Loading...
07-26-2016 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 171-2016 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 1. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-43 Site Plan PZ 182-2016 Tim Barber 4. Subdivision Mod. PZ 183-2016 Tax Map No. 300.-1-40.3/300.-1-40.2 Site Plan PZ 145-2016 Jason Sankey 10. Tax Map No. 300.-1-40.2 Site Plan Mod. PZ 174-2016 Omall Family Limited Partnership 14. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13 Subdivision PZ 185-2016 Warren County DPW 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 207.20-1-2/297.16-1-1.1 Subdivision PZ 186-2016 FINAL STAGE Site Plan PZ 172-2016 Nicholas Daigle 21. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-19 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 'I (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 26, 2016. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled I think on every item this evening. The first item is Site Plan PZ 171-2016 for Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. SITE PLAN PZ 171-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) DAVID C. BRENNAN, ESQ., YOUNG/SOMMER LLC OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING PR-42A LOCATION OFF 1-87/AVIATION MALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE 12 PANEL ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT — SECTOR MOUNTS, REMOTE RADIO HEAD UNITS, A DISH ANTENNA, ON AN EXISTING 122.6 FT. WATER TANK. ANTENNAS TO BE LOCATED AT 108 +/- FT. LEVEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER 11'6" X 16'. THE AREA OF LEASE IS 880 SQ. FT. AND INCLUDES 30 FT. EASEMENT FOR ROAD ACCESS TO THE SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130(c) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ANTENNAS ON EXISTING TALL STRUCTURE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 60-2000 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP. ON WATER TANK (WITHDRAWN); AV PZ 178-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-43 SECTION 179-5-130(c) HYDE CLARK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-This is for 12 panel antennas and the associated equipment including an equipment shelter. I believe this application was before the Zoning Board last week. Got the Area Variance granted for the relief for the setback relief for the shelter. So they're here tonight to talk about the site plan to install the cell facility at the water tower location. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CLARK-Good evening. Hyde Clark, Young/Sommer in Albany, here on behalf of the applicant. Before I get started I would like to provide a response letter from our engineer, which is in response to Sean's engineer's comments that we received and updated. I provided an electronic copy to the Town this afternoon. Here's a hardcopy for everyone. Just had some minor comments from the engineer that we've worked with the Town Engineer to address. Just to walk the Board through our comment letter, the first comment by the Town Engineer just had to do with how much, how big the area was that we were serving. There were some discrepancies. So everything's been updated. The total area of disturbance is 2,000 square feet, with 1500 square feet of that being new impervious surface. All the plans and forms have been updated with that information. That's the same with Point Two from the Town Engineer. Point Three we were asked to add the grading at the site. The existing graded area is flat. So we've added a Note Box on Sheet 2A of the plan set to denote that, and in terms of stormwater controls, our engineer worked with the Town Engineer to add a new infiltration trench. If you go to the new tab C-2A of our plans, which is four or five pages back in the plans, so again, C-2A, at the infiltration trenches to the west of our proposed equipment shelter and from the conversations between the two engineers, it was deemed that that was a sufficient control for the minimal stormwater that we're going to experience at the site. I did speak to the Town Engineer today. He hasn't been authorized to review our response as of yet, but he was in 2 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) receipt of that, you know, ready to review that once he got the go ahead from the Town. We were before the ZBA on Wednesday. As stated we did receive that Area Variance for the setback, and also the variance for the permeability percentage. So at this point we can take any questions from the Board, in terms of the site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I still think as policy this is a great project. It's in keeping with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to put cell towers on existing facilities. Again, as I said last week, you know, anytime you can have a public utility like a cell tower on a public utility it really makes a lot of sense. Okay. I don't hear any comments from the Board. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Were there any written comments, Craig? I'm guessing probably not, but you never know. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-No, I don't find any. MR. HUNSINGER-1 did notice your new tower went up on 149 today. MR. CLARK-We normally get pictures once they go up. I haven't seen that yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So no written comments? MR. BROWN-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant did provide a revised Short Form. Are there any outstanding concerns that the Board has that they feel may lead to a moderate to large impact? MR. FORD-Nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a SEQR motion? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 171-2016 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP The applicant proposes to place 12 panel antennas and associated equipment— sector mounts, remote radio head units, a dish antenna, on an existing 122.6 ft. water tank. Antennas to be located at 108 +/- ft. level. The project includes an equipment shelter 11'6" x 16'. The area of lease is 880 sq. ft. and includes 30 ft. easement for road access to the site. 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 POSITIVE DECLARATION OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 171-2016 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 3 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of a resolution, I just want to make sure it already has the signoff from the Town Engineer. The only other issue, I know it was stated verbally, but we might want to add that the color of the cell should match the existing tower. MR. CLARK-Yes, that's in our lease agreement with the City, but certainly if you'd like to make that a condition. MR. BROWN-So the antennae panel same color as the water tower. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. CLARK-And existing other associated equipment also, the cabling. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any concerns with the waivers that have been requested? Okay. If anyone would like to make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 171-2016 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to place 12 panel antennas and associated equipment — sector mounts, remote radio head units, a dish antenna, on an existing 122.6 ft. water tank. Antennas to be located at 108 +/- ft. level. The project includes an equipment shelter 11'6" x 16'. The area of lease is 880 sq. ft. and includes 30 ft. easement for road access to the site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, antennas on existing tall structure, telecommunications towers, 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 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 7/26/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/26/2016 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 7/26/2016; 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 PZ 171-2016 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 4 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) The antennae panel to be the same color as the water tower. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CLARK-All right. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN PZ 182-2016 & SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER AGENT(S) THOMAS ANDRESS OWNER(S) JOSHUA INGLEE/JASON SANKEY ZONING RR-5A/LC-10A LOCATION 35 & 48 INGLEE MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT HAS STARTED/COMPLETED MAINTENANCE WORK TO IMPROVE AN ACCESS DRIVE — 20,600 SQ. FT. DISTURBANCE — PORTION OF DRIVE IS GREATER THAN 10%. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION INVOLVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 300.1-40.2 (SANKEY) EXISTING PARCEL 13.95 ACRES TO INCREASE TO 18.71 ACRES, THEN 300.1-40.3 (INGLEE) EXISTING PARCEL 12.23 ACRES TO DECREASE TO 7.47 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND 183, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION AND DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES OVER 10% SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CHAPTER 183 — PROPOSED MODIFICATION CREATES A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL CROSS REFERENCE AV 28-13 POOL; 2003- 680 SF DWELLING; RC 289-2016 1800 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE; SB 15-2002 CREATE 3 LOTS/BP 2010-076 SF HOME WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 ALSO — LAKE LUZERNE SITE INFORMATION APA, WETLANDS, SLOPES LOT SIZE 13.95 + 12.23 = 26.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.1-40.3/300.4-40.2 SECTION 179-6-060, 183 5 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TIM BARBER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes, this project has two components, one the construction of a driveway access road to a parcel partially in the Town, partially out of the Town. It's about 20,000 square feet of disturbance. Portions of the driveway are in excess of 10%. The other portion of this project is to modify a previously approved Planning Board subdivision to essentially remove the portion of this original lot, the road frontage portion of it, to just create a landlocked, I think, about three acre parcel that's to be joined with lands in Luzerne. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. ANDRESS-Good evening. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers. With me tonight also is Tim Barber who's the owner of the property. Actually behind us is Jason Sankey who's also involved in this subdivision process. As Craig had mentioned, there's two components to this project we have before you. We went to the Zoning Board of Appeals last week and did receive Area Variances for lot size and the reduction of frontage to zero. We actually don't have any frontage on Tuthill anymore. It's all accessed through easements, but the Planning Board did, or excuse me, the Zoning Board did grant those Area Variances last week. So we're here tonight both for subdivision and of course site plan approval as Craig had said for the roadway. The subdivision, quick look here, is if you look over here, you can sort of see that heavier area and a lighter area. The top one is the original condition where Mr. Barber has a piece of land that goes around Mr. Sankey's land. We're actually changing that so that all of this area now becomes part of Mr. Sankey's land which is that dark area, and then we'd just have this smaller, approximately seven acre, seven and a half acre, parcel that remains. So instead of having a building lot which went around it, Mr. Barber did have the opportunity, if he wanted to, to build a house over in here. We've eliminated the potential for that building there. It will be a condition of the transfer of land that there won't be able to be a second house that would be able to be built on Mr. Sankey's land, also a condition of the transfer and also as a condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals approval not to build a house on that. So that land will actually be combined with the other lands that Mr. Barber has in the Town of Lake Luzerne. So that's the first portion for this Board to consider, the subdivision. The second is in relationship to the existing logging road. As we spoke at the last meeting, this logging road has been in existence for over 50 years. We did provide some photographs or copies of aerial photography showing the road at different stages. The oldest aerials we had was from 2004. The subdivision was in 2001. Unfortunately when the subdivision was brought before the Board it didn't show the logging road because it is something that usually is not of significance. So a surveyor used to not show it, but that logging road was in existence. Mr. Barber, this spring, the logging road is just access to his old site through here from approximately this area to the Town of Lake Luzerne line. Mr. Barber did some grading of that road. He didn't bring any new material in, but he graded it out to try to make it passable. It's a fairly steep road. It has grades 20, 30 plus percent. It is a seasonal access road to the camp, so it's not a year round use. Craig, can you check, I had sent to Sunny, there should be a couple of photographs. There we are. Just for the Board's, sort of get a better feeling for what the road is like, if you can just shift to the next one. There we are. Perfect. That portion of the road is right here, just before it makes the turn, it's one of the steepest portions of the road, so you can sort of get an idea. You can see the existing vegetation on each side. Mr. Barber just cleaned it and cleaned up the ditch a little bit. You can see the road slopes, in this instance, from the north to the south so it slopes across typical for a logging road, bringing it down to a certain point and the, Craig, if you could move to the next one, back up. Then that drain ditch that's just brought back out into the woods disperses out, and you can see the, I mean, this is a very, very bouldery terrain. So it just disperses within that area outside. So that's how stormwater management is handled on a logging type road. Because it is such a very large property, there isn't anything else on it, that just disperses out. The soils are such that the glacial tills and everything does go back into the ground, but that keeps it so you don't keep bringing that water all the way down. If you keep going down the whole slope, you'd start erosion issues. So what happens is we have one, there's one up in here that diverts off. This one diverts off. There's another one that diverts off here, and then there's another one that diverts in sort of this low area. So that it doesn't accumulate the runoff too much. So that was the work that was done. As we explained before, there was some questions between the property owners. We're very happy to be before this Board to hopefully resolve all the issues, everyone working together, and get along with life. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-In the history of the present owner and owners of the property, has there ever been an indication of flooding at the lower levels? 6 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/25/2016) MR. BARBER-The former owner, Jeff Inglee, he actually lives down in the cabin right about right here. He lives there, and there's actually a pond right here that was put in a while ago, and this is all steep. There's never been any flooding. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get a copy of the Town Engineer's letter? MR. ANDRESS-I did, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add regarding that? MR. ANDRESS-I can certainly address that. MR. HUNSINGER-Because one of the things that was talked about is sediment and erosion control. MR. ANDRESS-Correct. Right. Comment Number Two and Three were the ones that were addressed. Two was in reference to some type of runoff control, and his point was that since it wasn't shown in the original subdivision, we should do an analysis of the condition of the site that existed prior to the subdivision, to the condition of the site at completion of the improvements. Our point is that prior to the subdivision it was this condition. I mean, the road was there. We don't see, at this point I think, especially when you look at the pictures, digging something or doing something additional other than what Mr. Barber did to help improve the roadside ditch would probably be counterproductive to try to do something more to it. It's a driveway. So as far as trying to look at a 25 year storm, I'm not sure even would look at it on a slope like this. I mean, loggers have done this for many years. They're actually fairly experienced in being only trails that work, because obviously they've got to bring heavy equipment up and down through it and bringing those logs down is no simple task. So this methodology of taking a road and sloping it to one side and bringing a ditch and running that ditch off into an open area is pretty common. I think that's certainly, as far as we're concerned, as a professional I think handles the stormwater more than that, especially with considering both the soil conditions and the amount of land that's available, that's under control of Mr. Barber or downstream from each of those, and as far as the soil and erosion control, I think what we, Craig, if you could just move one back, you could look at this, that there's nothing there. I mean, it's fully stabilized on each side. So while Chazen might not have the ability to go up there, I did only because Tim brought me up in a six wheel drive vehicle, but it's really stable. There's nothing, if we had an erodible soil, some type of a clay, then I would have a little more concern, but you can see the rockiness of this and that this type of soil as stable as it is. So that would be our response to those two concerns. Certainly if we were doing the new road, we might look at maybe some type of a stabilization plan, but this is already there. Mr. Barber did this. We took these pictures in April. So, I mean, at this point we don't see anything that needs to be done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Well, I don't think it's us he has to convince, it's the engineers. He's got to rectify this with the engineer, not us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-You're going to have to have engineer signoff anyway. So they're going to have to be answered one way or the other, and they're going to have to agree with you. MR. ANDRESS-We certainly don't have any problem with this Board making a condition that we get a signoff from Chazen. We'll certainly provide that same argument to Chazen and we work with them on a daily basis. I work with Sean on a lot of different projects. So we certainly could provide that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? No takers? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-No comments. 7' (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We do have separate SEQR resolutions for the subdivision and the site plan, and those are in your package if anyone would like to move those. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER The applicant has started/completed maintenance work to improve an access drive—20,600 sq. ft. disturbance -portion of drive is greater than 10%. Applicant proposes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment 300.-1-40.2 (Sankey) existing parcel 13.95 acres to increase to 18.71 acres, then 300.-1-40.3 (Inglee) existing parcel 12.23 acres to decrease to 7.47 acres. 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 PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the 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 is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Should we do both SEQR's before we do both approval resolutions? MR. BROWN-Sure. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB. MOD. PZ-183-2016 TIM BARBER The applicant has started/completed maintenance work to improve an access drive—20,600 sq. ft. disturbance -portion of drive is greater than 10%. Applicant proposes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment 300.-1-40.2 (Sankey) existing parcel 13.95 acres to increase to 18.71 acres, then 300.-1-40.3 (Inglee) existing parcel 12.23 acres to decrease to 7.47 acres. 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; 8 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) 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 SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 183- 2016 TIM BARBER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the 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 is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And the resolutions. It may make sense to do the subdivision first, which is 183-2016. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER A subdivision application has been made: Applicant proposes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment 300.-1-40.2 (Sankey) existing parcel 13.95 acres to increase to 18.71 acres, then 300.-1-40.3 (Inglee) existing parcel 12.23 acres to decrease to 7.47 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, and 183, modification to an approved subdivision and driveway development on slopes over 10% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Chapter 183— proposed modification creates a non-conforming parcel. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/26/2016. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and finally the Site Plan. It did have waivers requested. Any issues with any of the waivers? Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER 9 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) A site plan application has been submitted to the Planning Board as started/completed maintenance work to improve an access drive — 20,600 sq. ft. disturbance -portion of drive is greater than 10%. Project includes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment 300.-1-40.2 (Sankey) existing parcel 13.95 acres to increase to 18.71 acres, then 300.-1-40.3 (Inglee) existing parcel 12.23 acres to decrease to 7.47 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, and 183, modification to an approved subdivision and driveway development on slopes over 10% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Chapter 183— proposed modification creates a non-conforming parcel. 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 7/26/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/26/2016 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 7/26/2016; 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 PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; ,d 0 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. ANDRESS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Now we have a related project, Site Plan PZ 145-2016. SITE PLAN PZ 145-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JASON SANKEY AGENT(S) STANCLIFT, LUDEMANN, SILVESTRI & MC MORRIS, PC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5/LC 10 LOCATION 48 INGLEE MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 5,700 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY AND TO REESTABLISH 14,800 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY (EXISTING STONE DRIVE TO BE ABANDONED). THE PROJECT INCLUDES HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND CLEARING OF AN ESTIMATED 600 +/- SQ. FT. OF VEGETATION. DRIVEWAY IS 380' OF ALL NEW GRAVEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6- 060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FT. & HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIVEWAY OVER 10% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 28-13 POOL; 2003-680 SF DWELLING; RC 289-2016 1800 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE; SB 15-2002 CREATE 3 LOTS WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 ALSO LAKE LUZERNE SITE INFORMATION APA, WETLANDS, SLOPES LOT SIZE 13.