Loading...
03-28-2017 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2017 INDEX Site Plan No. 4-2017 Frank Perrotta, Jr. 1.. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-38 Site Plan No. 20-2017 Magical Shore Acres, LLC 21. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-21 Subdivision No. 6-2017 Paul Poirier 24. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46 Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2017 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 16-2017 Michael & Erin Gustke 29. Tax Map No. 315.8-1-8 Site Plan No. 14-2017 Bernard K. Gansle 32. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-28 Site Plan 21-2017 Fastrac Markets, LLC (Quaker Road) 35. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-27 Site Plan No. 22-2017 Fastrac Markets, LLC (Corinth Road) 39. Special Use Permit 5-2017 Tax Map No. 309.13-1-35 Site Plan No. 19-2017 Carol Perkins d/b/a Ray's Salvage 42. Tax Map No. 301.19-1-10, -5 Site Plan No. 17-2017 Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny 48. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to go ahead and call the meeting to order. This is the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury. This evening's meeting is the second meeting in the month of March and the sixth meeting for 2017. We have no Administrative Items this evening. So we will proceed to the first item on our agenda which is a tabled item. Frank Perrotta, Jr., Site Plan 4-2017. SITE PLAN 4-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II FRANK PERROTTA, JR. AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD KNOX RD. ACCESS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,467 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 8,625 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MAJOR STORMWATER AND PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUNSET HILL SUB 11-96, SP 38- 2004 BOATHOUSE W/SUNDECK AV 4-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA, LGPC, WETLANDS LOT SIZE 5.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-38 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 3,467 sq. ft. footprint for the home. The floor area is 8,625 sq. ft. The project did receive an Area Variance the other day from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the height, and the project's in front of this Board for stormwater and project within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing the owner and applicant Frank Perrotta. With me is Michael Borgos, the project attorney and Steve Adler who represents the design company for the residence. If you recall, we were before you back in January for a referral to the ZBA, and at that time we went to the ZBA the following night with a proposal for a height variance that was, at that time, not well received. So we returned, the owner and Steve got together and made some modifications to that design for building height and we returned to the ZBA this past week and received an approval for that modified design. So we're back before the Planning Board obviously for site plan issues. This project as it takes place is proposed for a five acre lot, five and a half acre lot located in the Sunset Hill Farm subdivision, which is a subdivision approved back in 1992. At that time, this lot was created, actually it was, there were two lots and following Planning Board approval the project sponsor at that time consolidated two lots into one lot. So now we have the 5.5 acre parcel. It's somewhat unique in that it has a leg that goes down to Assembly Point Road. There's 50 feet of frontage on Assembly Point Road and there's an associated dock on that parcel. The access, however, is off of Knox Road through a deeded easement that is actually part of Lot Seven, the adjoining lot to the west. This Lot Number Six faces easterly primarily. We have proposed a house and the house site that fits on the higher portion of the property, there's a bit of a transition from the ridge area of the property and extends down to the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) houses that front along Assembly Point Road. The house site itself is about 650 feet from Assembly Point Road. The lot itself, the easterly boundary of the lot, is about 350 to 400 feet from Assembly Point Road. The area between the easterly edge of the lot and Assembly Point Road is a number of houses that front on Assembly Point, on Assembly Point Road facing Harris Bay side. We've proposed the house site with access from that easement area. We've proposed wastewater, on-site wastewater system, and stormwater management. There's been a fair amount of discussion about stormwater management. I want to discuss that in some detail before we get onto public comments or what not. The purpose of stormwater management is to capture and control runoff from new impervious surfaces and get that runoff, that stormwater back into the ground. It's really that simple. There's not a new house built anywhere that has caused it to rain any more than it does. That rain still comes from the sky. That snow melt still melts off the site. What there is is an addition of new impervious area. So that impervious area needs to be, the runoff from that impervious area needs to be managed. So we've provided a design, a stormwater management device, in this case shallow grass swales, that capture and control the volume required based on the regulations. So I think that we're in good standing there. We have been reviewed by the Town Engineer. Chazen has made some comments. We've responded to those comments. They aren't, in my mind, they aren't significant. We will reach a satisfactory solution on all those little points that they've made so that that, I feel quite confident that we will satisfy their review. Wastewater treatment. We have proposed an on-site shallow absorption system. There's been some discussion about that. Some of the public comments about this have been is it being a fill system. The problem, if it was a fill system, is that it's on slopes that exceed 10%. So we clarified, through discussions with both Dave Hatin, or the Town Codes, and the Health Department that the design as proposed, as I've said all along, is a shallow absorption system. That's a system that's built just into the top soils of the site. It's not a fill system. It supplements the native soil. It's a shallow absorption system. I think we have correspondence in the file from Dave's office, Dave Hatin's office, that confirms that. So I don't think there's any question there that that is compliant. In fact Dave said as much in his response. He says that the bed system is a compliant suitable system. Drinking water supply, private well, drilled well provided by whoever's applied for the house. Normal residential lighting. We've had discussions about that that came up at the Zoning Board, as far as dark sky compliant type lighting. They put a condition on their approval that there wouldn't be any lighting fixtures in that area, a building that was otherwise above the 28 foot building standard. Certainly the owner has agreed and will comply with that condition. All other lighting will be typical residential lighting. Either on the house fixtures, wall lighting, or post lighting for a driveway. Very common, but it will be downcast. So that's the gist of the proposed site development. It is an approved lot from a 1992 subdivision that's been longstanding. It just hasn't ever been built upon. The site has incurred, I don't want to avoid that topic, it did incur some damage over the years with storm damage from Hurricane Irene. There was a certain amount of loss of vegetation. I think some of that is coming back and certainly Mr. Perrotta would undertake a re-vegetation plan that would, actually the best thing that he could do is to work with the existing vegetation, the second growth that's coming back. There are clusters of white pines and hemlocks that are coming back on that site that most efficiently we could re-distribute on the site. If they grow in clusters, they'll just choke each other out and there won't be as much good use of that re-growth and I think through the development plan, through the use of the existing vegetation, that would be a good way to approach re-vegetating that site. So with that I'd ask if there's any questions that you want to ask. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Could you show us how the plan changed? Because I compared both plans and the height variance is the same. MR. MAC ELROY-The height? No, the height is lowered. The height lowered. The previous request was for a building height of 37.7. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Excuse me, 35.7. 7.7 feet above the 28 foot standard. When it was re- designed, the height request is 32 feet, which by the math of it is 4 feet greater. MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking at the drawings from January and February. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the footprint is essentially the same. The second floor footprint or floor plan is a little bit different because the roof has been squashed. So that's the significant difference in terms of when I re-submitted in February it included site plan sheets, but it also included two pages from the application which had slightly different floor areas in there, but effectively the footprint is the same. You lowered the finished floor. Steve worked to lower the 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) roof design so that lowered the knee walls on the second floor. As Steve reminds me all the time it's a one and a half story house. It does have a walk out basement. The site lends itself to a walk out situation. The slopes in the house site range from 11 to 13%, 11.1 to 13%. It's not an excessive slope. So that change, and another thing I just want to mention that's Zoning Board information, but what was important, I think, to the Zoning Board, and an important fact to present, and you don't have it in your file, but we had a plan that showed just what area, from a roof plan situation, that was non-compliant, the 28 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's shown on here. MR. MAC ELROY-There you go. Those two red areas, and that was appropriate information to provide to the Zoning Board, and I think that they saw the reasonableness of that request and they, again, approved that variance. MR. TRAVER-And those changes didn't require any change to the septic or the stormwater I don't believe. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It's certainly the same bedroom count, same wastewater design, same location, same impervious area. We did adjust the location of those shallow basins. That's something that we might be able to pick up on from one plan to the other. We slid those down a little bit. MR. TRAVER-And what was the reason for that? MR. MAC ELROY-Just a separation distance condition. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Somewhat in response to a comment that Chazen had made. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and the remaining comments from Chazen, are you seeing anything other than technical or clerical issues that you would have any issues with addressing? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. TRAVER-You feel confident you'd be able to get an engineer signoff, I guess? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And with the septic, you say the Board of Health has approved that design? MR. MAC ELROY-Dave Hatin's office, without the need of a variance, it's Building and Codes approves the design of that, and he's concurred that that's an appropriate design. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, it appeared to me that the height issue was that large dormer over the great room. Would that not have been easily dropped down a little bit so you wouldn't have to worry about that? MR. MAC ELROY-We had that question last week, and Steve can address it. MR. SHAFER-Okay. STEVE ADLER MR. ADLER-Actually we actually lowered the whole roof line by changing the pitch, and to keep our floor space and our living area in the bedrooms habitable and compliant, we actually dropped the shed dormer along the whole, I guess you'd call it the westerly elevation of the building, which kept the rooms still usable and good, but it lowered the house quite a bit. So the whole dormer did drop. It did drop along with the rest. MR. SHAFER-By virtue of the knee wall? MR. ADLER-Yes, by whole roof pitch change. I mean, it took quite a bit out of it. We also lowered six inches out of the basement as well. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. SHAFER-Dennis, could you comment on Chazen's stormwater comment number four, where they basically said you had to use a wider area? And the reason I raise the question is that when I was up there looking at the property, one of the neighbor ladies reminded me that during the hurricane there were two major impacts. One was the loss of trees, of course, on the top of the hill. The other was that many of the houses down along Assembly Point Road had all of their basements flooded. So obviously that gives us the attention of looking at the stormwater pretty carefully. So I was concerned about that item number four. It has to do with the size of the boundary used in the, the northern water shed boundary used in the calculations. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Well, I can read you exactly my response. Review of Sheet S-2 `Layout Plan' of the original Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision, dated May 27, 1992 as prepared by the LA Group, shows a more comprehensive area of topography. This information, as well as field observation indicates a reasonable projection of the subcatchment area as defined by the western and northern property boundaries. So in essence, basically the catchment area is more or less defined by that. There is no significant difference in what catchment area would be. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-It's just that our plan didn't necessarily go beyond those boundaries. So in referral to an earlier topography plan that was more comprehensive I can confirm that. MR. SHAFER-One last question for me, Mr. Chairman. The future bedrooms, were that taken into consideration in the septic design? MR. MAC ELROY-There's four bedrooms as part of the house design. There's a bonus room over the garage which we counted as a fifth bedroom. And Dave has concurred with that design. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't mean to belabor this question. I'm unclear, the building height, because the site development data says 35.7 feet, but the drawing shows 32 feet. MR. MAC ELROY-Thirty-two feet. Thirty-two feet is the submittal that was put in in February for the March meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-We got a revised site development sheet. It's even on the drawing, that still says 35 feet 7. So that was part of the reason for my confusion on the building height. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You summarized the site development data on the drawing as well and it shows 35.7 feet. MR. MAC ELROY-I'll get that corrected. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Now you understand why I was confused? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Sorry. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-AII right. Anything else from the Board at this point? All right. We do have a public hearing on this project. Are there folks in the audience that want to give comment on this project? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky. Lake George Water Keeper. I do have comments, and handouts that I could put in the record after. First comment that I had is regarding an on-site wastewater treatment system. It was said that there's a Town letter in the file. However, I reviewed the file yesterday. There was no letter from the Town in there. So these comments are based on a Town file that did not have the said record. Also, for the record I'd also like to say, the Department of Health really doesn't have a say in this. So it's irrelevant what their intent, or influence was on that. Regarding the on-site system, it is a system, it is a fill system because the Town Code defines that as any sewage disposal system involving earth fill above existing grade. The New York State Department of Health defines a 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) raised system or a mound system as an absorption trench systems constructed in fill materials with acceptable permeability placed above natural grade. So the Town files, Town definition, does not refer to the absorption trench being into the existing soil. So it says any fill, and that really is to be more restrictive than the design standards to maximum water quality protection. To interpret otherwise is to minimize the intended protection that is intended by the Town. It was referenced that these fill systems as defined by the Town should not be on slopes greater than 10%. This site is proposed to have a 20% slope where that system is. So clearly it's our opinion that the Town Code specifically refers to any system involving earth fill period. It doesn't matter where the trench is, due to concerns of construction on the steep slopes. Again, there is no evidence of that letter in the Town files. I'd like to see that if there was. Regarding the soils on the site, and this is very important. Based on the natural resource conservation service soils survey, which I have copies of right here, the soils on the site are very limited. That's due to excessive slope that may cause lateral seepage in servicing of effluent and due to the slopes in downgradient areas. The absorption field may not be adequate to filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a result groundwater may be contaminated; and the site is very limited for slope, excessive fines that are in these soils, low permeability, and depth to saturation. So this is all in the handout that will be submitted. Regarding the stormwater system, I felt that it needed to be updated because the site plan was updated. The stormwater report that's in the file is actually from December. Has not been updated. I also reviewed the file yesterday. There was no letter from Chazen in that file. So really these comments, again, are based on a file that really didn't have the said information. So really I don't know how you could review that without it being updated, and there were changes. A couple of the bigger concerns about the stormwater system is that they should be based on infiltration tests as per the DEC Stormwater Design Manual. The design is based on percolation tests which actually don't give you an actual soil reading because the percolation tests actually take into account the side of the trench. The New York State Design Code clearly says that you should use infiltration tests to provide an actual real life infiltration. Infiltration devices do not meet the 100 foot required setback from the septic system. If you take a look, those basins are located 10 feet from the septic system, and with the depth of the basins located right next to the wastewater system, there is a possibility of seepage into those. So I think that that needs to be addressed. Again, going back to the same soil survey by the National Resources Conservation Service, they classify the soils on this site as most limited for stormwater management infiltration due to slope, excessive fines, depth to saturation, and low permeability. The excessive slopes limits the function of infiltration practices, low permeability restricts movement of water through the soil, impeding infiltration and excessive fines are soils with a high content of silt and clay that may become plugged and prevent infiltration. So really this limits the infiltration, especially in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. And in closing you referenced some of the concerns about the downgradient runoff, and that's why we feel that this site really needs to take a conservative look at the runoff factors, get true infiltration tests, take a look at the site and separate those because there's a serious concern of stormwater runoff and it has impacted and especially when you put those wastewater systems right, that wastewater system right next to this basin. Now that is of concern, and again, I'd like to get clarification on the wastewater because clearly that is not in compliance with the Town Code, and if that's the case then that should be appealed to some Board, and I think that would be the Board of Health. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Could 1, Chris, could I ask you a couple of questions? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, yes definitely. MR. TRAVER-And you reference, as you probably are aware, none of us on the Board are engineers. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. SHAFER-With one exception. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, one of us is. MR. TRAVER-Some of the points that you made are somewhat technical, but as I understand the basis of your presentation is that the application either presents, has presented something to the Town different than something that would normally be approved by the Town because it doesn't meet the requirements that you're suggesting this evening? MR. NAVITSKY-On the wastewater or the stormwater? MR. TRAVER-On wastewater. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. I mean, clearly I think the Town code says any fill, and when it says any fill, that's whether it's six inches or four feet. I don't think it separates between a raised system or a shallow trench system, meaning that these regulations, when you call it a fill system, only means when you bring in enough fill so that the entire trench is above natural grade. The Town Code is not that specific. It doesn't say that. Contrary to New York State Code which clearly says that, that the absorption trench in its entirety is above natural grade. The Town Code doesn't say that so I think it should be more restrictive measuring that when it says any fill, that's whether you're bringing in six inches or. MR. TRAVER-So basically your point is that there, in your opinion there is some conflict between the Town Code and State Code. MR. NAVITSKY-No, no. I think that there, the Town Code is clear. It says any fill. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-And when you bring in any fill. MR. TRAVER-So you're saying the applicant has misinterpreted the Town Code? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And you're saying that as far as you know there is no letter stating that this application has met the Town Code. MR. NAVITSKY-Correct. I did not see that in the Town file, and I reviewed it as late as yesterday. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-If I may, I have a question as well. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-There is test pit data and infiltration data. MR. NAVITSKY-There's percolation tests. A percolation test is different, and I don't want to get too technical, but that's when you dig a straight hole down and you pour water in it, it filters out the bottom and the sides. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NAVITSKY-And infiltration test, as per the DEC requirements, limits where that water is infiltrated out of the hole so that you get that downward movement. That is different. So the DEC manual clearly allows percolation tests for initial feasibility studies at a site to see if that site can be good for development, but when you get into a detailed design, then you must go to the more restrictive infiltration test so you can actually see what that downward movement of the water is into the soils and not laterally, and that is a more conservative design, and I think that's what should be, especially in this area on Assembly Point. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for Mr. Navitsky? Okay. MR. FERONE-Can that information be shared with us, in the event this application goes beyond this evening? MR. TRAVER-Well, he has some information he's submitting. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes, sir. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Good evening. John Collins, 35 Knox Road, Assembly Point. I have submitted some materials. I don't know if they've been distributed to you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MRS. MOORE-They all have that. MR. TRAVER-Actually they have. MR. COLLINS-They have. MR. TRAVER-Are you referring to this handout? MR. COLLINS-Yes, I am. MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure that everyone has had an opportunity to examine it in detail. MR. COLLINS-That's all right. And I'm not going to go line by line through it now. However, the first page kind of outlines the overall position. We're requesting that the application not be approved at this time because we believe it violates the comprehensive management plan for ridge line development and building on steep slopes. And Pages Two through Four just pull out some of the material in the comprehensive plan that I think is relevant in your view on the application. Chris just spent some time on the discussion of Section 136 and 179 of the Town Code. We feel that those are being violated. Dennis MacElroy mentioned the 1992 subdivision plan, and if you go back and look at that plan, there are very specific comments in that plan regarding the construction and the stormwater and septic details in development, and we think that they violate many of the provisions in that 1992 plan. Fourth point, we think there should be a major stormwater management plan and maintenance plan. We also think there should be an erosion and sediment control plan, and then I'll discuss some adverse impacts and we're requesting that a performance bond be required for a number of reasons. If I go to Page Seven, it kind of summarizes some of the areas that deviate from the 1992 subdivision plan. The plan in its original form, when there were 10 lots, and then when it was amended down to eight lots, identifies where a house and the septic should be located. In the case for the application, the houses in the general area however the septic is not. It's built further down the slope. There's also construction detail for septic system, the trenches, the common drive, the infiltrators and the roof drain infiltrators, and it doesn't seem like many of those construction details were carried through to the application. Because of the steep slopes, we're very concerned about the stormwater management plan and the septic plan, and I think there are alternatives that are readily available. If you look at the subdivision plan from 1992, the septic was supposed to be up at the top of the ridge line, not on these steep slopes. Now that septic could be moved up there, and it would solve many of the stormwater management plan issues with the stormwater being so close to the septic or the house or the septic could be moved to the south up on the ridge line where you don't have the septic issues. So Page Eight kind of goes through that. Now weren't aware that the Town Engineer had looked at this. So this is to whatever comments they may have had. I'm not sur whether the Town Engineer addressed an erosion and sediment control plan. It's clear on the New York State Standards and Specifications for erosion and sediment control that outlines when such a plan should be put in place, and I think based on the criteria there absolutely should be. Now how is this adversely impacting us? There are minimal trees on the property that filter the view of the ridgeline house from the east, south and north and the trees that provide a backdrop for the house, located to the west, don't belong to the applicant. They actually belong to my wife Carol Collins and her sister Rene West. Now we believe the Planning Board should take that fact into account if the ridgeline development is allowed because at some point in time that backdrop could be removed or reduced if we, the family, was ever to build a house or put a septic system on the ridgeline. We believe the Planning Board should require a native vegetation and tree planting plan to restore the site. As it's been discussed in the past, Hurricane Irene knocked down the trees, but the owner also went in, the prior owner, not the current owner, went in and clear cut the property. And as you will see, if you haven't seen, from comments from neighbors downslope, that did cause tremendous problems with basement flooding and impacts on septics for a period of time. So what I'd like is for the Planning Board to consider requiring the applicant to submit a plan that identifies trees to be removed or trimmed, including those on the right of way where it's proposed to put the driveway. Because there are some large trees there and again, that will impact on the backdrop. He applicant should also address the visual and environmental impact of the removal of any trees on the property, which should be included in the stormwater plan, and the applicant should also avoid compacting soils under any existing canopies. Dennis mentioned that there's a lighting plan with down lighting. It wasn't clear to us what the lighting plan was and we do have a concern that there were going to be flood lights and that it would light up the whole area, and we want to keep the lighting impact to an absolute minimum, and secondly the site drains into a Class AA Special Stream and we're wondering what the provisions are to protect that stream. Now, with regard to a performance bond, we would like to have a performance bond on the site due to the following: Building and Construction on the right of way to the property, blasting and/or mining, stormwater management maintenance plan as Queensbury is an MS-4 community, septic systems and well 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) water downslope of the site and erosion and sediment control plan, and I'm curious as to whether there's been any flooding analysis to protect down gradient resources and homes. Big picture, it's important for the Board to understand the broad impacts of this project an make every effort to reduce the visual and environmental impacts. We believe a proper review of all necessary plans with the direction of the Planning Board this site can be developed observing the Town's Comprehensive Management Plan and Town Codes. As a result, we urge you to reject the current plan. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Okay, and, sir, you're next. BOB GLANDON MR. GLANDON-My name is Bob Glandon and I'm at 63 Knox Road. I just want to capitalize on prior comments. Probably it's not the place to actually do re-engineering and to give options, but I think it's important to understand if the septic field is moved up onto the ridge, either south or north of this building, or if this building gets squeezed down south or north because it's obviously a large site, that leaves the entire hillside essentially untouched, and would allow much greater control of water runoff, rain runoff. Those little ponds, if you're going to put them in, could essentially go all the way across. What has happened here is the house is pushed up onto the ridge so that it has enough space for a gravity to a septic system, but then the septic system has enough space before it's getting down to the waterway down below. So it squeezes itself in that way. If you use a pump up system, which many houses do on Assembly Point and all around here, then the wastewater treatment can be handled at the top of the ridge and to one side, as was originally laid out in the subdivision plan, and then that allows much better control of water runoff. The subdivision called for roof drains going into underground infiltrators. If I read this one right, these roof drains are being, and the road itself, are just being let out onto grass to find their way down these little ditches to get to the sumps and I would point out that at 67 Knox Road, that was the original design on that building was that all roof drains came out to daylight and then they had stone pits put in place to catch that, and it was quickly understood that the maintenance of that would mean that those were fairly worthless after about five years of being jammed up and you wouldn't get the infiltration. You've already heard infiltration will be a problem here. So what they had to do instead was put in a large underground tank all piping, all driveways and all roof drains go into a large tank and then underground infiltration systems. So I think that's not a bad idea to look at here in some manner, and it was laid out in the first subdivision, and then the driveway itself did have, in the original subdivision, major infiltrators along certain sections of that, too. So in other words it was contemplated that rain water would have to be disposed of on-site rather than letting it go downhill. Finally, if you do move the septic up, you get rid of that problem of building it on a hill, the problem of it being a fill system, and this would also allow you to take the house and kick it down the hill maybe 10 vertical feet, and so now that high roof line of building on a ridge line would drop by 10 feet, and that variance that they got for an extra four feet would be pulled down ten feet. So we could really minimize building on a hill and the visual problems with that. So with the septic moved, it gives you guys an entirely different plan to look at and I would urge you to reject this as is and look for the applicant to come back with a revised plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. KATHRYN HULL MS. HULL-My name's Kathryn Hull. I live on Assembly Point. I'm reading a letter from Robert Tully. He wasn't able to be here tonight. He has the property right below the proposed site. "My name is Robert Tully and I am the owner of the property located at 167 Assembly Point Road. I am very concerned about the proposed application on the property directly behind my house. After hurricane Irene in 2011, the area of land involved in the current variance request was a mess with numerous fallen trees and erosion. Sometime afterwards," the then owner came in and basically clear cut away the trees, "aggravating an already dire situation. The combined effect on my property was horrendous, especially after the following spring melt. Almost a third of my approximately 1 acre lot was unusable from the runoff coming off the steep grade unabated by the now absent historical vegetation. It was as if the lake was now in my back yard. Some improvement has occurred since that time as there has been an overgrowth of some grasses and shrubs. In addition, some of my neighbors had adverse effects on their septic systems from the saturated ground. I did not, by the way, as the water was thankfully far enough away from my tank which is close to my house. If the property behind me is built on, without significant remediation, I am going to be adversely impacted again. I will not tolerate any more flooding of my property from the property seeking the variance. When you consider this site plan, please keep in mind that I have already been adversely impacted by the events I just described and ask you to either deny the request or if you do grant it, require the remediation 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) necessary to protect me. I have been on Assembly Point 57 years; I pay a lot in taxes. I deserve some peace of mind. Robert Tully" MR. TRAVER-Thank you, ma'am. I have a quick question for you, if I may. You mentioned in that letter, I understand you're not the author of the letter, but in the letter it mentions damage to septic systems. MS. HULL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you actually know the nature of the impact of those septic systems? MS. HULL-To your question, I don't know. LISA ADAMSON MS. ADAMSON-Mr. Traver, I wanted to make a statement as well. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS. ADAMSON-So Jane Shire is two north of Bob Tully. I believe I'm right about that, and her basement was completely flooded, and we tried to go over and help them, but I don't know if that's the septic to which he's referring. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If I could ask, have you heard, anecdotally, of any septic systems in that area being damaged by the follow up to the storm? MR. ADAMSON-No. I've heard residential concern about the runoff that the properties all along Assembly Point Road and that area obviously are not managing, might be pulling some septic with them. There's concern and questions about maybe the water should be tested. MR. TRAVER-1 see. All right. Thank you. MS. ADAMSON-My name is Lisa Adamson. I'm a resident of Assembly Point. My family has been there since the early 1900's, and I pretty much walk the length of the Point almost every day and almost every season, and what I've been seeing since I moved back here permanently in 2006 is just an increasing problem with runoff from properties and from the driveways. So you've got the chemical runoff from those driveways that are seal coated and you have the nutrient load carried by the water across the lake, across Assembly Point Road, and down into the water. It's a very, for those of you who know Assembly Point Road, it's a very steep and it's very steep right near to the road and to the lake. So for me the ultimate concern in granting variances for more development along shorelines in North Queensbury is the water quality, and in this particular project there's also the concern of scale, both common sense and aesthetic, and scale that could impact the property, and the other two concerns being what people have talked about, whether it can manage its stormwater and whether the septic that's being proposed is, in fact, an appropriate type and in appropriate placement, and my question is, if all of our concern is about the degradation of Lake George and we know that that's happening and we think a lot of it has to do with development, why don't we just listen to the Water Keeper, because to me, he's an engineer and he understands the codes and the other question for me is, if we have these codes and ordinances, why are we making variances unless its life and death when our lake is going down? So if this project is passed, I urge you, as the other speakers before me, to make sure that the stormwater plan includes many deep rooted either shrubs and/or trees. That's what was on the property before, and this year when I've been walking the Point, along Assembly Point Road from Sunset going north to John Kelly's house where Assembly Point Road then takes a turn to the west, there is a new piece of, there's a new house going up, a very large house on a small piece of property, and they clearly have a raingarden, but to me, and I haven't done the perc tests and the analysis, but it doesn't look adequate to what was there. I used to stop while they were first digging the foundation for this house and say you're not going to take those trees out are you? So they were pretty much in what we call the front yard which would be facing the lake, and they had three big cedars and a birch I believe that they took every one of those down and they put in two trenches that are a raingarden, and what it looks like to me is they've got, I mean, I could be wrong but it looks like this year it's Echinacea and daffodils. I mean, you need deep rooted plants to absorb that runoff, and so clearly when you walk along Assembly Point or when you drive in the winter you almost slide off the road because of the ice or you walk. I mean, it's a dangerous situation. These properties are not managing their runoff and so then right above them is going to go something, going to go a very large structure that has to be, the construction of which is going to displace any new growth that's there now. So I urge you to be sure that there's a really strong stormwater plan, and lastly, this is just, where is our voice of commonsense going to come from 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) if we're, living out there on the Point we're seeing these huge trucks all the time. I mean, there's just one project after another, and when are we going to all agree that the harm that's coming to the lake is from too much development and too large of a scale of these houses. It's in appropriate to an Adirondack aesthetic, you know, we can't mandate that aesthetic, but we can take a look at scale and say, you know, maybe we need a simpler and more commonsense type of size in our housing. So thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address? Yes, ma'am. BEVERLY POZZI MS. POZZI-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Beverly Pozzi and I live on Assembly Point, and my family's been there for six decades. I will read what I have written, but again, it's just not technical, that's all been said, but you are aware of the storm, Hurricane Irene, not only trees taken down, but then clear cut following that. And with a home this large on the ridge, it means stormwater runoff to increase in normal weather conditions, but more so in the ever changing weather patterns that we see and the intense storms that we've had. The Assembly Point Road could be affected in addition to the homes. My concern is that eventually Assembly Point Road will be compromised, even impassible, and we've seen the collapse of the lakeside bank with damage to the owner's stairways and docks. There is not only the homes, the septic systems we're concerned about, but also the road and Assembly Point is a fragile peninsula, more and more stressed by larger homes. This proposed home, and there is a revised agenda and what I have in my write up is incorrect based on the agenda. The square footage plus the driveway will have an impact on the ridge as well as on the land below. I don't want to quote any of the criteria that others have said before this Board or those submitting written documents which contain more detailed information. I am, by no means an authority on safe land development, my concerns are based on what I have seen, before during and after storms. I urge you to consider the long term implications of building on this ridgeline, any home, now or in the future. Should you allow building on steep slopes, especially with little vegetation or trees, Mr. Perotta must be aware of the affect his building will have on the Assembly Point peninsula and his neighbors. So I urge you, great care must be exercised in building, sewage disposal, landscaping and all aspects of the project. Thank you. My sister Lorraine Ruffing also wrote a document for the January meeting. I believe you have that one. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If the applicant would like to return to the table. MRS. MOORE-I still have letters. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-So, I just want to confirm that Beverly's read her letter in. Is that correct? I don't have to re-read it. MR. TRAVER-There were two that were actually read. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then I have Lisa Adamson's. MS. ADAMSON-Yes, that was. MRS. MOORE-I don't need to read it? All right. MR. TRAVER-That will be put in the file, though. MRS. MOORE-They're both in the file. I just wanted to confirm that they were satisfied with the comments that they'd made and the comments that are left in the file. Sara Brown has written us. "Dear Mr. Traver & members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, I am writing to express my concerns about the Perrotta-Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision (239.7-1-38) Site Plan P- SP-4-2017. My family has owned property on Assembly Point Road for the past 75 years. It is located below the ridge where the construction is proposed. In 2012 after Hurricane Irene toppled many trees along the slope of the ridge we were reminded just how fragile the ecosystem is. Our basement had always been dry but with the loss of vegetation it flooded and the leach fields of our septic system were compromised. Other families near us had similar problems. Because of the steepness of the slope where the new construction is proposed and the clear cutting that has been done after Hurricane Irene, great care must be taken. We anticipate greater erosion and run off into the wetlands below the ridge, our backyards, the road and ultimately the lake. This calls for a very strong storm water management plan. Without this plan many existing properties and the lake will be compromised. Another concern related to the 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) steepness of the slope is the septic system. As Christopher Navitsky, the Lake George Waterkeeper, wrote in his letter to you dated 1/24/17, "The proposed application is not compliant with regulation 136. It is important to determine if there is a viable onsite wastewater treatment system for this piece of property. Please consider the proximity of other homes and the damage that could occur if an unsuitable system is used. Thank you for reading my letter and considering my concerns. Sincerely, Sarah Brown" The next one is Richard Chase, 120 Lake Parkway. "Dear Mr. Traver, As an owner of a home on Assembly Point and as a person who loves Lake George, I am very concerned about the above referenced site plan. I am not opposed to property improvements in the area, but I steadfastly believe that all construction should be held to the same standard and be in compliance with the Town Code. The proposed construction is not in compliance with the Town Code in several respects. The onsite wastewater treatment system is inappropriate for the steep slope of the property, the extensive loss of vegetation is certain to increase runoff that will adversely affect both the neighboring homes and the quality of Lake George, and the proposed scale of the home is in direct contradiction to the spirit of both the Town and Adirondack Park with respect to its aesthetics and damage to the natural surroundings. I urge you to apply a consistent approval process to all proposed construction in the Town. The regulations were developed to ensure consistency of construction and to safeguard the natural resources of Lake George. It is greatly disturbing to me to when I see that individuals with the financial resources can manage their way around the standards that apply to everyone else. Please don't let the Town of Queensbury be yet another example of municipalities where the wealthy don't need to follow the same rules as the rest of us." The next letter is from Mary Helen O'Keefe. "Dear Craig Brown: I was made aware of the meetings on the variances of development of large homes on Assembly Point. (Frank Perrotta Application). What is happening to our wonderful Adirondack Lifestyle? My family has lived on Assembly Point for over 65 years and our little home is most treasured because it is authentic and original Adirondack camp. We take care of the land and cherish the water of our lake...in fact we use the water to supply our camp of drinking water. Building to fill up unused space to make suburbia out of our small and quiet community is happening more and more on Assembly Point. I am part of a grassroots project on Assembly Point. It is ASSEMBLY POINT WATER QUALITY COALITION. Our goal is to keep the lake clean and preserve the environment by monitoring runoff, making people aware to their septic system updates and cleanout to not use fertilizers and herbicides that will run into the lake and pollute. We also educate the homeowners how to look for milfoil and Asian clams and other invasive species in our lake water and where to report their findings. We have noticed that the new fancy homes with the most beautiful lawns are not interested in stopping their use of fertilizers and most are not here but 2 to 3 weeks a summer and have gardeners maintain their lawns. We urge you to please consider the future of our precious lake and community. Lake George is so beautiful and needs protection from pollution of displaced ground water and run off as well as septic pollution and over building" This next one is from Lorraine Ruffing. This is 66 Bay Parkway. 1. Mr. Perrotta has lived on AP and is considered to be a good neighbor so we are glad to welcome him back. 2. His ridge property has an unfortunate history. It was severely damaged by Hurricane Irene in 2011. As a result the former owner had it clear cut. Pictures of this clear cutting are attached. We lost 700 trees on Assembly Point during the hurricane. Most were from this ridge. As you know each tree has the capacity to absorb 100 gallons of water per day. This ridge has almost entirely been denuded of its former absorptive capacity. It should also be noted that this property has a slope of 15 to 25% so it fits the definition of a major project. 3. The houses below the ridge have basements that flood and everyone knows the frequent flooding conditions on AP Road which requires excessive use of sand and salt in winter when it ices over. 4. Therefore we are concerned about the impact of the height and position of the house in terms of storm water runoff. According to the Fund for Lake George storm water runoff is the single biggest threat to water quality. 5. According to APA regulations a disturbance of greater than 15000 sq. ft. requires a storm water mgmt. plan. As the disturbance will be greater than 27,000 sq. ft., this is a major project given the size of the area that will be disturbed. Thus, we would like to see the strongest possible storm water mgmt. plan before a storm water mgmt. permit is issued. The plan should include permanent structural and vegetative measures to control runoff and that doesn't mean just a few shrubs or rain gardens. 6. According to the Fund a general rule of thumb is that 2/3 of a property should be natural forest land. 7. When the ridge was covered with trees, storm water runoff was 1%; now that the site is cleared, runoff could be 50%. Further disturbance and compacting of the soil during and after construction will only increase the runoff. Thus, great care must be taken with the design of the house, its landscaping and any impervious surfaces in order to keep storm water on the Perrotta property." And the remaining ones are from Robert Tully, which was read, and then the Lake George Water Keeper. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. All right. So we have considerable public comment this evening. It seems as though very generally divided into two categories. MR. MAC ELROY-Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to read Dave's letter? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-This is letter from the Town that was referenced by one of the speakers. MRS. MOORE-So this was handled via e-mail. This was addressed to Dennis and copied to myself. "I have reviewed your drawings and also reviewed the drawings with Kevin Kenyon (P.E. Public Health Engineer 11) from the NYS DOH Glens Falls office and we have both concluded the following. This system you are proposing is a shallow absorption trench system and meets the requirements of Appendix 75-A for shallow absorption trench systems as defined in the NYS Individual Residential Wastewater Treatment Systems Design Handbook. The proposed system also meets the requirements for a 5 bedroom dwelling. Based on my review as well as the NYS DOH we find this design to be acceptable for proposed Perrotta single family dwelling located at 60 Knox Road." MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So considerable public comment obviously this evening, generally, I believe, divided up into two main areas. One is the continued development of Assembly Point and sort of the concern about another house and therefore a visual impact and so on. Most of it, however, was largely engineering concerns about stormwater or septic, possible alternatives to the design that you submitted and so on. A lot of it very technical, and we all know there's always alternatives to everything. There's fairly different ways that things can be designed. I think all of us, everybody in the room and beyond, are concerned about the lake and all the obvious issues and thus many of the regulations that we have particularly pertaining to this area. I know it's a big task, but what can you give us in response? MR. MAC ELROY-There's a couple of things that stood out, and I've, you know, made some notes to the effect, but I won't certainly be able to cover everything. Let me start first with that issue of the wastewater system. Chris, has interpreted the Town definition of fill system, which I'll read to you as he did. Any sewage disposal system involving earth fill above natural existing ground level and designed according to the provisions of Article 11. Okay. It's not any fill. It's any sewage disposal. So that's, you know, twisting words and whatever. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, would you read that again? I missed your point there. MR. MAC ELROY-Fill system. Any sewage disposal system involving earth fill above natural existing ground level and designed according to the provisions of Article 11. So Chris has interpreted it to be because of covered material over the trench, that that's a fill system. Okay. That's his interpretation. Dave, through either practice or policy, doesn't read it that way. I don't read it that way. It's a shallow absorption system. It's a system that's just into the native soil below the organic layer. Now, without revealing design secrets, why did I do it that way? Well the better soils are at the surface. That's generally always the case. So you take advantage of that. It's a gravity system that can be built that way. I could just as well design it, you know, 18, 24 inches into the ground, and it would be a conventional trench system, but I don't see the benefit of that. It's a better system if it takes advantage of that top six inches down to 18 inches or 24 inches down soil. It just makes sense. It's good design. That's the way I look at it. MR. TRAVER-Hypothetically, you made the comment that you could have done a more conventional system at this site. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And this is purely hypothetical. I understand that, but do you think, had you designed that, would it also have been approved? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. MR. MAC ELROY-So, as you said, there are alternatives. I don't see this as such a dire situation. Obviously, I designed it this way. MR. TRAVER-Well, it's only dire, I think, and the concern is I think universally, it's dire if it doesn't work. Because then we have a problem. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That's true with any system. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. TRAVER-So really what we're looking for, of course, is the engineering signoff, the confirmation that in fact it does work, along with some other issues. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I'm the P.E. that designed the system, and I'm comfortable with that design. So I don't believe it's a fill system. It doesn't meet that definition. The Town person who would make a judgment about that concurs. He happened to be talking to a fellow from the Health Department. Chris is right that the Health Department has no jurisdiction over something like this, but he also seemed to be referencing Health Department standards and regulations in his arguments. MR. TRAVER-Does this system meet those standards? Again, hypothetically, does this system meet those standards? MR. MAC ELROY-Town standards or Health Department? MR. TRAVER-Health Department. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. There's nothing to say that, and the slopes of this area, the wastewater system, are from 17 to 19%, to be precise. Not 20%. It's a fine difference, and I understand, but if you read the Health Department regulations, systems can be built in those soils, in those slopes. There's no hard and fast regulation that says 15% don't even think about it. And, I'll point out another thing, the definition in that, the design handbook for DOH is final grade. You could manipulate any soil area and create that less than 15%. It could be 30% to begin with, but you could, we're not suggesting it is. This is two trenches that are stepped down the slope. It's a, I believe it's an appropriate design for that situation, and I think Chris was referencing some soil conservation soils books for Warren County, whatever that storage was. I did the test pits and we dig test pits to see what the soils are. So, I mean, that's better than reading some description of a general soils area in a book. These are the actual test pits that are required as part of the design procedure. MR. FERONE-1 think you and I have the same question. Being the non-engineer, you talked about the soils, that you want to take advantage of the soils on top, that they were better soils, and maybe I'm not understanding correctly, but wouldn't those same soils be part of any rainfall that would become more absorbed by anything, you know, rain, runoff, whatever that wouldn't be able to absorb? MR. MAC ELROY-I'm not sure I understand. MR. FERONE-Okay. Well, go ahead, John. MR. SHAFER-Well, my question was different, and that had to do with whether or not, Dennis, you had looked at, as was suggested by one of the commenters here tonight, putting the septic on the west side of the house and the well on the downslope side? Or the septic system to the north or to the south of the house? It's a big lot. You could have decided to put it almost anywhere. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SHAFER-1 noticed you did the perc tests where the septic system is going to go. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Did you do any perc tests elsewhere and maybe they weren't as good? MR. MAC ELROY-No. We didn't, we certainly considered other options. When we did the perc test and the deep perc tests, we did them in the area of the location that's proposed. I went to the site, did my evaluation, determined that that would be a feasible location for that based on good results, acceptable results from the soils test, which they were. So that was the area. Again, there are, it's a five and a half acre lot. There's other possibilities. MR. SHAFER-The well has not been drilled? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. DEEB-Do you have any adversity to looking at putting the septic on the western side? MR. MAC ELROY-No, I don't have a problem. It's probably a feasible alternative. It involves pumping. It just was this area where it's proposed could be gravity flow, and that's fine. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. DEEB-Well, it could be a safeguard, a little bit more of a safeguard. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it's disturbance to the property during construction and runoff, even though you could put up the silt fences and everything else. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it would be in an area that, it depends on where it would be. I mean, there might be more disturbance required, but there's, you know. MR. MAGOWAN-But it's on the ridge. It's not on a slope. MR. MAC ELROY-It would be on a more level area, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-My question on the test pits, you only did three, and the depth that they were, but really, is there going to be any blasting? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there any rock ledge? Were a lot of the trees, you know, snapped or were they uprooted? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the site as you see it now, it's experienced some re-vegetation, but it was cleared. It was cleaned up. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there's not a lot of evidence. MR. MAGOWAN-During the storm, you know, were the trees snapped? MR. MAC ELROY-I think some. MR. MAGOWAN-Or were they uprooted because of the, you know? MR. MAC ELROY-I'm sure there's some of each. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Some were uprooted, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I know that was stated, and I was just trying to remember. I don't really remember what it looked like back then. MR. MAC ELROY-It was a pretty significant event. Now, and I'm not defending a past owner or whatever, believe me, but the phrase that's been used is that it's been clear cut. Well, some might say it was cleaned up. So there were dead trees that are damaged trees. Were some good trees removed? Probably. I don't know, but it is what it is today. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, in my personal opinion, it's a very large home for the top of the ridge and it's basically, to me it's saying, look, I got a castle up here. This is the way I'm looking at it. It's just my opinion, but really, with the slopes and all that has changed in here since the hurricane, you know, I would like to see a really, an extensive landscaping plan to how we're going to re-vegetate this, because, you know, like I say, even though the previous owner clear cut it, it's kind of like buying a property that has a leaky gas tank in the ground, do you know what I'm saying? You bought the property and now, you know, you should deal with the problem. For this size of a home, I would like to see, because I know that Assembly Point, that it all goes down, and it's not that wide, you know, and really I look at the lake, and, you know, in diving in the lake and seeing the lake change, I'm really concerned, and I guess my question is, and you have a great reputation, but how can you guarantee, you know, everybody else around won't be affected by this, you know, now that what vegetation is there is coming back. So what can we do to improve, to bring the property back to what it was before the storm and put a large house there. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, as I indicated in some opening remarks, I think that certainly the owner is interested, is willing to get into that re-vegetation in using the native species, using those trees that are there. They're all there for the use. It's, you know, when you say a landscaping plan, that's different than what I think that we're really talking about is some sort of re-vegetation plan because the landscaping plan, as I said on the plans, there's a note on there, in fact. MR. MAGOWAN-A re-vegetation plan. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a good word to use. MR. MAC ELROY-So, you know, that slope has got any number of seedlings and young new growth that's coming up but they're on top of each other, and they can be re-planted and provided for. MR. MAGOWAN-Once you start taking out those smaller ones, so I'm thinking maybe bringing in some larger trees to help offset, you know, because the bigger the tree the more water it sucks up. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, well, that can be intermixed within that, but again, using what's there really achieves a couple of things. It uses that natural vegetation that will survive there, will sustain there, and it's not nursery stock that looks maybe a little less natural. So maybe some combination of that, because he'll have that in a typical residential landscape plan where you might plant some trees and shrubs and what not, that's not necessarily required in this site plan, but maybe more appropriately a re-vegetation plan that would help to distribute the trees that are coming back in that location. So I think that that's something that we certainly would entertain and be willing to have as part of a condition. MR. MAGOWAN-Also, too, if this is, gets approved and it goes through, and the neighbors have more of an issue with either their leach fields or that due to the stormwater and, you know, disturbance and more water in the basement, you know, how can we mediate that? Because obviously this is the concern. I mean, the hill was like devastated, you know, and now they've lived with it over the years, and now it's coming back, and now we're going to put this, you know, this castle up on top of the hill. I don't mean to say that in a disrespectful way, but it's a big house. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, I have the same question but more technical terms, I guess. Do you know what year the hurricane came as a storm of record? MR. TRAVER-2011 I think. MR. SHAFER-No, no, 100 year, 20 year, 500 year? MR. MAC ELROY-1 don't know that. MR. SHAFER-It was pretty well above 100. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SHAFER-What is the design year that goes into the stormwater hydrocad system, is it 50? MR. MAC ELROY-No, it's a 25 year storm, which is about a 4 inch rainfall. So this is the design that we have. I think that, what do we have now? We have a vacant lot that's repairing itself. The development of the site would add a house. It won't make it rain anymore, but it will provide stormwater management for that new impervious area, and perhaps through a re- vegetation plan, could help to disperse that vegetation throughout the site and help that heal better than it might do naturally, if I can say it that way, because if you go out that way you'll see, the new growth and whatever is concentrated in a couple of different areas where the white pine died and left its seeds. They're all grown up together. I'll admit I even took one myself when I was doing perc tests, took it home and transplanted it at my house. So it's very transplantable. MR. DEEB-Dennis, so if I'm understanding right, if a couple of things were done, if the wastewater was moved, that would also improve the stormwater. Am I correct in that assumption? It would help to alleviate any stormwater questions, wastewater? MR. MAC ELROY-That would address some of the concerns that were discussed, yes. MR. TRAVER-And the wastewater up on the ridge. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. DEEB-And then the drainage, we can take the suggestion, take the whole thing all the way across, which would certainly add to it, and then. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-1 think Mr. Glandon made some. MR. DEEB-Right, and then the other thing is, re-vegetation. So what you're trying to do is the lot, the way the lot is now, you would like to improve the qualities of the lot so that it would enhance the environment, and you want to add a house. You're talking about re-vegetation, maybe moving the septic, and adding a larger wastewater treatment, and to me those are all win/win situations for everybody involved. MR. MAGOWAN-But you did like the idea of it, you know, moving it forward and putting it more into the bank? MR. MAC ELROY-Moving what? MR. MAGOWAN-Didn't you say moving the house forward or digging in the bank? MR. MAC ELROY-No. I mean, this is sort of the crux of the situation. You can't be on the ridge, it's too visible. You can't go down the slope because that's where the steep slopes occur. The location of the house is in an area of existing slopes of 11.1 to 13%. That's not, that's a moderate slope. Steep slopes are classified as being greater than 25%. So with all the discussion and casual mention of steep slopes, we're staying off the steep slopes. The house is proposed, and another comment that was made regarding the original subdivision plan, that was a subdivision plan, not a site plan. We're doing a site plan with the specifics. There were details and suggestions. That's not the only way to do stormwater management with the infiltrators or whatever. So that comment doesn't hold much credence to me, as far as what the design, it doesn't need to be that. What have we advanced since 1992? Do we not use modern technology that wasn't available in '92? That doesn't make sense. MR. TRAVER-So what I'm hearing, where we're at thus far, is that you would consider moving the septic system to the ridge, which would alleviate a lot of issues that were raised. Whether or not they were valid issues or not you did get the Town approval, but in any case, there would be some improvement there. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. We would present that to that owner. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then could we get a re-vegetation plan? I understand you have new growth coming up. Ironically one of the advantages we have, young growth comes up. MR. MAC ELROY-Without getting to much into the minutia of things, we've taken enough time as it is, but a re-vegetation plan, we'll show areas where they would take existing native species and transplant to certain areas. We're not going to necessarily show on a plan that here's a two foot seedling that's transplanted from here to there. MR. TRAVER-Understood MR. MAC ELROY-It will be a general depiction of how that area can be re-vegetated. MR. TRAVER-As part of that re-vegetation plan, would you consider adding some trees of a larger caliper than the very young trees that are there, of some number, to give us kind of a head start? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I'd certainly present that to the owner, and maybe consideration of that. MR. TRAVER-The last thing that I have is, again this evening a lot of discussion is with regards to the engineering issues obviously. We have the septic that's going to be re-designed. I think it would be extremely helpful to us with this site if you could come back with a sign off on what you end up with as your, with these modifications that we're talking about? MR. MAC ELROY-Sign off from? MR. TRAVER-The Town Engineer, saying that what you have done, you've addressed, I know some of the issues are clerical and calculation issues and so on, but if you could come back with a clean sign off. MR. MAC ELROY-Related to stormwater? MR. TRAVER-Yes. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And a re-affirmation on the septic from the Town. MR. MAC ELROY-If it's re-located to another location you'd look for Dave's sign off on that? MR. TRAVER-Correct. That's right. MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. MR. DEEB-And wastewater. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, septic, wastewater. MR. DEEB-I mean stormwater. MR. MAC ELROY-Stormwater would come from Chazen. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And a re-vegetation plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, a re-vegetation plan, including adding some trees. MR. MAGOWAN-Larger caliper trees. MR. TRAVER-Some larger caliper than the natural re-growth. MR. MAC ELROY-Can I just make a couple of comments? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-Because there are things that I don't want to let pass. Infiltration tests, you know, Chris explained the difference, well, on the plans we did infiltration tests, in addition to the perc tests. MR. TRAVER-Again, you're going to be addressing all of that with Chazen and that's going to be. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, but I just want to make the point that we didn't come here willy nilly without touching the proper statements as far as what we did. MR. TRAVER-Right. It's always been my experience on the Planning Board, it's always interested me that I always, until I became involved in planning, engineering always seemed like the most non-subjective thing that there is, and yet it turns out that it can often be somewhat subjective, in that there's more than one way to get to an end, and that's where we end up in a lot of our discussions, but really our comfort level so that's the reason that we have the Town Engineer, so if you can address these issues that you've agreed to address and present us with something from the Town, from an engineering standpoint, saying we're good with this, that would, I think, go a long way toward making us feel quite confident that we have a good project. How do other members feel? MR. MAGOWAN-I have a few other things I'd like to add, since you're going to be doing all of that. Since the septic is being considered being moved, but I notice that you have three test pits on this large property, you know, and basically one where the septic was and kind of one on either side of the property, but none down near the stormwater management systems above, and that number one seemed a little, was it a little slower? MR. MAC ELROY-The test pits? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-The test pits are deep test pits to determine the soil down to approximately six feet. The reason why that isn't in the same footprint of the basin is that we slid that down the slope as a result of some comments and discussions we had with Chazen as was mentioned earlier. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. MAGOWAN-So instead of moving that septic, how about, you know, more of a retention for your stormwater, because that seems to be the greater. MR. MAC ELROY-Which is what this is, those shallow grass swales are that. They retain and infiltrate. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, the one on either side. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-But what about? MR. MAC ELROY-But if the wastewater wasn't there, then that would free up that area. MR. MAGOWAN-To add more. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to see that. MR. TRAVER-So we'll be seeing some changes in stormwater. That would, again, be the engineering aspect of it. MR. MAC ELROY-And there's another point. Somebody commented it's a major stormwater. Yes, it is, and we designed it that way and submitted the engineering report associated with that. MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Engineer acknowledged that. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I still have a couple of questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, there were a couple of comments about the ridge line, the scale and visual. If I'm on a boat on Harris Bay, I will see this house pretty prominently, I assume. MR. MAC ELROY-We get into this discussion. Yes, is it possible to see a house from some vantage point out on the water? Yes. Is that a, you can see all the houses along the shoreline, too. I mean, I'm not trying to make excuses. MR. SHAFER-My question is whether or not you had that in mind, from a visual perspective, in the location of the house, and whether or not moving it either west, north, or south would have a positive impact on reducing the visual impact? MR. MAC ELROY-1 think, well, let me address the south first. I did look at the adjoining lot, the adjacent lot, the west facing lot. Now if you own a five and a half or seven and a half or seven acre lot, you don't want to be right next to your neighbor. Okay. So when I looked at that lot, the adjacent one, and the potential view shed that that might have, that obviously wasn't affected by the storm as much, so there's a very solid stand of trees and some beautiful oak trees that stand there, that that would be their choice of a house location probably. I'm not designing it for them, but probably would be down in that location. So this house got moved a little bit further north, but still in that ridge area. So the fact that the 1992 design showed a couple of house locations which is typical of subdivision analysis, show where a house could be, show were a septic system could be, but it doesn't go to the detailed site plan, you know, our choice of the house being a little further north is somewhat a reaction to the fact that that other house has to be, could be built at some point in time. Now I would also sort of reinforce that fact that that might be the chosen location by the fact that those owners did drill a well in that location. So I would think that, I mean, not that the well couldn't be hundreds of feet from the house, but it would make sense that you put the well where the house was going to be. So to the south, not so much because of that conflicting use, in consideration of what they might want to do. MR. SHAFER-It was just a general question whether visual from the lake of the house was considered in the location of the house. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, there is some taller vegetation. We went through this last week with the Board. We had photos that show views from different points on Cleverdale. MR. SHAFER-Getting to Steve's point about larger trees as part of the re-vegetation plan. As a quasi- visual impact effect, whether a few larger trees on? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, certainly. You could put in a 12 foot pine that would help frame a certain view or whatever, but it's not, you know, it's not going to obscure that house. MR. SHAFER-No. I understand. Every little bit helps. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. SHAFER-The other thing was I noticed on the plans there were no colors shown. There were no colors of the house shown. MR. MAC ELROY-We had, right. MR. SHAFER-None of the drawings had colors. MR. MAC ELROY-1 mean there's some elevation views that weren't in your file, but, yes, I mean, the elevations were in your file but not necessarily, that earth tone Adirondack style, typical representation that would be common for that. MS. WHITE-Adirondack green, Adirondack brown. MR. MAC ELROY-It's a timber frame home that's. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you've got some homework to do and, yes, when can you provide the Town, when can you provide us with these updates? MR. MAC ELROY-To be on a May agenda, those re-submittals would take place by April 15th MR. TRAVER-Tax day. MRS. MOORE-So the actual deadline ends up being that Monday. MR. MAC ELROY-The 17tH MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-Because the 15th is a Saturday. That spoils my weekend. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so we're going to give him until the 17th, Laura. MRS. MOORE-For submissions. MR. MAC ELROY-1 mean I assume that the owner would want to pursue that schedule. MR. TRAVER-Understood. If not, that's a different. MR. MAC ELROY-And I understand that that's the next opportunity. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-We would have a re-submittal that would make it for a May meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And, Laura, any preference for a date in May? Do we have any idea of the agendas at this point? MRS. MOORE-1 have one item already tabled to May. So that would be, right now there would be two on that first meeting that I know of. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, so should we go for the second meeting, then? MRS. MOORE-You don't have to, no. I'm not saying that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. TRAVER-All right. We will leave the public hearing open. MR. HUNSINGER-In the re-submittal, in the current plan you show the distance to the house to the first setback. Could you also do the setback to the septic? MR. MAC ELROY-From the easterly boundary of, yes, that's what you're saying, you want the, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Just show it on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Dennis, on the re-vegetation plan, we talked about adding a few from off-site trees that are a little bit larger. How many do you think it would be reasonable to propose, or how many would you offer? Just for the resolution. Half dozen? MR. MAC ELROY-That's the number. I was thinking six. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what caliper. MR. MAC ELROY-Bearing in mind we have to get them there. MRS. MOORE-Are you proposing both evergreen and deciduous? MR. TRAVER-Yes, there's quite a bit of evergreen now, right that's coming up on the site? So we want deciduous. So half a dozen deciduous trees of three inch caliper, say. Okay. All right. So we're looking at conditions. The conditions would be a re-vegetation plan and showing, in addition to the native restoration, six deciduous trees of three inch caliper, a re- location of the septic to the ridge line, and the associated site work with that, and then the point that Chris made about the additional setback distances marked on the plan for the septic, and last but not least we'd like you to come back with a full sign off from Chazen on the engineering. So you wouldn't have any unresolved engineering items. MR. DEEB-And improvement to the stormwater to the swale. MR. MAGOWAN-And we also talked about, adding retention. MR. TRAVER-Adding a stormwater swale in the general area where the current septic on the plan is located. Right? Do you have the ability to add another stormwater, and that would be part of your getting the septic. Anything else at this stage? Okay, and again we'll be leaving the public hearing open on this project. So I guess we're ready for a motion, then, and that's May 16tH AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is it open right now, the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The public hearing isn't open right now? MR. TRAVER-No, we're tabling the application because it's going to be revised and then we'll be re-examining it with, including a public hearing, on May 16tH AUDIENCE MEMBER-So we can't comment on something that? MR. TRAVER-You have commented. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. FERONE-All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #4-2017 FRANK PERROTTA, JR. 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 3,467 sq. ft. (footprint), 8,625 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, major stormwater and project within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) 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; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2017 FRANK PERROTTA, JR., Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption Tabled to May 16th, 2017 with the following conditions: 1. A re-vegetation plan will be submitted with the addition of six deciduous trees of three inch caliper. 2. The septic system will be moved to the ridge. 3. A full signoff letter will be provided addressing all Chazen Engineering issues. 4. The addition of a stormwater management swale from the area where the septic system is being moved. 5. On the plans the setback of the septic system, the distance will be provided. Seconded by John Shafer Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just clarification on the engineer's signoff. It's really out of the applicant's control. I mean, they're going to make their submission on April 17th, but they can't guarantee that the engineer will sign off in time for the meeting. So if they don't have it, we're still going to hear it because we tabled it to a date specific. MR. TRAVER-Well, Staff will let us know if we run into that. Hopefully there'll be enough communication back and forth that you should be able to resolve those issues, but you're right, if not we'll know ahead of time and we can address it then. I mean, it's tabled to the 16th MR. MAC ELROY-Sean is my next door neighbor. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any other comments on the motion? Hearing none, can we have the vote, please? AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you later. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-I told Brad I feel like Don Krebs. When I drove up to that site today, when you get up to Assembly Point where the lake is on the right and the houses are on the left, you can see the water running right down the lawns, right across the road, right into the lake. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it has nothing to do with this applicant. It's just an observation. I was even going to take pictures of it, but I figured what's the point. Everybody knows what's going on. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Next on our agenda is Magic Shore Acres, LLC. This is a recommendation from the Planning Board to the ZBA. Relief sought for setback and a second garage. Site Plan 20-2017. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II MAGICAL SHORE ACRES, LLC AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 10 WOOD POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,284 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 960 SQ. FT., 3 CAR GARAGE WITH NEW ACCESS PATHWAY FROM EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO A NEW 336 SQ. FT. CARPORT AND NEW HOUSE ENTRYWAY AREA. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF CARPORT SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-1992, AV 34-1992, SP 8-1997, 476 SF RES. ADDITION, 2013-313 RES. CONST.; AV 20- 2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 2.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-21 SECTION 179-13-010 DENNIS MAC ELROY & MIKE TUCK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 1,284 square foot area residential addition. This project includes construction of a 960 sq. ft., 3 car garage, a new access pathway from the existing driveway to a new 336 sq. ft. carport and a new house entryway. The majority of the project is considered a fill in to the existing home, and the applicant is requesting setback relief for the expansion of the building and a carport as a second garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm going to change seats here. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the owner and applicant for Magical Shore Acres, LLC. The primary member is Neil Kraskco. Neil and Gina Kraskco are the new owners of this property. With me is Mike Tuck from the architectural firm of Balzar and Tuck, the project architects. This application going to the ZBA is for a couple of variances, as Laura had indicated it's here for a referral. Variance applications involve the expansion of a lawful nonconforming structure. This area of the Iakeshore in Queensbury has a 75 foot setback. It's one of the few areas of the shoreline that's like that, but from Dunham's Bay to Town line around the corner at one point is that 75 foot setback. This structure, as you can see on the plan, the 75 foot line goes right through it. So there's a fair amount of the structure that's currently noncompliant with that setback, although certainly the house existed there before the rule, but that's the situation we have. So therefore any expansion of that involves the request for variance. So that's, over here there's two areas of the proposed house that require that variance. One is what I'd call a horizontal in-fill. That's the back side of the house that is currently a poorly drained courtyard. So that would be expanded in terms of structure, and then the other is what has been referred to as a vertical in-fill, in that there's living space in the first level. There's an open deck and then there's living space in the second level. So basement, patio area, and then living space. This will fill in that particular area, and it's about 91 square feet beyond the setback line. So that's what triggers the expansion of the lawful nonconforming structure. In addition, the owner is proposing to remove the existing carport and construct a new garage in that space. One of the concerns, and Mike will get into this a little bit, is the access from the parking area down to the house site. It is not uncommon on Lake George, but it's a little bit rigorous and steps down to the house entry, and they've considered other access and what not. They ultimately came upon a pathway that would be useful for golf cart type thing, ATV's perhaps, but down at the house entry area there's a covered area, and that, by definition, or by policy and practice with the Zoning Administrator becomes a second garage. It's really just an open covered area, and I think in your plans somewhere there's a rendering of that area, but it's a covered location. It's a covered area near the entry where they would park a golf cart or whatever, but technically that becomes a second garage. So that's the request. MR. MAGOWAN-The exterior canopy addition? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-So that's the gist of the variance request. I don't want to prolong things. I will state that the owner did consider a number of different options, including a new driveway down to that area. I'm stealing Mike's thunder, but it's, you know, he ultimately decided that that wasn't appropriate. He didn't want to remove the look of the property with the mature trees and whatnot that would have been lost with that alternative. So this is what ultimately they came up with, and it involves also the expansion of their house. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-That's quite the undertaking. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it's an unusual house, and I know even from my perspective, it's a contemporary design type thing, but with, you know, a lot of stone and wood facing and whatnot 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) it has an appropriate theme to the lakeside, but it's got a lot of different things going on, and Mike is, their office is trying to make some sense of that, in terms of some expansion. So I will understand if you have some confusion of, you know, some of the rooflines and what not, because I did, but it's safe to say that the areas of new expansion will be compliant in other ways than the fact that they lie within the setback area. MR. FERONE-Some of the modifications are bringing the home any closer to the lake. It's what already exists. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Yes, that's what the requirement. MR. TRAVER-Pre-existing, nonconforming structure. MR. MAC ELROY-Lawful nonconforming structure. MR. FERONE-On the top of the hill where the carport is, there's a barn type structure. That stays there? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that stays. MR. FERONE-And the garage is going in right next to it. MR. MAC ELROY-The garage will take the place of the carport. It'll just be an enclosed structure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments, by members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean I think some of the things you're trying to do really make sense. That courtyard in-fill, that's got to be just a constant maintenance issue. The runoff. MR. MAC ELROY-I think the prior owner had some challenges in terms of drainage and whatnot. MR. HUNSINGER-So I mean I think that really makes sense what you're trying to do here, and most of the, well, as was pointed out, all of the development really is upland from the lake. MR. TRAVER-You wanted to talk about the design? MR. TUCK-No. If there's questions, I'd be happy to clarify anything. For me it's mostly about the location relative to the lake for the addition that we're doing, and I'd be happy to talk about the design or reasons for doing it if there's questions. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. MR. SHAFER-What type of living space would be in the in-fill? MR. TUCK-So in the courtyard we're proposing an additional bathroom, a laundry room and a dining area. Functions that are not dependent on lake views. The in-fill portion that is happening, there's a master suite up on the hill level, and then below that is an open porch. So that the intent there is to make a more usable space. Right now there's a small dining area that happens there. It'll also help to keep the master suite forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions for members of the Board? Okay. So this is a Planning Board recommendation. So no public hearing at this stage. It's SEQR Type II. Are there any issues that we want to include in our referral that we see that should be addressed by site plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know the age or the condition of the septic? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and that's something that when we come back hopefully to the Planning Board we will have that certification. It was difficult to do that in the winter. There is a very nice design plan from Ray Irish a number of years ago when the previous owner had contracted for that. I just need to do a little more confirmation that it's in where it says it was. So it's a sufficient design for any and all use that is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Down in the southeast corner, there's a plastic cover and a grate. It's labeled on your plan also. Do you know what those are for? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is a septic tank and pump tank there that that's where the wastewater comes to and it gets pumped to adjacent to the barn area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There's certainly lots of land. MR. MAC ELROY-It's two and a half acres. So all those issues with permeability or floor area ratio aren't a factor. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else from members of the Board? I guess we're ready for a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-20-2017 MAGICAL SHORE ACRES, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,284 sq. ft. floor area residential addition. The project includes construction of a 960 sq. ft., 3 car garage with new access pathway from existing driveway to a new 336 sq. ft. carport and new house entryway area. Project also includes site work for stormwater management and retaining walls. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback and expansion of carport second garage. 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. 20-2017 MAGICAL SHORES ACRES, LLC; Introduced by George Ferone 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 Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda this evening is also a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board. Paul Poirier. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 6-2017 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2017. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 6-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION END OF ISLAND VIEW & RIVERSIDE DRIVES APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION - LOTS 1, 2 & 3 ACCESS IS FROM ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND LOT 4 ACCESS IS FROM RIVERSIDE DRIVE. LOT 1 - 4.9 ACRES, LOT 2 - 2.1 ACRES, LOT 3 - 2.1 ACRES, LOT 4 - 9.4 ACRES. APPLICANT PROPOSES A WAIVER FROM STORMWATER AND REQUESTS SITE PLAN FOR EACH LOT AS THEY ARE SOLD. A WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM SKETCH PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-2010 SKETCH, AV 34-2010, A 16-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 18.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION CHAPTER 183 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) STEFANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a four lot subdivision. Lot One, Two, and Three are proposed to be accessed from Island View Drive and Lot Four accesses from Riverside Drive. I identified the lot sizes. They're compliant with the two acre zoning of Waterfront Residential. The applicant did have a Sketch Plan before the Board back in 2010 for a seven lot. This is now asking for four lots. I've identified the variance that's being requested is for road frontage requirements, and I've also identified for the Board in regards to the waivers requested. One of those waivers that's being requested is for stormwater management. The applicant has indicated that they're willing to do site plan review for each of those lots, and in this case the project has not been referred to the Town Engineer as of yet pending whether the Board grants the waiver for stormwater or not. As Staff I'm a little concerned. I would like to see some stormwater management presented, and similar, there are projects that the Board has seen in the past that we've done individual site plans for. In this case I don't have any additional information about the stormwater that may occur on the site, so I would encourage you to have the discussion with the applicant. MR. TRAVER-So does that, is there any concern that, lacking that information at the subdivision stage, we might create a lot that's not buildable? Or when we, if we were to do site plan on each lot, would that not include stormwater? MRS. MOORE-That would include stormwater, however, I'm assuming that they're developable lots because we've seen it a couple of time, or this Board has seen it more than I have in the sense that they've tried to develop this site before. My first thought was I would just be more comfortable having the Board review information about some sort of stormwater that can be accommodated on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter with Tom Center for the applicant. Before we get into the stormwater discussion I just want to talk about the variance first, since that's really the first step in the process. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS. BITTER-Mr. Poirier owns 18.5 acres between essentially the Town roads of East Branch and Riverside. Some of you may recall this application. He was first before you in 2010. At that time when he was seeking a subdivision there was a question of access. The parcels will be accessed from East Branch over the private drive Island View Drive, and that was the seven year project that delayed us from returning. It has been concluded with a stipulation, a court proceeding, and easement is circulating. So that has been concluded that that easement exists and we can proceed with the subdivision. Saying that, the three lots, this is a four lot subdivision, three lots will be accessing over Island View Drive, which is not a Town road, which is why we are here for the variance recommendation. The other lot will be accessing over Riverside Drive, which uniquely is going to be accessed from a Town deeded cul de sac. It's just that the road was not carried out to the frontage of what is now going to be Lot Four. So all four of those lots will require the variance of road frontage which will be seeking before the Zoning Board tomorrow night. Obviously putting a Town road on this 18 acre parcel would make this project cost prohibitive, not to mention the fact that it's unique and its topography, wetlands, and the way it's being accessed that it wouldn't be able to be feasible. That being said, the lots range in size from 2.1 acres to 9.4 acres. They're fairly large lots. When you're looking at the variance evaluation and the balancing test, we feel that the relief requested outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist to the community. No undesirable change, we feel, could be deemed to exist. With these variances, parcels are larger than most in this area. Access over Island View Drive has been documented by easement, and like I mentioned Riverside is over a Town area cul de sac. There's really no other alternatives, as I mentioned. There's no Town roads that abut this parcel. So in order to have subdivided lots it would require this relief, and that, as I mentioned, it can't be deemed substantial because there's no other alternatives. No adverse physical or environmental characteristics could be deemed to exist from the variances that we're seeking, and this should not be self-created because from my review of the title from this project, this parcel has existed in this form for many, many, many years. So it wasn't as if it was created in this fashion to not abut a Town road. Did you want to comment on the stormwater questions? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. CENTER-Yes. Regarding stormwater management, looking at this, these are single family residential homes. There's no large 20 foot wide subdivision road going in here. We're looking at small driveways accessing the homes on large lots, the two biggest lots being a 4.9 and the 9.4 acre lot. To provide stormwater management and a plan that may not be built depending on where these folks put the final location of the house, the final location of the septic system. We have decent soils. We can do infiltration along the driveways, but doing a grading plan and infiltration plan hooks those people into what's approved there. Anything other than that, when we go out to build it, if they decide to change they'd have to come back for site plan review. With that in mind, our thought is to have these conditioned, the lots created and conditioned that before they construct the house they'd have to come back to site plan review. Because, again, these are large lots, and soils, we have good soils. They may want their house closer to the riverside. They may want it back where we have it. We may have the right location. I know one of the subdivisions that we did off of I believe Route 149 we got a condition to come back for stormwater management for the individual homes. On that one we had one main subdivision road. So we did stormwater management for that main subdivision road. These, this one driveway, if you will, for Lot Four could, you know, could be shorter, could be longer. Doing a stormwater management plan for that is a little bit of guess work depending on where some of these are built, and the same thing whether somebody decides to build on Lot Two, you know, we're going to have to come in with a plan for a driveway for where they're going to build that house. So it may move north or south. Our clearing limits may change, would precipitate us coming back to the Planning Board for site plan review. So we're asking to waive that, knowing that we will have to come back for it when a house location is decided and prior to approvals, but we have good soils. We have, you know, they're single family homes. There's no large asphalt pavement, main subdivision road. MR. TRAVER-No castles. MR. HUNSINGER-You did hit groundwater, though, in your test pits. MR. CENTER-On the back side, yes. On Lot Four further in the back there was groundwater, and we did have shallow water. Again, any infiltration would be a shallow device, shallow infiltration trench or shallow ponds with a stone bottom to allow for infiltrator during times of frost. So there's, again, these are small single family driveways to a single family home with a raingarden, a pond, or a depression even to take care of that. The rest would be just lawn. There's not a lot of impervious surfaces being proposed on any one particular lot. MR. TRAVER-Any concerns about the road frontage? You heard the explanation for the location. It seems pretty self-evident, but nevertheless that's the main relief that they're seeking. MR. HUNSINGER-I always forget how beautiful it is to drive down there. MR. CENTER-Yes, there are some nice lots, and these are Waterfront Residential, but not actually abutting the waterfront. There's a parcel in between. MR. HUNSINGER-The access across that Niagara Mohawk right of way or no? MS. BITTER-We've asked. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how are you going to police that? MR. TRAVER-There is a concern. I know the applicant addressed it to some degree, but Staff is concerned about the fact that they're requesting waivers at this stage for stormwater management. I don't know how folks feel about that. They would be coming back for site plan for each site as it's developed, but is a variance from sort of protocol. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you have the stormwater management for the road. MR. CENTER-They're individual driveways. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, the proposed shared drive. MR. CENTER-We could come back with something for that. MR. MAGOWAN-Initially you're going to have to put those in first anyway. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. MAGOWAN-It will be the responsibility of the purchaser to construct the driveway, whether it's, that's the kind of, that's how this particular client, property owner has proposed that this proceed, that the individual property owner. MR. MAGOWAN-So if someone comes in and decides he wants to build on Lot Three, he's going to have to construct that all the way back to Lot Three. MR. CENTER-And at the time that he would construct on that, that would have to come back, that entire driveway, and work on that lot would come back for a site plan review. MR. MAGOWAN-So, and then somebody comes in and wants to buy and, look, we've got a road. So they come in and they pick up Lot One and Two. Is there a stipulation that they'll owe a percentage of that road? MR. CENTER-That would be part of the maintenance agreement. MR. MAGOWAN-Or maintenance, or, I mean, because. MR. CENTER-Right. It would be first come, first serve. If the gentleman on Lot Three comes in first, then he would have to, at that time he would have to present the plan to get the road from Island View Drive into Lot Three. That would be part of the site plan review and approval process, and then that road would be the access drive, and then anybody coming off that would have to propose their driveway off of that to whatever the home. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, how about Number Three is a really mean guy and he doesn't want anybody on his driveway. MR. CENTER-That's part of the agreement for. MS. BITTER-He'd have to buy One and Two, but, no, it would be part of the easement agreement between all three of those parcels. MR. MAGOWAN-That's like a loaded gun there, isn't it? MR. DEEB-Yes, that could cause some problems. MR. MAGOWAN-So Lot Four looks safer because you come in from another direction. MR. CENTER-And that would be on that purchaser to go through and get the permits from Army Corps for the stream crossings, for site plan approval. MR. MAGOWAN-So there's really no cheap roads in there for those Lots Three and Four. Lots One and Two can pick it up on the easier side. MR. CENTER-Right, but of course if Lot One were to build first and they came in with a driveway that would dead end anyway at that point and then whoever purchased Lot Two would pickup the development of that road at site plan review through there. Ina perfect world. MR. MAGOWAN-But there is an easement going right across all the properties there that says you can't build your house saddling the road. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-This is a private drive across the three lots? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Why do you need variances from the Town? MS. BITTER-You don't have frontage on the public road. MR. TRAVER-Are there any concerns at this stage that we would want to include in our referral to the ZBA? MR. DEEB-Laura, your concerns about stormwater management. Can you expound on that a little bit? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MRS. MOORE-In reference to the stormwater management, he's proposing four houses in areas that have some topographical constraints, slopes and some wetlands issues. So that's what I was concerned about and referencing in order to get some stormwater information proposed. Just so that we're aware that the person that's going to purchase each of these lots is faced with something that is probably little more than a standard housing lot. I think that's where my focus was. It is a Board decision. It is a waiver to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-You know, the applicant has clearly said that each lot will come in for a site plan review. We have definitely seen that in other projects. We have definitely seen it on waterfront projects. So it's not unheard of. MR. TRAVER-And one would think that someone considering purchasing one of these lots would certainly site visit and be aware of the issues. MRS. MOORE-You would hope so. MR. TRAVER-You would hope so. MRS. MOORE-1 can't guarantee it. MR. TRAVER-Caveat Emptor. Right? Okay. MR. DEEB-So, when you say some stormwater management, what are you looking for? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean you either have a stormwater management plan or you don't really. MRS. MOORE-Right. I don't really know if there's a consensus that Tom and I could come to about some sort of stormwater information about the site, project area. I don't know if we could come to some agreement with that or not. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Is that something you think you could do, Tom? MR. CENTER-Yes. We should probably note, we can note that in our referral, just make an acknowledgement that Staff is concerned that we're not having that information. That the applicant has indicated that, as I'm sure they will with the ZBA as well, that each site, each lot would have site plan review, but we note that there's concern with the absence of even the broad. MR. CENTER-1 mean, we could provide details. If we can't, if we did get through the ZBA for the road frontage, we could provide details for a typical swale showing the separation distances and things like that. We just wouldn't get into the sizing criteria. We could show infiltration areas. Certainly I would be doing this with minor depressions and things of that nature around the residences and low areas. We have large tracts of land to do that on. We could give typical details for stormwater management and along with those typical details with the clear bold note that each site will require a specific site plan review including a stormwater management plan based on the final. MR. TRAVER-You would offer that on the condition you get through the ZBA. MR. CENTER-On the condition that we get through the ZBA and get the variance for the road frontage we could provide some sort of detail so there's stormwater management on the plan in regards to a very general definition of what would be proposed, and that it would have to meet the Town criteria MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can certainly include that in our referral. That although you don't have the stormwater now, that should the variance be granted that you would then come back with at least that level of detail, and I'm sure you'll have that discussion with the ZBA. Anything else that we want to note in our referral? Okay. I think we're ready for that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-16-2017 PAUL POIRIER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a four lot subdivision — lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) Drive. Lot 1 — 4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 — 2.1 acres, Lot 4 — 9.4 acres. Applicant proposes a waiver from stormwater and requests site plan for each lot as they are sold. A waiver is requested from sketch plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for road frontage requirements. 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. 16-2017 PAUL POIRIER: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) That a lack of stormwater management has been identified due to the fact that the final locations of each house on each lot has not been identified. The applicant has offered that, should they receive a waiver on the road frontage, they would provide the Town with some additional stormwater measures. The final site plan review will be based on condition that each lot will come back for their individual review. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-1 would just suggest that you add to the first part of that, referring to the stormwater, that the applicant has offered, should they receive a waiver on the road frontage, that they would provide the Town with some additional stormwater measures. MR. FERONE-As amended by the Chairman. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to abstain because I don't understand the application of the road frontage in the Town Code in this particular instance. We have private roads that are accessing the three lots and another road that will access the fourth. Having easement submittal lots is common practice in the real estate business. I just don't understand the application of the 50 foot frontage in this particular instance. Here's a perfect example where that makes no sense to me. MR. TRAVER-1 think that's why they're trying to ask for a variance from the Code. Well, I understand. MRS. MOORE-The section of the Code requires that they have this frontage. MR. SHAFER-Here's a case where it makes no sense, that particular section of the Code makes no sense in this instance. MRS. MOORE-You can't deviate from it. MR. TRAVER-1 think the goal of getting a variance is the context. MR. SHAFER-1 understand. I guess I'm trying to make a point. MR. TRAVER-Point taken. All right. May we have the vote, please, Maria? AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shafer MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have a couple of items under Old Business. These will have public hearings. First is Site Plan 16-2017 for Michael & Erin Gutske. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL & ERIN GUSTKE AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR LOCATION 129 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A 970 SQ. FT. SEASONAL CAMP TO CONSTRUCT A 2,008 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL AND SITE GRADING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 1.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.8-1-8 SECTION 179-6-060 MICHAEL GUTSKE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to demolish a 970 square foot seasonal camp to construct a 2,008 square foot year round residence. The project includes new septic, well and site grading, and this project did receive their variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the height variance and the side setback on the east side, and this project's before the Board because it's within 50 feet of 15% slopes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GUTSKE-I'm Michael Gutske, 129 Eagan Road. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we looked at your project, made a recommendation to the ZBA. They reviewed it, and they granted your variance. MR. GUTSKE-Right. MR. TRAVER-And there were no changes to your site plan proposal as a result of your going through us and the ZBA. MR. GUTSKE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anything that, in your interaction with the ZBA, you would want to comment on or note before us for the record? MR. GUTSKE-No. They understood. Actually a few people on the Zoning Board were familiar with the site and the limitations of the site and why we did the things we did. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Before we go to the public hearing, are there any questions or comments from members of the Planning Board on this? I know we've looked at it already. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is with engineering comments. Any concerns with those? MR. GUTSKE-Yes. So they didn't, they understood. The Zoning Board did not. I spoke with Ethan this morning. He couldn't be here tonight. Any of these can be cleared up, but if there's any specifics you have questions on, I can answer those, with regard to the 6660 square feet, that does include the possible future parking area, but currently there is a parking area that's been there. We're going to use it. We just included that in case want to do it down the road. There is a drainage pipe that was provided. I mean, all these, if there's anything on here Sean's not happy with Ethan would be more than happy to meet with him on site and clear it up. All of these have been addressed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're confident you can get a signoff. MR. GUTSKE-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there people in the audience that want to address the Board on this issue? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a Type 11 SEAR. So we do not need to do SEAR. Are there any conditions beyond the draft provided by Staff on the motion that members of the Board want added? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Laura, this is a Type 11 SEQR but they submitted a Short Form. MRS. MOORE-That's part of our application process. It's in the application itself. It's still a Type 11. It's a residential project. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. MOORE-1 don't always take it out if they've done it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That's all right. All right. Then I guess we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN NO 16-2017 MICHAEL & ERIN GUSTKE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to demolish a 970 sq. ft. seasonal camp to construct a 2,008 sq. ft. year round residence. Project includes new septic, well and site grading. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, projects 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 03/28/2017 and continued the public hearing to 03/28/2017, 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 03/28/2017; 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 16-2017 MICHAEL & ERIN GUSTKE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: Site lighting, signage, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition and snow removal 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Yes. In reference to stormwater, the applicant has indicated that they're doing stormwater management that requires a signoff. So you can remove that as a part of the waiver. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you can remove the waiver for stormwater. MR. FERONE-Stormwater. MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended motion. Do we have a second? All right. We have an amended motion made and seconded. Any questions or comments on the motion? Can we have the vote, please? AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. GUTSKE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on the agenda under Old Business is Bernard Gansle, Site Plan 14-2017. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II BERNARD K. GANSLE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 5 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES 120 SQ. FT. ADDITION — UPPER/MAIN FLOOR SCREENED-IN PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 104 SQ. FT. PATIO. NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT MEET SHORELINE SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2002-1041 1,777 SF ADDITION; AV 86-2003 DEMO/CONST. NEW DWELLING; 2005-590 980 SF ALT.; AV 12-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE .23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-28 SECTION 179-13-010, 179-6-060 BERNARD GANSLE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 120 square foot addition. This is an upper/main floor screened-in porch. The project also includes removal of 104 sq. ft. patio. The project did receive an Area Variance. The Zoning Board did grant the relief for the setback from the shoreline and the project's before the Board for building within 50 feet of 15% slopes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GANSLE-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-1 see you amended your plan to show two tanks instead of three. MR. GANSLE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. All right. Very good, and you received your variance from the ZBA. And there were no changes to the project other than the ones we've already discussed. MR. GANSLE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Is there anything you want to add for our information this evening? MR. GANSLE-1 don't believe so. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions, comments by members of the Board on this application? I know we've looked at it before. This is also a Type 11 SEAR. So we do not need to do SEAR. Are there any conditions that members of the Board feel need to be added to the draft resolution? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the only, like I stated, concern, is, you know, moving it closer, which I don't think is fair to the other property owners, but really what we're agreeing for is a screened- in, you know, with a plexi-glass bottom, basically making sure that it doesn't get closed off. MR. TRAVER-Well, we're addressing what's before us this evening. I'm not sure how we can vote. MR. MAGOWAN-Say six years from now this becomes another bedroom and it gets finished off underneath and nobody sees it. MRS. MOORE-In reference to the screened-in porch, that is still considered part of the floor area ratio. Obviously not the underneath part, but definitely the square footage was accounted for with the 120 square feet. The applicant had to upgrade their septic system specifically because of the 120 square feet. Does that help? MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-All right. If it doesn't concern everybody else, that's fine with me. MR. TRAVER-Well, you raised it when we looked at it the first time. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I just don't think it's fair for all the other property owners that we've denied being able to move forward without really substantial vegetation and things like that, and what's to say that it doesn't get, not that I don't trust you or anything, or if you sell and the next people come in and take it. It just brought up a red flag to me in seeing this. So if there's any way that we can stipulate, you know, that they can't. MR. TRAVER-Well, are you offering a condition? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, you asked for a discussion. So I voiced it to see if anybody else agrees with me. MR. TRAVER-Well, the discussion could lead to a condition, the recommendation for a condition on this resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-1 would like to see it. I mean, does anybody else feel that? MR. FERONE-You're only talking about the screened-in porch, because I had the question last week. Underneath there's just going to be grass there. It's not a patio. The patio is coming out. MR. MAGOWAN-That front patio down on the lake is coming out. MR. FERONE-1 thought it was a patio under where this deck was going to be. MR. GANSLE-No, the patio that's coming out is down on the lakeside. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. MAGOWAN-Down on the lakeside. MR. FERONE-So what would be under the deck? MR. GANSLE-There's just grass there. MR. FERONE-Just grass. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, it's certainly up to the Board. You don't have to do that just on my case. I mean, I just don't want to be the Ione wolf out here. MR. TRAVER-You certainly can suggest conditions. That's why you're on the Board. I mean, we welcome any suggestions for conditions that you feel should be added. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know that by doing so we don't set precedence, but like I said, it is moving. It's already not in compliance with, you know, how close it is now, and now we've just allowed another 10 feet even closer. That's just my thoughts. If the rest of you don't feel like that, that's fine. MR. TRAVER-So you're concerned would be that the screened-in porch would be modified to make it like a year round type? MR. SHAFER-No, it's underneath. Right, Brad? Your concern is underneath. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm talking both. I mean, it's not hard to close them all off. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You can get a three season underneath. MR. TRAVER-1 guess I would ask Laura would that not normally trigger another site plan if they wanted to go and modify, add another room underneath and so on? And if they were doing that, that would be basically an enforcement action, would it not? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and it would be part of another variance review and part of another site plan review. MS. WHITE-So those are already in place. MR. TRAVER-So those are basically in place. I mean, it's really a matter of enforcement. I think some experience would indicate that, particularly in the case of lakefront properties, people start making a lot of changes when the neighbors know they don't have any approvals, it's quite often brought to the. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I understand that, but also this is an easy thing to close in. It wouldn't even be seen. That's fine. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we have a resolution, Mr. Secretary, if you want to go ahead with that. MRS. MOORE-1 apologize. Did you open and close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-1 don't remember. Okay. My apologies. Well, we will open the public hearing and I'll ask, are there folks in the audience that are here tonight to address the Board on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Laura, were there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then at that point we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we're back to entertaining a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 14-2017 BERNARD K. GANSLE 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) 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 120 sq. ft. addition- upper/main floor screened-in porch. Project includes removal of 104 sq. ft. patio. New construction does not meet shoreline setback and expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, projects 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 03/28/2017 and continued the public hearing to 03/28/2017, 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 03/28/2017; 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 14-2017 BERNARD K. GANSLE; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. GANSLE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next item on the agenda is Fastrac Markets, LLC, Site Plan 21-2017. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) BINLEY FLORIST, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION 773 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 5,800 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 50 X 120, 6,000 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY AND A 35 X 58, 1,750 SQ. FT. DIESEL STATION CANOPY. PROJECT OCCURS ON THE EXISTING BINLEY PROPERTY — APPLICANT TO UTILIZE TWO FURTHEST CURB CUTS AND ELIMINATE ONE THAT HAS SPLIT RAIL FENCE. THE GREENHOUSE UNITS TO BE REMOVED AND AREA TO BE REGRADED. BINLEY RETAIL BUILDING TO BE REMOVED, MADE PAD READY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 1992 GREENHOUSE, SP 14-2005 COMM. ADDITION, SP 44-2014 PRODUCE STAND, DISC 3-2017, AV 17-2017, SV 2-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 7.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is in reference to the Quaker Road site. The Board is being requested to table this application because the Zoning Board of Appeals had tabled it at their meeting, and so tabling it to the May 18th meeting pending the ZBA review on May 17tH MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. NAPIERALA-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-1 see that you went to the ZBA and obviously they were looking for some changes so they have asked that this application be tabled. I had a couple of comments, and I suspect that some of the other Board members will as well. In looking at the engineering comments, I see that there is quite a bit of concerns about a couple of issues, primarily the traffic study. There is some concern that the foundation for the study does not accurately represent the traffic impact, which has to do with the land use, convenience market, the gasoline pumps and also the issue of the drive thru. Have you seen the engineering comment letter? MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir, we have, and we did forward that over to our traffic consultant and as well with me tonight, and again, Matt Napierala, Napierala Consulting. My colleague Sara Casey is with me today, and for the Corinth Road site, though, she'll address the traffic, but with regards to the comments from Chazen Engineers on traffic, specifically with Quaker Road, we have reviewed and we have a response letter and when we get to that point in the tabling we'll answer all those questions, but the essence of it 1, as you stated earlier tonight, there are more than one way to skin a cat, even in the engineering world, and in the traffic transportation world and in the volumes of the ITE Manual which trip generations are garnered, there are different pieces to extract that information out of, even for a convenience store, and when we look at the Codes and what we use compared to, and I think we've talked about there are 50 convenience stores of similar make and model of Fastrac across New York State, and we look at those models compared to what Chazen has indicated based on one of their LUC Codes compared to what we use. We are much more compatible to the Fastrac prototype, and the one thing you have to understand when you get to the ITE Code and when you say trip generation for a certain number of dispensers and you say how did ITE come up with this, and their sampling is two stores across the entire country. So their sampling is somewhat, and then you look at something else. So you have to kind of balance that as an engineer and say, what closely models my facility. So that's the long answer to the question, but we will fully address that with our traffic engineer. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand. I mean, you didn't submit the study that you submitted without feeling you had good reason, obviously. That makes sense. There's also, the engineering also refers to some stormwater issues and the County Planning Board actually raised an issue of the left hand turn onto Quaker Road, which I know we've had some discussions about that as well. This is another project, and we've had a few of these over the years, and one of the things we run into, when we get into a lot of the engineering and signoff and all of these various issues, is that it can have the impact of in effect delaying the application, because we end up, you know, getting an opinion and then we need, we have to rely on our Town Engineer. One of 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) the tools that we develop, I think actually Chris and I developed this a few years ago, working with Laura, is that occasionally we will table an application and condition it upon coming back with an engineering agreement and signoff. So that we don't need to get into the weeds too much. Because we understand you certainly are coming from a point of view with regard to traffic and all of these issues. We have to rely on our Town Engineer to represent that aspect of what we're considering. So I'm personally, and we haven't heard from other members of the Board, but I'm personally thinking that in addition to tabling for all the reasons for the ZBA, we would also want to add a condition that you would come back with an engineering signoff on all of these issues that are raised in that engineering letter, and it sounds like you're already working towards that end. How do other Board members feel? No comment? MR. DEEB-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to elaborate on the Chairman's comments, we've done that on projects were the engineering was complicated so that we weren't bouncing you back and forth, you know, if you come back in May and we schedule it again and you're not coming back then until August. MR. TRAVER-It tends to delay the process. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is actually a way to speed it up for you, so that you're not coming here every two months. MR. NAPIERALA-I fully agree and appreciate that and we'll certainly work with Chazen and go through that process and I just wanted to let you guys know, we have listened since the first meeting in January to what we talked about last Tuesday, and some of those questions that were raised, including the access onto Quaker, we've pushed those up the ladder and because of some scheduling items we couldn't get those answers. So beyond what ZBA did to us, we were looking at tabling of this particular site, the Quaker/Dix site, as well tonight. So we're on the same page and certainly I understand that there are some questions and we're looking forward to answering those with you moving forward. MR. DEEB-Have you had discussions with Wal-Mart on the interconnect? MR. NAPIERALA-We've, again, for this site, the Wal-Mart question is, it's tough to get an answer in one week, but it's something that that's a great point that you made, Mr. Deeb, and we're investigating it to see if there's opportunity to do that. MR. DEEB-That would alleviate a lot of problems. MR. NAPIERALA-I agree. We have to look at the environmental aspects as well because even though we have coincidental properties, there are some wet areas out back. So we just need to look at it, but it's something we have on our radar. I appreciate the input. MR. TRAVER-1 would note, too, before Laura reminds me, that we do have a public hearing on this project tonight, although, as you've heard, it is being tabled, and we'd also address some additional issues, I think beyond what the ZBA referral to us addresses, but in view of that, tabling with some anticipated changes in the project in May, are there folks in the audience that want to address this project? Sure, go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Hi, everybody. For the record, Jon Lapper. I appeared at the ZBA meeting when it was tabled, on behalf of two of the neighbors, and specifically for Tom Burke who appeared before you many years ago when Dunkin Donuts was approved. He has some traffic issues on his site because of lefts in and out of Dunkin Donuts, and that's farther from the intersection. So he asked me to get a traffic analysis, and it should have been submitted to you. It came in after the submission date. So I don't know if it was submitted to you on this one because it was going to be tabled, but I had Wendy Holtzberger, who's appeared before you on many large projects, do a detailed analysis and she's very concerned with the traffic, just because that's one of the worst intersections in the County, that Quaker and Dix, and it's not a perpendicular intersection. So it creates all sorts of site issues and there've been a lot of accidents. So the real issue there is they're proposing a full movement in and out on Quaker Road, which is where there's the left turn onto Dix that lane, and their site is just so close to the intersection, so we've got some real concerns. That was submitted to the County, her letter, and they basically came back quickly last week after the ZBA and said, you know, obviously you 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) can't get a full movement ono Quaker. So we needed to bring it up just to say this is really a potential, it just might not work there because of traffic, and I'm confident now that everyone is really looking at this closely, so something like Wal-Mart, that could be a fix, but it were to be approved with left in and out onto Quaker that would exacerbate a situation and hurt all the other neighbors. MR. TRAVER-And that was noted by the comment from the County Planning Board, and I'm sure that Chazen is aware of that and if not I'm sure you'll make them aware of that. So they're going to have some time to work with the applicant and try to resolve these issues. MR. LAPPER-And that's the right answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Are your clients only concerned about left onto Quaker or are they similarly concerned about left onto Dix? MR. LAPPER-The traffic study itself, what Wendy had criticized was that they talked about the 16 gas pumps but it didn't analyze the traffic from the six diesel pumps which, truck traffic. There was a, you know, in terms of that discussion that I just heard about which category it comes in under the ITE Manual. The drive thru was another issue. So the question is, if you take away the left in and out on Quaker, what does that do to the lefts in and out on Dix, and we don't know if that's going to work, but the traffic study has to be re-done, new numbers, analyze it, and then look at it again. I don't know the answer, but I know that that's a tricky intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just wonder if your clients would raise a similar concern on Dix Avenue. MR. LAPPER-Wendy basically said you need to do the traffic study and then we'll look at it again. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I think we have a draft motion tabling this to the May 18tH MR. FERONE-May 16th. I found out that the date was incorrect. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. MRS. MOORE-No, actually you need to table it so the Zoning Board sees it first. MR. TRAVER-So then, and that's on the, all right. So let me take a look at the calendar. MR. FERONE-We're tabling something for the Zoning Board, not for our Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-All right. So that means we'll have to table it to the 23d. Because the ZBA, according to my calendar, is the first meeting on the 17th, in May. MR. MAGOWAN-The May meetings are the 16th and the 18th MRS. MOORE-Correct. So the May meetings end up being. MR. MAGOWAN-Tuesday and Thursday. MRS. MOORE-Tuesday and Thursday because of grievance I believe. MR. TRAVER-My calendar shows, are you talking about the Planning Board meetings? I'm showing from the one that was approved in January, Planning Board meetings on the 16th and the 23,d MRS. MOORE-I don't believe that's accurate. I think there's a grievance day on the 23d, and so the calendars that I have are showing Tuesday and Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, that's just as well because actually the 23d is the anniversary of the death of Bonnie & Clyde in 1934. I'm a history buff. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Did they make a left on Quaker? MR. TRAVER-All right. So that means then that we're tabling this to the 18th of May. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then this project is going to be tabled, next looked at by us on Thursday May 18th. All right. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? MR. TRAVER-Please do. MR. SHAFER-One of the comments that Chazen made had to do with the land use category and how the trip generation was done. Their comment was on one installation you used convenience store with pumps. On the other one you used the gasoline pumps with a convenience store. Their point was since they're very similar they ought to be done similarly, and I understand all the vagaries and the ITE trip generation manual. Mr. Chairman, my concern is the timing. If those trip generations are re-done on Quaker, for example, and the example that Chazen used and re-doing it had considerable change in the traffic generation, it's going to take a huge amount of effort in order to re-do that traffic report. MR. TRAVER-That may very well be. MR. SHAFER-There's a level of service analysis that has to be done. The queuing study will have to be done. Everything will have to be done over. MR. TRAVER-And that's what the applicant's going to be working on with the engineer. MR. SHAFER-My question is whether it can be done by May. MR. TRAVER-Well, they'll have a submission deadline, and if they can't, then it will have to be moved again. MR. SHAFER-It's a huge job. MR. TRAVER-It is. Understood. Well, we'll see. They have an extensive staff. We have a good engineer. So let's hope that we're able to get that taken care of. MR. NAPIERALA-And we understand the schedule and we'll do everything we can. If not, then we'll look at other times. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we're working on a tabling motion, basically engineering signoff. I guess that's really all we need. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, address engineering concerns. MR. TRAVER-Address engineering concerns. All right. I guess we're ready for that motion. We have the correct date, right? RESOLUTION TABLING SP #21-2017 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 21-2017 FASTRAC MARKETS LLC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the May 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 17, 2017. One condition is that the engineering comments from Chazen be addressed. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-AII right. So we will review that next in May. Then the next item on the agenda is Site Plan 22-2017, Special Use Permit 5-2017, also for Fastrac Markets, this at their other site on Corinth Road. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) JERRY NUDI, SWITCHO, LLC ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 220 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) PROPOSES A 5,800 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 152 X 517, 752 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY AND 2,008 SQ. FT. DIESEL CANOPY. PROJECT INCLUDES CLEARING 2.15 ACRE PARCEL, INSTALLATION OF NEW CUT ON CORINTH ROAD, 2 NEW CURB CUTS ON PRIVATE DRIVE AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. APPLICANT PROPOSES WAIVERS FROM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO CI-18 SPECIAL USE PERMIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ 51-2016 &AV PZ 69-2016 HOTEL, DISC 2-2017, AV 18-2017, SV 3-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 2.155 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-35 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10 MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 5,800 square foot convenience store. This includes a 752 sq. ft. fuel canopy as well as a 2,008 sq. ft. diesel canopy. The project occurs on a 2.15 acre parcel. The applicant did receive the variance from the Zoning Board for permeability and the project is located in the CI-18 special use permit zoning area. So the applicant has addressed both the Site Plan and Special Use Permit criteria. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Evening again, or hello again. I note that the, although they did approve the permeability, the Sign Variance was tabled. MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-And I would just comment, before I open it up to my colleagues, that we have really the same issue here, or much the same issues with regards to traffic in that the Town Engineer has expressed some disagreement with regard to the traffic data and how that data was concluded, and also they're talking about some, basically grammatical errors in the narrative, the same issue with the drive thru, and he also had a Comment Number 28 regarding the other developments and the 20/20 build traffic forecast, and they would like those listed. So I would, my tendency is to offer the same, essentially the same idea that you should be coming back not only with the sign issue addressed, but with the engineering, which also includes some issues with lighting addressed. MR. NAPIERALA-Again, Matt Napierala and Sara Casey, Napierala Consulting. We do have a response letter for this site. So we prepared it. We can give hard copies to the Board. We fully understand that there are a varying degree of questions that Chazen has with regards to the report and understanding this particular use, and as well the compilation of our use with the Switchco development and how we piggyback onto previously approved reports, and there's some technical coordination that certainly has to occur to make sure that Chazen is satisfied with the report and certainly understands the Board's reliance on that. I will profess in thoroughly reviewing all of the Chazen questions, there are some technical items of which we need to update both the traffic report and the SWPPP. I will profess, based on what I've read here, that substantially there will be little to no change to site plan and the actual physicality of it, and that we do have to go back to the ZBA for some sign issues of which again I have to because of some scheduling in conference with Fastrac people, I believe I can get all those resolved, but I need to refer to my ownership and clients before I can do so. MR. TRAVER-Sure, and presumably the traffic can be done at the same time. MR. NAPIERALA-Certainly, certainly. So, again, I just wanted this to indicate that in the scheduling of it we have attacked this one. We've answered to it. We will work with Chazen and we'll hopefully have some answers relatively quickly and don't have any issue or problem satisfying the re-submittal timeframe to keep this thing moving forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's particularly of value to us because this is SEQR Unlisted and traffic and visual and that type of thing certainly, you know, are things that we need to concern ourselves with, and we can't do that until we have all of these answered. So I appreciate your understanding there. Are there other questions or comments by members of the Board? MR. NAPIERALA-I know that when we had our first conversation, there was some questions with regards to the egress of trucks onto the private road. I don't know if it was you, Mr. Shafer, who brought that up or not, and we did, since that January meeting, Laura, if you can go to that layout plan, we did look at that pretty thoroughly and with the understanding of a truck that's sitting back at that diesel bay and how this potentially can work, and the question that was brought up in January was, wouldn't it be better to have the trucks to access the private road at 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) this location rather than this location, and we thoroughly took a look at that and Sara might, because she did some of that work on that, help me out, but when we look at that truck movement and that truck getting here. First we have to get his trail wheels and that trailer to be somewhat aligned, and that's the reason that diesel dispenser is pushed offset from the building on this rectangular square site. So we looked at potentially even taking this and skewing that diesel in this direction, you know, kind of kicking it back and skewing it a little bit, but even when we did that, the access point, the best we can do was somewhere here in the location of the private drive which was, you know, essentially when we look at that tight radius curve, was the same situation, just cars coming at a different direction. So we profess that albeit not ideal because of the radius of this curve, it is a private drive. The radius would hopefully slow cars down. The frequency as well that we have to understand is, even though we do have six fueling locations for this diesel, in actuality for the trucks, it's two, because of the primary and slave pumps, a truck will be sitting essentially in between these two locations and not be sitting on those end pumps, unlike cars, if it is a bigger truck and such. As well, when we talk about the traffic and trip gen, this layout mimics a store that was just opened outside of Utica, a very busy road off of Genesee Street in Utica Rome area, and the store's been opened up for about six months now, and the frequency of use of the actual trucks on, this isn't a truck stop. This is a convenience store. It is a convenience for those diesel trucks, and it's about two trucks an hour. It isn't like a roadside truck stand where you're going to have 40 trucks lined up and using those diesel pumps. It's a convenience. It's something that the ownership wants to provide, and as well it's more for the landscape guys with diesel pickup trucks, you know, or the bigger type of vehicles so that they have that convenience and will be able to get into the storefront and get into the convenience of that store itself. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The box trucks. MR. NAP I E RALA-Exactly, the box trucks and those. MR. MAGOWAN-Like you find at Hess down the road. MR. NAP I E RALA-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-But that's a little bit tighter to get in and out, but, you know, like I said, it would be nice up there, but like I said, I see, that's a tight area to get back behind that building. So for a truck driver, he's going to have to, One, have a Fastrac account or some kind of fleet car, and hopefully you draw them in, but I see it more as, like I'm a diesel truck owner, so, you know, I'm always looking for diesel pumps, and that and the box trucks are a big thing that I always find, you know, being a diesel filler myself, I usually run in, and the only time I run into the big trucks is when I'm out on the thruway, and stuff like that. MR. NAP I E RALA-Exactly, and that's exactly the type of convenience use they're looking for, and as such, when we kind of Segway that back into the traffic report, we're not looking to, the trip gen that are generated from it arm wrestled ITE coding come about that we're not adding extra trip gen because they're already inclusive of for the convenience store piece. MR. TRAVER-And that's something you'll be resolving. MR. NAPIERALA-And we'll resolve that certainly, that type of discussion will occur. So I guess the answer back to Mr. Shafer's question back is January is we left it this way. We did look at it thoroughly. I don't know, Sara, if you want to help me out with other pieces that we looked at when we did that. SARA CASEY MS. CASEY-1 think everything you said was accurate. It comes down to truck maneuvering and site distance, and unfortunately without completely re-configuring the entire site, that didn't improve any site distance. MR. SHAFER-I have another question. Rod Ives wrote to Laura on March 21St and there's a sentence that says trucks exiting the site will take a left out of the proposed southernmost driveway onto the private road and turn left at the Corinth Road traffic signal. That can't be correct, can it? MR. NAPIERALA-It should have been the northernmost. MR. SHAFER-Yes. I would have thought so. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. NAPIERALA-Rod is our other colleague and Laura knows all about this. He's coaching his hockey team tonight. So he's not with us. I'll kick him tomorrow morning when I see him. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Are there folks in the audience that wish to address the Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-So, okay, now the question, we just had a conversation about the engineering on the other site. Are these going to go on a parallel track, certainly you're hoping they are, I'm wondering are you going to be able to have the updated submission on the same timeframe as the other application do you think? MR. NAPIERALA-That's the current schedule is to parallel track these unless, because of other outstanding issues, frankly there's some real estate issues on the Quaker Road side that are being investigated, and I hope they have answers so I can do the technical pieces on both of these. As I look at the calendar, we have until April 17th for submittal. That's a lot of time for my team. MR. HUNSINGER-That's refreshing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if we were to do a tabling on this also to the May 16th meeting, would that work on the agenda, if we had both of these again in May? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. NAPIERALA-We've got to wait for the ZBA board. MR. TRAVER-All right. May 18th. All right. So we'll leave the public hearing open then, and I guess we're ready for a tabling with the same conditions as before. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #22-2017 SUP # 5-2017 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 22-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2017 FASTRAC MARKETS LLC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the May 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 17, 2017. Condition is that the engineering comments from Chazen are all addressed by that meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in May. MR. NAPIERALA-We'll see you in May. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda is Carol Perkins, d/b/a Ray's Salvage, Site Plan 19- 2017. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CAROL PERKINS d/b/a RAY'S SALVAGE AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ., HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 15 PASCO AVENUE & 685 SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 40 X 80 METAL BUILDING FOR OFFICE AND SALVAGE BUILDING. THE BUILDING OFFICE AREA 1,200 SQ. FT. THE REMAINING TO BE USED FOR AUTO SALVAGE. THE PREVIOUS 1,411 SQ. FT. BUILDING BURNED IN MAY 2016. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-1999, 1999 COMM. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) BLDG. 1,380 SF, UV 2-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 7.07 ACRES & 2.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-10, -5 SECTION 179-13-010 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, when you're ready. MRS. MOORE-Yes. This applicant proposes to place a 40 by 80 metal building for an office and salvage building. The building office area is 1200 sq. ft., the remaining to be used for interior auto salvage. The previous building of 1411 sq. ft. burned in May of 2016, and this applicant proposes to replace that with this new building and change its location. The applicant did receive a Use Variance the other evening to allow the use to continue and to expand and in this sense the applicant, I have also identified information in the Staff Notes about reviewing the site in reference to location of storage sheds and fencing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi, everyone. Again for the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Hutchins. As Laura said, after we \had your recommendation last week we went to the Zoning Board and they unanimously approved the variance. They were very supportive, as were you, with cleaning up the site. So with that, this is about the site plan and what we've proposed is to eliminate eight trailers, clean up the whole front area and landscaping and stormwater, do inside a lot of what was done outside and we think it'll really be positive as a change and some of the neighbors were here at the Zoning Board supporting it as well. Let me turn it over to Tom to walk through the site plan and we'll listen to anything else you'd like to talk about on the site. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board, Tom Hutchins. Yes, we've sited this building, as we talked a little bit about last week, we've sited this building in a compliant manner. As opposed to the prior building that was burned down, we're maintaining setbacks. We've moved it back a little bit further from the road. We've moved it back from the southern property line. We've included a new wastewater system. It's on public water of course, and some stormwater controls, some infiltration we've proposed. There'll really be minimal significant disturbance on the site outside the building footprint. We've got some landscaped areas. This will also allow for removal of a number of the storage containers. Right now there's a temporary office trailer adjacent to the scale that will be removed to make room for the office. O we're trying to clean it up. Lighting. I did ask for a waiver on lighting. Any lighting we're proposing is building mounted and we have spotted four cut off wall packs on the building, one on the front and two on the side and one on the rear, and the rear portion of the building that, the fenced gate will be halfway back from the building. The office will be outside the gate, the rear portion of the building for access for vehicles will be inside the gated area, and the site is fenced. The fencing at the front is an opaque metal type fencing, and there is a chain link gate, and with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We did look at this obviously before it went to the ZBA, but do we have any follow up questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the dismantler's permit and the junk dealer's license, I happened to go to a Federation Planning yesterday and I took the junk class. One of my concerns is, really like I brought up before is, trying to, you know, removing the oils and everything else that they're going to all be taken care of in the new, and I didn't see any, what should I say, accidental drain, you know, spill, drains to contain any accidental spills inside the dismantling area. MR. HUTCHINS-A containment type area? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, some form of containment. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We didn't, we don't show that level of detail within the building. Obviously any work that's done inside the building is contained and there certainly aren't floor drains in that, and they're required under their multi-sector stormwater permit to have spill cleanup kits and such available. So, yes, we didn't detail a contained area. MR. MAGOWAN-So what happens if they decide to just put a floor drain in there? MR. HUTCHINS-They can. MR. TRAVER-So it's not shown on the plan, but it's there is what you're saying. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. HUTCHINS-The floor drain is not there, no but I mean what he's concerned about obviously is containment in the case of a spill. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, it's a concrete floor. It's an interior space of the building. MR. MAGOWAN-Is everything pitched in to the center? MR. HUTCHINS-To tell you the truth it's not laid out to that level of detail at this point. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm just asking, if what you're asking for is to propose this building and to accept this building, I'm thinking that, you know, I just know the junkyards and seeing what Jerry Brown has done to upgrade his on his expansions and becoming State of the Art. The other proposal is, you know, those fluids get taken out, you know, stored in drums or whatever they're stored in, and then they have to be transported all the way down to this shed, you know, almost to the back. MR. LAPPER-Well, we talked about that with Carol at the ZBA meeting and that's to separate them in case there was ever an explosion or something, because they're flammable, to separate the liquids. So she's doing that in accordance with her permit to store them in a remote location. Everything's in compliance. She has all of her permits. There's certainly not a floor drain, but she knows all about containment. This is going to be a modern building that will be run the way it's supposed to be. That's why she wants to build it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess my concern is transporting that fluid so far, but, you know, how do you do it? Do you do it on a forklift or do you do it in a special self-contained, you know, are you going across with a 55 gallon drum, you know, it's a dirt thing, you get a little pothole, and the lid comes off and there goes 55 gallons of sealant, you know. MR. LAPPER-She can't afford to do that. The cleanup, she's tested, I mean, there can't be spill and stuff on the ground. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I understand that but stuff does happen, you know, and after learning some of the things I learned yesterday, it just concerns me that, and I know in the past how the older junkyards work, and I was wondering what will you do to bring this facility to more environmentally safe where you don't have to rely on the inspector that comes in once every couple of years. MR. HUTCHINS-A big goal of this project is to bring the environmental, the level of environmental awareness and safety up with this project. Much of the dismantling is done outside presently. I don't have a problem with committing to a sloped floor or to form a contained area within that rear garage bay. As far as handling fluids outside the site, we can certainly look into ways of improving that. At this point it's a tough commitment to make, not knowing specifically what you're trying to get at with it. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think you mentioned before that there were requirements for the handling of flammable liquids. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there are. MR. TRAVER-So if we condition this on your being compliant with those regulations, which would be part of your design, I would hope, to begin with, would that work for you with regard to the outside? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, I mean I'm just thinking separating the fluids, I understand that, you don't want them all together. You can separate them. MR. TRAVER-1 think they're recycled as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Correct, but I mean maybe with some of the sheds and that, or the one other dismantled area or shed is creating an area where you have different sheds that, you know, like I said, I haven't really had a chance to look into it further. I'm just concerned, and also in the metal aspect, you know, she receives other metals, she's kind of becoming like a scrap metal, I don't want to say wholesaler, but recycler. There's special permits and that that need to be done for that. Because a lot of people come in with lawnmowers and stuff which, again, furniture, you know, you have air conditioning units, you've got cores. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) MR. TRAVER-So with regards to recycling metals. Are there regulations, I assume, on how that's to be handled? MR. HUTCHINS-She's covered under, well, one a Town Junkyard license, and there's not a specific technical requirement with that, but she's also covered under a DEC multi-sector stormwater permit, which is the stormwater permit for all industrial activities and they have different categories of industry, like paper manufacturers. MR. TRAVER-I guess what I'm getting at, I think the concern with metals is particularly heavy metals getting into the groundwater and so on, but DEC regulations I would think would cover, you know, steps that need to be in place to avoid any contamination of metals, heavy metals into the ground and so on. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes MR. TRAVER-And you attest to the fact that you are and would continue to be in compliance with those regulations. MR. HUTCHINS-She is right now in accordance with that permit. MR. TRAVER-Because there's a permitting process and so on. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and it's a monitored permit and it's recorded on at least annually and there are inspections. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then I think you were willing to add a condition that you have, if it wasn't already planned, that you would have a retention, a fluid retention area, in the, I think you called it the back bay of the dismantling facility, so that in the event there was a leakage or something. MR. HUTCHINS-If there's spillage on the floor, yes, there's certainly no floor drains and it's not going to run out the door. Yes, we can go there, and it'll be cleaned up appropriately with spill cleanup care. MR. TRAVER-Which, again, I would think would be part of your DEC requirement. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So do we want to put a, does the Board feel that we need to put a, as part of the permitting process, do we need to have a condition on the approval for that or? If we put a condition that they, and I don't know if it's in, probably it's not in the draft, that they be compliant with all the DEC regulations governing waste, industrial fluids, industrial, and so on, that would probably do it. Any other questions or suggestions for amendments from members of the Board? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, are there any additional storage sheds that are being re-located or removed? I know there's ones identified on the current plan. Was there any additional ones that were being? MR. HUTCHINS-As identified on the current plan is what we're proposing to do. MR. LAPPER-Eight are being removed completely and one is being re-located. MRS. MOORE-And then follow up on the screening. I believe I missed it. You said, is there new fencing being installed? MR. LAPPER-Tom specified the plant materials. MR. HUTCHINS-No, she said screening. Yes. There's, I front of the gate we've got no new fencing, and the gate is, the gate is right here, okay, so this portion of the building is inside the gate. The fencing runs right across here. So out here there is no new fencing. There's landscaping. There's plantings here. There's a planting strip here. There's street trees here and plantings and a planting area here. Screening, the fencing is opaque across here, and across this area and that's really the visible area. We're not proposing any additional fencing out here or here. MR. LAPPER-Because we don't think it's necessary because the building will be attractive and will be landscaped. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MR. TRAVER-Certainly more attractive than what was there before. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We also have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? No? Do we have any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We have a draft motion' MR. HUNSINGER-We need to do SEAR. MR. TRAVER-That's right. I'm sorry. This is SEQR Unlisted. So we do have a SEAR. MR. FERONE-1 have a question on SEAR. Question 15 says does the site or proposed action contain any specific animal or associated habitat that's listed by State or Federal government as threatened or endangered. The answer was yes. Do you know what that was, what that is? MR. HUTCHINS-That is the EAF BAF mapper answer. MR. FERONE-The map says yes but you don't know what it is. MR. HUTCHINS-The map says yes, but we don't know what it is. That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it Karner blue? MR. HUTCHINS-It's very difficult to imagine, looking at the site it's very difficult to imagine it being a species issue. MR. LAPPER-That area, it does have sand. It's all pine barrens behind there. So it could likely be blue lupine, but not inside the site. MR. TRAVER-Not within the area that's referenced in the application. MR. DEEB-Along with that, too, Number 12, is the proposed action located in an archeologically sensitive area, and you answered no. All the other ones are always answered yes. MR. HUTCHINS-That's another EAF mapper that you get that from, when you fill out the form on DEC's website, that's their answer. MR. DEEB-That is their answer? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. DEEB-Whereas every other one I've looked at, they're all yes, every one. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, they have an, Office of Parks & Historic Recreation has a map with the gray, which is I believe a half mile or one mile radius from any of their areas, and particularly if you go that way toward Lake George, you're always in the gray area. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-With regards to the SEQR form that was submitted, are there members of the Board that feel that those items are having an impact on a SEQR resolution? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can go ahead with the SEQR resolution I guess. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 19-2017 CAROL PERKINS The applicant proposes to place a 40 x 80 metal building for office and salvage building. The building office area 1,200 sq. ft., the remaining to be used for auto salvage. The previous 1,411 sq. ft. building burned in May 2016. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 19-2017 CAROL PERKINS d/b/a RAY'S SALVAGE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Seconded by Jamie White Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we can move on to the Site Plan motion, and we talked about, I think the applicant covered this, but we talked about adding a condition simply that they maintain their compliance with DEC regulations as pertains to the site. MR. FERONE-And did we also want to put Brad's recommendation about pitching the fluids to the center? I don't know if you want that? MR. DEEB-I don't think that's in our purview. I really don't. MR. TRAVER-Well, it becomes an enforcement issue, but it was something that was offered by the applicant. It's in the minutes. I don't know. Laura, what is your feeling? Should we add that as a condition? MR. LAPPER-If we said we'd provide containment, that's more generic within the building. MR. HUTCHINS-It would be constructed such that fluids can't escape or something. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, the language that you used was fluid retention area. MR. TRAVER-Fluid retention area, then. Okay. We'll add that. MR. MAGOWAN-Curbing. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. LAPPER-Yes, curbing would work, too. It just gives some flexibility to the design. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Were there any other conditions? I don't remember discussing any? Then I guess we're ready for a motion when you're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2017 CAROL PERKINS d/b/a RAY'S SALVAGE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to place a 40 x 80 metal building for office and salvage building. The building office area 1,200 sq. ft., the remaining to be used for auto salvage. The previous 1,411 sq. ft. building burned in May 2016. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 03/28/2017 and continued the public hearing to 03/21/2017, 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 03/28/2017; 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 19-2017 CAROL PERKINS d/b/a RAY'S SALVAGE; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements. c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) The Planning Board would like to make sure the new building has a fluid retention area. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) i) The plan will be compliant with DEC regulations for this type of business. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. All right. The next item on our agenda is Site Plan 17-2017 for Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II HILLIARD, TYRER, LYON & CERNY AGENT(S) TRACEY CLOTHIER OWNER(S) DAVID & LISA DOSTER ZONING WR LOCATION 94 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 40' X 4' DOCK AND A PATHWAY FROM ASH DRIVE TO DOCK LOCATION. PROJECT IS CONSIDERED A CLASS A MARINA, AS DOCK IS FOR MORE THAN ONE OWNER — A TOTAL OF FOUR. PROJECT IS PART OF A COURT ORDER FOR PROPERTY OWNER TO INSTALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLASS A MARINAS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 23-2014, SP 21-2014 RES. & SEPTIC ALTERATION, AV 15-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 1.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-5 SECTION 179-10-040 MICHAEL BORGOS & TRACY CLOTHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a four by forty foot dock and to construct a pathway from Ash Drive to the dock location. The applicant did receive their variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the setback of the dock to the property line. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. Hello, again. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. For the record, Michael Borgos, on behalf of the applicant. I'm here with Tracy who's done all the work preparing all this. I'm going to let her describe what you see here. I know you saw us last week. So you're generally familiar with what it is. We went through and the Zoning Board granted the variance. So we return tonight to address any questions that you might have, but I'm sure Tracy wants to just run through the basics with you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. A rather unusual application to say the least. So, go ahead. MS. CLOTHIER-So, the application before you represents a site plan for a pathway, a four foot grassy pathway from the top of Ash Drive to Glen Lake, where there has been a dock in the past, and this access was described in a court stipulation from last fall, 2016, and permits the, it sets the regulations that permits the owners, the four owners across Ash Drive who are non- lakefront owners, access to the waterfront. This is a court stipulation. I'll let Mike speak about that, but basically it's pretty cut and dried. The pathway itself is now a grassy pathway. There's no stormwater issues. It will require a little cutting of some vegetation to make it completely passable, and other than that, I think that the dock will go back in the exact same place as it was before it was removed a few years ago. MS. WHITE-Who's responsible for maintaining that grass pathway? MS. CLOTHIER-The court stipulation says that the four owners, the four lake access, people with lake access, will maintain the dock. There's a set of regulations that are attached to the stipulation that call for specific ways of maintaining that area and use. MR. TRAVER-So it's almost like a homeowner's. MR. MAGOWAN-And the dock owner maintains the dock? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) MS. CLOTHIER-The dock belongs to the Dosters. They are responsible for putting it in and out on those specific dates, but the court stipulation calls for the four lot owners to each have a dock space. MR. BORGOS-The property rights that are involved here all came out of their deeds. So this runs with the land. So it is something that is binding upon not only these people who signed the agreement but also anybody that inherits or takes from them in a sale in the future. So these things are set in perpetuity. So that's why they were all in that court ordered stipulation in the fashion that they are. I think we're here before you tonight just because of the Town's rules regarding the ownership issues that somebody's got a dock and they're not the owner of the lakefront parcel. So Craig Brown's interpretation of the Code stipulates that it's a Class A marina, and that's why we're here for the Special Use Permit. We are asking for a lot of waivers from the requirements or your acknowledgment that they're not applicable I guess, because there is no parking for these owners because they already have plans. There's no need for that. So all those type of things that we would ordinarily be talking about, we've been before you recently with properties with Class A marinas on Lake George, we're looking at all those specifics. Restrooms. Whether or not there's any fuel sales. The parking requirements per vessel. Those things are just not applicable here. It really is just restoring the dock that was. The Zoning Board determined the size and location of it. I think it's more of the review from the standpoint of what kind of site disturbances are there going to be from this pathway, and really it's just going to be some trimming with some hand tools. There's no heavy equipment anticipated to maintain it. That's going to be the grass that's there presently. MR. TRAVER-The one question I had with regards to the court order, does the court order provide for much leeway in terms of the site plan, in terms of where the path is, where the dock is, any of that It can only be in this manner in order to be in compliance with the court order? MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So after the court and the ZBA ruling, there's not a whole lot left for the Planning Board to rule on. MR. BORGOS-Yes, I concur. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The one question I did have, though. So this is a removable dock? MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-When you pull the dock in for the winter, where do you store it? MR. TRAVER-Probably right on the path, right? MR. BORGOS-1 don't believe that's been addressed specifically within the order. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-That's up to the owner. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be. MR. MAGOWAN-So if he wants to float it over and pull it up, but doesn't he have a little bit of a beach there? MR. TRAVER-Small. MR. MAGOWAN-Or he could probably just set it up on one of the old cribs that are there. MR. BORGOS-The Planning Board always has wonderful practical questions that we have not encountered. Thank you for those, but I don't know the answer to that. That's yet to occur, and the four individuals, the owners that I represent are not going to be responsible for removal. That'll be the dock owners, who are here and may be commenting. So perhaps they'll respond to your question about that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions from members of the Planning Board at this point? This is a Type 11 SEQR so we don't need to do SEAR. This is the one I was looking at before, before Ray's Salvage. There is a public hearing. Are there folks in the audience here tonight that want to address this application? Yes, sir. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/23/2017) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID DOSTER MR. DOSTER-Good evening, thank you. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. DOSTER-David Doster. I'm one of the owners of the property. MR. TRAVER-Of the property with the dock? MR. DOSTER-Yes, the property with the dock. The dock is actually purchased now and it's actually sitting in the right of way right at the water's edge. It's a rolling dock, aluminum dock, that has wooden pikes in it. So that's where it's going to be stored now. So just wanted to reiterate a couple of things, just to give you guys clarity. A lot of memories of the Glen Lake Casino, former Glen Lake Casino. It's not a commercial property. It's now our home. The entire large building, the front of the building is our house. It's not, it's an apartment building. I do have two rental houses there. Very quiet tenants. Very quiet area. I mean it's so peaceful there year round, and I think the stipulation that we negotiated, it was a negotiated settlement, and it was approved by the court. So I think the rules and regulation within the stipulation we really tried to push for that. So that it stays really quiet in the use of that. I don't believe, and again, I'm going to go against Craig on this, I don't believe that this needs to be a Class A marina. I don't have a desire for my property to become commercial Class A marina. I think this is a pre-existing, nonconforming use and I think that, you know, I wish you guys could have approved this use without changing my property and potentially devaluing it even more in changing the tax on it. The subdivision, the upland subdivision where my neighbors are going to be using this was approved in 1990. We read the minutes. We've read almost every Town meeting minutes since then to see how you guys normally rule on these things and what you do. Unfortunately in that approval there was some ambiguity. They did ask, the Town back then, the Board asked for right of ways be written on that subdivision. It wasn't, and they approved it anyway. I wish they had, it probably would have saved me over $100,000 in some ambiguity that was left in that. So moving forward any right of ways you guys need to make, I saw a couple of those tonight. Make sure there's clarity on the right of ways and whose property they're on, and the property owner of that right of way is actually approved the subdivision. So just a little recommendation for you guys if you haven't learned that lesson, just some insight there, but moreover, some of the deeds that were written were written by the law firm Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, which is now the Town's attorney group. I realize Michael has left. So I'm assuming that he's recused himself. They also own the abstract company that has the title insurance for those deeds. So again, I think some conflict there, and then last they are the representatives for the people that have the right of way now, and negotiated the terms with them and us for that right of way. So again, definitely conflicted. The Town's attorneys' definitely conflicted, and why I bring that up and what I ask tonight is, is that you be careful and be consistent with your approval, and consistent with any conditions that you may want to see on this, that you put on that, because I do think there is the conflict there. So as the homeowner and the landowner and anything that you guys come up with that you want for conditions around the approval of this use, I have to police as the landowner, and I have no desire to be the right of way police. I'm looking for specifically that you approve the fencing and any shrubs that I can put up. I have no desire to witness the use of this ROW and I think it would just be a lot more neighborly and remain quiet if the fencing as part of this application is approved. MR. TRAVER-Is that fencing included on the permit? MR. DOSTER-1 think it is. So good fences make good neighbors. So that's all I have unless you have any questions for me. Thank you for allowing me to come. MR. HUNSINGER-So will you be responsibility for putting the dock out and pulling it back in? MR. DOSTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's your intention to leave it in the right of way? MR. DOSTER-It's not exactly in the right of way now, but there's a space, it's staying probably half on the right of way and half on my property right now. MRS. DOSTER-And there's a picture of it as it is right now and that's pretty much where it's going to be stored, right in here. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you very much. MR. DOSTER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well this is fairly straightforward. Are there any other members of the audience that want to address this application? LISA DOSTER MRS. DOSTER-Hi. I'm Lisa Doster. I'm also the property owner, and I have some details to go through this evening. First I would like to say I support all the items listed in the stipulation order. With that said, everything I have read states a Class A marina is a commercial use. The court approved stipulation order clearly states on the last page in the rules and regulations, you can see the stipulation Page 20 Number 19, the easement area, the easement being the path, beach and dock, shall not be used for any commercial purpose. Everything I have read shows there is no such thing as a residential Class A marina or residential marina. It does not exist. Document Two, the Lake George Park Commission regulations in 6CRR-New York 646- 1.2 states no Class A marina shall be operated without supplying the following, restrooms. Well, restrooms are not permitted. Due to the sewage disposal, Page 20, Number 21, no portable sewage devices or sewage disposal is permitted. So that rules out bathrooms. Two, on-site parking, Page 19, Number One parking is prohibited in the stipulation order. Adequate storage, Page 19 Number 7, no equipment nor any items or personal property belonging to the plaintiffs also known as the applicants or to their guests and/or invitees may be stored or left on the Doster property at any time. Four, adequate garbage and debris disposal. Page 19, Number 7, the same previous it's not permitted. Facilities for disposal of sanitary waste, again would follow Page 19 Number 7, and Page 20, Number 21, still not permitted. The stipulation order is for residential use, and does not state for a Class A marina or marina term anywhere in the document. Through negotiations in 2015 many items were removed from the agreement along with the addition of many items that do pertain to a marina, but they were all added as not permitted. Those items pertaining to a marina and not permitted in the stipulation order are parking, storing, launching, sewage disposal, sewage devices and commercial use, etc. The third document in my packet is Chapter 179 zoning, Article Two definitions of the Queensbury Zoning Code for Class A marinas and it specifically states as defined in the regulations of Lake George Park Commission. See F on the last page, Class A marinas, all marinas shall comply with the standards for Class A and Class B as adopted by the Lake George Park Commission, and 6NYCRR Part 646 as may be amended. The exceptions that apply to my property and are in the Town of Queensbury Code are the use of the dock by the owner, the owner's family or the rental of a residential unit that includes the use of the dock. My property falls under this exception. Two, docks used as an accessory to a restaurant. Prior to 1980 it was a restaurant/bar. So, again, it was an exception to a marina use, and the fourth document in my packet is the Lake George Park Commission regulation definitions and it clearly states on Page Two at the bottom of the page at 1, commercial dock, wharf or mooring means a dock, wharf or mooring which is, Number Two, a Class A marina and, Number Three, Class B marina. The use of any portion of an association or residential dock, wharf or mooring as commercial dock, wharf or mooring shall render the entire structure or complex commercial. The stipulation clearly states for no commercial purpose. My property is zoned Waterfront Residential, see the fifth document, a 1988 letter from the Town of Queensbury discussing the zoning classification of my property and the sixth document from the tax assessor's office is a 1990 picture that has a property class 220 listed on the top. The property changed from a restaurant/bar around 1980 and was approved by the Town of Queensbury to be transformed into residential rental dwelling units in 1982 and has been since. The seventh document is a Use Variance 48-1998 and it lists zoning classification residential. Applicant Jan Ledford, then the prior owner of my property, wanted to increase the use by adding another dwelling unit. This was denied due to anticipated overburdens that the use might cause. The eighth document is also the Use Variance 48-1998, the second page, which is B, profit and loss to my property that lists a single boat dock rental which is allowed per Town Code. Class A marina or more than one dock space rental would have been noted if it had existed. A Class A marina status will deem my whole property commercial which would devalue my property as well as the surrounding properties which would not be a good thing. The Town of Queensbury pre-existing uses state the property owner has to demonstrate a use that is constructed according to the permitting rules enforceable at the time of construction and that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruptions since prior to 1981 for marinas and 1967 for all other uses. There are no previous permits issued by the Town or DEC for my property or to any previous property owners of my property or issued to any applicants for a dock or Class A or B marina located on my property. So a pre-existing, nonconforming use does not apply. The ownership of the applicant's individual property started in 1986. So any use they claim they had, have or my property as a marina use cannot meet the Town's 1981 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) prior use for marina standards or the 1967 other use standard. The ninth document, every deed to the applicant's properties where it pertains to a right of way to the lake all say to the shore of Glen Lake as shown on the Greenberger's subdivision from 1913, and also every one of their deeds lists the use for no commercial purpose. Subdivisions to the applicants properties are a 1986 Tonneson subdivision map. I will hand them to you in the middle. They're all labeled. Every deed, so the applicant's properties are a 1986 Tonneson subdivision map. That is the Greenberger map from 1913, and their property were derived from that subdivision, and there's also the Tonneson from 1986 and then the 1990 Tyrer subdivision which shows no easement across my property to the lake, and are all on file with the Town of Queensbury. My property was part of the Titus subdivision, not part of the Tonneson or Tyrer or Greenberger. My property was derived from the Titus subdivision from 1901. For approval of subdivisions, the Town Board requested to include all easements. Even Mr. Richard Roberts, the Chairman of the Queensbury Planning Board in 1989 stated he thought this was a civil issue, when Mrs. Mann from the Board stated the easements to the lake from the Tyrer subdivision map should have been identified on the map. While Mr. Roberts was correct and, yes, it certainly resulted in a civil case. I've given you a copy of the Tyrer subdivision map, if you want to take a look, and I also gave you a map of my property and the Tonneson subdivision map that showed the right of way to the lake on the adjacent property, none of them show a right of way across my property. Now let's discuss restoring a use. The applicant's agent stated this was to restore a use. What if that restored use was not permitted or allowed previously by the owners of the property? What if it was an act of trespass? Or what if it was not allowed per Town Code without permit and one never existed? MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. May I just interrupt you for a moment? MRS. DOSTER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-You've stipulated to this? MRS. DOSTER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I'm confused why. MRS DOSTER-Confused why I'm bringing it all up? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. DOSTER-Well, somebody asked about the deeds from your initial meeting. I listened to the minutes. MR. TRAVER-But that's been stipulated to and addressed by the court order. MRS. DOSTER-Correct, and I'm going to get into that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We typically have a three minute rule for public comment. MRS. DOSTER-I'm almost finished. MR. TRAVER-1 appreciate what you're saying. It's a little bit out of the ordinary because it's all been addressed by the court which is the limitation of the application that we have before us, but if you could be brief and finish. Go ahead. MRS. DOSTER-Absolutely. Absolutely. So I got to restoring the use. What if the use is not allowed per Town Code without a permit or if one never existed? Because we're talking about restoring a use. I have to address this. If the Town were to restore a use based upon these items, wouldn't that set a precedence for others to do the same in the future? And is that something that the Town would want to deal with? Document 10 in the packet is a 2009 conclusion letter completed for the applicant that hired surveyors VanDusen and Steves to research their deeds and surveys, provided the right of way to the lake was not on my property, but located on the adjacent property to the east. Any rights that, anyway any past deeded rights the applicants think they possess or prior use the applicants or agents claim they have were not proven in the court of law through trial. Instead a settlement was reached. So prior rights no longer prevail. Further the stipulation order states the stipulation contains the understanding between the parties, each of whom acknowledge that there have been and are no representations, warranties, covenants or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. So prior use really does not apply to what is before us this evening. In late February 2017 1 spoke directly to Craig Brown at the Town of Queensbury and he stated he reviewed the agent's proposal and upon this is what triggered the Special Use Permit to establish the Class A 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) marina. By advice tenant stipulation order signed by the court and agreed by the parties prohibits commercial use on my property and a Class A marina is considered a commercial use. It is listed as such in the definitions. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am, I'm going to have to interrupt you and ask you to conclude your remarks, please. MRS. DOSTER-Okay. I'm just going to ask that Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth also represented the applicants. They need to stay neutral, and if you need more answers in this case then to follow an outside firm, as is just and proper. The applicants do not live on my property. They live on the adjacent property across the road or in close proximity and not all of them reside on their properties. In fact two of the properties are undeveloped. The created new use, new, not a restored use as the agent referred, or the new easement area on my property includes the four foot path, the new area of the beach and dock I own, and are all located on the western property line from a 100 year old four multi dwelling, 169 feet of lakefront property located just east of the adjacent seven multi dwelling property on less than one acre. MR. TRAVER-Okay, ma'am. I'm going to have to ask you to stop now. We need to continue to process this application. Thank you very much. MRS. DOSTER-Okay. Certainly. Thank you for allowing me to speak. MR. SHAFER-Excuse me. Can we ask questions? MR. TRAVER-If you can be brief. MRS. MOORE-1 still have other public comment, too, so,just so you know. MR. SHAFER-Just a brief question. Can you summarize in one point, I mean, you signed the stipulation. MRS. DOSTER-1 did. MR. SHAFER-What is it you're trying to show here tonight? MRS. DOSTER-1 am showing that I'm for the stipulation completely and I agree to it, and I'm trying to show previous use on my property by the documents that I've included because they're trying to restore a use. MR. DEEB-Yes, but that has nothing to do with us. MR. TRAVER-They're no longer trying to restore a use. It's been granted. MRS. DOSTER-Well, that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make. Because they've said they're trying to restore a use. MR. TRAVER-And you have made it, as have the documents that have been submitted this evening. Thank you very much. MRS. DOSTER-Great. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Would you like these items back? And also your maps. MRS. DOSTER-And should I submit one for public record? MR. TRAVER-By all means. You can give one to Laura and she'll include it in the file. MRS. DOSTER-Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address this application this evening? Yes, ma'am. VIRGINIA ETU MS. ETU-I'm Virginia Etu. I am on the Board of the Glen Lake Protective Association, and the Association would just like to have me read very quickly a letter for the record on where we stand on the Class A marinas. The Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association, by a vote of the majority on March 8, 2017 - requests that the Queensbury Planning Board deny 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) the Special Use Permit for a Class A marina for the Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyons & Cerny application Site Plan 17-2017, Special Use Permit 3-2017]. The Glen Lake Protective Association does not support and does not want Class A Marinas on Glen Lake. Allowing Class A marinas would increase boating traffic on Glen Lake, which is already overburdened by recreational uses, and Class A marinas would promote second tier development that will negatively impact the ecology of the watershed and decrease property values at Glen Lake. Additionally, the Board is very concerned that approving this application would establish the practice by the Town Board of permitting Class A marinas at Glen Lake. The Association is aware of a similar docking and lake access situation that will soon be brought to this Board, and there is the potential for other new Class A marinas on Glen Lake. The Glen Lake Protective Association currently has 299 members representing 180 lakefront households. The Association's positions on water quality of the lake and development within the watershed are guided by the Association's mission that works to insure the long-term health of Glen Lake, its shoreline properties and The Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan, which was also adopted by the Town of Queensbury, that provides detailed information on the ecological health of the lake and greater watershed and sets out recommendations to mitigate environmental harm from development. Class A marinas, by definition, allow non-lakefront property owners access to docks and boating. If allowed, this would increase the number of boats on the lake. According to a survey of Glen Lake residents compiled for the Watershed Management Plan, "a majority of respondents feel that there is a safety problem related to motor boating on Glen Lake. Respondents have pointed to excessive boating speed, unsafe operation of jet skis, excessive noise and size of boats (i.e. boats too large for size of lake) as being a problem on the lake. Also, concern was expressed about day cruisers on the lake with inadequate sanitary facilities either in the boat or on shore." Unfortunately, since this survey the size and numbers of watercraft on Glen Lake has grown worse. In fact, last summer there were several complaints by lake residents to the Association about too many boats and the unsafe operations of boats and jet skis. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma'am, could I ask you to confine your remarks to this application and not Glen Lake in general, please. MS. ETU-Okay. Allowance of Class A marinas would only add to the numbers of boats on the lake, which will further congest an already overburdened recreationally-used lake and further exacerbate unsafe conditions. As well, this proposed action has no provisions for sanitary facilities, and firsthand experiences of lake residents has shown us that unless bathrooms facilities are readily available, people will use the lake and the islands for these services. The Association has worked hard with the Town in recent years to improve the quality of the water and community. We have spent on average about $40,000 per year to control aquatic invasives, improve water quality and re-establish native plant diversity. Further, the Association supports the Town's building codes and regulations within waterfront zoning that requires replacing or updating septic systems with new construction or major renovation. The Association also advocates with the Town for eliminating fertilizer use near the lake and controlling stormwater runoff and nutrient loading into the watershed. The Association is also considering approaching the Town this year to set limits for boat lengths. We argue that permitting this or any Class A marinas will work against this positive trend and have negative effects on water quality within the critical environmental area of Glen Lake, and it would also create adverse impacts on the neighborhood. For these reasons, the Association asks that you deny the Special Use permit required for a Class A marina. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. FERONE-Can I ask you a question? MS. ETU-Yes. MR. FERONE-Are there any other Class A marinas permitted on the lake? MS. ETU-I know that there are other properties that do have multiple dockings. I don't know if they're considered Class A marinas or not, and if they are they've certainly been there for many, many decades, but I think our point is that moving forward we want to be concerned about the increase in these Special Use Permits. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this issue? Yes, ma'am. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-My name is Lorraine Stein. I live on 86 Ash Drive and I hope that the Board will at least sit through a few minutes of my comments and listen to them. I'd appreciate it. I agree 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) with the statement that was presented by the Glen Lake Protective Association against approving any Class A marina on Glen Lake. Some of the facts presented by the applicants have been misrepresenting and untrue. The situation is not pre-existing. I have lived at 86 Ash Drive since 1993 and I'm very familiar with the property at issue. We are in between, we live in between, there's one house in between us which is Taylor Hill property, Gary Hicks. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am, I would just respond, I'm not sure if you are aware. MS. STEIN-1 am responding to the. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand, but you're arguing whether or not this is pre-existing. No one's contending that. This is a new court order that all the parties involved have stipulated to. MS. STEIN-Excuse me. Can I finish my comments, please? MR. TRAVER-If you can make it relevant to what's before us. MS. STEIN-It's relevant. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MS. STEIN-Okay. The dock, I have been acquainted with almost all the tenants that have lived there since 1993. The dock was approximately between 20 and 25 feet and the applicants did not have any boats on the dock until Sean Sellingham took over the property from Jan Ledford around 2003 or '04. Prior to Sean, all the boats on the dock, which were two or less, were boats owned by the tenants living on the property, not the applicants. This is one of the reasons why legal action was taken. If the Town approves this application, the Town would be setting a negative practice. I would hope that the Town would not want to burden the neighborhood and a small lake which is already overdeveloped with this type of development, I would not want to set this kind of practice since there will be other properties on the lake with the same request coming before the Board. Town law supersedes this court order. The Town has a right to do the right thing and not overburden the immediate neighbor since the boats will be in front of Taylor Hill's property, which is Gary Hicks, pushing the tenant's boat to my area, making it a navigational and safety hazard issue. As my husband mentioned at the Zoning Board meeting, we have had problems with boats from Gary's property almost running over my nieces and nephews when they were swimming in our area. Allowing this would just increase the difficulty. His tenants already have docking their boats. This order represents a settlement between the parties. It is not a ruling based on the legality of the applicant's claims to the property through deed or otherwise. I'd ask the Town Board to seriously consider the negative impacts that it will have on the neighborhood and the lake and to do the right thing by denying the application or at least, the very least, condition the request to reduce the number of boats to, you could request that they only have boats on one side of the dock instead of both sides of the dock. There are things you can do. This court order does not take precedent over Town law, and if your lawyer was here he'd be able to tell you that, if you weren't familiar enough with your own regulations and laws. MR. DEEB-Our lawyer is here. MS. STEIN-Whoever, I don't know who the lawyer is, well I'm sure he can confirm that. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address this application this evening? Yes, sir. WILLIAM MERRITT MR. MERRITT-Hi, my name's William Merritt. I reside at 103 Birdsall Road. There's a very similar, though not identical, situation evolving on Birdsall Road, and I have a question of clarification. If the dock, if the variance for the dock allows a dock to be built three feet away from the adjoining neighbor, how do we resolve the contentious situation that may result if the adjoining neighbor decides, for example, to pull a boat onto his shoreline along the boundary line, thus blocking the water use of the dock? There's no way that two things can occupy the same space at the same time, and it seems to me that you've just created another contentious situation if the assumption is that dock side can be used by the people who have rights to that dock. That situation, if allowed, would exist there, but also does exist in other sections/parts of the lake, and people are exasperated, confused, thinking should I ask for a reduction in my taxes because I've lost the use of that lakefront? Has property been stolen from me? Maybe a similar situation would be allowing someone to build a driveway close to a property line stacking cars behind it, one behind the other, and then being too lazy to move the outermost car 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) and choosing to back around onto your neighbor's property. I guess probably they're not the same situation. MR. TRAVER-Sir, you're discussing hypotheticals, and believe it or not, there are boards and processes within the Town to attempt to address such issues. For example, there are setbacks required on property lines and that type of thing. There are remedies available to folks who feel their property is being encroached upon, but we can't really comment on a hypothetical. We have this application before us. I appreciate your concern. MR. MERRITT-I've been trying to avoid conflict, trying to avoid the use of your precious time, but thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-I would suggest, yes, and I would just, in general I would respond by saying that if there's someone in the Town who feels that there exists, or potential for existing, of such an issue, their first step that I would recommend would be to call the Town office. MR. MERRITT-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address this application? Yes, sir. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby. I live at 86 Ash Drive. That's within 100 feet of this proposed dock, and just for disclosure I'm also President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. That's not why I'm here tonight. I just wanted to clarify one thing. MR. TRAVER-We did hear from your Association earlier. MR. DERBY-Yes, I know. Just to clarify one thing. There are no other Class A marinas on Glen Lake. MR. TRAVER-I didn't think there were. MR. DERBY-No, and the reason we're sending this statement now is because we see them coming and we want to make a planned statement about that, but I'm here to talk about. MR. TRAVER-They do require approval. MR. DERBY-1 understand that, but I'm here to talk about this because this proposed situation does negatively affect our neighborhood and it negatively affects me, and what they're proposing here as a restoration is really quite a significant change in what's been going on in that neighborhood. That 40 foot dock that they're proposing there and the dock that's sitting outside that property now has never been in the water. There has not been a 40 foot dock there since I've been there in 1993, and these applicants have never used that. So this is a new dock with a new situation that's putting greater burden onto the neighbors who are there, and that dock, when the boats were on it when it was only 20 feet, it was 20 feet in the past, the boats were over the property line and onto Mr. Hicks' property, and what happened then is that the boats were forced over to my side which caused unsafe conditions here. Not only are we adding twice the length, but also you're adding twice the boats on this that were not there. So this is the condition that is not a restoration. This is an addition to it, and I just had a couple of questions, just to go along with that, and the first one is that does this Class A marina make this a commercial property? MR. TRAVER-You're asking us now? I can tell you that what's before us basically creates that marina essentially in name only. There are stipulations that we're going to be talking about that deal with setting aside the conditions that pre-suppose a Class A marina. I think that in this situation there's a limited menu, if you will, to classify this particular situation, and I think that what's happened here, and I'm just speaking for myself and not the entire Board, but I think what's happened here is that the various parties involved have attempted to come up with a solution that creates an acknowledgment of a situation and yet removes the non-relevant aspects of that, such as the gasoline and the restrooms and all of that type of thing. MR. DERBY-1 understand. MR. TRAVER-So that, although, and therefore I do not believe, and this would be subject to some evaluation at a later point, but I do not believe that it creates a precedent for the existence of a Class A marina, other than at the most extreme, a marina with the limitations that this one 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) would have, which is essentially none of the characteristics that would be sought or be valuable to someone who wanted a Class A marina. MR. DERBY-1 understand, and I have read those. MR. HUNSINGER-We have dealt with numerous Class A marinas on Lake George where it's a house with a dock and by definition a Class A marina is where you have the storage, berthing or mooring of two or more motorized vehicles that are not registered to the owner of the property. So if you own a house on the lake and you rent out or even, you don't even have to charge for the rent, but if there's a boat there that's not yours, two or more boats that are not yours, then by definition it's a Class A marina. MR. DERBY-1 understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-We're not saying, it doesn't make it a commercial use, but by definition it is a Class A marina. MR. DERBY-Which is a commercial use, according to 646, according to the Lake George Park Commission. That changes the character of my neighborhood. You're now making a commercial use where there wasn't. This is a residential neighborhood. It's residential and I've had a conversation with the Town Assessor who told me this would most likely decrease our property values in that area. This is changing the character of the neighborhood for that reason. So it's a concern to me, as a property owner nearby, that this Class A marina is going to happen for that reason. Just another question. This, again, relates to the rules, I think. The applicants here are, Hilliard, etal., are applying for this Special Use. Is that correct? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DERBY-Okay, then according to 646-1.2A, which the Town uses, according to that, for permits of this title may be issued only to the owner of the facility. So if they can only be issued to the owner, then the owner needs to come and ask for that Class A marina. At least the way the ruling reads here. MR. TRAVER-My response to that, and I am clearly not an attorney, is that that issue has been adjudicated and the matter is before the court and resulted in the court order that has like a half an inch of stipulations in it. MS. WHITE-Is that something Mr. Borgos could address when we comes back to the table? MR. DERBY-He can, but it was my understanding that the court order does not supersede Town Code. You still need to follow Code. So maybe these are legal questions that we can't answer tonight. I don't know, but they should be answered, and my final question really is one about how they're justifying restoration. Are they justifying it under pre-existing condition? In other words, under, are they justifying it under pre-existing conditions? MR. TRAVER-My understanding is that that's part of the litigation that has now been concluded with this court order. MR. DERBY-Okay. The pre-existing conditions are different. This 40 foot dock was never there. I have visual proof if you want to see it. There was a 10 foot dock there last year. There was approximately 20 foot dock there in the past, and this is not the same thing. Not only that, but these applicants, according to that rule, since 1981, have not used this dock. In fact, I will testify that the applicants never used that dock in that location or anywhere on the Doster property before 2003. So it doesn't meet the condition of pre-existence, that's something that happened in 1981 or before. So I think there's some serious issues with how the applicant is representing this and how they're justifying to the Town, I understand there's a court order and they have these rules in there, but it doesn't mean that they don't still have to meet the rules of the Town in order to justify a Special Use Permit for a Class A marina as it exists here. So I guess I'm asking you to table it or at least get some legal counsel or something to answer these questions because I think they do violate the Code. Thank you for listening. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience tonight that would like to address that Board on this application? Seeing none, Laura, do we have written comments? We do. MRS. MOORE-1 have written comments. This was addressed to Roy Urrico, but it also identified the Site Plan 17-2017, "Regarding the above applications, please be advised that our 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) deed to 48 Birch Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 also provides easement access to 94 Ash Drive to a beach and seasonal access to a removable dock. The statement that easement access is deeded to the four applicants should also note our access — so it's at least five properties. Any proposed solution to the court order must not impinge upon our deeded access and deeded rights to use of seasonal dock. Sincerely, David & Marianne McGowan". This one's addressed to Mr. Ferone. "We recently received notification of an upcoming public hearing on 3/28/17 in regards to proposal for a 40-foot dock and change of ordinance to a Class A marina. I'm writing this letter to inform the Queensbury Planning Board, as a resident in the neighborhood I do not object to the proposals. There has always been a dock located at the proposed location and the change of classification is not an issue for this property owner. Best Regards, Ken Dieffenbach 84 Ash Drive Lake George, NY 12845" Addressed to Mr. Traver, "As long time property owners and full-time residents of Glen Lake we have serious concerns over the plans for a Class A marina which includes a 40' dock. The excessive nature of the request seems extraordinary to most of us living on the lake. The aesthetic problem created by such a structure would impact the quality of life of adjacent residents and those living nearby or across the lake. Other issues will ensure for resident skiers, kayakers, and swimmers when they are forced to adjust to a marina in their neighborhood. Additionally, the property values of nearby residents could suffer from such a marina. Please do not allow this Marina to be constructed. Sincerely, Wallace and Kathleen Hirsch" That's 145 Birdsall Road. This is a reference to, "As property owners of 82 Ash Drive we are writing to let it be known that we don't have any objection with Hilliards application for installing a 40' x 4' dock at 94 Ash Drive. If you have any questions you may contact us. Thank you!! Barbara and Charles Frenyea" And again, it's at 82 Ash Drive. And then I have three signatures that says, "To Whom It May Concern, We support the variance needed for the dock to be placed on 94 Ash Drive — Applicants are Mary and Russell Hilliard, Suzanne, Laura Tyrer, Kim Lyons and Dave and Kathy Cerny." And this is, I apologize, P.A. Russo at 6 Never Rest Lane, another individual from 74 Ash Drive, and I can't pronounce the name, and then the third one is Scott Gunther from 27 Ash Drive. And that completes all the public comments that I have. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. Then we will close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a Type 11 SEAR. MR. DEEB-Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I assume our lawyer has recused himself on this. MRS. MOORE-Has left. MR. DEEB-He's in back. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. DEEB-I understand that. I think what I'd like to see is I'd to get a legal opinion. If it can't be our Town attorney then we have somebody come in and give us a legal opinion on this. We're being thrust in the middle of a court order here, and this isn't the first time this has happened to this Board, and there's a lot of emotional arguments. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would respond to that by saying we're not in the middle of a court order. We're confronted with a court order that's already been adjudicated, and I understand you want a legal opinion, but a legal opinion as to what relevant to our duties in this case? MR. DEEB-Some of the questions that were asked. MR. SHAFER-1 would ask the question, what's the Board's role given the circumstances with the court order? Because Craig decided that it would be a Class A marina? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-But maybe we, as a Board, don't agree with that decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, similar, I wrote down two questions. Number One, are we bound, is this Board, the Planning Board, bound by the court order. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think we are either. But secondly, I think maybe more important, but absent the court order, would we consider this project? MR. TRAVER-Well, that's another. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, they do show how they've met the requirements of a Class A marina, but as we heard from some of the neighbors, there are issues to be addressed, that are beyond. MR. TRAVER-Well, they say they met the requirements, but really what is being asked for in the Special Use Permit is exemptions, essentially. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, they're saying it doesn't apply. MR. TRAVER-Right. So I don't know how, I mean, use your example from before, say, hypothetically on Lake George. If I have a house and I have a dock, and I have some people that rent my dock space, I apply for a Class A marina before this Board, but I say I'm not going to comply, I'm not going to provide all these things, I probably wouldn't get my marina. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So, absent the court order, and absent this proposal, I don't think they have met the requirements for a Class A marina, which is what I thought you were referring to, that they had. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm saying that's the question that we really have to ask ourselves. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Although that's not before us tonight. Right? MR. BORGOS-Mr. Chairman, may I make some comments to respond to the issues that were raised by members of the public? MR. TRAVER-Yes, please. MR. BORGOS-We heard all these last week at the Zoning Board, and I think, if I could group those into some general categories, I think there was certainly a degree of comments that were designed to re-litigate what has already been resolved amongst the parties, but the outcome is established amongst the parties, much like when any applicant comes before you. In order for you to make an adjudication of the application, you need proof that they have ownership rights. So you ask for a deed. That's one of the items that Laura is looking for in the pre-application meeting. Prove to me that you actually have authority over this property. In this case, that is replaced. My clients have a court ordered settlement statement or stipulation that shows that they have these property rights that are part of their deeds that say they have a dock, utilization of a dock space on Glen Lake. MR. TRAVER-And I think beyond that, if I understand the litigation correctly, they're saying these are pre-existing rights. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Not created by this court order, they're just being acknowledged by this court order. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-There's a difference. MR. BORGOS-Correct. They're pre-existing in the deeds. There's no question about that, and what the settlement statement I think does, from an observer's standpoint, is it reconciles the rights between those property owners that are off the water and the Dosters. So the Dosters have agreed to all of these requirements as part of what they signed. So all the details and the minutia were heavily negotiated as I've been informed. As we've heard from the Dosters, I was not party to this. Michael Crowe was the most recent attorney on it I believe, as it came to resolution last August I think it was signed. So at that time, it's clear from the writing that everyone involved, including the court, anticipated that this would go to the Town and be reviewed for all of the normal site plan issues and controls. The Zoning Board has determined 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) the location is appropriate. The property we've heard is of sufficient lake frontage to support this dock and the other dock on it. So it qualifies from an area requirement standard. So what is left? The court order says we're not going to have any vehicles coming on to the property. We don't have any of those concerns that the normal things go by. So to your point, you know, if this came in straight up as if it was a Lake George Class A marina, it would be a little bit different, but this is so unique. MR. TRAVER-It would be substantially different. MR. BORGOS-This is a very, very unique situation. So I don't see how this can set a precedent for Class A marinas on Glen Lake, and I think it is really good intentions gone wrong. This requirement, this statute for calling it a Class A marina and having it approved just because there are disparate ownership interests, may be misguided. I don't know. It's a difficult, thorny issue, one that you've not been presented with before. That's clear. I would argue that it actually is an ownership right as that deed right devolves from and relates to the waterfront, that dock right is appurtenant to it. I think that is an ownership right and I think there should have been an understanding, an interpretation that, yes, you don't need this and we shouldn't even be here. I think that's what it would come down to. MR. TRAVER-1 understand what you're saying, and this and the court order and all of the information up to this point has been essentially confined to the issues that you're describing with the owners and their pre-existing access and all of that kind of thing. Now we come in to the Town of Queensbury and that's fine, and you have reached your settlement, but we're also confronted with the fact that you're having, with your parties having to reach this agreement, it still has an impact on the rest of the community, and that's where it starts to get more complicated. Up to this point you've basically been addressing, you know, the land rights and pre-existing rights and having that adjudicated and acknowledged by court order and coming up with an agreement between those parties directly impacted, but now we have a wider group of parties potentially, and some of which are arguing, that are affected by this agreement, and that's what we have to be looking at, among other things. MR. BORGOS-Yes, but I think that's where, like the parking, the impact is not going to be present because what the Town is looking at is what's above the mean high water mark by the Supreme Court ruling by the same judge about three years ago. That makes it clear that you're looking at the land, and if there's no traffic impact, it's all going to be pedestrian access, I think it goes back to what I said at the outset. We're looking at that four foot pathway, the fence, the aesthetics of it, is there any stormwater impact, those type of things. There's no petroleum products sold there. There's no use beyond the individuals and property owners named herein. So there's renting of slips. That's common with the Lake George Class A marina, and it doesn't set a precedent where there's going to be upland development that's going to negatively impact the lake. MR. TRAVER-1 think the most you could say, and we're not an adjudicative body so we can't technically set a precedent, but I think the most you could say is that maybe somebody could come in with an application for a Class A marina under the limitations set by this, in which case it would get nowhere. So I sort of agree in terms of what you're saying about precedent. So, but I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. BORGOS-1 am concerned because this has already been an ordeal since 2012 when the dock was removed by the Dosters and my clients haven't had the opportunity to enjoy their dock access. We're coming up on another boating season and we were hopeful of having this resolved. We've gone forth, put forth all the information that we possibly can within the strictures of these defined property rights between the parties, and because I don't think there are any other aspects of the Class A marina permit that need to be addressed because those issues were not there. It's just the pedestrian traffic. It's the boats that are there. It's already been approved in that location by the variance obtained last week and by agreement amongst the parties. We do have historical prior usage, and I've been restraining my clients from coming forward because we don't want to re-litigate everything here in front of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. That would be wise. MR. BORGOS-It's just not necessary to get into all of that. I think it is a relatively simple review process given the constraints that we're faced with. MR. TRAVER-That's what we thought a couple of hours ago. MR. HUNSINGER-So, let me just ask a question, though. Does the court order stipulate the length of the dock? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) MR. BORGOS-Yes, it specifies it. MR. HUNSINGER-Forty feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and four boats. MR. BORGOS-Two per side. It's got to be that length because of the depth of the water and the boat sizes. That's a minimal length. It could obviously be larger and be better for the property owners. They're going to be limited in the size of their boats by that space, but that's what they've all agreed on. MR. SHAFER-I'm still not clear. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, did I close the public hearing yet? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 did. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. SHAFER-Well, I guess I'm still not clear what we as a Board are expected to do. If we did nothing, you would still have the stipulation and agreement, presumably the upland owners have deeded rights to the lake. You've got a stipulation on how that would be executed. Why do we have to do anything as a Board? We can't adjudicate between the differences of the neighbors. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-That's not before us. MR. TRAVER-Well, not directly. Not directly. I mean, in the context of the application it is. Well, there was a question about getting a legal evaluation, if you will, of that, of our role. I don't know, how do members of the Board feel? Do we feel that we have enough information between the court order, the application before us, the public comment, to proceed on this application or is there additional information that we need? MR. DEEB-I don't feel ready. I still would like to have an opinion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. An opinion as to what? MR. DEEB-Well, just have a lawyer give us an opinion, whether it's ours or whether it's somebody else. MR. FERONE-1 was going to say, I mean, I don't want to second guess, but a lot of conversation tonight had to do with the fact that this is being looked at as a Class A marina. MR. TRAVER-As set forth in the application. MR. FERONE-Right. And is there a way to have this dock there without it being classified as a Class A marina? MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I wanted to say, is that it's either you have four individual docks, which is going to take up say 40 feet wide, or you have one docks for the rights of all those people and that's why I don't think it should be, it's not a marina. This is an individual space for each one of the landowners that have a deed. MR. TRAVER-1 think that's what the Town was approached with and the Zoning Administrator made a decision, I guess, that this was, that it had to be classified as a Class A marina, and it could be placed in the context that we have before us with. It's a Class A marina, but you strip out those aspects. MR. MAGOWAN-1 understand that, but, you know, not that I'm going to say he was wrong, but I would like to look into that further, because technically if we do classify it, in my opinion, as a Class A marina, but, you know, that's like the fine print. Somebody's going to miss it and say wait, well that property's been devalued and this and that. MR. HUNSINGER-If the Zoning Administrator classified it as a Class A marina, the way to challenge that is to go to the Zoning Board with an appeal. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/26/2017) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like I said, I'm just really confused because we're asking for one thing and it's really not that. MR. TRAVER-Well, we do have resources as a Board. I mean, one of the things that I suppose that we could do is we could ask for our Zoning Administrator to come to a meeting and discuss this application with, I'm not sure how we would handle the legal advice. We have to come up with a solution to that. MRS. MOORE-With another counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-There must be back up counsel, isn't there? MR. TRAVER-So that is an option. If we feel that the Board wants clarification with what we have in front of us, in terms of better defining what that context is, it is rather unusual to say the least. I must admit I think I commented last week, it's a rather odd situation. One that we have not dealt with before. On the other hand, I have to say I'm not sure what would be gained by tabling it and doing that. Maybe if it would give some comfort to members of the Board, I suppose that is worth doing. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, it's being classified as a Class A because of our Codes? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It's an ownership issue. MR. MAGOWAN-Our Town Codes or a statewide code? MRS. MOORE-No, our Town Code. MR. MAGOWAN-So maybe, I mean, this is, I mean, out of any other circumstance I could see that, but this is, in my opinion, not why, it shouldn't be classified as that because I'm looking at it as individual docks. It's an individual space. So that's one boat per home, because once you get into that commercial, you're right, because you have to have bathrooms, you have to have this. MR. BORGOS-Mr. Chairman, normally the Board goes through and evaluates the criteria as a Board and you haven't gotten to that because you've been hung up on this Class A marina issue. I would find it beneficial, as the applicant's representative, if you did some of that, looking at the criteria, and maybe get some feedback if there were issues that we could address. MR. TRAVE R-Understood. I would just say, as Chair, I would say two things. One is what I'm hearing from my fellow Board members is they're not certain that that is exactly what we should be confronted with this evening, whether it be a Class A marina or not, and there's the sense that we need some more information to be comfortable with agreeing to proceed on that basis. Number Two, I think if we were to accept that we are looking at the Class A marina that we have in front of us, I think to say that it's unprecedented is an understatement. I think there would be some, I think some of us would have some discomfort in approving a marina that almost by the definition we have in front of us doesn't meet the criteria. So I think that's why we're looking at what can we do to try to make, not only for ourselves personally, but for the record, clarify exactly what we are looking at and why, and there's, to say that there's some confusion and some disagreement about whether it should be classified as a Class A marina or not, we know our Zoning Administrator has taken a careful look at it and said that's what he feels should be done, and I have a great respect for his opinion. So he may very well say the same thing when he comes in, but there is some discomfort with that. MR. BORGOS-Well, procedurally, with the public hearing closed, would it be feasible to, because it is going to be out of the ordinary to have special counsel come in, would you also have a special meeting just for this so it's not disruptive to the timeline? MR. TRAVER-That would be controlled, I think, by the Planning Office and by the regulations requiring notice. I'm not sure, would we have to notice a meeting like that? MRS. MOORE-You would, you, the Board, could potentially schedule a Special Meeting. I'd have to evaluate the timeframe and get it noticed, but that is an option. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But the Board would have to set that time. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MR. BORGOS-If you said the date now, we wouldn't have to do the written notice. You could take care of it because everybody was on notice for here. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BORGOS-And they would be covered, but if you don't have a date, then, yes, you would need to go through that process. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's something we would want our professional staff to look at and recommend, but that, it sounds to me like there is enough concern and a comfort level, a need for a comfort level on this, that that might be warranted, but I would like to poll the Board and see how people are feeling about that. Do we want to look at this in the context of having the Zoning Administrator and legal counsel here, along with the applicant, on a Special Meeting and try to get more clarification on exactly what is before us, whether there are options to what's before us, exactly what the ramifications would be? MRS. MOORE-Can I also ask you a question? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-If the Zoning Administrator's not available, would you like something written? If the Zoning Administrator is not able to attend, would you also accept a written comment of why, like a summary of this? MR. TRAVER-Well, with all due respect to the Zoning Administrator, I would see that what we have before us is his written comment. So what I would like to propose is, if we have a Special Meeting, I would like to make that conditioned upon his availability. If we have to do that, I mean, if we're not doing it on the second and last Tuesday of the month, and it's not on Bonnie and Clyde's anniversary date, then let's let him coordinate with you, find out when he's available, and we'll do the same thing with the rest of the Board and counsel. Because, no, I think we would want, I'm expecting that he will repeat what, you know, and certainly make a case, because I'm sure this wasn't a quick decision that he came to, but I think, I suspect that there would need to be some discussion and so a simple statement. (LAST 12 MINUTES OF THE MEETING WERE LOST DUE TO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS — WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SUMMARY) The Planning Board Chairman Re-Opened the public hearing at 11:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED A motion was made to table the application. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 17-2017 & SUP # 3-2017 HILLIARD, TYRER, LYON, & CERNY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install a 40' x 4' dock and a pathway from Ash Drive to dock location. Project is considered a Class A marina, as dock is for more than one owner— a total of four. Project is part of a court order for property owner to install. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A marinas shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 17-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2017 HILLIARD, TYRER, LYON & CERNY, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption Tabling the application until the meeting of April 25tH Seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/28/2017) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 28, 2017, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 66