Loading...
10-18-2016 6 q J,V.Ji a a II h c.' :^U.!i If H i n If n II IC.n q u "p If QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2016 INDEX Site Plan No. 70-2014 James Varano 1. Request for One Yr. Ext. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59 Subdivision PZ 207-2016 Michael Dorman 2. TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 295.11-1-5 Site Plan PZ 220-2016 Julie Jarvis & Mike Baird 3. Special Use Permit PZ 221-2016 Tax Map No. 308.15-1-44 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan PZ 228-2016 Harold D. Gordon 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-88 Subdivision PZ 6-2015 Maurice Combs 8. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Subdivision PZ 236-2016 FINAL STAGE Subdivision PZ 206-2016 Joseph Leuci 11. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 295.15-1-6 Site Plan PZ 227-2016 Peter Shabat 20. Tax Map No. 252.-1-48 Site Plan PZ 223-2016 The Fort Miller Co., Inc. 22. Special Use Permit PZ 224-2016 Tax Map No. 279.-1-59.2, -72, -73, -48 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. I II h c.' :^U.!i If H i n If n II IC.n q u "p If QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday October 18, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There's copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Later in the agenda we do have some public hearings scheduled. First order of business is approval of minutes from August 16th and August 23rd. If anyone would like to make a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 16, 2016 August 23, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16th AND AUGUST 23rd, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have three administrative items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO, EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR TO NOVEMBER 2017 MR. HUNSINGER-Did they give any reason for the delay? MRS. MOORE-Yes, he's here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If we could have you come up to the microphone, please. STUART THOMAS MR. THOMAS-My name is Stuart Thomas of Reality Realty. I'm the agent representing Jim Varano. The reason basically is that we can't clear the title right now, and so it's not an issue of willingness. It's a question of the ability to get the title cleared to move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That seems reasonable. RESOLUTION GRANTING ONE YEAR EXT. SP # 74-2014 JAMES VARANO The Planning Board approved this application on 11-18-2014; the approval good for one year unless a building permit has been applied for; The applicant submitted a letter dated 9-6-2016 requesting a one year extension to 10-18-2017; MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 70-2014 JAMES VARANO., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. You're welcome. The next one is to table Subdivision Preliminary Stage PZ 207-2017 for Michael Dorman to December 2016. TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 207-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN TO DECEMBER 2017 MRS. MOORE-The applicant is going before the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow evening and thought to table the Subdivision piece until the Zoning Board has reviewed and made a decision on the number of lots, and so you'll see this again in December. So I would table it to the first meeting in December. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was going to be the next question, which meeting, December 20th. MRS. MOORE-December 20th, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PRELIM STG. 207-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 2.54 acre parcel into 3 lots (revised). Project is for three single-family homes. Proposed lot sizes: Lot 1 to be 0.40 acre, Lot 2 to be 1.23 acres, and Lot 3 to be 0.60 acre with a hammerhead on Lot 2. Project includes waterline extension and septic systems for each lot. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 207-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the December 20, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE APPROVAL OF 2017 MEETING CALENDAR MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally under Administrative Items we have approval of the 2017 Meeting Calendar. I did have two comments, Laura. Was there any particular reason why we were skipping the third Tuesday in February, the 21 st? MRS. MOORE-It's a vacation week, but it doesn't matter to me because there's a Zoning Board that week. So if you want to move that back to that third meeting that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the other question I had was in May, I think it's usually the last meeting in May is Town Grievance day. Is that maybe on the 30th this year instead of the 23rd? MRS. MOORE-Possibly. MR. HUNSINGER-And maybe that's why we don't have the conflict. I think it's usually the last Tuesday of the month. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that sound right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does sound right. Do you want me to just check those and then do you want to postpone it and make a decision next Tuesday? MR. HUNSINGER-We can go ahead and take action and if we need to change it we can. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FERONE-There's only one in January and one in August? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the pink is both meeting date and deadline. MR. FERONE-1 see. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments on the proposed dates? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to change that February date back to the regular time? MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's fine with me. MR. HUNSINGER-You probably won't be here anyway, right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I will this year. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I'm fine. MR. HUNSINGER-The February date, we'll go to the 21St MR. TRAVER-As long as we get an updated calendar, that's fine with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we'll move the February to the 21St and we'll go as posted. MRS. MOORE-Okay. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2017 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE CALENDAR MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2017 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Moving the February 2017 date to the 21St Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have several items for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN PZ 220-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 221-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JULIE JARVIS & MIKE BAIRD OWNER(S) MIKE BAIRD ZONING CLI LOCATION 414 :1 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A 30 X 60 SQ. FT. PORTION OF AN EXISTING 2,530 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A DOG KENNEL. PROJECT INCLUDES A 454 SQ. FT. FENCED IN AREA WITH ACCESS TO BUILDING. PROJECT SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR KENNEL USE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, KENNELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR KENNEL USE, SETBACK AND LOT SIZE. ALSO, FOR MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPLE USE IN CLI ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-90, SP 62-90, AV PZ 219-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2016 LOT SIZE 1.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-44 SECTION 179-3-040 & 179-10-040 JULIE JARVIS & MIKE BAIRD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant is proposing to use a portion of a 30 by 60 portion of an existing 2,530 sq. ft. building for the dog kennel use. Also part of the project includes a 454 sq. ft. fended in area and variances requested are from having less than 10 acres for a kennel use, side setbacks to maintain the use 200 feet from the property line and also having more than one principle use in a Commercial Light Industrial zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the applicant here? If you want to come to the table, please, and if you could state your name for the record and tell us a little bit about the project. MS. JARVIS-My name's Julie Jarvis. MR. BAIRD-How you doing. My name's Mike Baird. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add about your project? MR. BAIRD-Yes. I know it's preliminary. I have a quick cover letter which just explains it. It's something you don't have. It's a quick cover letter of what we'd like to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. BAIRD-And I'm not reading it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you going to pass it out? Oh, she is. MR. BAIRD-Yes, she is. MS. JARVIS-Okay. My name's Julie Jarvis and I've been a resident in Queensbury my whole life. I'm a licensed veterinary technician and I'm a huge animal lover. Right now I have a mobile pet sitting business called Room for Paws. I have a large clientele and they have been urging me to open a dog boarding business as they trust me with the dogs. My dog boarding business used to be located in Diamond Plaza in the Town of Moreau. Since I left that location last year I've been offering mobile pet services, but I wish to resume the boarding. When I made a decision and I decided I wanted to open my business off of Exit 18, as there are essentially no boarding kennels off of this exit. This also is where I reside. I saw where kennels are not on the list of approved business uses in that corridor, which is Commercial Light Industrial. So I decided to present the option of adding kennels to the list of approved businesses in that area to the Town Board. I went door to door in that area with a petition explaining this request and I obtained signatures of the local residents and business owners. I was met with no resistance and a lot of excitement from the local residents. In February of 2016 the Town Board approved this request, and the district was amended to include kennels in the list of approved uses. So after looking for a couple of sites, I was fortunate to be offered a place to open my kennels at an existing building known as Mike Baird Signs. We decided it was the perfect location. It's a pre-existing compliant structure in the vicinity of where I was looking, next door to my original location choice, in a high visibility area surrounded by other businesses, and on the same property where we both reside out back. As stated in the application packet, the sign business will continue its operation in the front section of the building. The proposed dog kennel will be located in the back, 30 by 60 sq. ft. area. The property has commercial parking and the back part of the building where the kennels will be located has no windows, which we feel is a plus. I've been working on this project for nearly nine months now, and it's occurred to me along the way that not only is the location ideal and only one mile off of Exit 18, but there is a true geographical plus in this location. If you drive from Exit 18 one mile towards our proposed boarding facility and continue down Corinth Road and turn right onto West Mountain Road heading north until you meet Aviation Road, turn right again and proceed to Exit 19, 1 started to notice the abundance of residential developments inside the whole corridor who have dogs and no nearby boarding facilities. So that's the scope of the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-So based on the amount of space you have there, it says that you can accommodate up to 35 dogs at one time? MS. JARVIS-Yes. MR. FERONE-And you said that some of them would be sharing space in that. Do you think noise might be a factor, in terms of the dogs being together? MS. JARVIS-Actually, no. I've had a lot of experience with boarding animals and working with animals. Actually when they're together they actually make less noise. When they're in kennels, they're in cages, they're separated, they're not happy, they bark. MR. FERONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any national or international organizations that accredit or certify your operation? MS. JARVIS-No. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You said you talked to the neighbors? How about the neighbor that's the closest, the immediate neighbor? MS. JARVIS-Yes, the one that's the closest on either side of us both signed a petition and they were actually excited about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BAIRD-You have the petition article in front of you, both of those neighbors, Julie went around in person, a while back, and there were only a couple that weren't around. Of the couple that weren't around to sign it, the ones on either side were and they're actually on there. They're my neighbors for years. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there's two variance requests. One is for the kennel being less than 200 feet from the property line and on a site of less than 10 acres. The second one is for having more than one principle use on a site in the CLI zone. Are there any particular concerns or comments from Board members about those requests? I mean, in the past the big concern with kennels has always been noise, which was already brought up. I'm sure when we get to public hearings we'll hear about it. MR. BAIRD-Right, and may I make the comment to the word noise. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. BAIRD-1 reside out back. Is that enough? The back portion of my business shop has no windows. The point about that being in there is this young lady here she spent her life with dogs, and she knows how to handle them. I don't mess with her, and our whole thing is, with all due respect to the Board, we want you to do your job, but I live right behind this situation. If it does get approved, no one cares more about noise than me, and we've taken all that into consideration. I've watched her with her business in the other place and she's very good, and there are no windows. We are not going to have outside runs. There's no outside boarding. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Laura, do we have many other businesses that have two businesses on one property? MRS. MOORE-I'd have to look. MR. HUNSINGER-What was the question? MR. DEEB-Do we have any other places in Queensbury that are two businesses on one property? I'm just wondering. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, certainly we have lots of plazas with multiple tenants. It's really kind of similar. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. BAIRD-I've had a sign business in this Town for 38 years, and I've worked with the codes with the sign codes for 38 years and been through five Zoning Administrators as far as allowance for sign codes, with businesses with two, three, with the Zoning Administrator, and many of them have been generally, as far as that part of the question, as far as two businesses, I've done many signs permitted in the Town for multiple. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 219-2016 JARVIS & BAIRD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to utilize a 30 x 60 sq. ft. portion of an existing 2,530 sq. ft. building for a dog kennel. Project includes a 454 sq. ft. fenced in area with access to building. Project subject to a special use permit for kennel use. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, kennels shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for kennel use, setback and lot size. Also, for more than one principle use in CLI zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 219-2016 JULIE JARVIS & MIKE BAIRD: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. BAIRD-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-As my own phone buzzes, I would just like to remind everyone in the room if they could turn off their ringers. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is Site Plan PZ 228- 2016 for Harold Gordon SITE PLAN PZ 228-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II HAROLD D. GORDON AGENT(S) MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 2780 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 120 SQ. FT. DECK ATTACHED TO A DOCK. PROJECT REPLACES CONCRETE PAD AREA WITH NEW DECK CONFIGURATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING FOR A DECK ON SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR A DECK AT SHORELINE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ 228-2016, BOTH 133-2016 (BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; LEGACY BP 2014-059 AND SP 34-2013); BP 2004-363 DECK; BP 92-645 CARPORT; BP 88-412 SUNROOM ADDITION; BP 85-356 SFD; BP 91-847 ADDITION WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA, CEA LOT SIZE 1.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-88 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-6-050 MORGAN GAZETOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HAROLD GORDON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes the construction, actually this has already been constructed, let me clarify that, of a 120 sq. ft. plus or minus deck to an attached dock. The applicant has provided an updated survey and has worked with the Park Commission. I provided you information that says that the Park Commission had explained that the dock was not in compliance. So the applicant has already met with the Park Commission and satisfied their requirements. I do have an updated drawing if you want to see how the dock is with the new deck that's already there. I can share that with you, but the applicant, again, it's for setbacks to the shoreline and setbacks to either side. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GORDON-Good evening, Mr. Hunsinger and members of the Board. I'm Harold Gordon the applicant and this is Morgan Gazetos who is our agent, and I think I best turn this over to him at this point to explain how we came to be here and why we're here this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-Good evening, gentleman. I undertook this project in the middle of summer, and normally, this is, oddly enough, about the 10th year anniversary I've been building docks, and so the process is pretty much the same. I go to the Park Commission. I ask to file the existing, have a survey. I go to the Park Commission, work out what they want to do, go to the Town of Queensbury and drop off my Park Commission permit, all my drawings. I wait for them to call, get my permit and go to work. So with this particular dock, I followed protocol. I went to the Park Commission, told them what we were going to do, went to the Town of Queensbury, got a permit, and went to work, and for the first time in my 10 years I ended up kicking the dock in relationship to the property line. So we should have been parallel to the setback, because of the snafu with one of the markers, I actually ended up kicking the end over about five and a half feet. So it doesn't really pertain to the dock on the shore very much, but the dock on the shore, which we're asking for the setback for, was in the permit packet that I handed in to the Town of Queensbury. When I went back in to adjust for my mistake, I found out that we were out of compliance. So I was permitted for the project, and when I went back in and I had my snafu, I found out that we had to go see the Board. So we're here to discuss that, and that's why we need the variance setback. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. MR. GORDON-Yes, and the only thing I'd like to add is that we're replacing a very impervious structure that was there already, a concrete pad, with square footage that is, as I understand it, the same or less than the square footage of the concrete pad with what's already now been constructed, called an impervious structure but obviously it's decking and it's not impervious, and the other thing is it's a lot less unsightly, it's more sightly than what was torn up and replaced. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I'm not hearing anything. So if there's no questions or comments, if anyone would like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 229-2016 HAROLD GORDON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant requests approval of an already constructed 120 sq. ft. deck attached to a dock. Project replaces concrete pad area with new deck configuration. Pursuant to Chapter 179 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing for a deck on shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for a deck at shoreline. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 229-2016 HAROLD D. GORDON: Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. GORDON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items that were tabled from prior meetings. TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE & FINAL STAGE PZ 236-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE I — COORDINATED REVIEW MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.37 TO 2.02 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES A PRIVATE DRIVE AND INSTALLATION OF A WATER LINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 DENNIS PHILLIPS & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I'm struggling with the numbers tonight. MRS. MOORE-Well, we have a new software system and so the numbers have significantly changed and they're no longer sequential. So this applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel. They received their variance the previous month, and the Board is reviewing the Preliminary Stage and Final Stage. You've already completed your SEQR review of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening, gentlemen. So my name's Dennis Phillips. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Combs and Mr. Hutchins, and as you can imagine this has been a long and winding road but we're here, glad to be here. I think that Tom will make most of the comments on the plan at this point. So I'll turn this over to Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins here on behalf of Maurice Combs. This has been going on a long time. We were here actually in 2015 we were before this Board in May with a seven lot subdivision proposal for this same parcel, and Maurice has owned this, or this parcel has been in his family of ownership since the 1950's and he's looking to move on with this parcel. In May of 2015 this Board issued a SEQR Negative Dec based on a Type I Coordinated Review and a Recommendation to the ZBA for the variances that were required because of the multiple changes in zoning since he's owned the parcel. We then went to the ZBA where we had considerable discussions. There were some concerns raised about the geometry of the Town of Queensbury water district and also the geometry of our subdivision layout. Subsequently we petitioned the Town Board to extend the water district to cover the entire parcel, which we have done, and in January 2016 the Town Board approved the extension to the water district so the entire parcel now is within the Queensbury water district. Subsequently we returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we were unsuccessful in securing support for the variances based upon the prior seven lot concept that was the last concept that this Board had seen. Following several meetings and public hearings and numerous discussions we revised the project to a five lot configuration which is as shown in your package that involves a much, much shorter and a private road that would be maintained and up kept by the Association. With that, with those revisions we were successful in securing variances necessary which included lack of road frontage, which it's no longer a public road, and the reduction in number of lots. So in August of this year the Zoning Board approved the variances that are required for the project as presented to proceed. So now we're back before this Board. We're seeking your support for Preliminary and Final approval, and of course that would be subject to the review of the Department of Health because it still is a realty subdivision because there's five lots under five acres and again they were involved in the coordinated SEQR review of the prior project. Unfortunately the Health Department generally doesn't like to review a project before you have local preliminary approval. So we're trying to move this on as far as we can move this on and anything you want to add to that, Dennis. I won't get into the technicals. I guess I'd just take questions on the technical and layouts and such. Anything to add? MR. PHILLIPS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I like the layout better than the seven lots. MR. MAGOWAN-1 want to thank you for hanging in there. This definitely looks, I was looking at the old one here and the new one, and I'm seeing a, it was a long time coming to this but I like it a lot better. I think it would be an easier sale for you. MR. SHAFER-Tom, you're comfortable with the perc rates on the septic systems? MR. HUTCHINS-1 am. The soils are rapidly permeable. They perc generally less than one minute. We've shown amended soils on all systems, and again, the Health Department's going to want to go and look at every site and we'll verify all when we get the locations absolutely tied down, but, yes, I'm comfortable with it, they're amended soils, yes. Kind of a characteristic of that neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if we'll hear any comments from neighbors tonight, but when we had a public hearing, actually it was back in May of 2015, we heard a lot of comments about drainage issues in that general area, from its residents on Honey Hollow Road. We had several comments about drainage issues, questions about the depth to the water table and similar kinds of comments. I don't know if you want to talk about that. MR. HUTCHINS-And I have subsequently done a number of seven or eight very deep test holes in the area and found well drained sands and that's documented and your engineer was actually there with me, and we reviewed them, and as you get closer to West Mountain, the groundwater table does become shallower, and we didn't find any evidence of groundwater issues at all. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the next question I had I guess is more for Staff. Do we have any, an updated comment letter from the Town Engineer? MRS. MOORE-No, we don't have one, but I'm anticipating one to be provided, and so it's up to the Board, in the resolution, if you want to do it as part of the resolution, as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, based on the information from those deep test pits, in my mind the biggest comment from last year was the infiltration. You have to have three feet from any infiltration pit to the seasonal high water table. MR. HUTCH INS-Correct, and I believe we will. We've actually modified the stormwater so that it's a much shallower system. When we were showing a Town road we had shown deep drywells along the sides of the road, which is what the Highway Department prefers. We've actually modified that to a more open system, much shallower. 1 n:p MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or 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? Do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-I don't have any written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like there's no comments to be taken this evening. What's the feeling of the Board? We already did SEAR. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have any problems as long as they meet all these, including the engineering signoff. They've got to do that. We've heard enough of this. MR. HUNSINGER-So are there any concerns with closing the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Again, we already did the SEQR review, and unless there's any other questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion for Preliminary Stage approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 5 lots ranging in size from 1.37 to 2.02 acres. Project includes a private drive and installation of a water line. Pursuant to Chapter A- 183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land 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. Adopted 5/21/2015. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4-21-2015, 5-21-2015, 6-16-2015, 8-18-2015, 10- 20-2015, 5-19-2016, 8/23/2016 & 10/18/16; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO GRANT PRELIMINARY STAGE APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, Per the draft resolution provided by staff. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan, .Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ferone Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So the only question that I have for the Board is if we want to review the engineering comments before we consider Final. MR. TRAVER-I wouldn't think they would change substantially, and signoff is a requirement. I'm happy with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments? Any thoughts from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. II RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # PZ 236-2016 MAURICE COMBS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 5 lots ranging in size from 1.37 to 2.02 acres. Project includes a private drive and easement for utilities. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land 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; SEQR Negative Declaration on 5-21-2015; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4-21-2015, 5-21-2015, 6-16-2015, 8-18-2015, 10- 20-2015; 5-19-2016, 8/23/2016 & 10/18/16; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 236-2016 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption. Per the draft resolution prepared by staff with the following: i. WaNe. equests granted / denied: stermwater rngrnt., grading, IandSGaping & lighting n' 2. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 3. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 4. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 5. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; 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. 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 7. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 8. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 9. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Just let the record show no waivers were requested by the applicant. II AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Thank you. SUBDIVISION PZ 206-2016 FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE I JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) EXCESS LANDS ZONING MDR LOCATION JOHN CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 66 ACRE PARCEL AS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REVISED WITH 20 LOTS - 19 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING FROM 1.9 +/- ACRES TO 0.80 ACRES WITH ONE LOT OF 41.6 ACRES TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE PARCEL ACCESS THROUGH EASEMENTS WITH RUSH POND. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING, CLEARING, ON-SITE SEPTIC, MUNICIPAL WATER AND STORMWATER MEASURES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 11-1992; SUB PZ 117-2016 SKETCH PLAN WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-6 SECTION 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION TOM CENTER & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The application is at Final Stage. This is a subdivision of a 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision with 20 lots. This is 19 single family residential lots and one lot that's to remain 41.6 acres to be conveyed to the Town. I did work with Counsel on the draft resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper, Joe Leuci and Tom Center. When we were here last month you asked us to prepare the final landscape plan and submit that and Tom has done that. So we feel we're ready for Final at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? Members happy with the landscaping? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The comments say landscaping plan as proposed. I don't know where that came from. MRS. MOORE-And it's clarified that the landscaping information has been submitted as of 9/30. So they did submit that. So I have, the information that's in the Staff Notes was, the Preliminary information was kept in your Staff Notes so you had a complete record, and it just notes under landscaping plans that originally that there were no plans. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This landscaping plan, there's one for each lot, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. CENTER-Do you want me to go through? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please, I think that would be helpful. MR. CENTER-The first thing we were tasked with was the landscaping on the three lots, the terraced lots, and what we did there was looking at Lots Four and Five along that property line, Five and Six and Six and Seven, looking into the Town landscaping buffer design, there is no buffer for residential to residential. There is, the next buffer is residential to commercial, and the tree spacing, that was one tree every 100 feet. So what we did there was we laid out those trees, one tree every 100 feet along the property line. We put one tree on one side of the property line, the other one on the other. We didn't put them right down the property line. That way someone, as Laura and I had a conservation, somebody owns the whole tree. So it's on one side of the line or the other. So we went back and forth along the property line for those, and that's what we did on the three terraced lots. I MR. LAPPER-Let me interrupt you there. Those will be installed after the grading is done, not waiting for the house to be built. There'll be trees in between those lots. MR. CENTER-Correct. Those trees will be installed before the Phase I disturbance. When Phase I is completed before we can get our go ahead to do any of the house construction, we will have those trees planted. We'll work that with Bruce Frank. Those trees on those three lots need to be planted in the Phase I disturbance area. So as that grows those trees will grow. We also revised Drawing S-7 to show details of installation of both the deciduous trees and the conifer. Again, as we've spoken at the last meeting, we said the minimum caliper on the deciduous was going to be three inches and the minimum height for the conifer was 10 feet. So we've met those which is also the Town buffer standards for those trees. We went back and revised S-7 again and we added a detail that each individual lot, one tree per lot be installed on all the lots between the front property line and the 30 foot setback. So what we're trying to do there is have something where the homeowner can choose where to put the trees. We've told them it has to be somewhere between the road and the 30 foot setback line. That's something we can meet with Bruce Frank in the field and before the house gets a CO they have to have that tree in. We also added a note in there that all trees will be from the Town of Queensbury Code 179-8-030 Tree List. So instead of specifying certain trees, we kept it to the list that you have in your Code. So everything goes back to the Code regarding that, and everything has to be installed, A, before Phase I is done those trees along the three lots need to be installed, and before a house gets CO, the tree has to be installed in the front lot. So then all 19 lots will get a tree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What about all the trees in the landscaping plan per lot. Do they have to be installed before they get a CO? MR. CENTER-The one tree per lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, not the one tree per lot. We're going to come up with more trees than that I'm sure. MR. CENTER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But do the trees that go into the landscaping for a particular lot, do they have to be installed before the guy gets a CO or is there a year waiting time, or what is it? MR. CENTER-1 didn't go with a specific plan per lot to have a number of trees, a number of shrubs and anything there. What we did was try to come up with something that met somewhere with the street trees and something along the road. That's why we've dedicated the area that they installed between the front property line and that 30 foot setback. So we're not quite in the roadway so we're not interfering with any of the utilities or the water or anything like that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But what about the individual lots? MR. CENTER-Again, most subdivisions we don't have an individual lot landscaping plan that we propose for the subdivision. We try to come up with something along the lines that we discussed with the street trees along the edges. MR. LAPPER-This is just the minimum. MR. CENTER-Right. MR. LAPPER-The individual homeowners will decide what they want to do. MR. CENTER-Correct, but they have to have at least one. That gives us 19 trees. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're going to level all the trees there and we're going to come back with one? MR. LAPPER-We're not going to level all the trees. It's just those three lots that we're clear cutting. That's why they have the substantial planting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, what about the other lots? That's what I'm asking. MR. LAPPER-That would be standard foundation plantings that the homeowners will do with the building. I.::p. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do they have to? MR. LAPPER-We don't have a plan, but everybody does that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we can't assume that with this project. I understood that each lot had a plan and that they would have to have the plan done before a year or so after they got their CO. MR. CENTER-That wasn't my understanding. My understanding was something along the property lines and looking into something along the road and in regards to the street trees. We've never, in any of the other projects we've done, never come up with a landscaping plan for individual residential houses. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. This is different. MR. CENTER-Well, this is different in also the same sense that we are taking 42 acres, 41 acres and conserving that area. Using a conservation subdivision and going with smaller lots. So we are conserving trees at the same time. Yes we are disturbing an area that's more compact, but that's the tenets of a conservation subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other thoughts or comments on the planting scheme that's been proposed? MR. SHAFER-Is there a tree warranty in the Code? MR. CENTER-1 believe, I think there's something in regards to the planting. MR. LAPPER-Bruce will come and tell the owner, the tree guides required, the plot plan required for re-planting. MR. CENTER-If that's not within that 179-8-030. 1 believe it's in there. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other item that we had talked about, that I saw you put in the plan, was the perforated drainage pipes at the bottom of the hill. Do people feel the planting is enough? MR. DEEB-I think they've done all we've asked. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So most of those common lot lines are 360 plus feet. So if it's one per 100, would that be four or would that be three? MR. CENTER-1 kept it to the area that is disturbed. So the area that, I didn't put trees where we weren't disturbing. I kept it within that disturbed area along those three lots for those. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's just those three lots. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any thoughts from Staff? MR. MAGOWAN-So you're talking one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight trees. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-In those three lots. MR. CENTER-Correct. Plus one per lot between the front setback line. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm just talking the disturbance area. MR. CENTER-Well, those areas are disturbed, too. Those front. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the major disturbance where you're changing the whole lay of the land. 1a: MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the Code calls for one tree per 100 feet. MR. CENTER-And again I was looking at that, looking at the Town Buffer standards with regards to trees. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't feel that's enough trees for all that has to come down to make those changes. You're talking three inch caliper. MR. LAPPER-Well, it's like if they're maple trees, for example. You want to have enough room so that in 25 years when they are much bigger they don't grow into each other. So that's why there's setback. That's why it's in the Town Code that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a suggestion, Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, I'm looking at two different evergreen plantings, and a tree planting. MR. CENTER-Correct. The conifer is going to be based on height, and then the, because you can have a 12 foot conifer that's only got a two inch caliper tree. A deciduous you want a three inch caliper tree. That's a healthy larger tree. MR. MAGOWAN-Now is that 10 feet from the bottom of the ball or from the plant from the ground up? Because they always look big at the store and then you put them in the ground and they look like a shrub. And also the one tree per lot. I'm not happy with one in the front yard. I mean, I'd like to have one in the front and at least the back. MR. CENTER-The back, we have septic systems in the rear and the back we've also provided the no cut in the rear, and most of the backs of the lots, again, we're not disturbing out beyond the septic system, beyond what we need for the small yard, and most of the septic system area. So you already have trees back there. You'd be putting trees against trees in the back. I was trying to fill in the areas, which would be the fronts of the lots and to the back at least one, and homeowners may add more. Once they start to see all the neighbors with one tree, maybe they'll want to balance it and put in more. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just afraid once you start getting in there and cutting down the trees, you know, being so dense in that, is that the other trees aren't going to be able to support, and then the next thing you know you're going to have every single tree out in between the houses and everything else. So if you can't put one in the back, why can't we put some down, you know, on either side of the property line. I'm trying to get some more absorption because I'm more worried about what's coming down from the back. You've taken care well of what's going to be coming down the roadway. I agree with that, but also too we've got all the hills from behind coming in toward the houses, too. So, you know, you're going to hit the house. You're going to have the septics. All right, we're going to have it sloped down. What's going to absorb going between the houses as the water comes down the hill? MR. CENTER-They're very well drained soils. Once the grass is established and the lawns established, the side slopes, the slopes in the rear will more than likely go back into, you know, re-seeding themselves over time and re-growing their own forest over time. If someone doesn't decide to keep it mowed, I would imagine that that large, the slope in the rear of Lot Six, I believe, would go back to being brush. MR. LAPPER-Brad, people, like in every other subdivision in Town, people are going to want to do plantings on their lots. It's just a matter of the minimum. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand that, and I'm not trying to, what I'm trying to do is, because you know where I stand. It's a slope all the way down to an environmental area. So what I'm trying to do is protect it. I want a nice warm fuzzy feeling, you know, knowing that I made the right decision 25 years down the road saying, you know, that I've done what I thought I did the best for, you know, Rush Pond and Glen Lake and everything else down the road. MR. CENTER-Certainly on the Southside lots we've left, you know, some areas in between the lots where we didn't have to continue the grading. There will be, in this particular lot, unlike Peggy Ann Road, there is some trees that can be saved, and if they are on the lot lines, that's something that the homeowner and the developer go out, I mean, they walk every lot. Once the lot lines are laid out, property lines are laid out, they go out and look at those things and try to save trees. That's exactly what's going on right now on Burnt Ridge. When Michaels Group goes out and they locate the house, if there's a certain trees, when they locate the lot lines and they locate the setbacks, they'll have Matt go out and stake out the house. They may have the 16 surveyor come back out and re-locate the house to save one or two trees that are along the property line or the cut area. That's what we've been doing in that subdivision. That's what these guys do. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy. MR. CENTER-And those things are along the property lines. It's nothing that I can show concrete 100% to do it right now, but those are some things that are done. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That sounds great. I mean, you know, like I said, because it's kind of hard to picture what, you know, until we start getting lines in there and what I'm trying to do is if, you keep as many good strong trees in between the houses, you know, full grown trees, then, you know, I don't have a problem. It's one of those things at the end, once the house is in there and once the tree's standing, but what I don't want to have is two houses have nothing and then you're able to save a tree here and there, you know, without knowing it. So how do you get something in writing to make sure that we're going to have some planting in between for what trees do not make it between the lines. MR. CENTER-Well, again, just looking at the tenets of the conservation subdivision. Again, you are sacrificing a little bit of the pushing and clearing in a smaller area versus what you're saving in an area, you know, that you're not going to develop at all. So that is one of the tradeoffs. I understand what you're looking for. MR. MAGOWAN-And I think it's great, but, and that would be fine if it didn't go right down, to me, into a highly environmental area. MR. LAPPER-1 guess at the end of the day this is what the Planning Board asked us for last time, and we're certainly not saying this is all that's going to be in this subdivision, but this is what was asked to be specified and that's why we put in it on that plan. This is an absolute minimum. I know that homeowners are going to add a lot more to this, just like any other subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just trying to think if there's something we can put in the resolution or an additional planting that we could do that would address some of your concerns that would also be agreeable to the developer. I mean, I commend you for starting with the Code, you know, and using that as the guide, and I think that's a good place to start, but I wonder if we can go a little further, and I think one tree in the front is enough because when we talk about street trees, you know, we talk about spacing them out every 100 feet. My concern is the, I guess the eight that are between the lot lines where we're doing the clearing. I was hoping we could do a little bit more than that. Maybe one more tree on those two longer. MR. LAPPER-That's fine, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-But that's just my feeling. I don't want to speak for the whole Board if everyone else is fine with what's been proposed. MR. TRAVER-That's fine if they don't interfere with each other, regarding the growth issue. Instead of one per 100, maybe it could be one per 60 or one per 55. MR. LAPPER-But if we add one more in between each of those three lots, that should still be enough to stagger them. MRS. MOORE-So that would make two. MR. CENTER-Five more trees. MRS. MOORE-Five more trees. Okay. MR. DEEB-Did you do the math? Who did the math? MRS. MOORE-1 didn't do the math. I'm just trying, it's two per lot, in total. MR. DEEB-So you've got one for 60. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what Steve's suggesting. MR. LAPPER-Tom's coming up with five more trees in between each one. I. MR. CENTER-We did five trees. We'll just put them in between the ones that are shown. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So instead of eight it's now thirteen. MR. TRAVER-So it would be one tree per 50. MR. CENTER-It lays out better because that's about the distance, it's about 100 feet to 300 feet, and we have 300 feet on one. 300 feet on the other, about. MR. TRAVER-And you would also stagger on each side of the property line? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So that's doubling the plantings. MR. LAPPER-Well, eight to thirteen. MR. CENTER-Eight to thirteen. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy with that. MR. SHAFER-Brad, you're looking for some language to retain and keep trees in that, in the undisturbed areas, in addition to these trees. MR. MAGOWAN-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Is there a language that would do that? MR. TRAVER-Well, the problem is that's a. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't know how many trees they're going to have to cut down, you know, to put in the lot. MR. TRAVER-That's a decision they're going to have to make. MR. MAGOWAN-But how do you word it so, you know, say they take down 30 trees on one lot and 4 trees on another lot, you know, well, one lot didn't have as many, but can you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's getting into an area where I don't think we have the expertise. MR. DEEB-You don't want to make it too odious anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-So it goes to what Paul is saying is, you know, landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-I know in the past we've said, you know, all trees within a certain size shall remain wherever possible or something like that. That's what I was thinking, in terms of something in the resolution. MR. LAPPER-Some people might want to put a swimming pool in, just in terms of homeowners. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's down the road. MR. MAGOWAN-Swimming pools, Jon? We already have a water issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a thought. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So are there any other suggestions or recommendations? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, and I brought it up and nobody has really given me a good answer, but in our Town Codes we have 1,000 foot dead ends and we've got a letter that the road's 1376 feet long and we've got 450 feet of a dead end already. So now we've got a road that's 2,000 feet long, but in our Codes we have it for 1,000 feet and nobody seems to be able to give me an answer of why we're just kind of overlooking that. I MR. LAPPER-That's a waiver issue and that comes up in many subdivisions, and in this case, unlike most, the Highway Superintendent said he's fine with it. MR. TRAVER-1 think as far as Highway is concerned, I thought I saw somewhere in writing cul de sacs could be an advantage. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1376 but in the Codes we have 1,000 feet. So why is it in the Code? MR. TRAVER-It's also an architectural issue, too. It depends on the nature of the development. I think that has been part of the whole plot that we've been talking about. In this case it's not 2,000 feet, it's from the start of this project. MR. MAGOWAN-It's already 450 feet as a dead end now. So you've got to continue that all the way back to. MR. TRAVER-Right, but we don't want to build a road across Rush Pond. Do we? So that has to be a dead end. I mean, what are they going to do? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm just confused. MR. DEEB-The Code also calls for two acre lots, and we deal with that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, this is a conservation project. That's why they're going with smaller lots. MR. DEEB-That's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to make a comparison here. That we have the right to, per the Code, the Town Highway said okay on the road. Even though it's not in the Code. MR. SHAFER-Yes, to me it's all a matter of context. MR. TRAVER-They're pretty limited in what they can do. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, 1376 feet. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's all he can do. MR. MAGOWAN-And it's 426 feet as a throat to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Any additional suggestions? MR. FERONE-1 think we've got it covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Go ahead. I'm confused. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # PZ 206-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 206-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. Whereas a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision revised with 20 lots — 19 single family residential lots ranging from 1.9 +/- acres to 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading, clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Whereas 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; 1 Whereas a public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/2016, 6/23/2016, 8/16/2016 and 9/20/2016 and then closed on 9/20/2016 Whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered completing Part II and Part III of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and the Planning Board had adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 9/20/16. Whereas this application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record including the following items; 1. Waiver requestedrg anted for road length greater than 1,000 ft. and for the subdivision of more than 15 lots to have one access with a culdesac where Town Highway supports the waiver requests based on the design proposed, 2. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 3. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 4. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: c) 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. d) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 5. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: c) 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 d) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 7. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 8. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 9. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 10. This approval is conditioned upon Town Board acceptance of the 41.6 acre area of the conservation subdivision as identified on Sheet S-1 with notation land to be conveyed to the Town of Queensbury for the purpose to include in the Rush Pond Trail system. 11. That Lot Number Four, Number Five, Number Six, and Number Seven will have trees planted every 50 feet along the border of each lot for a total of 13 trees. Motion seconded by Stephen Traver. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Do we want to make a note in there amending the plan to reflect one tree per 50 feet rather than one tree per 100 feet as the plan reflects? MR. FERONE-Yes, thank you. And additionally added that one condition will be that there would be, on Lots Number Three, Number Four, Number Five. MR. CENTER-Four, Five, Six and Seven. MR. FERONE-Four, Five, Six and Seven. Thank you. That Lots Four, Five, Six and Seven, will have trees planted every 50 feet along the border of each lot. 11 p MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to just say for a total of 13 trees? MR. FERONE-For a total of 13 trees. MR. TRAVER-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? MRS. MOORE-I'll just point out that Number 10 is in regards to the Town Board acceptance of the 41.6 acres. So just so the Board's clear on that, that's the information that you were looking for about the conveyance. MR. FERONE-Is that typically outlined? MRS. MOORE-No, I just wanted to clarify that the Board saw it. MR. DEEB-So if they don't do it, it doesn't fly. MR. LAPPER-We're all set with that. That's fine. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. JOSEPH LEUCI MR. LEUCI-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 227-2016 SEAR TYPE II PETER SHABAT AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING LC-10 & RR-5A LOCATION 1881 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY 1,440 SQ. FT. HOME ON A 37.51 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF GREATER THAN 15,000 SQ. FT. AND WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER FOR DRIVEWAY AND DISTURBANCE AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 & CHAPTER 147 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN 15,000 SQ. FT. AND WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2015-367 DEMO PERMIT; C91794 SEWAGE ALTERATION WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA, CEA SLOPES LOT SIZE 37.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.1-48 CHAPTER 147 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a single family home to be 1,440 sq. ft. The parcel acreage is 37.51. The project is considered a Major, and that's where, it's in the Lake George Park, it's 15,000 square feet is proposed to be disturbed, and the project is within 50 feet of 15% slopes, which requires the Planning Board review and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center from Nace Engineering representing Mr. Shabat this evening. This is an existing residential lot with an existing home and I believe there's a commercial establishment that was located on the site also that was torn down. Mr. Shabat is proposing a single family home. We're going to use the existing asphalt driveway entrance off of Bay Road and extend it to the new residence on the slope. We've done soils investigations I and perc tests. We have adequate soils for the septic system. It'll be a shallow system, a shallow absorption system. Small, three bedroom home. We've also provided stormwater management. We've reviewed the engineer's comments. We take no exception to those. We have some additional work to do with him, but there's nothing there that I think we can't find common ground. I did it as a Minor project seeing that it was residential. I understand where he's coming from regarding Major stormwater calculations. We have adequate soils. We've already provided check dams. We have taken care of the stormwater management. Also we will be providing a new well located to the east. The clearing limits, right now we're not proposing any clearing of the trees. The disturbance is all basically on grass land. We're not going back into the woods any further. What's cleared is cleared. We don't need to do any additional tree clearing, but we will disturb land. That's where some of the confusion came in regarding some of the clearing, grading and fill and grading to make the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-To me this is one of those situations where when you look at it on paper, and then you go out in the field. Because I mean I drove right up there with no problem. I really thought it was going to be a lot steeper. MR. CENTER-Yes, it looks a lot steeper on paper. The same thing here with the topography and everything we got back from the surveyors and trying to just mimic that existing driveway and be able to drive right up, put the house where the house wants to be crowned on that slope, and keeping that disturbance within that already cleared area. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other concerns or comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-1 think they did a good job. I mean, that was my concern with the elevation, too, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type 11 SEQR so no SEQR review is required, and unless there's any other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 227-2016 PETER SHABAT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a single family 1,440 sq. ft. home on a 37.51 acre parcel. Project includes disturbance of greater than 15,000 sq. ft. and work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Project includes stormwater for driveway and disturbance area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 & Chapter 147 of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance > 15,000 sq. ft. and work within 50 ft. of 15% 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 10/18/2016 and continued the public hearing to 10/18/2016 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 10/18/2016; 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 227-2016 PETER SHABAT; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption; 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) 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. e) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. f) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So you'll also need to add engineering signoff, as a condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's correct. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN PZ 223-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED THE FORT MILLER CO., INC. AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER ESQ. OWNER(S) H. JOHN MARCELLE; JOHN KUBRICKY & SONS ZONING RR-5 LOCATION 39 DREAM LAKE ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTINUATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS. PROJECT HAS ACCESS ROAD FROM RIDGE ROAD THROUGH AN EASEMENT WITH KUBRICKY/COLLINS PROPERTY AND WILL ABANDON DREAM LAKE ROAD ACCESS EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-070 & 179-1-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL SAND, GRAVEL AND TOPSOIL EXTRACTION IN AN RR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-2015 & SUP 7-2015 FOR CONTINUED USE; (48) SP 55-2015, UV 57-2015 CELL TOWER WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA & NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 100.4, 73.86, 57.26, & 9.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279-1-59.2, -72, -73, -48 SECTION 179-10-070, 179- 3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. As I did note, you have revised Staff Notes that outline what happens this evening. This project is a continuation of the sand and gravel operations. With this project a new access road is proposed for Ridge Road through an easement with Kubricky and Collins property. They intend to discontinue Dream Lake Road except for emergency access, and in regards to SEQR and DEC, the Board has an opportunity to consent to Lead Agency status to the DEC. The applicant would go to the DEC, go through their process. The DEC would issue their SEQR determination, and then it would come back to this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Butch Marcelle. This project's been before you before. This is new for me, but just some of the history here, and I know that most of you went out to the site to take a look at this. The previous proposal was to bring the new access road out to 149, which would have involved wetland disturbance. It was a much larger project in terms of impact. Fort Miller had the opportunity to get the right to use the existing Kubricky drive onto Ridge Road, a State highway, in the location on Ridge Road that is very good for visibility and access and not near a lot of residents. The main goal here is to take all the trucks off of Dream Lake Road, which has a lot of residents who are certainly impacted by the current operation and would no longer be if this is approved. So after the site meetings, APA recommended this because it didn't involve wetland disturbance, and the Corps, and we're really here procedurally tonight of course to get this back in front of you, but procedurally to have you, if it's your wish, to have the DEC be Lead Agency for SEAR, as Laura said, and it'll be a number of months before we come back after we work through the DEC process to get the mining permit amendment, and as part and parcel of that they will have to do the SEQR review, which I think makes sense because this is their area of expertise. So I'll ask Butch to just walk you through the site plan a little bit and we'll take any questions. Hopefully we'll be back in a few months to move it along. BUTCH MARCELLE MR. MARCELLE-As we discussed before we were originally going to go out 149 and that was, after the site review with the Corps of Engineers, the DEC, the Town Board, it was recommended that we go out of the Kubricky route onto State Route 9L, which is a State arterial highway. That made a lot of sense to us and it was a collaborative effort between all parties, and once we made that decision, then APA said that a permit would not be necessary. We put that information in there. The Corps of Engineers is out of the equation. The DOT is out of the equation because it's an existing driveway. It's opposite the dump and there are several gravel pits in the area. So it made a lot of sense for us to do that, to extend the road out there. We would get off of Dream Lake Road, which is a problem for everyone. As late as Friday we got a complaint from one of the neighbors that the trucks were making noise and such. So it's a problem there. It's a tight road. I've shown you pictures before. I think you've seen it. It's very difficult. So in order for us to continue the operation and to pay for the road and to pay for the access, because now we have the easement we have to pay for, we're seeking the Special Use Permit from the Town Board. The zoning laws changed. As you know, there was a question of the buffer that's been resolved with a letter from the Zoning Administrator. So we're ready to move forward with the process with the DEC, which is a modification of our existing permit. They are not going to issue a new permit. They're going to modify our existing permit. So we have to go before them and go through all of the steps that they'll require us to do, and then we'd like to come back and hopefully get a Special Use Permit so we can move forward. That's pretty much in a synopsis. Questions or comments or concerns? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-So the existing area you're in right now, did that get abandoned, then, and you move into this new area? MR. MARCELLE-No. We won't abandon it because there are still reserves there. We currently have the scale set up there. Eventually we show in the map the proposed scale will maybe be relocated closer to that new entrance when we get up there, but once we understand the mining permit situation and if there are any restrictions from the DEC, which we don't expect because they basically told us it's a continuation of the existing operation. It's going to be a modification not a new process here. That we may relocate the scales up above. Eventually we will get into the new property, but that may take us years. MR. LAPPER-But the big change, George, if you look at the black road, the Dream Lake Road that goes out to Bay, that's the big change. MR. MARCELLE-Right. Once we know we have the new parcel, we have the opportunity to go up there, we can just go up there, get the permit with the DEC and put the road in. We're willing to do that and get that started before we start up in the new area, but there's an expense there, you know, it's a 1400 foot road. II h c.' :^U.!i If H i n If n II IC.n q u "p If MR. FERONE-Right. I know the last time you were here, there were folks along, you know, Ridge Road, that had a problem with this type of operation so close. When we look at those, you know, green line and the dotted line, there's even measurements on this map I'm looking at where there are homes within 300, 350 feet. Would you be that close to where their property is in terms of, you know, the excavation of the sand and the gravel and that? MR. MARCELLE-1 don't believe so. We're not up there yet. We've got to finish our tests. We do have to maintain the one on two slope. So when you've got a 200 foot vertical distance, the slope is going to be considerable, but we're going to be over here and the houses are going to be over here, if you see the section that we showed there. So I don't see us ever being up on top there and that close. We're going to be a distance of, I think we've asked for 200 feet. See the DEC requires 25 feet with their permit from a boundary, from the property line. There was an agreement with the existing, the owners who owned the pit before we did, the Fane family, who we purchased it from, and the Town at the time asked for an additional 25 feet. So there is a 50 foot buffer that we're maintaining to honor that commitment that was made, and it's part of our reclamation plan that we submitted to you that's in there. So we're already twice what the DEC would require, as far as a buffer from a property line. MR. LAPPER-There's also a grade issue. If you look at the