area. It is the biggest lot. MR. O'CONNOR-It's bigger than the existing lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, Brown's lot is fairly big. The rest of them aren't. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Did you want to see that? Dave didn't see that. MR. MAGOWAN-I see that buffer, kind of all around it, but that also cuts onto the neighbor's property. I mean, I guess I'd want to walk that more to see, but 1. MR. TRAVER-It does look tight. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks tight, and then unfortunately you're going to have to clear the whole thing, and it's an odd spot to put a house in a neighborhood, you know, and then you're saying the corner of the house is going to be, what, 18 foot off the edge of the property line. MR. O'CONNOR-That can be moved further over. They put it in just to be compliant with the required setback. It can be moved. I would think that Mr. Wild would not want to be that close to his boundary line anyway. Would you, the next time you do one of your field trips, include this on it? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll make sure everyone walks it. It's one thing to go out and take a look at it before you hear comments, you know, it's another thing to look at it with a different set of eyes based on the concerns we've heard this evening. MR. DEEB-This may be reaching, but it would be nice if you could dialogue. MR. O'CONNOR-We're willing to do that. MR. DEEB-Talk to the neighbors and maybe there's something that could be worked out. I don't know, but you're putting us in a tenuous position. You really are. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what you get paid the big bucks for. MR. HUNSINGER-It's one of the times where we're called the Planning Board but we don't really do planning. We review projects. We're a project review board. MR. O'CONNOR-I'll take that aerial back. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could give it to Laura and it would become part of the record. Okay. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I just re-address the property issue again, or no? MR. HUNSINGER-What's that? AUDIENCE MEMBER-The property map issue that you were discussing with the four acres, could that be re-addressed, or no? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we've kind of moved on. Sorry. AUDIENCE MEMBER-This is from the other neighbor who could not be here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that a public comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 just wanted to read. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought it was information that you, yes, we'll read it into the record. Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-"To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter due to our absence at the Public Hearing held on April 28th 2015 regarding the 22.88 acre lot in Herald Square. We have property at 3 Wayne Court which is adjacent to that lot. Our understanding is that the property has been purchased by someone that wishes to build upon it. We have several concerns with this. When we purchased this house we were told that the land behind us could never be built upon as it was (forever wild). This lot is literally in the middle of ours and all the surrounding neighbors' backyards which means we would all lose privacy and that backyards woodsy feeling that we looked for when selecting our homes in this neighborhood. We would that tranquility that comes with all the wild life that inhabits the area. Other concerns are the lot not having enough space for a single family dwelling and the driveway. If this said home were to be built in the only flat open area that this 22.88 acres has then it would infringe on our property lines. This area is used by many of the children and adults in the area as a pathway down to enjoy the wetlands and wildlife. As a homeowner we are concerned about the negative effect this would impose on the value of our real estate. Please consider this letter as our official opposition to the proposed variance for the lot located in Herald Square. Sincerely, Steven & Rise Deuso 3 Wayne Court Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The public hearing will be left open. If there are additional comments you wish to make in writing then you can send them to Staff. You can send them in through the Town's website, and again, we will be holding a public hearing again. MR. O'CONNOR-One thing I didn't comment on. In other towns, when you have a subdivision like this, when it's really diminimus as to the usage of the area that's set aside, and I don't know if the Assessor here does it, but they add like $500 to each of the lots. They put no assessment that's not going to be utilized. I think even on Cerrone's subdivision, we've got maybe 14 acres of buffer and you've got the four acre recreation area, and Teri is going to add, they are not going to be assessed, what would have been the value added to the residences, I think it's $500 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) a residence. There would be nine residences in there or something like that. That's the way a lot of people do it. They do them in the stormwater facilities. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's a much better vehicle. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Because a homeowners association, everybody thinks they want to form a homeowners association. Just the minimum operation of a homeowners association is expensive each year. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, because it's a corporation. You have to have an accountant. You have to have an insurance policy and anybody that is a member of a homeowners association without an insurance policy could have deep pockets and could have problems. Those things aren't cheap. I think the last one I did, well, that included garbage pickup, about $17, probably say $25 a month to cover the overhead of having a homeowners association. It depends upon how many houses you have in it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-You get it spread thinner, you can get away with more, but that is just doing the accounting. It does include mowing some common areas and providing a clean out of the stormwater facilities, but there are ways that some Planning Boards say, hey, this is what you're going to do, but a formal homeowners association is not simple. It's not inexpensive. People may think that that's the panacea, but it may not be when you get all said and done. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, yes, I appreciate that. MRS. MOORE-In reference to the public hearing, if you did close the public hearing, it would be re-advertised. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you suggesting that we close the public hearing? Because we're going to have to re-advertise it. MRS. MOORE-We'll have to re-advertise it through the process. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And it will be re-advertised. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Hunsinger, I'm sorry, but Mr. O'Connor was able to re-address. Can I just take one second on this map? MR. HUNSINGER-You're beating a dead horse. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You allowed that and you told me. You told me that I was not allowed to re-address and Mr. O'Connor. MR. HUNSINGER-He's the applicant. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The applicant gets more priority. I'm sorry, I didn't realize. I just want to point out one thing on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I lost control 20 minutes ago. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 know, but they're talking about a four acre parcel down here, the brook down here. The land drops off severely right here. I mean, it's a 100 plus foot drop way back here across this. So this four acres is immediately far cut in half, never mind the encroachment they're showing up here and everything else, and if you look at these three quarter acre lots, which these are all basically at, and you take this, what do you have left other than driveway there? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think that's exactly what we were asking the applicant on the map, yes, thank you. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) AUDIENCE MEMBER-And I apologize. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM WINTERS OWNER(S) MIKE FITZGERALD ZONING CI LOCATION 727 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEASE 800 SQ. FT. OF AN EXISTING 2,640 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO OPERATE A KITCHEN DESIGN AND SHOWROOM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR CHANGE OF USE IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND LACK OF SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.36 AC. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-020 WILLIAM WINTERS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the existing building to operate a kitchen design and showroom business. The location is on Glen Street. In reference to the Arrangement I have this is a pre-existing building and site and there are no proposed changes to occur. The applicant has indicated that their signs for the business will be added to the existing sign pole. There is no new lighting proposed but the application shows the existing lighting on the business, and the applicant has requested a waiver from stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WINTERS-How are you doing? MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. WINTERS-Yes, William Winters. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you tell us about your project? MR. WINTERS-We are looking to open a kitchen showroom, design and sales. We are going to sell kitchens. We're going to sell outdoor kitchens, countertops, kitchen lighting. So, I mean, that's basically what we're doing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. MAGOWAN-I like the outdoor kitchens. MR. WINTERS-We're going to be the only person from Albany to Plattsburgh that has full polymer cabinets that you can submerge in the lake and it won't, nothing will happen to them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They will be great on boats. MR. WINTERS-Yes. MR. DEEB-The sales pitch has started. Let's keep going here. Who's next to 727? MR. WINTERS-It's connected to Giovanno's. It's been several bakeries. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right. MR. WINTERS-Apparently they didn't like to open for breakfast when bake goods are sold and they didn't like to stay open for lunch. So they didn't last long. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got it. MR. MAGOWAN-It used to be the Pub, didn't it? MR. WINTERS-The Giovanno's side, yes, and it was Allstate for a long time. MR. MAGOWAN-Then Allstate for the longest time and the Pub on the other side. MR. WINTERS-Hopefully you'll be there to buy a kitchen, now. MR. MAGOWAN-That outdoor one, I like that. MR. HUNSINGER-So there's no changes to the building, no changes to the site plan. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. WINTERS-We re-painted it, you know, we went in and we painted it. We have new flooring going in. We're replacing the dated ceiling tiles, just basic maintenance. It's been a long time since anything's been done in there. Just trying to upgrade and make it nice for, you know, kitchen displays, things like that. MR. MAGOWAN-You already started doing this? MR. WINTERS-Of course. MR. MAGOWAN-What did they do, bust you, and you had to come in and see us now? MR. WINTERS-Actually I didn't get busted. I did get a phone call from the Fire Marshal asking. MR. MAGOWAN-Mike Palmer. He's good. You can't get anything underneath him. MR. WINTERS-He's a very nice guy. MR. MAGOWAN-He is. MR. WINTERS-He called me, when we signed our lease with the property, they explained to us the process that we should do. We were going in painting, doing some work, and they said when you're about a week to two weeks out from wanting to open go in and file for a CO. Apparently that was incorrect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, it takes more than a week or two to get here. MR. WINTERS-Well, I think it's a mixed opinion as to whether it should be here or not, but, you know, we're here and I'm completely fine with that, but, you know, when I was informed of exactly the process we immediately did exactly as they asked. MR. DEEB-It doesn't sound like you're fine with it. MR. WINTERS-1 would have liked to have been open three months ago, but it is what it is. I'm okay with opening next week, as soon as you give me your okay. MR. MAGOWAN-That's better than Mr. Walkup. He's putting his sign up tonight. I don't know what you're waiting for. MR. DEEB-Here's a young man with confidence right here. Confidence. I like that. MR. WINTERS-If I don't believe in myself, who's going to believe in me. MR. DEEB-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns, questions the Board has? MR. TRAVER-I was wondering, apparently this involves SEAR. I was curious how this falls into SEAR? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and how is it Unlisted? Well it's Unlisted because it's commercial. MRS. MOORE-Commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if it was a single family it would be Type 11. MRS. MOORE-Essentially it's a new business. It's an Unlisted SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I was just wondering. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? We'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted SEAR. Are there any concerns with SEAR? It's an existing site with no changes. Certainly no traffic issues or concerns. There's plenty of parking. MR. WINTERS-Can I ask what SEAR is? MR. HUNSINGER-The State Environmental Quality Review Act. MR. WINTERS-Okay. I've heard it all night and I'm like, what is SEAR? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-As long as we approve a Neg Dec, you're okay. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft SEAR resolution provided by Staff. If anyone would like to move it. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEG DECLARATION SP #22-2015 WINTERS, III The applicant proposes Applicant proposes to lease 800 sq. ft. of an existing 2,640 sq. ft. building to operate a Kitchen Design and Showroom. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 Site plan review is required for change of use in a commercial building and lack of site plan review within the past seven years. 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 has been completed by the applicant; 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 22-2015 WILLIAM WINTERS, III, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone MR. HUNSINGER-No new outside lighting proposed? MR. WINTERS-No, I mean, nothing new. There's some light bulbs that are out, the same fixtures that we'll replace light bulbs. Our hours are going to be pretty much daylight, but we will be, I mean, in the summer, seven o'clock it'll still be plenty daylight when we leave. Winter we might have a couple of hours of time that we'll be there when it's dark out. So, I mean, we're not looking to add anymore lighting. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-It's a well-lit commercial area. MR. WINTERS-Yes, I mean, it's very close to the road, and there's four under cavity Iightings underneath the overhang, and, you know, the storefronts put off quite a bit of light with the blinds open. So it's not a, there's no real need for it. MR. MAGOWAN-And that light paint. MR. WINTERS-That nice new fresh paint, and that new floor that's going to go in tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments or concerns that we didn't ask? Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #22-2015 WINTERS, III The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to lease 800 sq. ft. of an existing 2,640 sq. ft. building to operate a Kitchen Design and Showroom. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 Site plan review is required for change of use in a commercial building and lack of site plan review within the past seven years. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4-28-2015 and continued the public hearing to 4-28-2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4-28-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval approved as further discussed below MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2015 WILLIAM WINTERS, III, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: Soil logs. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else to come before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd make a motion we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. We have a question from Ms. White. Go ahead, Jaime. MS. WHITE-1 apologize, but do we have anything requiring the audience to be quiet while we're conducting business? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We can ask them to leave. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MRS. MOORE-Asking them to leave, yes. MS. WHITE-Because I feel like we're been disrespected and interrupted many times this evening. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We were all night. MS. WHITE-And I don't appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, I do. I have in my hand a copy of the agenda which I printed out tonight, and there's no mention on this agenda of Just Beverages. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did that first. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We did it last week. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 know you did it first, but there's no mention on the published agenda for tonight's meeting of the Just Beverage, and you approved a very contentious situation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right on the front of what we read is a resolution to approve. AUDIENCE MEMBER-All I'm saying is an agenda should have everything that's coming before this Board tonight so that the public is treated properly. There are many members of the Board, and I believe that there's some question about the resolution, legally, if you don't publish that on the agenda for the meeting, and I'd like to know why. MRS. MOORE-1 have a revised agenda in front of me. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 printed this off the website tonight. MRS. MOORE-There's other means to get the agenda. I don't know why the information was not posted on the website. AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's not good enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, if I may, MR. MACKEY-My name is Mackey, by the way. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We heard the Just Beverage last week. MR. MACKEY-1 know, I was here. MR. HUNSINGER-We closed the public hearing. We tabled it until this evening. MR. MACKEY-But that doesn't have anything to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, if I may finish. There was no public hearing scheduled for this evening. There was no intention for us to take any comments. It was made very clear last week that that was the intention of this Board, that the intention to close the public hearing and table it to this evening was so that Town Counsel could draft a resolution. That was the only business that was going to be done. It was very clear at the public hearing. MR. MACKEY-1 know that, but every one of these is not a public hearing, is it? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry you're disappointed, but there was nothing done improperly. MR. DEEB-Sir, did you grab an agenda from the back? MR. MACKEY-No, sir. I just said I printed this. MR. DEEB-There are agendas in the back. MR. MACKEY-1 know, but that's tonight. That doesn't tell the public what's going on. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry you're upset, sir. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/28/2015) MR. MACKEY-No, it's not me upset. I think there's an issue with the way the Board is conducted. Smirk at me, give me that look, but I'll go to the Town Attorney. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry you feel that way, sir, but there was nothing that was improper. Was there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. MACKEY- Says you. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Says the Town Code, sir. We have to comply with the State Ordinance as well as the Town Ordinance. We have documents that are yea thick. There was nothing that was done this evening that was improper, and I'm sorry that you're upset, but everything that we and was legal and in accordance with our policies and procedures. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the lawyers did it. MR. HUNSINGER-And the lawyers did it. So, is there any other business to be brought before the Board? We already heard a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jaime White: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ferone On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 32