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.4-40.2 SECTION 179-6-050, 179-6-060 JOHN SILVESTRI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JASON SANKEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes, this is the, kind of the Part B of the previous application. This application is to do two parts of this application, too. Right? The driveway crossing down below and the re- use of the existing abandoned original driveway from the first subdivision approval. We want to abandon a portion of the upper driveway and go back to the original driveway portion, which was on the lands that were or are in the process of being conveyed from Mr. Barber to Mr. Sankey. MR. SILVESTRI-If it pleases the Board, my name is John Silvestri from Stanclift, Ludemann, Silvestri & McMorris. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Jason Sankey. Before I start, we did have our engineer prepare a revised plan in response to some of the questions raised by Chazen in our proposal. With regard to the comments by the Town's Engineer with regard to the request for some type of hydrologic study showing runoff on the 380 foot portion, the lower portion of the proposal, which was to create a new access road to Mr. Sankey's property, our engineer if you note that the Note Number Four on the revised engineering plans he sent saying there's no drastic elevation changes or added impervious ground. Therefore no increase in runoff due to this project. He did say that the prior plan submitted by us had conflicting information. The revised plan shows a 15 foot wide driveway, 380 feet. So the total area of disturbed property would be 5700 square feet, and the, again, this is an after the fact approval, but what Chazen said in Comment Four was that he wanted some details for proposed erosion and sediment control, and they were added showing the silt fence that was put in place to prevent erosion during the construction of the road. With regard to the second half of the proposal, when I looked at the original subdivision map, this, what the 14,000, if you go, you'd have to look back at the map submitted by ABD that you just were looking at on the prior. After you get past this new section of road, the original subdivision map had the access road going up to the Sankey property along this 14,800 square foot of road, but in fact that was not what was constructed by Mr. Inglee. Mr. Inglee put in a switchback, for some reason, that was never approved by this Board, and what we want to do is discontinue that section of road that was never approved as part of the original subdivision and go back to using the original subdivision road that was approved by this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea why the road was never built as approved? ,d,d (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. SILVESTRI-I do not. I never asked Mr. Inglee why he did what he did. MR. TRAVER-Typically a switchback is used to alleviate the grade. So I'd like to think it would be for erosion control. It's probably more likely just to make it easier to get up the hill. It could be. MR. SILVESTRI-The only thing I do know is that he did have, at the end of the switchback, he had a level area where he stored sand and things like that I guess to put on the road in the winter. So maybe it did make easier access to where the sand storage was, but I don't know why he didn't use what was approved by this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I do remember when we approved this way back when. There were a bunch of concerns expressed by the Board with the relation of the culvert, I shouldn't say concerns, I should say questions. I don't know if anyone else remembers. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I remember. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SILVESTRI-Yes, and that is, if you look at the plans that were submitted by our engineer, that culvert pipe is being maintained. It's an 18 inch smooth interior corrugated culvert pipe with backfill around it to keep it protected. So that's been maintained during the construction of this new access road. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-What would be happening to the old driveway that wasn't approved? MR. SILVESTRI-What do you plan on doing with the old driveway, just allowing it? MR. SANKEY-Well, what happens right now, the switchbacks, every time it rains it washes out. So, you know, I could put grass seed down. I could re-vegetate it, whatever. It's not good in the wintertime. You can't get up and around those switchbacks. MR. FORD-And it isn't currently utilized, or is it? MR. SAN KEY-Th e switchbacks? That's the only way to getup to my house. MR. SILVESTRI-He does not have deeded access over the subdivision road that was approved. So right now because he doesn't own the piece of property, he can't use what was approved by this Board, and that's part of the whole proposal is once we have ownership of the land where the subdivision road that was approved is located, we'll be able to use it. It's there. I guess we should have taken pictures, but the original approved subdivision road, it's there. You can see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have something in mind, Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-It's more than a little confusing. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just a question, if I might, just for my clarification when we have to go out and do an inspection and follow-up after they're done with the Board here. My understanding, if you can look at the screen there, is that this portion with the X's is the part that's to be abandoned. That's the part that was constructed that wasn't part of the original subdivision. The driveway that was originally constructed started down here at the road, came up past the cabin. There's a pond here that they talked about. It goes around the pond, comes over here close to the property line. Follows up through here, and the original driveway went up through here, and then back on to this portion right here and directly up to the house site that Mr. Inglee ended up using. So I guess my question is, is this original road to be re- used or is this shaded area going to be a new portion of road? MR. SILVESTRI-My understanding is the shaded portion is the, if you look at the original subdivision map, there's the original road that was approved as part of the subdivision plan. MR. SANKEY-That's what we're going to ask for permission to do once we, once Tim transfers over the property to us. MR. BROWN-The shaded portion? 12 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. SANKEY-Right. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for the clarification. MR. DEEB-And that road's already there. MR. SILVESTRI-Yes, if you go up you can see it. It hasn't been used. It's overgrown, but you can see the road area. There's no trees. It's grassed over. MR. BROWN-Okay. Just for the record and to be clear, I don't think all of the shaded area is there. I think from here up is there, but I think originally it was built here. MR. SILVESTRI-That's correct, yes. That little section between, that is, if I could get up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Take the mic with you. It'll pull right out. Thank you. MR. SILVESTRI-You're correct. This, it goes here, then here, then like that. This area here will be new, but if you went up to the site you'd see this area and that area in place. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions or comments? MR. FORD-What's the comparison to the following of the contours between the old one and the one anticipated, that shaded in area? MR. SILVESTRI-You're talking about the steepness? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SILVESTRI-This area here you can see the contours are very close. It's extremely steep going in that way. This way it's not as steep. So it'll provide for easier access. MR. FORD-It's straighter but not as steep. MR. SILVESTRI-Correct. MR. FORD-That's what I needed to hear. The steepness. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Craig? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-No. TIM BARBER MR. BARBER-Just to clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-Identify yourself again, please. MR. BARBER-Tim Barber. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BARBER-Just to clarify. Could you go back to that, Craig, that drawing? MR. BROWN-Which one was it? This one? Sorry. I was looking for like a driveway profile. MR. SILVESTRI-It was the Barber, yes, that's the one. MR. FORD-Feel free to walk right up to the map. MR. BARBER-You asked why this switchback was constructed, the reason this was constructed I believe was this lot, Lot Three, that I purchased just recently, has an approved building site 1 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) right here, okay. So that's why this road, this is actually a really nice approach. It has a plateau here and it's a much, much easier approach. So what they did was they swung this around in this steep area and brought it back up in this other steep area. This is the only spot you could really put that approved home. So I just wanted to let you know that's why. MR. FORD-That helps. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. Are there any environmental concerns that the Board feels may result in a moderate to large impact? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's all yours. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SITE PLAN PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY The applicant proposes to maintain a newly constructed 5,700 sq. ft. driveway and to reestablish 14,800 sq. ft. driveway (existing stone drive to be abandoned). The project includes hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and clearing of an estimated 600 +/- sq. ft. of vegetation. Driveway is 380' of all new gravel. 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 PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the 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 is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We had a number of waivers requested. Were there any concerns with any of the waivers? Okay. Are you ready? RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY 14 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to maintain a newly constructed 5,700 sq. ft. driveway and to reestablish 14,800 sq. ft. driveway (existing stone drive to be abandoned). The project includes hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and clearing of an estimated 600 +/- sq. ft. of vegetation. Driveway is 380' of all new gravel. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, removal of vegetation within 35 ft. & hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline, and development of a driveway over 10% slopes, 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 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 7/26/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/26/2016 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 7/26/2016; 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 PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 15 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SILVESTRI-Thank you. MR. SANKEY-Thank you. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION PZ 174-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 102 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY SITE PLAN 20-2014 TO ADD A NEW ENTRY WAY 33' X 7' TO THE FRONT OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS COMPLEX. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE NEW SIGNAGE PROJECTIONS AND ENTRYWAYS ON SOUTH SIDE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9- 120 & 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 39-2013 RECONFIGURE INTERNAL SPACE & SITE ALTERATIONS TO ENTRANCES, PARKING, ETC.; SP 20-2014 MODIFICATIONS TO ALLOW 3 TENANTS; SEVERAL BP'S FOR SIGNS WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 SITE INFORMATION TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-13 SECTION 179-9-120, 179-3-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-This is a, kind of a modification of a site plan that was before this Board a couple of years ago. The current plan is to construct a new, I call it a popup, something above the doorway like a fagade improvement to kind of outline an entrance to the building. I think there may be some minor site improvements also, signage, entryways, that kind of thing. So it's a pretty minor project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan with Vision Engineering on behalf of the owners and the applicant. We were here last week introducing the project for referral to the Zoning Board. We did obtain the Area Variance for setback for that front entrance structure. So that has been finalized from that perspective. We do have one additional variance pending, which is the second sign for the side entrance, and that one will be heard again tomorrow night. So we anticipate that that will be resolved tomorrow. That is basically a variance which allows a second sign for one of the three tenants. The Code permits only one sign, one wall sign per tenant. So we're asking for a second sign so that the side entrance, which would be utilized as the main entrance, can have a sign. So that will be tomorrow. I would like to just go through the project real briefly. As Craig said, Craig, if you want to pull up C-3, I think that would be the best option. In terms of the site itself, there's a couple of minor changes from what was previously approved. To sum up the previous project, the goal was to improve traffic safety and access to the site via a controlled access point. Currently it's entirely paved across the entire width of the property, and that has not been conducive to safety. So in a previous project we proposed revised parking on the east side of the building, and a primary access point to that area. This time around the only site changes we're proposing are the 2 three by three squares that will become the columns for that front entrance structure, and in addition to that, if you look at the handicap space, right on the east side of Tenant One there, right where the pointer is, we eliminated one ADA space, so that there was clear walking aisle to that side entrance, and we are proposing a landscaped area right in the corner of that building, just to soften that interior, inside corner block wall. Other than that, in terms of the site itself, it is exactly as we previously had approved and presented it. So in terms of the site plan changes, they're pretty minimal. Regarding signage, if you'd like to review that in detail, I can describe to you a little bit about what we had talked about before. The front entrance structure will have illuminated lettering mounted right to the building structure and that lettering is basically individual letters, backlit, and are approximately one foot six inches in height. They will basically be two rows of lettering, and the total area that that lettering will occupy is about 60 square feet. So it's quite a bit less ,d 6 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) than the allowed 100 square feet. So that will be on the front entrance structure as we depicted in our sketches. MR. FORD-The coloration of that? MR. RYAN-I think, Craig, did you get the color rendering in there that I had sent Laura last week? If not, I do have one with me. I can just show it to you, if you guys can see that, and I can pass it around if you want. It's basically the existing Floormaster colors, if you're familiar with that across the street. So Carpet One Floor and Home will be the lower lettering, and above it in similar color and style it will say Floormaster, and again, this here that's shown is approximately 30 square feet, and then the line above it would be about equivalent to that. So a total of 60 square feet of lettering along that front. Just to give you, dimensionally, the total width of that lettering is 21 feet. So it would be one foot six high lettering by about 21 feet long. MR. FORD-And the coloration will be some shade of blue? MR. RYAN-Yes, I guess, yes, they're calling it teal, 321-C Teal. That's the branding colors for that particular chain. So that's the front sign. We do have proposed signage for the other tenants. Obviously that's to be determined, in terms of who occupies those spaces, and then, actually, there it is. So that's the front, and then I think the, let's see, what page is it. We did provide a sketch for the side. If you go to 6-C, I think it's right after that one, Craig. MR. BROWN-C-6? MR. RYAN-Yes. Or, no 6-C. Go all the way down towards the end. It's going to be after that. Keep going. When you get to hand sketches, that's what we're looking for. All right. So there's a depiction of the front. Keep scrolling down please. Okay. Right there. So basically on the side, east side where all of the parking will be, there may be a future tenant two, again, that has not been determined. Tenant One space, that side entrance will ultimately become the main access point for that store and so we are proposing a sign there. Originally we had, we weren't 100% sure of the specifics. I showed 45 square feet, confirmed that that sign will only be 16 square feet. It's going to be 8 foot by 2 foot tall. So it'll be pretty small compared to what we had originally thought, and that will be mounted on a skewed soffit frame that will allow that sign to be a little bit skewed towards Quaker Road. The sign, the color of that sign, I think, Craig, if you go down a couple of more sheets I think we have the existing Floormaster sign, and like, again, other than it being an 8 foot by 2 foot, so it's much smaller, keep going. If we can't get to it, it is in the package. It's not in color. MR. BROWN-1 think we'll get there. MR. RYAN-All right. So this will be essentially something very similar to that side entrance sign, other than being only 16 square feet. So that's pretty much the project. Some signage, a couple of minor site changes, and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? The Staff Notes did not say when the Zoning Board tabled the Sign Variance until. MR. RYAN-Until tomorrow, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any, well, we did have engineering signoff on this. No questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments, Craig? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And this is also an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Are there any items that the Board feels may result in a moderate to large impact? MR. FORD-No. MR. FERONE-No. 17' (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SEAR? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP MOD PZ 174-2016 OMALL FAMILY The applicant proposes modify Site Plan 20-2014 to add a new entry way 33' x 7' to the front of an existing business complex. Alterations include new signage projections and entryways on south side. 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 MODIFICATION PZ 174-2016 OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the 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 is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns that we haven't already discussed? Okay. Are you ready? RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN MOD. PZ 174-2016 OMALL FAMILY 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 modify Site Plan 20-2014 to add a new entry way 33' x 7' to the front of an existing business complex. Alterations include new signage projections and entryways on south side. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan and exterior alterations to a commercial building 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 Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance; 18 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 7/26/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/26/2016 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 7/26/2016; 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 MODIFICATION PZ 174-2016 OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR RYAN-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 185-2016 FINAL STAGE PZ 186-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WARREN COUNTY DPW AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) GEORGE SICARD & CHARON TRUST ZONING CLI LOCATION QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO 0.09 ACRE AN 25.36 ACRES. THE TOTAL PARCEL OF 25.45 ACRES IS A RESULT OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS WITH PARCELS ALONG QUEENSBURY AVENUE. PROJECT IS PART OF AIRPORT CLEARANCE ZONE ACTIVITIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 56-90. SP 52-02 9,600 SQ. FT. SELF-STORAGE, SP 2-10 1,500 SQ. FT. OFFICE & 10,000 SQ. FT. REPOSSESSION STORAGE, SP 55-14 LAND CLEARING FOR MARKETING, AV PZ 184-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 25.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.20-1-2/297.16-1-1.1 SECTION 183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-As a current employee of Warren County, I will recuse myself from any discussion on this item and Mr. Traver will take over as Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing this application. I was in front of this Board last week for a recommendation to the Zoning Board and we obtained that variance on Wednesday night. I think that's probably in your package. I won't make Craig slide too many things here. Real simple. Again, as we stated, and I think we have with the previous meeting with this Board and with the Zoning Board, it is that little sliver that is in the southeast, or southwesterly corner of the land being retained by Chartrand Trust. It is to be merged. It is going to be part of the deeded parcel of the larger 2.9 acre piece. It is not going to be a developable parcel, and we know that. It's going to be in the restriction that way, and ,d 9 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) it's already restricted in the fact that that 40 foot wide in the south to a point 207 feet along the road. You apply setbacks you have no room to build on it anyway. Again, I know the Zoning Board said it didn't set a precedent because of the fact of the condition it's in and the existing County line. So we'd open it up to any questions the Board may have. I honestly think it's about as simple as you can get. MR. TRAVER-It's got to be the smallest piece of subdivision we've ever. MR. STEVES-1 was going through my records trying to find one similar and I couldn't find one. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. STEVES-So it is therefore very easy. Like I said, the Zoning Board said it does not set a precedent because in fact it's going to be permanently and always has been part of the larger parcel by deed. It just happens to be in two municipalities as we discussed before, like along Western Avenue between Glens Falls and Queensbury. Four feet of those northerly lots on the western side just below Broadacres are within Glens Falls. The rest of the property is in Queensbury. So Craig and I have gone through a couple of those on the projects where we have no road frontage in Queensbury. So therefore you need a variance, but you really do have road frontage. You just have four feet in the City of Glens Falls. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, I think technically they're not an adjudicated body. So it wouldn't be setting a precedent. It would be setting a practice, I don't believe a precedent. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. TRAVER-But in any case, any questions or concerns by members of the Board? MR. FERONE-1 think we vetted it pretty well last week. MR. TRAVER-We did discuss it last week, not that there was a whole lot to discuss. You made a pretty clear presentation. There are three motions, in this case, that we need to pursue. We have SEAR, of course, and then Preliminary and Final subdivision approval. So if there are no questions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have the SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Are there any environmental concerns that Board members? There really are no physical changes. It's really just a subdivision. MR. FERONE-No. MR. BROWN-Do you want to do the public hearing before you do SEAR? MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're right. Are there any members of the audience that wish to comment on this application as we have opened the public hearing? Seeing none, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And proceed with the SEAR. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB PZ 185 & 186-2016 WARREN CO. The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.45 acre parcel into 0.09 acre and 25.36 acres. The total parcel of 25.45 acres is a result of lot line adjustments with parcels along Queensbury Avenue. Project is part of Airport Clearance zone activities. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 20 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) 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 Long 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 185-2016 & FINAL STAGE PZ 186-2016 WARREN COUNTY DPW, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we have Preliminary. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STG. PZ 185-2015 WARREN CO. DPW A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.45 acre parcel into 0.09 acre and 25.36 acres. The total parcel of 25.45 acres is a result of lot line adjustments with parcels along Queensbury Avenue. Project is part of Airport Clearance zone activities. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/26/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION PZ 185-2016 WARREN COUNTY DPW, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. Next Final approval. 21 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. PZ 186-2016 WARREN CO. DPW A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.45 acre parcel into 0.09 acre and 25.36 acres. The total parcel of 25.45 acres is a result of lot line adjustments with parcels along Queensbury Avenue. Project is part of Airport Clearance zone activities. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/26/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION PZ 186-2016 WARREN COUNTY DPW, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by George Ferone: 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requestsrg anted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10.As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 22 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/20/2016) ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right, Mr. Chairman. We've resolved that item. You can return to presiding. SITE PLAN PZ 172-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A CONTRACTORS STORAGE YARD ON AN EXISTING 2.3 +/- ACRE PARCEL. PLANS INCLUDE THREE AREAS OF STORAGE AND TO IMPROVE 2,000 SQ. FT. OF ACCESS ROAD WITH GRAVEL. THE STORAGE AREAS INCLUDE MATERIALS FOR PIPES/WASTE WATER INSTALLATION, LUMBER/METAL, WOODCHIPS AND OTHER MATERIALS. APPLICANT HAS INDICATED A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT A LATER TIME — SUBJECT TO FUTURE SITE PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD/CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 57-2000 SINGLE STORY LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY & FREIGHT TERMINAL BLDG.; AV 9-1989, AV 10-1989, SP 5- 89, SP 53-2000, UV 139-1989 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 SITE INFORMATION FEEDER CANAL LOT SIZE 2.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-19 SECTION 179-3- 040 NICK DAIGLE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Project is for the creation of a building construction company storage yard on a couple of acres. Three areas of storage and approved for a 2,000 square foot access road. Storage areas include materials for pipes/wastewater installation, lumber/metal, woodchips and other materials. Zoned Commercial Light Industrial. Existing parcel, right? We're not changing the parcel in shape. It's existing? MR. DAIGLE-It's existing. MR. BROWN-Yes. Okay. MR. DAIGLE-Good evening. I'm Nick Daigle. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. Do you want to tell us about your project? MR. DAIGLE-We're looking to develop, like Craig said, the lot to be used for a staging area for construction company, equipment, all the things Craig just listed. Kind of a preliminary stage and possibly looking to develop it down the road, but at this point that's all we're looking to do with that lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-So I think you indicated at some point in the future you may put a structure up of some kind and then you'd come back and talk to us about that if and when that happened. MR. DAIGLE-Yes. Correct. MR. TRAVER-So in the meantime it's really just going to be for storage of materials. MR. DAIGLE-That's correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-And this property backs up to what? MR. DAIGLE-It does back up to the canal. MR. FORD-And on the other side? MR. DAIGLE-And some residential parcels, which you can see by the survey. MR. FORD-What is to prevent the visual impact for those neighbors in the residential area? 2 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DAIGLE-I propose to add some additional fencing to screen. Quite a bit of the area is already fenced. MR. FERONE-You have the stockade type thing? MR. DAIGLE-Like a stockade fence, yes. MR. FORD-How high? MR. DAIGLE-Six foot. MR. FORD-And how do you anticipate anything would be stored in that area? MR. DAIGLE-Some of the equipment's probably 10 feet when the boom's up. Excavators and things of that nature are probably about 10 feet. MR. FORD-So the stockade fencing is not going to block the view of what is being stored there from the residents? MR. DAIGLE-Not necessarily for the excavators, no. MR. FORD-That really doesn't enhance the neighborhood, does it? MR. HUNSINGER-How high would the material piles be? MR. DAIGLE-I would say five feet. MR. TRAVER-And what's existing on site now? MR. DAIGLE-It's relatively open ground. We have some equipment that's parked there. MR. TRAVER-Including the 10 foot high equipment that you mentioned earlier? MR. DAIGLE-Nothing right now. Everything's in the field this time of year, but towards the end of the season. MR. TRAVER-But is there a history of the excavators and so on that you described earlier being parked? MR. DAIGLE-I have parked them there in the past, but at this time of the year we're out in the field mobilized for the most part. MR. TRAVER-And that would be the case after this project were, if it were approved. Correct? MR. DAIGLE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-You're equipment's always mobile. A lot of time it doesn't sit too long. MR. DAIGLE-No. For the most part the equipment's in the field working, but occasionally when the winter months come we're kind of looking for an area to stage that equipment. MR. FORD-Has any consideration been given to the planting of vegetation which would exceed the height of the anticipated wall that you're putting in? MR. DAIGLE-I had not proposed any vegetation at this point. MR. FORD-If you were living in one of those homes, wouldn't you appreciate that? MR. DAIGLE-I would. I mean, part of the concern I had when I did purchase the property is using it as a dump site. Everybody was dumping their garbage, tires, car parts were being thrown over fences and so on. I'm really not looking to promote a place for garbage to be dumped. So that's my big concern with the vegetation. It seems like the neighborhood is pretty prone to a lot of garbage. I took tractor trailer loads of garbage out of there. MR. FORD-You don't know where it came from, but it ended up there. 24 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DAIGLE-Well, I kind of do. I mean, four or five feet behind the fence is a pretty good indication, old tools, car parts, like I said, tires, all sorts of debris, literally tractor trailer loads of garbage was hauled off that property. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it looks like you've cleaned it up nicely. MR. DAIGLE-I have. MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm sure you'll do even more. MR. DAIGLE-That's my intent. I'd like to keep it so it's visible to some degree, because like I say, it seems to be that out of sight out of mind is a good spot to dump garbage, based on that experience I had, with, like I said, taking all of that material out of there. MR. FORD-So keeping it out of sight, out of mind, how is that going to get accomplished? MR. DAIGLE-I'm saying the neighbors before to that property were taking the liberties of dumping their garbage over the fence. So as we promote vegetation there to be a buffer, I'm concerned that that behavior might start all over again. MR. FORD-How would vegetation encourage that as opposed to the fencing, which you're going to put in anyway? MR. DAIGLE-Well, if I plant a bunch of plants between the property line and the neighbors, that's what they were doing when it was vegetated in those areas. There was garbage being thrown over the fence. MR. FORD-What about fencing with vegetation inside the fence that would eventually exceed the height of the fence? MR. DAIGLE-What I'm trying to explain to you was there was fencing already there. When the vegetation that exceeded the height of the fence, once we cleared that vegetation away and cleaned the property up, it was littered with garbage, old pools, car parts, tires, garbage, actual bags of garbage. MR. TRAVER-So you're saying that the vegetation, in your mind, encouraged hiding, of a place to hide? MR. DAIGLE-I believe absolutely, sure. When you had it overgrown, you know, the folks were tossing it right over the fence. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now you've got a fire hazard. MR. DAIGLE-And a heck of a mess. I mean, I took out about $1,000 worth of debris to the dump, at my expense, when I purchased the property. MR. DEEB-How is that different from the fence, though? I don't understand. How would that be different from the fence? MR. DAIGLE-Well, if I don't leave vegetation, it's a mowed area. I mean, it's not going to be, I mean, someone's not going to take their garbage over the fence and throw it into my lot and think that I'm not going to see it. MR. FERONE-With the vegetation, then, there's a tendency to think it won't be seen? MR. DAIGLE-That seemed to be the behavior. That's kind of my, I'm discouraged to do that because that was the behavior that was taking place there. MR. FORD-How about since you've cleaned it? MR. DAIGLE-That has ceased. There is no more debris being thrown over the fences. MR. DEEB-That's a good thing. MR. DAIGLE-Yes, I'm happy about that. MR. FORD-And the fencing is in place? 25 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DAIGLE-Correct. The fencing was there when I purchased the property. It's from the previous, the neighbors put that fencing up, and when I came in and bought the property and I cleaned it up to get access to it, that's when I cleaned all the garbage out, and it was literally within five to seven feet of the fence. MR. DEEB-The fence is still there. MR. DAIGLE-Correct. There are sections where we propose to add fencing, along the property line. There's a couple of neighbors that did not have fencing, and they've asked if I would put that in to the site plan, absolutely. We're also proposing a gate to try to keep that behavior down as well. MR. FERONE-That's what I was going to ask you, if the area was going to be secured. MR. DAIGLE-That's my goal. MR. DEEB-Laura also put in here that we should consider requesting additional information, snow removal location, traffic, employees, deliveries and parking of contractor vehicles, hours of operation, management of stormwater to minimize material washout. Have you considered that? Did you look at that? MR. DAIGLE-Yes, we've got a lot of wood chips that we're using for managing until the vegetation grows up in the areas that have been disturbed, and as far as employee parking, that would be a very low minimal need. We have another lot where we primarily park. MR. DEEB-How many employees do you anticipate? MR. DAIGLE-I have five employees right now, and that's not anticipated to grow. MR. DEEB-And your hours of operation? MR. DAIGLE-Typically the guys report at six in the morning to a different location, then they may go over and get a truck from that location and head out. They're usually done by five, five thirty. MR. DEEB-And you have a snow removal plan? MR. DAIGLE-Yes, I do. I mean, I'll plow that to gain access enough to access the equipment in the winter, but we're not going to be as busy, with the frost and our need for that equipment will be minimized substantially at that point. MR. FORD-Craig, what would be the process to exceed the six foot limit on fencing? MR. BROWN-Probably an area variance should be included in any site plan approval. Any commercial fence is a site plan review item. So you'd want to make it part of this, but it would also require an area variance from the Zoning Board. Six is the max, regardless of. Let me look. I think you might be able to go to eight in commercial. Give me one second. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board while Craig's looking that up? MR. BROWN-Yes. Industrial commercial zones, this is a Commercial Light Industrial, Item Number D2 here is generally fences should be no more than six feet in height unless the fence is necessary for security purposes, in which case a fence may be erected that is eight feet high, together with such other features that will enhance security. So it calls for eight feet. It's kind of tied to security issues, but eight feet. MR. DEEB-And you wouldn't need a variance? MR. BROWN-You would not need a variance. MR. FORD-Would you consider an eight foot fence? MR. DAIGLE-Throughout the entire property line? MR. FORD-Adjoining the residential. 2 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DAIGLE-That would be a substantial expense that I'm not really financially prepared to do at this point. The neighbors that I've spoken to asked me to continue their sections that were not fenced at six feet. So that seemed to be the general accepted by the neighbors, as far as I know, the folks that I spoke with were content with the six foot fence. So I'd prefer not to voluntarily have to take and do, I think it's a substantial expense for fencing. MR. FERONE-How many additional feet of six foot do you need to put in, do you know? MR. DAIGLE-I'm going to say it's no more than 70 feet. MR. DEEB-And that gives continuity, the rest is six foot, too. MR. DAIGLE-That's six foot stockade. MR. DEEB-Okay. So is this new stockade fence proposed 366 feet plus or minus, is that already there or? MR. DAIGLE-I apologize. If we did scale it, I didn't recall it was quite that far, but I don't know if that's correct, because actually there is fencing in a substantial volume of the areas. MR. FORD-It's neighbor's fencing. MR. DAIGLE-Correct. MR. FORD-Which you will not be touching. MR. DAIGLE-I will not be touching that. there are two parcels that are missing fencing. I don't quite think that it's all, there may have been a couple of sections that were pretty tattered, and I spoke with the neighbors. If I get after it, I would probably continue putting new fencing. Some of the fencing is in pretty tough shape. So the maximum I would be disturbing would be the 300. 1 think that's why the draftsman put that down. MR. BROWN-Yes, and just for clarification for the Board and for the applicant, if this plan is approved as submitted, when we go out to inspect in the field, we're going to be looking for 366 feet of fence. So if the number's less than that, we want to clarify that now so when Bruce comes out to visit the site he's not looking for 366, if that's not your number. MR. DAIGLE-I would be prepared to do 366 feet of new fencing, but I'm not looking to do the entire length of that parcel or that boundary with eight foot fencing at this point. MR. TRAVER-Could the 366 feet that we're discussing could be bumped to eight feet, just that portion you're installing? MR. DAIGLE-That I wouldn't mind doing, sure. I wouldn't mind doing that section. MR. MAGOWAN-What's the tree line like along there? MR. DAIGLE-There's very little vegetation. There are some very large trees towards the, I guess it would be the, I don't know, Craig, if you can show the part where the parcel pinches down at the end. MR. BROWN-Right here? MR. DAIGLE-Yes, there's some large vegetation in there. MR. FORD-So you wanted to go eight feet for 360 feet out of how many is the total? MR. DAIGLE-That boundary is quite long. I don't know if we can determine that on the survey, 700 and some odd feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it does have a dimension. MR. DAIGLE-Seven hundred and forty-five feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Craig, if you cursor down the southern boundary has a dimension, 376. MR. BROWN-376, right. 27' (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-So that kind of gives you an idea. Maybe you were thinking of the new stockade from where the new gate is. MR. DAIGLE-I was not. There's a lot of fencing from where the gate is that's already existing that's in great condition, from relatively new fencing. I may have had the draftsman and myself were slightly confused. I'm proposing up to 360 feet. I didn't realize that we were committing ourselves to actually doing that if the fence that's already existing was sufficient, but I would be willing to do all of that homogenized new fencing from Point A to Point B up to 360 feet. Beyond that, the balance of the fencing that's existing is in good condition. The area that was mapped out was maybe a little questionable. Some of the fencing is pretty rotting and in need of replacement. MR. FORD-You don't own that fencing anyway. Right? Isn't it the neighbor's fencing? MR. DAIGLE-If it's on the property line, based on the survey, from what the surveyor determined that whomever put that fencing up years ago did do a really good job. They stayed right on the boundary of the property line. So technically I mean, I don't know who owns that. It's on the property line. It was put up by the neighbors. MR. FORD-And maintained by the neighbors, but not maintained by the neighbors. MR. DAIGLE-Correct. I mean, some of it is in tough shape, especially as we head back down to that area that's very vegetated. That section is, the fencing is not in great condition. MR. FORD-It seems like you've got an opportunity to improve the neighborhood with improved fencing at the eight foot level? MR. DAIGLE-At this point if it would suit the Board I would be happy to do that section of fencing of the 360 feet in eight foot, and as money permits and time permits, you know, I would continue to do that. Maybe the next phase of the project. I don't know what's more in jeopardy right now, time or money. We're just very busy, and to commit myself to taking that whole fence down and putting up right now I just don't think is something that I could do, but I could do up to that 360 feet, as part of what's proposed. MR. MAGOWAN-What about trees? MR. DAIGLE-Planting trees? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. DAIGLE-Well there again, that puts me back to a place where I'm kind of concealing where people dump their garbage, Brad. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not, you know, like maple trees that will, or fast growing teardrop tree that, you know, would grow up higher than the eight or the six foot fence, you know, and just plant them where they're close enough and that would hide the upper view of, ,you know, the. MR. DAIGLE-Well, I mean, I would not be objected to, you know, opposed to doing something like that. I mean, what would you prefer, the six foot fence with some vegetation, some trees that are not going to be low-lying vegetation, something like Brad's suggesting? MR. FORD-Well, when I was talking about vegetation, I was talking trees that were going to exceed that original six foot MR. DAIGLE-Like arborvitae? MR. FORD-Something that's going to well exceed the six foot fencing that already exists. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you know, the problem with the arborvitae, they grow from the ground up. All right. So that, to me, would hide, but you get, you know, a tree that's already six feet tall, or, you know, eight feet tall, you plant it, you're at six feet, and the top will bush out, you know, and it will keep, it will still keep it open along the fence line. You'll see everything that's growing, and then it will just grow higher and I'm just trying to think of an option that, you know, because the fence is only going to give you six or eight feet. MR. DAIGLE-My preferred would be to do an eight foot fence up to the, what we suggested, up to that 360 feet, and then as the second phase continue that as part, or an understanding to add that into the budget in the development. 28 (Queensbury II:::'llannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. FORD-Well, at some time in the future we're going to get a chance to take a look at it and see how the eight foot fence has impacted the project and the neighborhood. MR. DAIGLE-I would say we're definitely, if we continue to develop the property, I'm going to be back in front of the Board to discuss that and be probably a little bit more prepared to spend the money to develop the property beyond what we're looking to use it for at this point. MR. FORD-So 360 feet of fence right now? MR. DAIGLE-I would be in agreement to that, sure. MR. DEEB-For clarification you said up to 366 feet. I think we need to know definitely how many feet it's going to be. MR. BROWN-Yes, again, the plan that's proposed, that's what it calls for. MR. DAIGLE-I'm committing to doing 360 feet of fence. MR. DEEB-Just that you know that ahead of time. MR. DAIGLE-I do understand that. I understand what Craig said that that's on the site plan and that's what you approve, that Bruce will be looking to see that new fencing. MR. DEEB-You'll do eight foot fence for 360 feet, and then if you continue on from there you'll continue with the eight foot fence? MR. DAIGLE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. So it'll all look uniform. MR. DAIGLE-Right. MR. DEEB-Okay. Absolutely. MR. BROWN-Yes, and just for my clarification, too, we're not approving the warehouse or the trucking dock or any of that. T MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. BROWN-his is just the site for the construction area. Okay. Because it's shown on the plan. It does have an X through it, but I just don't want any confusion down the road. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any reason for the additional 190 foot of fence taller? Because in your narrative you talked about six foot fence for the eastern boundary. MR. DAIGLE-Is there any reason for it to be greater than the six foot? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm asking the Board? I want to make sure it's clear what the expectation is. MR. TRAVER-I think that's internal. MR. BROWN-Well, I think the difference here maybe, and I don't want to speak for the applicant or out of turn, but I think we've got two industrial uses side by side here, versus industrial and residential MR. FORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 agree. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. 29 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Now on this Google picture here, there's quite a set of mature trees, if you run that straight line down. Is this an old picture? MR. DAIGLE-It is an old picture, Brad. I'm thinking. MR. MAGOWAN-Those all look like mature trees right along the back. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think these are all the neighbors. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to make comments to the Board. I would ask that you speak clearly into the microphone and state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes and the tape is also available on the Town's website. So do you want to be first, ma'am? Good evening PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHELLE JONES MRS. JONES-Good evening. My name is Michelle Jones. I am a resident, neighbor. MR. FORD-Your address is, your home address? MRS. JONES-41 Boulevard. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. JONES-Queensbury. Where the fire hydrant is on the map, I'm like. MR. HUNSINGER-Right where those bushes are showing. MRS. JONES-Yes. MR. BROWN-Right there. MRS. JONES-Right, where the arborvitaes that were moved right up to the property line, three out of four of them are dead now. Totally brown, totally dead. He did, Mr. Daigle did put in three smaller type trees. Again, when I talked to Mr. Frank is it? You know, I said one of them's not even as tall as I am. What is that blocking? The construction, the noise, you know, it doesn't block anything. Where he's proposing that eight foot fence for that 360 feet, that doesn't include my property. I mean, something needs to be done with the trees that he killed when he moved them I would think. MR. HUNSINGER-So did Mr. Daigle move those trees? MRS. JONES-Yes, right on top of the property line. I was under the impression fencing and stuff were not supposed to be on the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-So the trees were off your property before? MRS. JONES-The trees were in his right of way. They have been there for, when I called Mr. Frank back last August, there were, or, no, actually the first time I called was December because there were people out in the back with a plow truck and one of them was stuck and they were trying to tow him out and it ended up being, I don't know if it was Mr. Daigle or if it was his employees, but at that point in time, living in that house for 23 years, I thought it was my property. There was a trailer, a boat trailer parked on the property. Again, I called the sheriff. I've lived there for 20 years. I didn't know he came in and bought this whatever. They told me to tow it away. If I was concerned there was a stolen thing put there, hidden by the trees. So I had it towed away. So we didn't start out being very good neighbors. It appears eventually, I guess it goes back even farther than that. When you look on this, they had to propose clearing vegetation. Why wasn't there a Town board meeting when he decided to clear cut and, you know, level out all that property? I was never notified. I'm not sure if any of the previous neighbors were ever notified that he was, right now there's all kinds of logs on the property that 30 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) obviously he mulches. I mean, I don't know. I would like to see a little more privacy. The noise is, I do have a short video on my phone when they were clearing the property and the pounding and the banging and the breaking up the rocks to move them because it was quite rocky throughout the center of that when he first started clearing it out. I would be concerned with the hours of operation and he should be held to hours of operation because on, let's see, we'll start with back September 3 d, 7:30 a.m. That's not real bad. Five thirty in the morning on August 24th. Six o'clock in the morning on August 25th. August 23d they were clear cutting the property. That was through the day. It wasn't so much early morning. September 25th, 6:50 in the morning. I mean, they're out there three o'clock in the morning in the middle of winter. We're here to establish his business, but he's been doing this for almost a year now already all hours of the day and night. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this is the first it's been before us. MRS. JONES-So I would like to know there's hours of operation. The other businesses in the area open their doors, close their doors. They're not driving in and out. You know what I'm saying? This is all heavy equipment. There's a lot of backing up, beep, beep, beep. Yes it's a safety thing. I understand that, but when you drive in reverse for three hours when they were clearing the land. I don't know. I just wanted to be heard. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. JONES-Thank you. Did you want to speak, sir? CRAIG SWEET MR. SWEET-Craig Sweet. I reside at 25 Boulevard. The only thing is if he'd take that large tree at the south end of my property down. Other than that I have no problems. He's cleaned it up. MR. TRAVER-It's on your property? MR. SWEET-No, it's on his property on the other side of the fence, but if that falls, it's taking out the house because it's large enough. MR. FORD-Why do you want it taken down? MR. SWEET-Because I'm afraid it's going to fall. MR. TRAVER-Is that tree dead? MR. SWEET-There's limbs coming off it. I'm not sure if it's dead or dying, and as far as the height of the fence, most of those, all the machinery over there is mobile. It's not like it's a stationary structure, and it's zoned Commercial Residential. So you pretty much take that acceptability that you're going to have businesses there, but other than that, that's the only thing I'd ask is just take that tree down. MR. FORD-We're trying to get him to plant more trees and you want him to take a tree down. MR. SWEET-1 mean, most of the machinery over there, it's not like it's going to be a permanent structure. It's going to be moving all the time. So if you plant a tree here, and the machinery comes back and it's down here. So you're not really accomplishing anything. With the fence there it covers most of it anyway. MR. FORD-Do you have a fence in the back of your property? MR. SWEET-Yes. MR. FORD-How high is it? MR. SWEET-1 want to say six foot. MR. FORD-And it's yours? You maintain it? MR. SWEET-Because the good side's facing us. What it was is the person that owned the property, I don't know if it was before he bought it, because it's changed hands a couple of 31 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) times. When I purchased the property originally, we thought the line was back further, probably 50, 60 feet back, and when they came back in and re-surveyed it, it showed the line further up toward the back of my garage. So they moved, whoever it was that owned the property moved the fence up and ran it down through there, and that's basically why there's so much junk back there because a lot of, there was a lot of renters and stuff down through there, and they thought their property line was back further and they were just bringing stuff back there and dropping it. MR. FORD-So is that fence yours? Are you maintaining it? MR. SWEET-No. MR. FORD-It's not yours. MR. SWEET-No, I believe the fence is theirs because the prior owner of the property moved the fence up and re-did the fence line. I don't know if the satellite imagery goes back, because I purchased it in 2001, and the fence line was back quite a ways from where it is now. MR. BROWN-So just for orientation, this is the entrance, the new gate is here. These are the arborvitae that Mrs. Jones was talking about. This is the site, and, sir, I'm not sure where you live. Is it this big tree right here maybe? MR. SWEET-Yes, that one tree right there. MR. DEEB-We tend to discourage taking down live trees. We encourage planting them. MR. DAIGLE-He is correct. It is a large old tree. He's concerned about it falling and if the Board's not objected and it satisfies his concerns, we would be happy to take it down. It is a large old tree. I did not take it down because I didn't have an interest in it myself, but it's a very large mature tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anything else, sir? MR. SWEET-No. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to come back to the table? MR. DAIGLE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-No written comments. MR. FORD-How many large old trees on the property have you taken down so far? MR. DAIGLE-We've taken down probably three large, very large old trees that were in tough shape. MR. FORD-Do you have trunks stored on the property right now? MR. DAIGLE-Stumps? Trunks or? MR. FORD-I'm sorry, not stumps. The logs from the trees, how many? MR. DAIGLE-Yes, well over, I would say 100. MR. FORD-All from that property? MR. DAIGLE-Not necessarily, no. Most of them are from that property. Some of them we've trucked in. We're having a hard time getting them to the chip plant. They're not taking material at this point. I don't know what the status is at that point, but our intentions are to process them at a chip plant. MR. DEEB-Can we address the trucks backing up and beeping. Was most of that done when you were cleaning up the property? MR. DAIGLE-Primarily yes. 32 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DEEB-So there's not going to be as much of that anymore? MR. DAIGLE-No. It's, like I say, it's a staging area, out in the morning, back in the evening. MR. DEEB-And what time do you usually start? MR. DAIGLE-She's correct, a couple of times my guys have gone over there at six in the morning. I've since let them know that that's disturbing the neighbors and they can't be over there before seven. MR. DEEB-So if you go like seven, seven until what? MR. DAIGLE-Normally the end of day is five, five thirty by the time the guys come back. MR. DEEB-Do you think that would be acceptable? MR. DAIGLE-We try to run during normal business hours. We're in construction, unfortunately sometimes we run later than we want to be, but we try, for the most part we try to be done by five. MR. DEEB-But there are exceptions once in a while, but as long as it's just once in a while. MR. FERONE-And the activity at five, is it like the construction equipment coming back or just your workers maybe coming back to their vehicles to go home? MR. DAIGLE-The equipment coming back primarily. I have another property where the vehicles are stored as well where the employees park at typically. I mean, my one employee has a company vehicle that typically comes and goes with him. He takes it home. He takes that to the job sites, and two of my employees are his two boys that travel with him to and from work. So we don't have a lot of impact on vehicles that are being parked and staged. Not to say that we don't have any, we do, but you know, the vehicles that are being used for the site, most of the guys ride in. It's a crew cab and they get together and go in that. MR. FORD-In as much as you have a second site for storage of equipment, is it possible that you could utilize this site for some of your equipment that was not as high in elevation? MR. DAIGLE-Well, this is kind of the idea is for this to be the