section, it goes up a hill. MR. MARCELLE-Right. MR. FERONE-Right, and I was on the site, I don't know when it was, a year or so ago. So as you mine these pits, you're down here. MR. MARCELLE-We're down at elevation 300. They're up at, it's up at 500. The houses are at 450. MR. FERONE-Right. Did you ever take like noise readings to see, since you're down, if the noise comes out of the? MR. MARCELLE-We don't because we're not required to, but we haven't had any real noise complaints. I think when the Board was there, we were standing there, the plant was operating, we said are you running today. We couldn't even hear it. We were inside the pit. So it's down in. We try to keep it at the lowest point of the property at all times to mitigate the noise. MR. FERONE-The noise. MR. MARCELLE-But there's quite a buffer, and the other thing, we don't abut anybody but the Peckham properties. The Peckham property surrounds us. We're not abutting any of the neighbors on Ridge Road. MR. LAPPER-They abut the residences. MR. MARCELLE-They abut the residences. We do not. We abut Peckham's property, if you look at that. That's a big buffer there that they have. So we don't abut any of the Ridge Road properties. MR. FERONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARCELLE-You're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Do you have any idea of when you would anticipate mining in the new area? MR. MARCELLE-Well, Chris, that's going to be dependent on the DEC permit, and the extent of that, then we have to do some exploration out there. We've done some preliminary test holes, and it looks positive, but we have to get in there and do a little more work. I would say it's going to be a year or two before we, maybe three, but we've agreed to build the road, once we know we have that ability to get up there and get the road in and do the work that we need to do before we start mining in there. I think that was the question that came up before with the Board. They said, you know, we don't want you to get this new property and not, and still keep going down Dream Lake Road, and we're okay with that. MR. LAPPER-So once the road is built, the existing mining area would exit out of, the trucks would enter and exit out of Ridge Road. MR. MARCELLE-Even though we're still mining in the existing. It will take the traffic off of Dream Lake Road. MR. DEEB-Is the new road dependent on the DEC? Or are you going to go ahead and do that? MR. MARCELLE-Well, we have to get permission from them because we're coming through, Kubricky's is an existing mining permit. So they have to get a modification of their permit. We would get a modification, we would want to get their approval to build a road through there. MR. DEEB-And once you get the DEC modification, then you'll build the road? MR. MARCELLE-Right, yes. Well, yes, and this Board, you have to give us a Special Use Permit. MR. DEEB-You have to come back. You have to go to DEC first. MR. MARCELLE-Yes, we have to go through DEC, yes. That's going to be our next step, but we've talked to them before and they're in the business, the mining business. So they understand. MR. DEEB-Yes, and you're very thorough in presentations. I'm sure when you go there you'll. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So Dream Lake Road will remain as an emergency exit. MR. LAPPER-Only as an emergency. MR. MARCELLE-Only emergency. Our concern there is if we couldn't, if there were an accident or a fire or something, we couldn't get out, you know, we have to service the facilities that we're supplying materials to we'd use that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a good idea, but you've got to mark it. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question for Staff. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I've been on the Planning Board a long time. I don't know if I can ever recall us consenting Lead Agency status to the State. We have to the Town Board. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-On occasion. We've granted Lead Agency status to the Town of Lake George. So if DEC is the Lead Agent, they're required to hold public hearings. MR. LAPPER-Yes, for SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Where would that be held? Would that be held in Queensbury or would that be held in Warrensburg at the Regional Office? MRS. MOORE-I don't know. Butch and myself have calls in to Kevin Bliss of DEC, and waiting for some response from him. So for some of the DEC procedures that will take place, and I can ask that question. MR. TRAVER-I would imagine they'd make arrangements to maybe use the Municipal Center. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-A lot of times when it's a State agency they will do it in the Town, but in the worst case if it's in Warrensburg, that's not too far away. MR. MARCELLE-That's another whole process we have to go through. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. Something that I'm not familiar with either. Like I said, I don't know if we've ever consented to the State for Lead Agency on a project. MRS. MOORE-I don't think you have either. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-It's just here because it's a mining permit. That's really their area of expertise. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MARCELLE-And that was at DEC's request, right, Laura, not ours? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, they requested it. We wouldn't consent it. MR. MARCELLE-We would prefer to be here, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I know we're going to table this. I have a feeling that there are people that want to speak and express their comments or opinions about the project. MR. MARCELLE-You're all set with us? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, the only question that I would have is we're reviewing what is a, not really a completed application yet. We don't know that what we're looking at this evening is what we're actually going to be reviewing. So why would we, I mean, any comment that's made would be fairly speculative at this point, pending SEAR. So I would think we'd want to wait until we know what it is that we're looking at before we had public comment. It could change dramatically. MR. HUNSINGER-Certainly that's what was done when we waited for a variance before. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I'm not sure that we want there to be any assumption that it was our understanding that this is what the final application is going to be. If we start taking a lot of comment on this plan, I mean, it just seems as though we should wait. MR. DEEB-It's got to go to DEC and come back. I don't think public comment is going to do much good tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I just know there was a public hearing scheduled and I know there's people that want to speak. MR. DEEB-It's up to you. You're the Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's up to the Board really. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, then there's going to be quite an interval of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I'd rather think about something that's closer to happening, rather than if it happens. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, would the Board consider allowing people at least to speak in direct response of inaccuracies presented here this evening. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Nothing's been presented. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's nothing that's really been presented. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's nothing presented until the State handles it. I mean, we've heard comments a year ago. MR. TRAVER-It's all speculation at this point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now it's all speculation. It's in the hands of the State. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's up to the Board. I'm simply asking for a courtesy. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's been designated as a public hearing. We have something to say. MR. HUNSINGER-How many people came prepared to speak this evening? MRS. MOORE-And the Board can limit time. You have done that in the past. MR. DEEB-I say you give them a couple of minutes a piece. MR. HUNSINGER-So with respect to people coming to the meeting expecting to have a public hearing, we will open the public hearing. I will ask that you limit your comments to three minutes. We do have a timer. When you hear the timer ding, if you could wrap it up, and so we can get the next comment. We did take extensive comments at the prior meeting when we had a draft proposal, and we're all aware of what some of the issues are going to be. So I think we can anticipate a lot of the comments, but we will take your comments this evening. So who would like to be first? I would ask anyone that wishes to comment to speak clearly into the microphone and state their name for the record. The microphone does tape your comments. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website. So anyone in the audience wishing to hear the tape later on can. Thank you. JANICE HOLDING MRS. HOLDING-Good evening. My name is Janice Holding. I live at 48 Dream Lake Road. You've asked us to limit our comments. So I want to address the comment that Mr. Marcelle made that the buffer versus setback issue has been resolved. In a letter dated June 17th from Craig Brown to Mr. Marcelle he says that as a result of the discussion that they had regarding this 1,000 foot separation distance between the operations and an existing residence. It was agreed at that meeting that the 1,000 foot requirement was applicable. So I don't know what he means by the fact that the buffer situation has been resolved. It may be that instead of calling it a setback it's now being called a buffer, and probably because they don't want to have to go to the Zoning Board, because to get a setback variance they'd have to go to the Zoning Board, but I just, I want to point out that Mr. Brown's letter wasn't, the public wasn't notified about it until after the time period allowed for comment for challenge. You're probably all aware of the game of football and how long a football field is. The 1,000 foot setback requirement in the Queensbury Zoning Code would be farther distance than three football fields. The 200 foot buffer that they're proposing would be less than two thirds of a football field, closer than some people can even kick a football. You're in this building a lot. You're probably aware of the shuffleboard and bocce ball courts on the other side of the parking lot. Are you aware that 200 feet is just to the other side of the court? Can you imagine the noise that rock crushing machines and other heavy equipment would make if they were located just on the other side of that bocce court? Don't you think the noise level and dust would impact the activities that occur in this building? Could the windows be open on a nice day like they are tonight? I don't think so, and I don't think you'd want that noise and dust so close to your own home. You'd also, if you approve a 200 foot, or even anything less than the 1,000 foot setback, you would be allowing heavy machinery to operate closer to homes than the Code currently allows barking dogs at a veterinary clinic. You require 300 feet for a barking dog, but they're proposing 200 feet for heavy equipment. I have a picture showing the difference between 200 feet to the opposite side of the bocce and where the 1,000 feet is, and it's dramatic. I'll share that with you. I'll start with the Chairman. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. HOLDING-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Who's next? Good evening. JOHN STARK MR. STARK-I'm John Stark and I reside at Bear Brook Road that's off of Dream Lake Road, and I'm a retired truck driver myself and I know how hard it is around residential areas with the trucks and noise and I think that the company here in question has done everything that everybody has asked. They've been trying since they bought the place to resolve that, get it out to a safer area like Corinth Road. As far as the trucks go on Ridge Road, you take like Galusha's pit, that's more or less closed. They're only hauling now there periodically. Ellsworth's pit. That's only out of there periodically, and now O'Connor's pit, from what I understand is on the very end. They can't dig it any deeper. He owned over 800 feet on 149, and there's embankment there, and they have plans of clearing, moving that embankment and filling in that hole and developing that someday, and that'll help. Closing that pit down there. And like I say, I've worked for Collins group for six, seven years. I enjoy driving. I think these people should get their way and go back out to Ridge Road with their operation. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. ANDREW HOLDING MR. HOLDING-Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Andrew Holding. I reside at 48 Dream Lake Road. I want to speak to use of Dream Lake Road, but first I want to make two corrections. In multiple paperwork here it says, the paperwork for this evening says Dream Lake Road is to be used only in emergencies and Mr. Lapper said no trucks. So it gets down to what is it going to be used for, not just for no trucks. It's that are the employees going to use it? Is it going to have normal traffic that's associated with the business of the pit? So that's one thing that has to be addressed. I may have misunderstood it because it's sort of a black and white situation, but I think the question was also asked whether test drilling was required at the bottom of the pit, and I think I heard Mr. Marcelle say no, but it is actually required, it's actually required in the DEC permit. Their current permit, under Item 12, mining at least five feet above groundwater, all mining must be conducted at least five feet above groundwater above the mean annual high groundwater. The permittee must dig occasional test holes in the mine floor at least five feet deep in order to determine compliance with this condition. Okay. Now I'd like to speak to the Dream Lake Road issue. Okay. Fort Miller, the residents received a letter from Butch Marcelle on May 6, 2014 which he wrote, quote, as we have stated in the past, the construction of a new access road will eliminate, underlined, Mr. Marcelle's underlined, access via Dream Lake Road. From that carrot that they held out, they have constantly changed what the use of Dream Lake Road is intended to be. As a matter of fact, they duped the Town Board into changing the Code, because they sent a letter to Supervisor Strough and Strough stood up in front of the group, the final night when he said the Town was going to approve it, and he said also we're adding the footnote for the public, because this is what they wanted, that this sand and gravel topsoil extraction commercial would be allowed only on parcels of 25 acres and only upon receiving a letter of commitment from Fort Miller that they will commit to the creation of the 149 access road just as they indicated I read to you, but his reading was from, I'm sorry, from, I believe also from Mr. Marcelle at Fort Miller, and it also said eliminate the use of Dream Lake Road. So you all know that as soon as they got their Town permit they came and put in an application to the Planning Board. At that point, this new road will eliminate the use of Dream Lake Road which has changed to, no, we have to have access to that road for employees. The Town Board made a big point of saying to the people the Planning Board has to issue a Special Use Permit. This is an extraordinary step and you'll get great protection. So all we're asking is that the Planning Board follow through where Mr. Strough unfortunately did not. Don't be duped into accepting we intend to. Put additional conditions, additional restrictions, over and above what's in the Zoning Code, and to fulfill Fort Miller's original obligation to completely stop use, except in an emergency. We're fine with that, but if the port of sand is finished, is full, is the septic tank disposal truck an emergency vehicle? In emergencies, you have to say except for emergency vehicles. All these things can be done in time properly. We'd really like to see this done right rather than see it done right away. That's all we're saying. The Planning Board needs to consider these things, write the provisions to control them, so that everyone is served. Thank you. MR. FERONE-Mr. Holding, can I ask you a question? MR. HOLDING-Certainly. MR. FERONE-If you can, how many years have you lived on Dream Lake Road? MR. HOLDING-I've lived on Dream Lake Road for about 12 years. MR. FERONE-Okay. Was Fort Miller there before you moved in? MR. HOLDING-Absolutely not. The sand pit, I'm sorry, that was in an earlier discussion. The sand pit has been described by many people as an Uncle Joe operation. Pickup trucks would come in. Occasionally you'd get, what they call it, a deuce and a half, which is a trailer pit sized dump truck. The trucks that come in and out of there and I didn't bring that part of the. MR. FERONE-1 ran into one. I know what you're talking about. MR. HOLDING-Yes. What are they, 40 foot tractor trailers? They're huge. They're huge, and so the question is how did it change? It changed, actually it's my opinion that if we looked at the, we would find that the Dream Lake sand and gravel's existing nonconforming status should have been cancelled because it did shut down for a while, and I think it shut down for more than the time that the Zoning Code says you should lose your nonconforming status, but then Fort Miller bought it, and they're great businessmen, and they hired a group that already ran another pit some place to come in and get it up and going and they've done a wonderful job, and I don't believe in buying a house next to the airport and then complaining about the noise. I don't want the trucks, but I'm not going to sacrifice, to approve the thing just based on the trucks on Dream Lake Road. We've got residents hat are going to suffer far more than I suffer from the truck coming by, over on Ridge Road. So all those things have to be factored in before any action can be taken on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HOLDING-Thank you. Good evening. CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening. Thank you. I appreciate you opening the public hearing. I'll be very brief. I'm Claudia Braymer. I'm an attorney at Caffry and Flower, and I'm representing the Holdings who live on Dream Lake Road, and you heard from both of them this evening. I just want to touch on one point. It's been described as a continuation of their existing operations, and they are going to DEC for a permit amendment. However, for the Town's purposes, this is a new application. It will be a new Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and not simply a continuation of anything. This is a whole new project, and to spell out those differences, these are different tax map lots and it's also a new designation under APA. Whereas the existing operation is outside the Park, this is within the blue line. So all of the Zoning Code requirements of the Town do apply. This isn't simply some kind of minor amendment. It's a new application, and it's going to be doubling the impacts of the existing mine since it's going to go from, I think, 42 acres to 49 acres, and they're not abandoning the existing pit. So they're basically doubling all the impacts related to the existing mine, in a new location with a new operation, and the one other thing I wanted to ask is that you require them to do the Long Form EAF. This is designated a Type I action, and they've only provided you with the Short Form Environmental Assessment Form. They should be required to provide the Town and the public with the Long Form, and maybe DEC will require that, but I would like the Town to require that as well, since that is a requirement in our Town Code for Type I actions. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. And I just want to add for the record that Ms. Braymer is on the Warren County Board of Supervisors. I am an employee of Warren County, and I report to the Committee that she sits on, just so that there's full disclosure. Yes, sir. EDWARD LOCKHART MR. LOCKHART-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LOCKHART-My name is Edward Lockhart. I live at 50 Dream Lake Road Extension. Our family bought our first camp on Dream Lake in 1971, and at that time that pit was a three acre sand pit that pickup trucks only went into and got dirt once in a while. When you talk about the time period from the 70's to the 1990's, that was a three acre sand pit, written right on the, yet through that whole period of time, the violations came through on that sand pit, they never paid attention to any three acres. They stripped most of that land, at that time, without any violation, and somewhere around 1991, even though we went to the Town, the Town allowed them to go from a three acre sand pit to a fifty-one acre sand pit with no Planning Board meeting, which meant a sand pit that was way over there for me at the time, and wasn't that loud because there were no crushers in there and no rock, because the Town, you know, Paul, I sat here and listened to everybody else. It seems like I'm boring you. If you could listen to me for a few minutes with some interest it would good for me. I listened to everybody else here, and it's important to me and my family on where we live, and if I can't be given a moment, then I'll leave, okay. So, you know, I have something to say and I've lived next to the pit growing in size and now I only have 25 feet away from me that I can spit far enough and they're going to dig a hole right up to my house, 25 feet, because they tied the flag and showed me, this is where our pit is coming to, and I don't like that. You wouldn't like that at your house. I have to clean the sand out of my gutters. If I put a wax coat on my car within one hour it's got sand all over it, and if it's been nice for me to live next to it, come over to my house and listen to the crushers and stuff going, if they're so quiet and you won't know that they're going or not. If I've used up more than three minutes, but I'm going to tell you, back in the 1990's we were not given a fair chance to have a public hearing so that we may have added a few things, like having more of a setback distance than 25 feet. Like having some right to say we don't want a rock crusher next to us, but we were not given anything, and it was all taken away from us, yet we are made to pay lake taxes, yet Dream Lake is covered with noise and lost our value, and now this is another backdoor effort to kick the door in to have three more lots. From what has turned into a three and a half acre sand pit in the 1990's is now a 247 acre pit that's going to go from 149 to Ridge Road back to my house, and, you know, I think maybe you give them more than 25 feet that we got, but, you know, if you look at a GIS map, you would see the face of the moon over there. Not a tree lives on 50 acres. They were supposed to do that in increments, 11 acres here, 7 acres there. It was stripped all at once, and so I think that this is just another quick way to not have a Planning Board meeting to modify the plan just to add those other lands so that they too can be put into this massive growth of a mining operation that is going to encompass our whole world in there now, just because of a three acre pit once that we didn't stop, and that the Town didn't protect us from because they said that New York State said they got the permit to do it so we can't, we don't have the power. You do have the power. It's written that they have to comply with you. It's not them. It's you. It's written. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for hearing me. Sorry if I was a little loud. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. KIP GRANT MR. GRANT-Kip Grant. I live on Ridge Road with my wife Jean. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'll speak more in generalities than the technicalities that people who are more versed in this and are aware of, certainly, the history of this, are able to. Our concerns are the same as the last time around. They have to do with the application's effect on our part of the world up on Ridge Road. Some things are within your control. Some things are not, and we understand that, but they all have to do with quality of life, and that's something Planning Board's do consider. Before you I hear a lot of legal decisions, the things that require a lot of thought. Some things have to come from the heart, and I searched today the words Planning Board quality of life, and it's amazing how many things come up that have to do with instructions to Planning Boards from their municipal governments. State of Vermont, for example. The State of Vermont says, to Planning Board members, new hires, volunteers, you have a tough duty balance private rights with the public good, and I know it's a tough job. On our side of the fence, of the issue here, I offer that Fort Miller's ability to have its way with the property that it has acquired and which now it can legally mine, excavate, is one thing, but the effort to seek a waiver to reduce, if there is, in fact, a 1,000 foot limit, to just 200 feet, an 80% reduction, is quite another, and I wouldn't want to be our neighbors further up Ridge Road with this now starting to encroach into what was their backyard, even though it's not their backyard. No matter how this is being steered through, if there is a reduction in the 1,000 foot limit, I trust that when the 1,000 foot limit was created, it was done with thought. Impacting our quality of life, I heard talk tonight about a rock crusher. Last time I was here I was told we shouldn't even hear a rock crusher, and tonight there was mention of scales. So I don't know what it is we hear with the machinery, but I do hear rocks rumbling around in something, and I heard what I perceived to be a rather large front end loader, going back and forth, back up alarms which we can hear inside the house. These are not continuous sounds. They rise and fall during the day, not every day, but if you want to take your chances, any one of you is welcome to stop by, 1195 Ridge Road, and you can hear what we hear. And we still have the concerns about traffic. It was made clear to us last time this is not within your bailiwick, and we understand that, but at least please be aware that any additional trucks traveling down factory hill and coming up out of that dip, and I believe most of you, if not all of you, are familiar with that, and the limit in sight distance that five of us who's driveways terminate on Ridge Road at that point, it's a 55 mile an hour road, and the trucks come down at 55 miles an hour and more, and they come up out of the hill rather fast, and that's a difficult location, and I know that's nothing to do with you. That was pointed out to me rather directly the last time. However it is something that I think you need to at least be aware of and something that we intend to pursue, if necessary, with the DOT. Thank you for hearing me. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I just want to clarify, when you say it's nothing that we have anything to do with, that's the speed limit of the road. MR. GRANT-1 understand. MR. HUNSINGER-That's a State highway. MR. GRANT-1 understand. I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did anyone else wish to comment? Yes, sir. MIKE LEMERY MR. LEMERY-Mike Lemery, 1311 Ridge Road. Any of you guys know the group The Monkees? Do you remember The Monkees? They came out with the second album. That " 1 was then and this is now. Okay. That's pretty much the way it is. We don't hear any noise where I am, and I'm sure my home is two, three times the value of anybody's there. I built it in 2003. 