Loading...
08-18-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2015 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Subdivision No. 13-1986 Ryan Wild 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.10-1-65 Site Plan No. 47-2015 RCG Ventures (T.J. Maxx) 5. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 48-2015 Lee Coon 9. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.2 Site Plan No. 49-2015 Michael & Stephanie Haverly 13. Tax Map No. 227.10-1-17 Site Plan No. 50-2015 Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church 15. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-84 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT 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 Meeting 08/18/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER GEORGE FERONE DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2015. Members of the audience, welcome. There's copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also handouts for public hearing participation. Most of the items do have a public hearing scheduled and we'll go over details when we get to the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from June 2nd, 16th and 23d of 2015. If anyone would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 2, 2015 June 16, 2015 June 23, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 2ND, JUNE 16T", AND JUNE 23RD 2015, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf (Abstained on 23 d), Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver (Abstained on 23 d), Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have one Administrative Item on the agenda under Item 2. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any new information, other than the letter that's provided? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The letter's provided and they're discussing with the Town Board about the extension of the water district. So I would suggest that we table it until October's meeting, and you can do it to. MR. HUNSINGER-Either the 20th or the 27tH MRS. MOORE-It doesn't matter at this point. RESOLUTION TABLING PRELIM STG. SUBDIV. #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: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) Per letter dated 8/6/2015 from Tom Hutchins to the Queensbury Planning Board meeting of October 20, 2015. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have one item as a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1986 MODIFICATION SEAR REAFFIRM PREVIOUS SEAR RYAN WILD OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN C/O LEXIE DE LEURY ZONING MDR (SR-20) LOCATION HERALD SQUARE, PH. II SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO DEVELOP LOT WITH A 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. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 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-The owner of the property is the County of Warren and I am a department head for the County of Warren and so I will be abstaining from any discussion on this item and Mr. Traver will Chair the meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. This is a 22.8 acre vacant parcel of land. Mr. Wild wishes to build a single family home on it. We need a variance because it doesn't have 50 feet of frontage on a Town road. It is 25 feet and change and it will be used as a private driveway. The only development we propose is a single family residence. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, Laura, did you want to review Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-Sure. As mentioned, this is a property in Herald Square subdivision. The parcel history indicates in 1996 the Town was offered this land dedication and they chose not to accept it. In the past I understand the property owners have been given information or lead to believe that this property wouldn't be further developed. At this time it's up for tax sale. So there's nothing precluding it. There's nothing in history that says that it could not be developed. So at this time the applicant is only requesting this road frontage issue where we require 50 feet and they're proposing 25.6, which is currently existing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So at the time this was a separate piece that was not intended at that time to be developed, and since then it's been basically been put on the market, in effect, by the County. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Which now makes it eligible for a bidder who conceivably could propose, as the applicant is, to build on it. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that's from 1996, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, but the subdivision was prior. There was '87, if you look at parcel history, in 1987 there was a Phase I for 46 lots and '92 was 59 lots and in '96 it was 43. So, you know, it's been developed. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I've got it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would add a comment. I'm familiar with the abstract of title, the deeds in that subdivision. There's no reference at all to this property. This property was a vacant parcel of land. I actually, in 1992, representing, I think, Guido Passarelli, offered it to the Town as a recreation area, as a recreation area in lieu of recreation fee, and the Town Recreation Commission voted against that. So it never went further. I think it was offered a couple of other times to the Town and it never moved forward. Mr. Wild has gone through the task of having it surveyed, having the wetlands outlined, the sloping on it outlined and he has a very suitable site for a single family home. We actually have a map that should be part of your application. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do, two maps, actually. MR. O'CONNOR-The only parcels in the immediate area are like .56, the largest is .67, and this parcel that we're talking about is 22.8 acres. There is a natural divide between the front and back property. There's a stream. There's a steep bank. Some of the property is on the west side of that stream. I think the area where he's going to put his house is within all the setbacks. No variances required for that. It's well in excess. MR. TRAVER-And you're able to safeguard the wetland? MR. O'CONNOR-We've shown on that map, I believe, 100, well, we show 100 foot setback from the wetlands. I think actually it's 75. MRS. MOORE-It's greater. As Staff we had questionable information about where the wetlands location was, if the steep slopes were done, and the applicant went to the surveyor and DEC and located those items on the survey, and that satisfied our requirements of does it meet the intent of the Code. MR. O'CONNOR-They're shown on this map, which was revised 7/24/15 to show wetlands and buffer. I don't know if you have that revised map. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have it, no. Is it the same one as this one? MR. O'CONNOR-Let me look at the revision dates? No, this has got 7/24. The last revision date on this is 7/14. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Macri was involved in both of them? MR. O'CONNOR-Macri? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, his name is on that, too. MR. O'CONNOR-You can take a look at this and pass it on. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I have a small version of that. So the variances that you're looking at are within 50 feet of the slopes of 15% and the road? MR. O'CONNOR-No, the only variance we're looking for is the width of this road frontage. We've got 25.6 feet and we will do a private driveway in that 25 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The letter from the Zoning Administrator talked about the, within 50 feet of slopes greater than 15%. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think after that letter he actually had somebody do the topographical and the wetland delineation. MR. TRAVER-And you're okay? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we are. MR. TRAVER-So it's just the road frontage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-Not unless you have questions? If you have questions, I'll be glad to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Do Board members have questions for the applicant? MS. WHITE-1 take it the camper and the shed are the encroachments that are discussed? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they are. MS. WHITE-Just to make sure. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that we'll have to do something about that. MR. MAGOWAN-And in the picture here, right down at the bottom, you have the underground electric manhole? MR. O'CONNOR-There's underground electric, yes, at both corners of the 25 feet, and they're shown on the survey map that the Chairman has. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's this smaller version here. The driveway's going to go right along the fence line, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You've taken out the hemlock, too? MR. O'CONNOR-The hemlock will have to come out. MR. TRAVER-So are we to understand, then, that this is in the hands of the County, and the applicant has successfully bid on the property pending the approvals needed for construction of a residence? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, subject to. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions, comments? Are there any concerns, obviously we are proposing a resolution to the ZBA reflecting any concerns we might have regarding the variance on the road frontage, which is 25 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I don't have any. MR. TRAVER-25.6, where 50 feet is required. Okay. Hearing any concerns, I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA FOR AV#48-2015 RYAN WILD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes modification to an existing approved subdivision to develop lot with a 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. Variance: Relief requested from road frontage requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2015 RYAN WILD, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to ask a question, too, if I can, and we'll discuss it with Staff. We may have to come back here for modification of the subdivision map, although this is not a subdivision lot. MRS. MOORE-So it's scheduled for next Tuesday, and that will be a public hearing. It's currently scheduled that way. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not 100% sure you need to do that if it's not a lot on a subdivision map. So I'll talk to Craig between now and then. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe save an appearance. MR. TRAVER-And it's tomorrow night you'll be before the Zoning Board? MR. O'CONNOR-1 have a problem I'm trying to work out. I may have to table that because I'm supposed to be in Wilton prior to this one. So I'm trying to be in two places at one time, which doesn't always work. MR. TRAVER-Been there, done that. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-2015 RCG VENTURES SEAR TYPE UNLISTED AGENT(S) A. STELLATO, CHA CONSULTING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN — MODIFICATION INCLUDES IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING LOADING DOCK TO INCLUDE NEW TRUCK WELL, RETAINING WALLS, A LIMITED AMOUNT OF RE-PAVING FOR DELIVERY AREA AND SIX (6) NEW PARKING SPACES. ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURES AND RETAINING WALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9- 120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 13-15; MANY WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 LOT SIZE 20.71 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-9- 120 TONY STELLATO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This Site Plan the applicant proposes to alter the loading area at the rear of the business complex, specifically for the T.J. Maxx tenant. Items that are occurring on this site will be the existing pavilion canopy to be removed. The building wall to be re-painted to be consistent with the building, an existing truck well to be filled to an existing pavement area, a new truck well to be constructed, new dock door installation, adjustment to the catch basin, or a catch basin in that area, new pavement for the truck well in that area and actually create six new parking spaces. They'll be installing bollards to protect existing air equipment and installing four new walls. The applicant has requested waivers for lighting, signage, stormwater, landscaping, details of new construction/alterations, floor plans, and soil logs. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. STELLATO-Good evening. Tony Stellato from CHA. We were here in March for the Site Plan approval. Since then I believe what happened was some folks from T.J. Maxx, logistics, delivery people, visited the site, happened to be on the day of a pretty intense rainfall, and they realized that the existing loading dock is pretty exposed. They had some concerns about safe delivery of goods in a rainstorm and they asked us if we could perhaps take another look at the loading dock and do something that was going to offer them a little more weather protection. So we've developed a plan to, and maybe if we flip through I could show you some photographs, might be the best way just to take a quick look. We've got an aerial view. You can skip to the next. So this is the rear of the existing T. J. Maxx building. That's looking straight on at it, and you see two things. This structure here is a wood framed roof pavilion. The loading dock actually comes in to it from the side. So the back of the truck would be along that wall. Our intent would be to take that down, along with this canopy over this part of the building. If we flip to the next photo we can see it from the other angle. That's a side view. So this is that canopy over the door, and this is the pavilion structure, and the truck well is in here. I know it's very faint, but the truck well meets that existing pavilion structure head on. So the intent would be to take down all out, turn that truck well sideways, fill it in, and then dig it down from the other direction, and there's a site plan that follows this photograph that shows what we want to do, and then on the next slide we blew it up a little so we could talk about it. So it's roughly a 60 by 60 foot area, maybe a little bit bigger. It's less than a tenth of an acre of pavement that we would cut out. We would do some grading in there, fill that truck well in, and dig out along the building. We would replace an existing overhead rollup door that's on the back of the building that's six feet wide with an eight foot wide door and a dock seal that would seal up against the truck. The truck would back straight into the building perpendicular with the rear of the building. We've done some auto turn, truck turn analysis to show that it works, and there'd be two retaining walls built to create that truck well, and the man door that's there would have a set of prefabricated steps so that the truck drivers could get up into the building, and in removing the wooden structure, we would pick up a little bit of additional room on the site. Our intent is to add, to re-stripe and add some parking. Right now it's very inefficiently striped, and they're all striped as handicapped spaces. There's five handicap spaces back there right now. Those spaces serve the upper level, the second floor level of McKesson office building. Our objective here is to add six spaces to re-stripe those five spaces, so we'll have two van accessible handicap spaces back there, which is all we need in that location, actually it's more than we need in that location, and McKesson would be able to use the, have some additional parking there as well, and there's a small amount of drainage work. There's an existing catch basin in that truck well. We would raise that and it would raise the grade of the truck well. We'd extend the pipe into the new truck well and put a new catch basin there. Drainage patterns would really remain unchanged. We're just moving the catch basins from one location to another. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MS. WHITE-How has that pavilion area been used in the past? What was it for? MR. STELLATO-In the past, I don't know all of the history of it, but I believe it was constructed to cover the truck, the truck dock. So you can see a concrete pier that comes out perpendicular to the building. The trucks back into there. That structure forms a roof so that when the trucks are backed up they're under cover, you know, there's a roof over them, but there's no sides. So it would offer some protection from the rain, but not. MS. WHITE-As it's being unloaded. MR. STELLATO-As it's being unloaded. So that then they would wheel, they would actually wheel from the back of the truck up toward the building and then they would come out toward us on the page, and you can see a person standing there with an umbrella. There's an overhead door on the back wall at that location. So the door is right there. MS. WHITE-This looks very complicated. It looks like this is going to be a lot simpler. MR. STELLATO-It's going to be a lot simpler, and all of the structure that's coming off, which would be this structure, and when I say the structure, it's really just the overhead structure. The concrete pier is going to remain. We're going to fill off of it. This canopy comes off. So really we're taking off some structure that's been added to the building. We're going to add a new door, a new overhead door to the back side of the building, repair the building, paint it to match the rest of the building. There's some lighting, there's some existing lighting up under this canopy, and there's a flood light over here, and we're going to replace, we're going to take those out. We're going to add four wall packs along the back of the building. I've submitted a cut sheet. There's a slide, I think three slides from there is a, it's right in the presentation, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) Laura. There you go. So four of these wall packs. They're LED lights. They draw about 40 watts apiece. They're 4,000 lumen fixtures, energy efficient. The one on the bottom that's circled, this one here, is the one that we propose. If there was a problem with glare, which we don't think there's going to be, at this location, we have the option of putting this box, this downcasting box on it, which would be cut off, you know, the outward projection of light. We think we want some of that here because we've got, we want to light that parking lot as well from there, and the back, the building here backs up against the wooded area, and we don't think that light diffusion is going to be an issue here. These lights, though, it's the same fixture. If there ever was a complaint or an issue, they could always add this hood afterward. MR. FERONE-1 can fully understand why you're doing this. Just a note, when I went by to look at the site the other day, it happened to be during lunch hour, and there's a neighbor, a medical records company, I think they even have an entrance door near there, but I noticed there were picnic tables. There were a lot of people outside having lunch. They might lose some of that with this reconfiguration, MR. STELLATO-Yes, there are. There's some picnic tables under there. We haven't necessarily addressed where those picnic tables might go, whether we're going to continue them, whether they're going to be someplace else on the site. MR. FERONE-1 know it's not a major concern, but just being a good neighbor, whatever, I don't know if there's any place that those things could be re-located. Apparently people do use them. When it's nice they go out there. MR. STELLATO-I think those are McKesson employees. They're a tenant in the plaza. They have a lease with RCG who owns the plaza. So I imagine there's going to need to be some notification from the landlord to the tenant that they're taking them out. There either will be some provisions made. I'm not privy to those arrangements, though. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a good catch, yes. Even early in the morning, there's people sitting out there. MR. FERONE-Yes, I noticed there were a lot of folks out there. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was a little surprised at the amount of construction that's going on with T.J. Maxx. I didn't think there would be that big a deal. They really tore the whole front of the building apart, totally looks like they totally gutted everything inside. It's quite a project. MR. STELLATO-Inside. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received, and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. Are there any concerns with any of the environmental issues that are included on the Short Form? Would anyone like to make a motion for a Negative Declaration? RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DEC SITE PLAN NO. 47-2015 RCG VENTURES The applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan —modification includes improvement of existing loading dock to include new truck well, retaining walls, a limited amount of re-paving for delivery area and six (6) new parking spaces. Alterations include removal of existing wood structures and retaining wall. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance Modification to an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) 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 GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 47-2015 FOR RCG VENTURES (T.J. MAXX), Part II of the Short Form has been reviewed and completed. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to ask for a correction. Some of the documents list this as Site Plan 47 and others list it as Site Plan 50. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just mentioned 50. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was in the draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-47. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That was my point the other day because there was another 47-2015, too, listed in the agenda. So pick your poison. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we all understand it to be the RCG Ventures parcel. Any other questions, comments or concerns from the Board? Hearing none, if someone would like to make a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you want to leave it at 50 or what? MRS. MOORE-It should be 47. MR. HUNSINGER-47. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I thought. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#47-2015 RCG VENTURES 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 modification to an approved site plan —modification includes improvement of existing loading dock to include new truck well, retaining walls, a limited amount of re-paving for delivery area and six (6) new parking spaces. Alterations include removal of existing wood structures and retaining wall. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance Modification to an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) 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 8-18-2015 and continued the public hearing to 8-18-2015 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 8-18-2015, 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. 47-2015 RCG VENTURES FOR T.J. MAXX, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft resolution provided by Staff. 1) Waivers request granted: lighting, signage, stormwater, landscaping, details of new construction/alterations, floor plans, soil logs; 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-1 just wanted to add the Texas Roadhouse is looking really good. MR. STELLATO-It looks great, doesn't it? Yes, I can't want to see that done. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think that's going up quicker than the T.J. Maxx. MR. STELLATO-Well, the site work is done except for the finished paving and landscaping. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you cut out that little curb for us so that the fire department can get a fire truck through. You paid attention. MR. STELLATO-Yes. We're really pleased with how it's coming out. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II LEE COON OWNER(S) MICHAEL BREDA ZONING NC LOCATION 323 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A PRODUCE STAND WITH A 200 SQ. FT. CANOPY TENT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SEASONAL OPERATION SPRING TO FALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRODUCE STANDS IN THE NC ZONE IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-09; ADJACENT LOT-SP 37-00 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 LOT SIZE 1.06 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.2 SECTION 179-3-040 LEE COON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to operate a 200 square foot canopy produce stand, tent, rather. The applicant will be using a portion of the existing daycare facility on Manor Drive. The applicant has indicated there's on street parking on Manor Drive and there's allowance from the landowner to utilize parking on the site. The business proposes to be seasonal from spring to fall. The applicant proposes no changes on the site. I did identify a question that the Board can address as well is whether there's going to be fall seasonal items as well Christmas trees and things like that. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. COON-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. COON-My name is Lee Coon. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything that you wanted to add? MR. COON-No. I used to run a vegetable stand in front until they put the roundabout in, and I moved it to the back, figuring it was safe because the roundabout was on the corner. That's why I'm here now. I opened it up. MR. MAGOWAN-You're saying you put the stake in the wrong spot? MR. COON-Yes, but it used to be all one parcel at one time. Back then when I had my permit, but they subdivided land and I bought the land so I had to set to the back. MR. DEEB-How many years have you been doing it, Lee? MR. COON-Thirty. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. DEEB-And I guess the one question was, you're going to have your fall stuff that you usually sell around Halloween time, right? MR. COON-Yes, we'll have the fall stuff, but Christmas, I'd have to have a bigger area. So I wouldn't do Christmas there. I'd do that at my house. MR. DEEB-So no trees or anything. MR. COON-No trees, no. MR. DEEB-The same thing you've done for the last few years. MR. COON-Thirty, yes. MS. WHITE-So late spring through Halloween, basically? MR. COON-Yes. MR. FERONE-Are you seeing any parking problems there? I noticed when I went by to look there were a lot of people parked along the street and you're kind of right next to the driveway where the accountants are there. They had cones out there I guess. MR. COON-We put them there so they wouldn't drive on their grass. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. COON-Because he's really, we asked him and he said, yes, we've been trying to point them all over across the street there, too, around the school, over in that spot over there. We haven't had much problems. MR. FERONE-Well, I don't know if people know that they could park in that lot there, right? I guess you're allowed to put some people? MR. COON-Yes, at the school we put some signs up for parking to let them know, guide them in the right direction. MR. FERONE-I guess my only other question is, there's like six signs around that roundabout all indicating where you are. MR. COON-Because we're in the front and nobody could find us. We were in front, so it took a good month or so trying to find where we were. We shut down last year. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. FERONE-Because of the construction. MR. COON-Yes. MR. FERONE-Well, I think they know where you are. There were a lot of folks there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, concerns? We have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to provide comments to the Planning Board. I would ask that you state your name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EVELYN CURLEY MRS. CURLEY-Yes. My name is Evelyn Curley. I live on Kiley Lane, and I will read you what I wrote, first. As a resident of Ward #3 in the Town of Queensbury, I respectfully request that the 25 foot setback from the center of the Town road be revised so that the Coon family can continue to operate their produce stand on Farr Lane. The Coon family has been providing the residents of Ward #3 with fresh produce for numerous years and would be a great loss to the community if they had to move out of the area. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated, and I went around in this crazy heat, believe it or not, and I got 82 names. Everybody that I went to said, oh no, please, they can't get rid of that stand. We depend on that stand because of how many years they've done this for us, and all the produce is great, beautiful stuff from the farm, and I just brought, you know, all the pages, Centennial and Buena Vista and Kiley and you name it. I got 82 names, and everybody depended upon me to come tonight to do this. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could give those to Laura Moore. MRS. CURLEY-Absolutely. I will. Thank you so much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. DEEB-Did you pay her, Lee? MRS. CURLEY-Crazy lady, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? You might have to give her some free produce. I mean, all kidding aside, produce stands are one of the items that are specified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as being desirable, and I think pretty much everybody in the community, you know, welcomes and supports them, and, you know, that's just another indication of how welcome they are. We have one at the end of my street, too. Any other comments? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. DEEB-She was addressing the setback on Farr Lane. Are you on Farr Lane now? Or are you on the back street? MR. COON-We're on Manor. MR. DEEB-On Manor, and you're talking about going out to Farr Lane and get a variance for setback, so that you could put it on Farr instead of Manor, which would make you a little more visible, right, if you're on Farr Lane? MR. COON-Yes. MR. DEEB-That's something you can consider. MR. HUNSINGER-His proposal is where it's shown on the site plan. MR. COON-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. Where I saw it, I went by this morning and saw it. MR. COON-Yes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. DEEB-Your son was working hard. It's just not as visible as you were on Aviation Road. MRS. MOORE-It's a tenant issue as well. I mean, the landlord had agreed that this is the location. So if the landlord and the leasee wish to make other arrangements for that, then he'd come back either before this Board or come back for discussion with our offices. I know that, as it being one lot, there was that original location. I don't think that's in question, but I think that was an issue with the landlord. So I don't, you know, this is why it's on Manor Drive right now. MR. COON-Yes, right now. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're not proposing to change? MR. COON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for pointing that out, though. Any other comments or concerns from the Board? I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. If nothing else. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#48-2015 LEE COON 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 operate a produce stand with a 200 sq. ft. canopy tent. The applicant proposes seasonal operation spring to fall. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Produce Stand in the NC zone is subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8-18-2015 and continued the public hearing to 8-18-2015 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 8-18-2015; 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. 48-2015 LEE COON, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft resolution provided by Staff and adherence to the items in the follow up letter with the resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. COON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) SITE PLAN NO. 49-2015 SEAR TYPE II MICHAEL & STEPHANIE HAVERLY AGENT(S) BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 50 BEAN ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 576.6 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION, A 796.35 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF A NOW CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.0 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-17 SECTION 179-13-010 TOM JARRETT & MIKE WADE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes two additions to their home. This is a 576 sq. ft. garage addition and a 796 sq. ft. residential addition. This also includes a new septic system, and the only thing that I've identified as Staff is maybe possibly additional buffering for landscaping and information on the residential lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WADE-Good evening. My name is Tim Wade. I'm with Balzer & Tuck Architecture, on behalf of the property owner, and Tom Jarrett, site engineer. So I think first I'd just like to thank everybody for taking their time to visit the site. So we're basically here, we're proposing an addition to an existing nonconforming structure that resides on a one acre waterfront lot in a WR district. You see the lot there. It's just off of Pilot Knob Road, north of Fischer's Marina, right on the lakefront there. The surrounding properties are all zoned WR and we're at the same general scale and proportion on the site as Michael's property and his house. The existing house presents an existing nonconforming condition. If you zoom in a little bit, Laura, right down here, you can see, actually, if you flip to the next slide you'll get a better view of it. So we have an existing nonconforming condition here. They have an existing three season porch on the back side of that house, and that does encroach just slightly on the existing waterfront setback. The proposed improvements, if you go to the next slide, do not further that. That existing nonconforming is here. We're proposing a small, maybe 75 foot sq. ft. addition to the back side of the residence there, and then on the front side of the residence here an attached garage and kitchen and entryway with a loft above it. The project presents a net impervious increase of about one percent. We're also proposing to take away approximately 1500 sq. ft. of impervious, you know, with the project, replacing that, and some of that resides under the proposed addition. Some of it resides over here on the north side of the house, but that gives us a net increase of one percent, which still puts us about 10%. So we're about 85% where the required is 75%. So I think, as just a general overview of the project, other than the addition. So we're proposing to add a turnaround on the driveway here. We're keeping this existing driveway all along this front here. We're getting rid of a small porch in the front and also the existing sidewalk, which those will be under the new addition. Currently the existing septic resides somewhere in here, and the tank is actually probably going to be under the new addition. So as part of this, we are proposing to re-do the septic system and move it out here, and I believe, we show the tank here, and I believe Tom can speak a little bit more about that. He does have a plan for this. So that's the overall view of our project, and I can let Tom speak a little bit about the septic system and some of the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-As Tim said, the septic system was installed roughly 10 years ago is going to be in the way of the new addition. So we're planning to construct a new system toward the rear of the property, adjacent to Bean Road, which was actually proposed by the prior owner at one time before she changed her mind. Go to the, you don't have my drawings there. There you go. So the existing septic system, as Tim said, is right there, and we're going to re-locate it and use the prior design that the previous owner had contracted for and put the new system between some existing trees along Bean Road, and the tanks would be actually a little bit removed from the driveway from what Tim's plan shows. The stormwater management on the property is going to be handled by a rain garden along the driveway. The terrain basically drains to the south right now, toward the Bay, toward the beach. So we're going to capture the driveway here, you know, a rain garden along the driveway, and then the Haverly's want to keep as much lawn as possible for play area. So they've agreed to allow us to berm up around a cluster of trees and we'll capture the rest of the impervious area stormwater in that cluster 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) behind the berm. There's a shallow berm shown on our detail. So we're basically managing the entire property, as stormwater goes, in two areas. So there's an upgraded stormwater system and an upgraded wastewater system. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. WADE-1 don't think so, unless there are any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Do you have a, are you getting your water from the lake or from a well? MICHAEL HAVERLY MR. HAVERLY-The Lake. MR. JARRETT-To further that question, there are no wells within 100 feet of this septic system, just to clarify that, and we'll add that to the drawings as Chazen has suggested we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any plans to put in a well? MR. HAVERLY-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MR. FERONE-You definitely have a beautiful spot there, and it looks like you have the space to put the addition on. MR. HAVERLY-It's a great lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? No takers. Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-None from the Water Keeper? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He must have not heard the word rain garden. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Yes, sir? DOUG SMITH MR. SMITH-I'd like to make a comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I would ask if you could identify yourself for the record and speak clearly into the microphone, sir. MR. SMITH-My name is Doug Smith and Mr. Haverly's property is surrounded by three immediate neighbors, and three separate lots, and of the three I own two of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SMITH-And I would just like to say that Mike has been very sensitive to the Lake issues and doing things right and I, as a property owner and his immediate neighbor, am very much in favor of this project, and I feel the Board should approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MR. SMITH-That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else want to comment? Okay. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #49-2015 MICHAEL & STEPHANIE HAVERLY 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 a 576.6 sq. ft. garage addition, a 796.35 sq. ft. residential addition and a new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance Expansion of a Non-Conforming Structure in a Critical Environmental Area shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8-18-2015 and continued the public hearing to 8-18-2015 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 8-18-2015; 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. 49-2015 MICHAEL & STEPHANIE HAVERLY, 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) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. HAVERLY-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2015 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AGENT(S) RALPH KELSEY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 548 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF PARKING AREA BY 8,060 SQ. FT. FOR 21 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 54 SPACES. EXISTING STORMWATER TO EXTEND ON EAST OF EXISTING PARKING AREA— NORTH TO ACCOMMODATE NEW PARKING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 58-02 LOT SIZE 2.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-84 SECTION 179-9-120 RALPH KELSEY & PETER DYKSTROM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to install 21 additional parking spaces. This is an area of approximately 8,060 sq. ft., and in reference to this it's located on Luzerne Road and it's to the rear of the existing parking area. In 2002 they had indicated there's a shallow drainage area to the east and north of the parking area. The applicant has indicated there's two new 20 foot light poles on this part of the project, and the only thing I suggested is the revised drawing should show both shallow drainage areas that are to be on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. KELSEY-Good evening. Yes, my name is Ralph Kelsey. I'm an Elder at the Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church which is on 548 Luzerne Road, as Laura just said. This is Peter Dykstrom. He's a member of our congregation. He works for an architectural firm and was very helpful putting this request together. I'll give you a little background. Our Church opened in 1990 with a small log cabin on this current site. Since then we've had membership growth to the point where we had to build a new structure. We completed that in 2005. That was all reviewed by the Town and approved, including the water accommodations. So we built a new structure with a parking lot that would accommodate 31 parking spaces. Due to the recent attendance growth we've had since that time, we need to expand our parking facilities, particular with concern for the several elderly people who have difficulty walking in on paved areas, particularly the ice and snow. So we want to make it cleanable and easily accessible. So we're requesting permission to expand by 23 more spaces, which would be located directly adjacent to the current lot. When we have this addition, we will make it the same constituency as the original parking lot is now there, which is six inches of crushed stone, plus three inches of pavement, and you can see the proposed addition, we've marked it on the print shown there. Also you will see the site development data, as handed out in the data sheet, that we are within the requirements of the Town in percentage of impermeable site and parking spaces required. Our cost estimates, do you need that? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KELSEY-The distributed land will be about 9,000 sq. ft. and we were going to add to the top and to the side of the swale that will be required to control the water runoff. It's all surrounded by trees on the outside of that area. So it's well positioned to handle the water. There's no substantial to current use vision or policies in the Town Comprehensive Plan. For lighting, do you want to put one of those up? MRS. MOORE-I'm going to find it, yes. MR. KELSEY-Okay. For lighting we have gone to the Warren Electric and they have run a computer program for us to assure that we will have acceptable illumination on the site. We'll have one stationed at each corner of this new light, or the new parking lot, and it will not shine beyond the restrictions of the site, and we'll have adequacy luminance as required. We have reviewed all the requirements that were given by Laura and found our submission meets with the requirements. So are there any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I thought it looked pretty straightforward. MR. DEEB-You can't get any more straightforward. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm very happy to hear the attendance is up, because I see that churches are coming back. MR. KELSEY-This is a lively one, that's for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm one of the few people that remembers when we first approved your site plan. Does anyone else on the Board remember this? MR. TRAVER-What's that? MR. HUNSINGER-Were you on the Board when we approved this? MR. TRAVER-No, I don't believe so. That was just before I came on in 2006. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-No comments from the Board. There's no one left for the public hearing. We will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Are there any concerns that, any environmental issues anyone's identified? I'll need a motion for a Negative SEQR. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DEC SP # 50-2015 REDEEMER REFORMED CHURCH The applicant proposes Applicant proposes expansion of parking area by 8,060 sq. ft. for 21 additional parking spaces for a total of 54 spaces. Existing stormwater to extend on east of existing parking area -north to accommodate new parking area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance Modification to an approved site plan 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 GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 50-2015 REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-None. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 50-2015 REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Expansion of parking area by 8,060 sq. ft. for 21 additional parking spaces for a total of 54 spaces. Existing stormwater to extend on east of existing parking area -north to accommodate new parking area. Pursuant to Chapter 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance Modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8-18-2015 and continued the public hearing to 8-18-2015 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 8-18-2015; 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. 50-2015 REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Per the draft resolution provided by Staff with the following: 1. The lighting plan is the plan with the cut off fixtures. 2. That they can update the drainage areas on the final plan. 3. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow up letter with the resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So my suggestion is, in reference to lighting, is confirm that it's cut off fixtures, because there's two lighting diagrams in here. One of them is a floodlight and one of them is this cut off fixture. So just to confirm that that will be installed, and then the other item was in reference to something that they did mention that they can update the plans showing those drainage areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So for the final plans that information should show up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have an amended motion to include the cut off fixtures and the drainage plan as presented. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. KELSEY-Thank you very much, and I'd like to thank you folks for entertaining us and especially Laura, she was very helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Salvador had asked if he could address the Board at the beginning of our meeting. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You found at your place setting an article that I copied out of the Post Star. It's remarkable, here, that, they don't mention Glens Falls by name, but they do say, the group Environmental Advocates of New York say those sewer overflows are the primary culprit for sewage pollution entering the waterways, discharging about 1.2 billion gallons of raw sewage into the Hudson River in the Albany area. I think that includes us. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-You know, it's funny. I saw the article and I didn't stop to think that that could be a problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just like the environmentalists put in the river. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, the reason I brought this up tonight was that the Town Board is moving rapidly to fund separate sewers in the City of Glens Falls, in an effort to get the raw sewage going directly to the sewage plant. The problem is that what they're doing will not alleviate the problem. What's going on, you see City of Glens Falls being torn up all over. What they're doing is they're separating the stormwater from the wastewater, okay, but eventually all of that wastewater that they have, are channeling runs into a combined sewer. Okay. You can't get to the sewage treatment plant at the far end of the City without going through a tremendous four foot diameter main, and all of Queensbury's Route 9 sewer district and central, consolidated sewer district flows through that line, and now the Town is expanding their efforts into West Glens Falls at Exit 18, but it's the same thing. That sewage will have to eventually flow down Warren Street. That's a huge combined sewer. So, short of new sewer lines to the sewage treatment plant or Queensbury building its own sewage treatment facility, the problems aren't going to be solved. Now the City does boast about reducing their flows, and they are doing that. The problem is as they are reducing their flows, we are increasing the flows by adding new projects, new subdivisions, new Exit 18, if you will, and that is concentrated sewage. That's not diluted by rain water. Our sewage is raw, 100%. So anyway, I wanted to mention that. The real reason I came here tonight was to deliver to Mr. Hunsinger and members of this Board a letter that I've written, and I would like to have this part of my presentation on the record, if I could. Mr. Hunsinger, you're the only one left on this Board that was active on the Planning Board back in 2003 when we marina operators were forced to apply for Special Use Permits. However, this subject isn't going to go away. Attached to this letter you will find a letter of December 16, 2013 addressed to Mr. Craig Brown who at the time was serving as the Town Zoning Administrator. To this date, we have not received an answer from the Planning and Zoning Department, which if in the affirmative would have placed our 2003 application for a Special Use Permit to operate a Class A Marina on the navigable waters of Lake George once again on your agenda for review. We submitted an application for review, and if you could substantiate that you had been in operation continuously and without interruption before 1981 you didn't, you were not subjected to an intensive Planning Board Site Plan Review. You got what was called an Administrative Special Use Permit. Everybody was successful in getting this except the Salvadors, and Mr. MacEwan, who was Chairman of the Planning Board at that time, decided on very short notice, both for the members of the Board and ourselves, to deny our application without prejudice, and so under that program of 2003, we do not have a Special Use Permit, a Class A Marina permit from the Town. Now the thing that was getting complicated was the fact that we were also being requested, by the Lake George Park Commission, to line up and get a Class A Marina permit, and I took the permission, I don't need your Class A Marina Permit. I have a permit to operate. I have a DEC permit that goes back to 1981, approved, issued. They chose not to recognize it. At the same time, we were one of the first facilities, back in 1975, to be brought before the Town's Planning Board and Zoning Board to get a Special Use Permit to expand a marina, and we got that permit. It's Number 60. In spite of all of this, no one would recognize these permits. So anyway, our application was denied, and Mr. MacEwan closed the public hearing with this comment. John, when you get your ducks in a row, come on back. I've been working all these years to get my ducks in a row. After a thorough search of land conveyance records in the Warren County Clerk's Office, the Department of Environmental Conservation completed on the ground survey of those lands acquired from the Salvadors in 1973 for inclusion in the State Forest Preserve. The problem we were having at that time was our neighbors were complaining that our Site Plan map was not accurate and was showing land that didn't belong to us, as we had mapped it on the map. Subsequently, corner markers have been placed flagging the State's holdings. This is important because we retained plans bordering the State's acquisition as well as still owning slivers of land within the Forest Preserve areas. The State Department of Transportation has likewise completed a survey, along with what is today State Route 9L, in the vicinity of Dunham's Bay, for the express purpose of verifying the boundaries of the State's right of way. We have a problem in that the paved roadway in the area of Dunham's Bay meanders through the right of way, and oftentimes encroaches on neighboring property, and that's our case. What they did, back in 1931, was layout a right of way line, and they took land left and right, but unfortunately they had difficulty in construction and they didn't build the road where they took the land, okay, and so presently that road is on our land, not a lot but it's on our land. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that why you put the marks on it? MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that why you put the marks in the center of the road? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. SALVADOR-It's on our land. Now, we can't kick the State off of our land, okay. They have a right to maintain the right of way, and that's where that stands, but it's our land. Okay, and in any case, let me continue. After obtaining copies of the survey general's French Mountain tract field surveying notes from the State archives, we undertook to locate and re-establish the boundary lines of the great lots of French Mountain tract, Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 32. We owned land in some of those lots. These 1811 data and map formed the basis for a map we filed in Plat Cabinet C, slide 283 in the Warren County Clerk's Office on April 9, 2012, showing lands belonging to my wife and I. While doing research in the archive section of the Warren County law library, we uncovered an 1858 compilation in the form of a State statute defining the location of the municipal boundaries of the entire State. Therein the most recent record of the County boundary forming the dividing lines between the Towns of Bolton and Queensbury refers to a Bolton Town perimeter line as, quote, running along the east bank of Lake George and the lands of the Town of Queensbury as those within a perimeter extending to the east line of Lake George. Within the last five years there have been several State Supreme Court decisions dealing with jurisdictional matters along the shores of lakes, both navigable and non- navigable. The courts have steadfastly affirmed the State's paramount authority to regulate the State's navigable waterways including those of Lake George. As a result the Town Board caused the Town Code to be amended such that boat docks, wharfs, moorings and boathouses are no longer subject to Site Plan Review approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. It is close to impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the Town never possessed the authority to grant or deny Special Use Permits for activities and improvements, on, in and above the navigable waters of Lake George, within its Planning and Zoning powers. From the beginning of time, not just since the adoption of the requirements for marinas to obtain an Administrative Special Use Permit pursuant to Town Code Section 179-10- 035, the Town has had absolutely no authority to demand that marinas operating on Lake George be subject to the Planning Board's approval of a Special Use Permit even if the marinas could qualify as a Town permitted pre-existing, nonconforming use substantiated by evidence, valid and complete and satisfactory to demonstrate that the use of the property and associated structures was without interruption since before 1981. Under normal circumstances, and because our ducks are now in a row, that is we have verified all of the data presented in 2003 to have been valid, complete and satisfactory, we'd like to ask this Board to review, once again, our application for Special Use Permit 5-2003. However, we now know, as in the case of Hoffman v. Town of Queensbury, that the Town is without authority to act, as it was without authority in the first instance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the judge's name? MR. SALVADOR-Judge Alessi. Considering the foregoing set of circumstances, and the only recourse open to this Board at this time appears to be the revocation and recall of our application, SUP 5-2003, thus cancelling said application and terminating this Board's power to have denied without prejudice the same. This is essentially what Judge Alessi ordered in Hoffman. He revoked, Judge Alessi ordered the revocation of the application with no foundation in law because the Town had no jurisdiction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And also the Town officer supports that, supports what he did. As we all know, that's not accurate. The water's not even in this Town. MR. SALVADOR-That's another issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. That's the foundation of it. MR. SALVADOR-That's another issue. MR. HUNSINGER-So I hope you have copies of this for Town Counsel. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but I want you to take it under consideration, because I have an issue with the Park Commission. They demanded that I get your Special Use Permit, before. MR. HUNSINGER-Before they would give you your permit. MR. SALVADOR-Before they would give me my permit. MR. HUNSINGER-So you've been operating all of these years without permits? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MR. SALVADOR-Well, I've got a DEC, I finally got a Park Commission permit. They gave up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-They say. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But when they come in here a lot of times we'll say to the applicant, do you have a permit from the Park Commission? And if they say yes, there are some people on this Board that would say that it's approved. That goes to what you're saying, it shouldn't be done. MR. SALVADOR-1 mean, there's, before I brought these issues up. MR. HUNSINGER-So did the Judge say anything about the Hoffman's purgering themselves in their application? MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I couldn't help myself. MR. SALVADOR-The fact that the Hoffman's falsified their record, their application, which is a nullity in the Zoning Law. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-It's an automatic nullity. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SALVADOR-He did not address this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, of course not. MR. SALVADOR-But I have asked the Town to address it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don't want to get into the reason he didn't address it. MR. SALVADOR-1 have asked Mr. Strough to pursue this. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. I hope he does. MR. SALVADOR-What else is going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the problem is the attorney that was assigned to that case is no longer with the law firm. MR. SALVADOR-Our. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Ms. Radner. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Cathi Radner. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Schachner is there. He knows what's. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's pretty bold. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I'll hand this out to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, John. Anything else to come before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 08/18/2015) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone but me will be here next week. MR. FERONE-You're not going to be here? MR. HUNSINGER-No, Mr. Ford will be here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23