relief of the other site. The other site is not, and quite frankly, the booms, we can drop those down if that's a concern. I do have a boom truck and so that's why I told you that is 10 feet high. That's a vehicle that's used for delivering concrete forms. So the boom is not actually capable of dropping below that. That actually might not be quite 10 feet. I think that might be, when collapsed it's like 9 foot 8. So that, but the excavator we can collapse the booms down and actually fold them in and drop them down to a much lower elevation, but they'd still be eight feet high, the cabs. MR. FORD-Well you do have equipment that does not have an eight foot cab? MR. DAIGLE-I do. MR. FORD-Wouldn't this be a good site for those? MR. DAIGLE-It would be a great site for those, yes, but unfortunately we do have equipment that's eight feet high. I do have equipment that's eight feet to ten feet high that I'm looking to park. MR. FORD-Can that be totally stored on the other site? MR. DAIGLE-No. I want permission to store it on this site. MR. FORD-That doesn't answer the question. Can it be stored on the other site? MR. DAIGLE-It has been in the past, yes. It can. MR. HUNSINGER-Well if they have an eight foot stockade fence. MR. DEEB-The reason for purchasing this is to put that equipment there. The reason you're getting this property is to put that equipment there. (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DAIGLE-That is correct. I mean, we're trying to relieve the pressure on the other property, and it was my intention to, like the tractor trailer, the height of that has got to be nine feet. So I mean I'm not going to tell you I don't have equipment that's that high. I do, and even like our mini excavator, I think that's actually eight foot, the cab, the skids are seven foot high with the cab. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That doesn't seem out of normal for a construction company. MR. DAIGLE-I mean, I don't have a crane. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're not here to tell you how to run your business. MR. DEEB-No, that's not for us, and you agreed to an eight foot fence. MR. FORD-For 360 feet. MR. TRAVER-And remove the tree on the northwest corner by the Jones' house. MR. DAIGLE-If the Board is approving that, I would be happy to do that for him. I mean, I do see, and that was the reason for taking some of the large trees down. They were old and limbs that were falling. It's close to his property. It's a very substantial large tree. MR. DEEB-Well, I don't think we have to approve that, do we? MR. TRAVER-No, not if it's on your property. MR. DEEB-If it's on your property, that's something we don't have to approve. I may have misspoken. Hang on. MR. BROWN-Theoretically, any commercial or industrial property, anything that happens on the site is fair game to be reviewed by this Board. It's development of the site. You remove trees. You grade the property, you do anything, you make any improvements to the property, it's probably something that could be coming here for site plan review, per the Code. It's required. So if the plan is to take down that tree, you definitely want to make it part of your approval. MR. DEEB-Fine. MR. FORD-Where has this application been for the last 11 months, then? MRS. JONES-Exactly. That's my. MR. BROWN-I'm not the person to answer that question. MRS. JONES-Frank told me I could expect this meeting last October. It's been a long wait, but nothing happened. He still works. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's part of an enforcement action. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a similar property right in my neighborhood. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's not necessarily an enforcement action, but we've certainly been encouraging Mr. Daigle to get his application in as soon as possible and we're here now. MR. DEEB-Okay. So let's resolve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. And you're comfortable with those hours of operation we mentioned? MR. DAIGLE-I am, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And then Mrs. Jones' property where the bushes were re-located, would you be putting fence along her property line as well? Is that part of the 360 feet? MR. DAIGLE-It was not part of that 360 feet, but I would entertain adding that in to assist her with her concerns. It's not a large section. I guess I would like her to weigh in if she wants it to be eight foot I would do eight foot because that's what we're doing. It would break the chain of the height that's there. Everything that's presently there is six feet. 34 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DAIGLE-If she prefers a six foot or an eight foot, I'd like the Board to weigh in on that as well as with her opinion. If she wants a fence I'd happily put, my intentions are, if I do replace, down the road, the rest of the fence, it seems like the Board is looking to, or this gentleman is look to see it all go to eight foot, I would prefer it all be consistent, but the fence that's presently there in that section I do not propose to do anything with. It's in decent shape. The section that's proposed is in poor shape. So at this point if I'm going to go to the expense of doing a fence, I'd prefer to do it all eight foot, with the goal of making it all eight foot. MR. DEEB-That makes sense. MR. DAIGLE-So if she's not objected to eight feet, I would put eight feet. MRS. JONES-I'm happy. MR. DEEB-She's okay with eight feet. MRS. JONES-1 am. MR. DAIGLE-Then that's what we're going to do, eight foot for her as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-How wide is the property, ma'am, at the fence? MRS. JONES-Twenty-five? I don't know. I don't remember. MR. DAIGLE-It's probably close to 60 feet, an additional 60 feet of fence I would guess. MRS. JONES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we could say 360 plus the Jones' property. MR. DEEB-Yes, that would be the best way to do it, 360 plus the Jones' property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Were there any written comments, Craig, did I ask? MR. BROWN-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEAR. They submitted a Short Form. Were there any environmental concerns that the Board feels may be moderate to large impact? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. FORD-That have not already occurred. The removal of 100 or more mature trees. MR. DAIGLE-To correct you on that, 100 logs, not 100 trees. We cut them down to eight foot sections. MR. DEEB-One hundred logs. MR. FORD-Sorry. Thank you. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP PZ 172-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE The applicant proposes to create a contractors storage yard on an existing 2.3 +/- acre parcel. Plans include three areas of storage and to improve 2,000 sq. ft. of access road with gravel. The storage areas include materials for pipes/waste water installation, lumber/metal, woodchips and other materials. Applicant has indicated a structure to be constructed at a later time — subject to future site plan. 35 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) 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 PZ 172-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; As per the 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 is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So we had a modification on the length of the fence and also an inclusion of the hours of operation, and also removing the tree in the northwest corner. Any other conditions that we need to consider? MR. TRAVER-That covers it. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 172-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance: to create a contractors storage yard on an existing 2.3 +/- acre parcel. Plans include three areas of storage and to improve 2,000 sq. ft. of access road with gravel. The storage areas include materials for pipes/waste water installation, lumber/metal, woodchips and other materials. Applicant has indicated a structure to be constructed at a later time — subject to future site plan. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, contractor storage yard/construction company 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 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 7/26/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/26/2016 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 7/26/2016; 36 (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) 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 PZ 172-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE; 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 requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. e) Operating hours will be 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. f) 360 feet of 8 foot stockade fencing will be added, plus the Jones area. g) The tree on the northwest corner will be removed. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: MR. DAIGLE-7:30 or 7? MR. HUNSINGER-He said 7. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You said 7? Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry. MR. BROWN-Just a clarification on the height. Did your condition say eight feet or six feet? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Eight feet. MR. BROWN-Eight feet. Okay. MR. FORD-Could I ask the applicant one additional question before we move forward? One neighbor appeared tonight and is happy with the addition of an eight foot fence back of her property. What if there were other neighbors who would also appreciate that, in addition to the 360 plus hers? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they've got to speak up. MR. DAIGLE-Yes, I mean, at this point, don't take this the wrong way, but I just don't have the budget and the time to take that project on. Like I said, I would be happy to address that when we come forth with any further development, but that's not what we're looking to do at this point. MR. FORD-1 just had to ask that question. MR. HUNSINGER-Maria, you had a question? MS. GAGLIARDI-You said any additional waivers. I assume you meant any additional conditions as opposed to waivers? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DAIGLE-Okay, gentlemen. Thank you very much. 37' (Queensbury II:::'Ilannling I::.3oard 07/26/2016) MR. DEEB-Craig? MR. BROWN-I'm done with this. I just wanted a second before you guys left. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, before we adjourn, in a prior meeting we had discussions about doing a site visit for the Clendon Brook subdivision. Either Saturday August 6th or August 13th. Is there a preference for one day or the other? I was thinking we could meet at nine o'clock there at the dead end at the entrance to the property. MR. DEEB-When do you want to do it? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you prefer the 6th? We're hearing the project on the 16th MR. TRAVER-1 think I could do the 6th MR. SCHONEWOLF-I could do it, too. MR. MAGOWAN-The 6th is better for me. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll send an e-mail out. I mean, people are certainly welcome to go out on their own, as well. I just thought there might be value going as a Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll meet there at the gate, the gate at the dead end where the property starts. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, what time? MR. HUNSINGER-Nine o'clock Saturday, August 6th MR. DEEB-Okay. August 6th you said. MR. HUNSINGER-At 9 a.m. Craig, you said you had something? MR. BROWN-Yes, I can do them after you adjourn, if you want. MR. HUNSINGER-After we adjourn? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion, is there a second? MR. FERONE-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 38