1 don't hear any noise. Maybe they're getting it across from Ellsworth's pit, hearing the noise there. I can hear that noise. That's the only noise that we hear. Trucks go down up there, when they raised the speed limit to 55, yes. Is that too much? Yes. Are trucks going to pull out of there and come down there at 55? 1 do not believe that. Pulling out from the new road. I support these guys. 1, a couple of years ago, I didn't know who Fort Miller was. I drove over to Greenwich, and I went right in there and I asked, and John Hedrin was there and he gave me as much time as I wanted. I told him my concerns. He addressed them with me. Butch addressed them with me. I was fine with that. I support these guys bringing that road through there. I support them. Two hundred feet, I've got Peckham behind me, and another two hundred feet is over the hill. I mean, anybody that walks out there, and I mean they have an open door policy that you can talk to these people. They're regular guys like you and 1, and if anybody's got concerns they should just go to him, go to them and talk to them. I support these guys bringing that road in, you know, and I just think it's a positive thing. They've worked for it. If anybody's got any issue, they should have bought the pit. It was for sale. We should have bought it. And I guess that's pretty much all I've got to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening, and we will table this application. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. I do have three comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MRS. MOORE-That are written. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to read them into the record this evening? MRS. MOORE-I'll just read them into the record. They're short. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The first one is dated October 15th. This is, "Dear Laura: My name is John Borghese. I live at 1271 Ridge Road in Queensbury. I object strongly to this expansion. With just a few days' notice I don't think it gives concerned residents enough time to oppose this. It should be tabled until the residents have more time to review this matter. The variance to come within 200 yards of a residence is unacceptable as the code or ordinance is 1000 yards. The traffic on Ridge Road and the entrance and exit to this will create a hazard for motorists. There is just not enough field of view to see a dump truck coming out of there at three mph in time to possibly avoid an accident. Cars travel very fast on this road. At 50 mph there is a heightened chance of accidents. Local people who use the road but for motorists who may not be familiar with the area may find themselves in danger if a truck pulls out of there and they are traveling too fast. A complete study of traffic should be done to evaluate the hazard this will create for motorists on Ridge Road. Please table strongly believe this puts the general public at risk of bodily injury. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I strongly believe this puts the general public at risk of bodily injury. John Borghese" I have one dated October 18th This is addressed to the Planning Board. It's from John Whalen "I am the owner of property in the immediate vicinity of this sand, gravel and soil extraction business, and fear that my property may be adversely affected by it. I am asking the Planning Board not to approve the continuation of this operation. John Whalen" This other one is dated today, October 18th. It says, "Hello, Laura, I'd like to go on the record objecting to the proposed expansion of commercial sand operations fronting on Ridge Road (Site Plan PZ 223-2016 and Special Use Permit PZ 224-2016).. It will negatively impact both the quality of life and home values for the homeowners on Ridge Road adjacent to this site. Quality of Life: Per the app, "Applicant requests waiver from buffer requirement, proposes 200 ft. to nearest residence." But the Qby Code specifies 1,000 ft. to the nearest residence, 5 times the distance proposed. Noise intensity varies with the square of the distance, so the impact of 1/5 of the distance is not "merely" 5 times the noise! It would potentially be 25 times the noise! The Town of Qby claims that it is "a good place to live." Permitting this expansion will for these Ridge Road residents, make it much less good to live there. Home Values: Forgetting the impact on their quality of life, permitting this violation of the Qby Code would hurt their property values significantly. They might well be prevented from opening their windows during the sand pit's hours of operation. A major study of noise costs conducted for the 1982 Federal cost Allocation Study "assumed a 0.4 percent decrease in the value of a housing unit for each dBA increase over a threshold value of 55 dBA." From h-t ://www.usroads.com/ji u V /p/reu/ : 1._2/� :71004.�.m Please do not permit this violation of those Ridge Road homeowners' rights and expectations. At the very least, table this motion. Thank you. Bill Dutcher 1382 Ridge Road Qby NY 12804" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We will hold the public hearing open. When the applicant does come back for Site Plan Review we will take public comment. MR. LAPPER-We'd just like to clarify a couple of points. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. LAPPER-The intention, and I think it's clear in the application, is that employees, septic haulers, nobody's going to use Dream Lake Road unless it's an emergency situation. That's the goal here. Right now you have residences. There's very small setback to Dream Lake Road. You've got large dump trucks and other trucks right in their front yard. So if you look at the map that Laura has up, where the new road's going to be, it's nowhere near anyone's home. Of course when you're on Ridge Road, it's like every other truck, there's plenty of trucks on Ridge Road. It's a State highway. It's good to be on a State arterial, but in the application materials it's basically, on average, two trucks an hour. So for Ridge Road that's really minor, but they're not going to be going through everyone's yard. The goal here is to make life better for the people on Dream Lake Road and not impact the people on Ridge Road because where the access is now, the access is north of everybody. So the process is for us to prove that this is a good project and it's good for the neighborhood and that's our goal. Fort Miller has only owned it since 2010 and operated since 2013, but they're professional people and they're doing this to try and do the right thing. So I expect we'll be able to convince you that this is a worthwhile project, but that's what the process is all about. MR. DEEB-Jon, so what you're saying that even your employees won't use Dream Lake Road? If they even have a car? MR. LAPPER-Right. Everybody will come in through the new road. MR. MARCELLE-Through Ridge Road, through the new entrance. MR. DEEB-It is a public road. MR. LAPPER-But we'll agree to that as a condition, except if there's an emergency situation. MR. DEEB-I mean, I can understand no big trucks coming in. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if we mark Dream Lake Road as an emergency road, if that's the way he marked it, and that's all that uses it. And the State, if you say that's an emergency road, that means, except for drills, the only people who can use it are emergency vehicles when there's an emergency. They can use it for training, but that's it. So if that's what you're going to do with that road, make sure people understand that. MR. LAPPER-It's still a public road for all the other neighbors. We're just saying for this operation. MR. MARCELLE-And just to address one of the comments that was made. When I spoke about the 1,000 foot buffer, that was a clarification, and I don't know that I used the word resolved, but the intent was there that it was clarified, because there was a question at the last Planning Board meeting. So that's the letter from the Town. Also I'd like to comment on the digging of the test holes. The test holes I was referring to was on the new property. We've done some preliminary test hole digging there. We do do test holes in our pit, and that's how we develop the pond that we have in there now. We excavated and found the water and have maintained water level and we're not drawing water from the stream as we talked about anymore. We're self-contained. So that we are doing that, and then the gentleman said that we put a flag 25 feet from his driveway. That was as a result of the complaint that was made by a neighbor to DEC, and as part of the DEC requirement we had to flag all of our property to show them where the material was. That we had an embankment that slid when the frost came out and there was an obligation that it was in the stream and all kinds of stuff. So we were directed by DEC to go out and flag our property boundaries to determine whether or not that material left our property. We went out and flagged it as per the DEC. The DEC came out and found that there was no evidence of anything getting into any area. So that's why the flag was placed where it was because that's our property boundary. We were directed by DEC to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I'd like, I'm going to ask if Craig can give us clarification on his letter. He says the 1,000 foot requirement is to be treated as a buffer requirement rather than a setback requirement. In my own mind I think I know what he means by saying that, but for the benefit of all involved, I think it would be worthwhile to have him clarify what that means, what it means, how he. MR. LAPPER-We had that discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-And it means that the Planning Board can, has a right to waive it rather than going to the Zoning Board for a variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that's part of what we have to prove to you, based upon topography, based upon how it goes up the hill with trees and this is on the other side, that that's going to be sufficient to protect any residents on the road side. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that your understanding? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. LAPPER-So it'll be a number of months, at this point, until we're back. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have two resolutions. The first one is to consent to Lead Agency status to New York State DEC. RESOLUTION CONSENTNG TO LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: FORT MILLER CO., INC. MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR SITE PLAN PZ 223-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 THE FORT MILLER COMPANY, INC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf, who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Would it be worthwhile to put into the resolution that we would like to see the Long Form provided as part of the review? MRS. MOORE-It doesn't hurt, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Will DEC ask us for comments again? Or is this our only opportunity? MR. LAPPER-No, you're an involved agency. MR. HUNSINGER-So they're going to have to ask us if we have any comments, and we can comment then. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then we have a sample resolution to table the Site Plan. We don't have a date. So how do you want to handle this? Would we re-warn the public? MR. LAPPER-1 would say after the SEQR determination is made we'll submit to you what the project looks like at that point, because it may change. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but in our motion we say we table it until the Planning Board meeting. There should be a date there. Or just say a future Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-If you pose it that you're tabling it until the SEQR determination is made and revised information is being submitted. So that is a future date, to clarify it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make the motion? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Is there a draft? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can do it if you want. RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 223-2016 & SUP PZ 224-2016 THE FORT MILLER CO., INC. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 223-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 THE FORT MILLER CO., INC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb. Tabled to a future Planning Board meeting after the DEC performs the SEAR. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just again, for the benefit of the public, we will re-open the public when we re-hear the public, with the opportunity for you to comment. You can also provide written comment to the Planning Office, either through snail mail or on line, and all the comments will be considered. MRS. MOORE-I do remember what I was going to say. In this case, once we understand the next meeting, we will re-notify you of those within that 500 foot distance, just so you're aware of that. I didn't want to leave it unattended. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Thanks. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any other business to be brought before the Board? MRS. MOORE-I gave you a site plan application. If you can take an opportunity to review that, then you can give me comments, or vote on it next and say that that's the form you wish to have applicants complete. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? MR. FERONE-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NONE: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman