Loading...
07-23-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 42-2019 Mike Shearer 1. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-6 Site Plan No. 43-2019 Mike Regan 2. Tax Map No. 279.19-1-8 Site Plan No. 44-2019 The Glen At Hiland Meadows, Inc. 4. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 4-2019 Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3 Site Plan No. 38-2019 Chris Jenkins Logging (Sander) 12. Tax Map No. 278.-2-30, -29, -28, -27 Site Plan No. 39-2019 Chris Jenkins Logging (Kraft) 27. Tax Map No. 240.9-1-16.11, 240.9-1-1, 240.5-1-16.1, 240.5-1-16.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board rd meeting for Tuesday, July 23, 2019. This is our second meeting for the month of July and meeting number 15 for 2019. If you have an electronic device, cell phone or whatever, please silence it or turn it off so it doesn’t interrupt our discussion this evening. Please note the emergency exit signs. In the event of a problem or an emergency those are the exits and also obviously the door from which you came in. On the table in the back of the room there are agendas for tonight’s meeting, if you don’t have one and would like one. We have no administrative items to begin this evening. So we’ll begin with Old Business. The first item is Mike Shearer, Site Plan 42-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MIKE SHEARER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING 528 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO ADD A SECOND STORY 528 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR STORAGE/WORKSHOP AND THE GARAGE IS ALSO TO HAVE EXTERIOR STAIRS ADDED TO ACCESS THE SECOND FLOOR. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOME OF 864 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A 264 SQ. FT. PORCH. THE GARAGE ADDITION INCREASES THE FLOOR AREA FROM 1,642 SQ. FT. TO 2,042 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR HEIGHT AND SETBACKS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 33-2011, SP 36-2011 BOATHOUSE; AV 30-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .27 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-6. SECTION: 179-13-010. MR. TRAVER-Laura. MRS. MOORE-This applicant was tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals. They were looking at some height issues. So they asked to be tabled. So it would be tabled to the second Planning Board meeting in September. th MR. TRAVER-Which would be the 17. Okay. In that event should we open the public hearing and leave it open? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-You should open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions on that issue from members of the Board? We’re going to be tabling this until the ZBA gets another look at what sounds like it might be an amended application. So we will open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that came to address the Planning Board on the Mike Shearer Planning Board application? I’m not seeing anyone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well since we’re tabling the public hearing will remain open, and for those of you who are not here who I am not apparently speaking to it will come up in September and there will be a continuation of the public hearing then. And we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 42-2019 MIKE SHEARER 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 remove the roof of an existing 528 sq. ft. garage to add a second story 528 sq. ft. addition for storage/workshop and the garage is also to have exterior stairs added to access the second floor. The site has an existing home of 864 sq. ft. (footprint) with a 264 sq. ft. porch. The garage addition increases the floor area from 1,642 sq. ft. to 2,042 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 42-2019 MIKE SHEARER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled until the September 17, 2019 Planning Board meeting pending ZBA review in September. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we move to the section of the agenda under New Business, and the first item is Mike Regan, Site Plan 43-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MIKE REGAN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 55 JENKINSVILLE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,036 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE. LOCATION IS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1-2017 RES. ADDITION, AV 73-2001 PORCH; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-8. SECTION: 179-6-050 MIKE REGAN, PRESENT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a new 10,080 square foot garage. The location is within 50 feet of 15% slopes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there a representative for the applicant here this evening? Yes, sir. Just have a seat and state your name for the record. Welcome. MIKE REGAN MR. REGAN-Good evening. Mike Regan. I just want to put up a garage for storage. I’ve got a very small lot and I just want storage. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you’re here largely because of the slopes, the steep slopes. Okay. Very good. I see this is SEQR Type II. So no additional environmental review is required. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. JACKOSKI-No, but just to clarify, when Laura was reading the application into the record, it’s 1,000 square feet, not 10,000. MRS. MOORE-Sorry. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification. That would be quite a garage, wouldn’t it? MR. REGAN-That would take up the whole property. MR. VALENTINE-I just had one question. I noticed that Craig’s letter for this was dated in October, giving options on that, as far as re-locating the garage on the site, move away from the slopes. October to now is a long time as far as re-submittal, and I’m just wondering if there was any look at that at all. MR. REGAN-I had no alternatives as to where to put this. He said it had to be 55 feet. I said if we do that it would be in the middle of the road. The lot is very small. I know that, but it’s been sitting here for 18 months. It hasn’t moved. It hasn’t settled. It hasn’t cracked. I check it all the time. It’s fine. So it’s up to you. MR. VALENTINE-No, it was just a question as far as my looking at it from October to July. MR. REGAN-We discussed many options. It is what it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application for a garage? I’m not seeing any hands. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In that case we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any additional questions or comments from members of the Board? I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 43-2019 MIKE REGAN 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) 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 construction of a new 1,080 sq. ft. (footprint) garage. Location is within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction 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; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 07/23/2019, 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 07/23/2019; 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 43-2019 MIKE REGAN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. REGAN-Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate all your time and effort. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda also under New Business is an application from The Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc. Site Plan 44-2019 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 4-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC. AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): EDDY PROPERTY SERVICES/GLENS FALLS HOME. ZONING: PUD. LOCATION: 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE PROJECTS FOR THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS. PROPOSED IS A 20,897 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) TWO STORY 41,794 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) ADDITION TO THE MAIN BUILDING WITH 28 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. ALSO PROPOSED IS A 5,016 SQ. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE STORY WELLNESS CENTER ADDITION TO THE MAIN BUILDING. SEPARATELY, A 25,268 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE STORY NEW BUILDING FOR A MEMORY CARE FACILITY FOR 30 RESIDENTS. PROPERTY ALSO INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR THE PROJECT. PROJECT OCCURS IN AN EXISTING PUD AND THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS HEALTH FACILITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 54-99, SP 30-2006, SP 50-2007, SP 54-99 PUD. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 45 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1- 3. SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94. RICHARD JONES & BRENT STEENBURGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So there’s three projects for The Glen at Hiland Meadows. Proposed is a 20,897 square foot footprint, two story, 41,794 square foot floor area addition to the main building with 28 independent living units. Also proposed is a 5,016 square foot footprint single story wellness center addition to the main building. Separately is a 25,268 square foot footprint single story new building for a memory care facility for 30 residents. The project includes associated site work for the project and the project is within 100 feet of a wetland. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, just real quickly. In the interest of full disclosure I want to make it known that I was a past Board member and Treasurer of The Glen at Hiland Meadows but I don’t see any conflict of interest at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for disclosing that. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. Richard Jones, the architect representing The Glen at Hiland Meadows on my right is Steve Kervin from Architecture Plus. They’re the architects representing The Glen for the memory care unit and this is Brent Steenburgh. He’s our civil engineer for both projects. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Welcome. MR. JONES-Basically what we’re proposing is an addition to the main building which would encompass additional independent living units, 28 independent living units, and it would be a two story addition similar to the architecture of the existing building. In addition to that we’re proposing an addition for a wellness center which would be exercise space for the residents as well as roughly a 20 by 40 lap pool for their recreation and with that would be the associated site work. We would be extending the roadway around the back side of the property and coming into a loop which would now include parking. The original loop in that area was a gravel turnaround which was basically for fire company access on the back side. We are paving that, and in addition to that we also have a freestanding memory care unit which is down on the bottom side, which is a brand new facility that would encompass 30 resident rooms in there. Again, we would have an independent parking lot off of the main driveway. We would be connecting to existing municipal sewer, municipal water. Both facilities, the additions and the new structure, would be fully sprinklered and I know at this point we’ve had comments from the Fire Marshal and we actually met with him last Friday and went through the comments and basically what he has asked us to do would be to extend the locations on three hydrants on the loop. Currently they’re all on the wrong side of Longview Drive, and we’re going to basically cut across the road and place a new hydrant on the side toward the existing main building. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JONES-With that we’d be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. MR. TRAVER-Before we get into that, I just wanted to also note that there are quite a large number of engineering comments. I’m sure you’re probably aware of that. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Some of them require, in order for them to complete their analysis, a submission of additional information. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And historically we’ve run into projects like this. It’s not all that unusual actually when you have a fairly complex project to have a great deal of engineering involved in detail that has to be fleshed out. Obviously this has to be signed off on by the Town Engineer prior to a formal approval, and one of the things that I would like to suggest is that following your presentation this evening and pending the submission of the review and the additional changes based on the Fire Marshal comments, I think it would expedite matters if you were to deal with the engineering, the Town Engineer, and respond and meet with the engineer, do what you need to do to resolve those issues so that we get a clean engineering comment before you come back to us again and that way it would be much easier for us to proceed, because there’s a great deal of information, again, some of which, it puts us in an awkward position because we rely on the engineer to do the analysis of many of these issues, and when they’re unable to complete that, many of us feel as though we’re not able to complete what we need to do as well. So I’m suggesting that that be our plan going forward for this evening, for this project. I think that you’ll find that in the long run it will actually expedite things. So I guess, with that, I’ll open it up to members of the Planning Board for initial questions. MR. DEEB-Did you address all of the Fire Marshal’s comments? We see the fire department turnaround. I see one, two, three, four, five. MR. JONES-In going through the comments with him he was concerned and wanted to make sure that the new driving surfaces would be pavement rather than grass. MR. DEEB-You already said that. That’s one. MR. TRAVER-And we’ll get an updated comment from the Fire Marshal once they resolve this. MR. JONES-We’re going to address these comments in writing and we’ll get that to him. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we’ll receive another summary from the Fire Marshal when we look at this again, and likewise with the engineer, we’ll get an engineering comment. MR. VALENTINE-Do you mind another comment? MR. TRAVER-By all means. MR. VALENTINE-You had said that there was going to be re-location of hydrants. MR. JONES-Yes. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. VALENTINE-How many hydrants get re-located? MR. JONES-There’s three total. MR. VALENTINE-Will they be open cut or push? MR. JONES-We’re not sure at this point. There’s an existing sewer main that runs through there. So we’re not sure whether we’re going to try to bore or we’re going to have to actually cut the road. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. JONES-And there’s basically, the one near the existing main entry now, the front drive loop, the one there near where the drive turns into that loop, there’s one on the wrong side of the road and that’s where we think we have the biggest conflict with the existing sewer line in that area. The other two locations, one is on the backside. There’s no sewer main back there, and the other is just beyond the end of the sewer main. So we’re okay with that one as well. MR. VALENTINE-Any wetlands in the new locations? MR. JONES-There’s existing wetlands and at this point we are greater than 50 feet to all wetland areas. MR. TRAVER-And in your strategic plan, do you have a goal or a time line for commencing construction of these facilities? MR. JONES-We’re looking to try to start construction late spring next year. We would be looking to get a Site Plan approval this year. That would then enable us to do their Department of State and upon acceptance of that would then start selling units. So we would be starting construction, final construction documents, right after the holidays and we’d be putting this out to bid early spring and a late spring start for construction. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Thank you for that. MR. VALENTINE-This doesn’t appear like it’s going to be a great trip generator, but is there any need to update SEQR as far as that, with traffic? MR. JONES-No. Basically most of the residents in the independent living units don’t have vehicles. So there’s not a lot of trips there. They don’t anticipate any new employees for either the independent living wing addition or the wellness center, and I believe, Steve, that for the memory care they were talking eight new employees roughly, and the remaining would be visitors to the site. MR. TRAVER-No additional employees for the wellness center? MR. JONES-No, we would not have any. They have trained personnel for that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JONES-And basically, it’s basically space for exercise equipment and like a dance therapy area on the other side. MR. TRAVER-So you have existing staff and some existing equipment and you’re just looking to expand upon that. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. JONES-Right, and adding the pool, yes. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. MR. VALENTINE-And under the PUD open space, green space, is there a certain amount that was set aside in the original, and is that being impacted by this? MR. JONES-We still, I think our green space was required to be 50% and we’re still 75%. So we’re 50% above what’s required still. MR. VALENTINE-So after construction it will remain 75%? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Is that usable or is it constrained? MR. JONES-Some is. Quite a bit of it is wetlands. The area that would be on the front side toward the main entrance of the building which would face Meadowbrook, there’s an open area once you get beyond the wetlands just about where it says proposed health and fitness center, right there in the middle. From there forward toward Meadowbrook there’s quite a bit of open property in there, but most everything else is wetlands or slopes. MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that are here to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Since we anticipate tabling this we will leave the public hearing open. So I think with that, and based on your timeline, it would seem as though it is a good plan to have you address the Fire Marshal and engineering comments and submit that to Laura and her team, and then we’ll look at this again. It sounds as though, should all go well, you should be able to operate within your goals for your time line. MRS. MOORE-I have some questions in regards to the time line. Is that for all three additions? MR. JONES-Yes. They all start roughly at the same time. The memory care I think runs two or three months behind because of those State approvals that are required for them. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-As we look to a tabling motion, I would ask members of the Board and Staff as well if beyond the updated information or comments from the Fire Marshal and the engineering comments, is there any additional information that members of the Board would request for the next submission? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was a good plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, fairly straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Good landscaping plan, good design. Plenty of parking. I mean from the Site Plan perspective I think it’s a good project. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JONES-Most of the engineering comments were basically in regards to the SWPPP. I mean there’s no planning part to the comments at all. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so we wouldn’t anticipate any changes in the fundamental plan based on engineering. Okay. Good. All right. Well in that case I guess we’re ready for a motion. th MRS. MOORE-So information for the first September meeting would be due by August 15. Is that doable? MR. TRAVER-Let’s let the applicant respond to that because you’re talking about an August th 15 submission. th MR. STEENBURGH-I can have the re-submission to the engineer by August 15. The question being is if they would have time to adequately review and respond to it, but we can certainly meet those deadlines. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So you potentially would have some information from the engineer at your meeting. Whether that’s a final signoff or not I’m not sure, but between now and then of th August 15 the applicant may have further discussions with the Town Engineer to determine if that’s where they, I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-I mean if it’s predominantly SWPPP related I would think that they should be able to work with them. MR. STEENBURGH-I was going to say, can we contact the engineer directly and see if we can work with him. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s what I would suggest, yes. th MR. JONES-Now for the 15, do we submit to the Town or can we submit directly? MRS. MOORE-You’re submitting to the Town first and you would submit the 15 copies, but if you’re doing just engineering you can submit the two copies for engineering prior to the th 15 if you have that, if you have that information worked out. MR. TRAVER-I would advise that you keep good communications with Laura going as to the status of your consult with both the Fire Marshal and the engineer so she’s up to speed on where we stand because she will be communicating that to us and building that agenda. So I’d appreciate that. Okay. So then we would be looking at the first meeting, do you think, Laura, or the second meeting? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting is fine. MR. TRAVER-The first meeting is fine. th MR. DEEB-September 10? MR. TRAVER-I’ll confirm that in a second here. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have to be definitive if the engineers need more time? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry? MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have to be definitive with that first meeting if the engineers need another week? MR. TRAVER-If they need another week we can just table it again, but we need to table to th a certain date. That would actually be the 17. That’s actually the first meeting in September. th MR. VALENTINE-August 17 would be submittals. th MRS. MOORE-August 15. MR. DEEB-But the Shearer. thth MR. TRAVER-Yes, we tabled it to the 17, it should have been the 24. MRS. MOORE-Well we can adjust that at the end of the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. So we’re looking at September 17. th MR. DEEB-With submittal by August 15. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. DEEB-All right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me, can I ask a question? MR. TRAVER-Ma’am, excuse me one second. If you want to make public comment, we will accommodate that. If you’ll have a seat for a second we’ll accommodate that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’d like to know the distance between the building and the slope. MR. TRAVER-We’ll accommodate that. If you’ll have a seat for a second we’ll accommodate that. Okay. So before we do the motion then it turns out we do have public comment. So I would ask you gentlemen if you would give up the table momentarily. This lady would like to address the Board. Ma’am, come up if you would. Please come up. We do have minutes of the meeting. So if you’d just state your name for the record and then ask your question. DARLENE LA VINE MRS. LA VINE-My name is Darlene LaVine and I’m on Beekman Place. We face the back of The Glen and I wanted to know what the distance is going to be from the building, between the building and the slope. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can ask the applicant to answer that, and are you aware that the plans are available for your study at the Town website? MRS. LA VINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So you can look at, if you go to queensbury.net and look at the information under the Planning Board, you will see the application materials, you’ll be able to look at all the maps and the application, the formal application as it stands tonight. It may be changing, but it sounds as though the basic layout will likely change because what we’re waiting for is 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) clarification on some of the engineering detail, but we will ask the applicant to respond to your question. Was there anything else? MRS. LA VINE-No, that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and there will be another opportunity to address the Planning Board in September when this returns. Thank you, ma’am. Okay. The applicant can return to the table. So the public comment thus far, I guess you’ve heard this lady lives behind the facility. Can you respond to her question? MR. JONES-The top of the hill, and we are roughly 25 feet from the building face to the tow of the slope and then it goes up from there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JONES-And we well exceed the setback dimension to the property line. MR. TRAVER-Yes you’re not looking at any variances. Okay. Thank you. All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 44-2019 FWW 4-2019 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant proposes three projects for the Glen at Hiland Meadows. Proposed is a 20,897 sq. ft. (footprint) two story 41,794 sq. ft. (floor area) addition to the main building with 28 independent living units. Also proposed is a 5,016 sq. ft. (footprint) single story wellness center addition to the main building. Separately, a 25,268 sq. ft. (footprint) single story new building for a memory care facility for 30 residents. Property also includes associated site work for the project. Project occurs in an existing PUD and The Glen at Hiland Meadows Health Facility. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4- 2019 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Tabled to the September 17, 2019 Planning Board meeting with new submissions due by th August 15, 2019. Tabled to address Fire Marshal and engineering comments. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. We’ll see you soon. MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-So continuing on with New Business, our next application is Chris Jenkins Logging. This is, we’re going to sub identify this as Sander. The application is Site Plan 38-2019. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) SITE PLAN NO. 38-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING (SANDER). AGENT(S): KURT KOSKINEN, SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY, LLC. OWNER(S): EUSTACIA SANDER. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 572 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE FOUR PARCELS OF APPROXIMATELY 76 +/- ACRES TO TIMBER HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 63 +/- ACRES. FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOWS FOUR PARCELS: PARCEL 278.-2-27 HAS ONE LANDING, AND PARCEL 278.-2- 29 HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A DESIGNATED STREAM. PLAN SHOWS 12 FOREST TYPES AND APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF TREES TO HARVEST. PLAN ALSO SHOWS SOME AREAS OF REMOVAL TO BE >16 OR >12 DBH AND NO HARVEST WITHIN 35 FT. OF THE STREAM ON EITHER SIDE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXTENSIVE CLEARING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-2009, AV 14-2010; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2019. LOT SIZE: 76.81 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-30, -29, -28, -27. SECTION: 179-6-010. KURT KOSKINEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHRIS JENKINS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to utilize four parcels of approximately 76 acres to timber harvest approximately 63 acres. The forest management plan shows the four parcels, Parcel 278.-2-27 has one landing and Parcel 278.2-29 has a single family home and a designated stream. The plan shows 12 forest types and approximate amount of trees to harvest. The plan shows some areas to be removed to be greater than 16 or greater than 12 dbh and no harvest within 35 feet of the stream on either side. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KOSKINEN-My name’s Kurt Koskinen. I’m the forester and owner of Sustainable Forestry. This is Chris Jenkins right here, logging, and basically to start off, there’s no clear cutting on this property at all. Some people were told it’s clear cutting and it’s far from that. It’s going to be good forestry, and essentially what we’re looking at is, as a whole, approximately 36% of the trees in that ballpark will be thinned out. There’s some older growth and stand on the property. We’re working on a 16 inch harvest, only because we want to make sure we leave more than half the trees standing which is the Town law on that. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, and when you say 16 inch harvest, you’re talking about 16 inch caliper and up? MR. KOSKINEN-At breast height, yes, basically four and a half feet off the ground, and that’s going to be about 40% of the trees in that one area, and that should work, plus I’ll be in there at least once a week anyway overseeing the job and Mrs. Sander is very critical that it’s good management, good forestry. We’re having two landings so that we’re not going to cross the main stream from the middle of the property. You can come in from both sides and there’ll be no equipment within 50 feet of the stream, and no cutting within 35 feet of the stream on both sides, which is very important. It’s a major trout stream that leads to a major trout stream. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s also regulation. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, exactly, and that’s the big thing, and so we won’t need to get any permits for crossing any kind of body of water because we’re not going to go across any water at all. Within five or so hundred feet of the main home Chris, myself and the owner we’re going to mark certain trees for harvesting there because he wants that to look 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) pristine, really nice because his goal is to sell the land and the house down the road a bit. So he wants it to look really good. MR. TRAVER-So is the owner of the home the owner of the property that you’re harvesting? MR. JENKINS-Yes, it’s he and his wife I think. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, it’s he and his wife. They own together. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay, and then if I could ask one other question in terms of the management. If all goes well in terms of the harvesting and the growth of the normal forest, approximately how long before you’re able to harvest again? MR. KOSKINEN-Fifteen, eighteen years. We’re going to leave a lot of the trees on the property. MR. TRAVER-And that process means that a lot of the younger trees are going to be able to really. MR. KOSKINEN-Exactly, and the 12 to 15 that we leave in that large area in the middle, once you thin, as you know, like a garden. You thin the garden it grows twice as fast and that’s what will happen, too, and there’s one little section of the property where there’s basically no cutting whatsoever. Basically it’s all small trees and it’s actually on the bottom left there. That number is the six and ten area, ten down there. MR. TRAVER-That’s because they don’t meet your caliper. MR. KOSKINEN-They’re all small trees. MS. WHITE-I have a maybe more general question, I’m not sure. I see the letter in here from Jim Liebrum, and so does Warren County Soil and Water then provide oversight during this project or? MRS. MOORE-That’s Mr. Koskinen’s job to do that. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, that’ll be me. What we do is at the Warren County Soil and Water, they actually provide a free service where they come out there and they hike the whole thing and they write up a nice plan for you. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. KOSKINEN-I incorporate that into my main plan. MS. WHITE-So once this letter’s done they don’t go back out? MRS. MOORE-They can if Mr. Koskinen or the logger wants them, or our Code Compliance Officer says maybe we should evaluate a certain area again, but generally the applicant has said I’m installing the elements that the Soil and Water have said I need to install and these particular areas, that’s what I’m going to do. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And in order to involve, and this may have changed since I bought my property, but did you become a cooperator with Soil and Water? Because I know that’s what I did 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) and they came and I wasn’t planning any harvesting or anything, but I was just curious about what I had, and I signed up as what at that time they called a cooperator, and that allowed them to come and periodically, if they wish to. I’m not sure if they ever have, they could come back, but a gentleman did come and explain to me the different flora and fauna and that kind of thing. MR. KOSKINEN-Basically all I know about them right now is that they’re a free service. They come out and help you and they give you good guidance. MS. WHITE-It just increases my confidence in the project that this is in here. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. Well I’ll be once we, Mr. Sander, he’s very adamant about that looking really good and the existing trails on the property are going to be left open and clean and smooth. Any trail that has to be built to access remote portions of the timber are called skid roads and what we do quite often is you take tucks from the big old trees and we lay them down in there to fill in some ruts whatever and then that stops water flow and it also ruts into the soil, but existing trails, as Mr. Sander told us, too, we left open, nothing disturbed in there, and with him living there, too, he’s going to be on both of us. I’m sure of that. MR. HUNSINGER-So you said there was one stand of really good timber. MR. KOSKINEN-It’s a large caliper. MR. HUNSINGER-Where is it on that land? What number? MR. KOSKINEN-Right in the very middle there. You have like, parts of seven, six, and parts of eight. It’s almost right in the very middle. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KOSKINEN-And that’s one reason, too, we don’t want to go across the stream because there’s some banks that go into the gully, and those big caliper trees would dig into the side. So two landings makes it good, and we don’t want to cross that stream at all. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s in the landings currently? Are there pull off areas? MR. KOSKINEN-The first one on the left is a little field, has a little opening there, and then up on the top right there’s woods and it’s probably 100 feet by 100 feet, but the most critical thing is the two landings. There’s a stream also on the right side there. East of that stream is a field and a little tiny area of woods. We’re not going there at all. We don’t want to have to cross that stream and get permits and all that. It’s not enough wood to pull out. MR. SHAFER-Have you looked at the two landing sites from the perspective of access to 149 and stopping sight distance in either direction? MR. KOSKINEN-It seemed like they had 500 feet each way. That’s the most critical thing. People go by there at 60 miles an hour, or some people more, and but they’re the ideal spots. We didn’t want to come in on his driveway. You can tell by the road, the road’s fairly straight. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that, regarding the landings, that you’re going to need to do is provide some detail on those landings to make sure that they are appropriate. There’s insufficient detail in your application for that. So if you can work with Laura on exactly what she needs and provide that to her, that would be a condition. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. I thought we had something on the construction entrance. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so I would need the detail of the construction entrance, what item you’re putting in, the square footage. MR. KOSKINEN-What kind of stone and whatever. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I would communicate with Laura on that and she’ll give you exactly what you need to do. That would be the way to make sure you get that done in a timely fashion. MRS. MOORE-One of the details you just touched on was reference to timeframe. You’re going to start in August and when do you anticipate finishing? MR. JENKINS-Hoping by end of winter. MRS. MOORE-So within a year. MR. JENKINS-Yes, within a year. Sure. Probably six months. MRS. MOORE-So I just want to give you enough time that you have in case, so if you’re not done within a year then you’d have to come back to this Board to finish out the second timeframe. MR. TRAVER-So we’ll condition that on 12 months. MR. VALENTINE-So there would be nothing here as far as Federal permits that would come into play, nothing to do with that long eared bat? MR. KOSKINEN-No, no. That’s a different property, but there’s no bats there. MR. VALENTINE-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-So, full disclosure, I do live in the neighborhood and we did get a notice. We’re not an immediate adjacent property owner, but within 500 feet of the project. But one of the questions that we frequently ask on projects like this is hours of operation. So what were you proposing? MR. KOSKINEN-Seven to five? MR. JENKINS-Seven to four. MR. HUNSINGER-What days> MR. JENKINS-Monday through Friday, sometimes on weekends, depending on the weather, like if we lose a couple of days if we get rain during the week then we’ll make it up on the weekend, same hours on the weekend. MR. KOSKINEN-And based on the last three months of weather it’s weird. Pouring rain for four days straight. MR. DEEB-We have to make sure we clarify that with some make ups on weekends. I’d rather be specific. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-You can say seven a.m. to four p.m. potentially seven days a week, or seven to four five days a week, and that would leave that open. MR. TRAVER-That way if they did lose a couple of days due to rain and they had to make it up it would still total five. It probably makes sense from a work standpoint with your employees. Right? Five days a week, whether it be miss a couple of days due to weather and then make it up Saturday, Sunday, whatever, a total of five in any given pay period. MR. JENKINS-Yes, that’ll work. MR. TRAVER-That’s a good suggestion. Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. If I could ask you to come up and make your comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PHILLIP ROBERTSON MR. ROBERTSON-My name is Phillip Robertson. I’m directly to the east of the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ROBERTSON-I’ve got a couple of concerns they addressed already. The hours of operation. They tend to go way beyond that. If you ever saw how a logger operates. They’ll set up four, five o’clock. They work until they get tired. The property was done about 25 years ago when Sally Taft owned the property and the logger at that time jumped the border onto my property and I wonder who’s going to police that. My property’s directly where the stream comes around in that corner. I’m directly to the east of that. MR. VALENTINE-On the top right you’re talking? MR. ROBERTSON-No. Down below. Where it says forest types, my property is down in that area. MR. TRAVER-Well, if you hear our resolution, we’ll include some conditions, and if you become aware of a violation of those conditions you can contact the Town. I don’t know if you did that 25 years ago. MR. ROBERTSON-Back when that went on I was in the hospital so I wasn’t able to. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be my suggestion. MR. ROBERTSON-But the owner took care of it and it wasn’t a problem. They were great about it. To clarify Mr. and Mrs. Sander live in Cleverdale. They don’t live on that property right there. They come and go. They’re not there all the time. So if this gentlemen is in charge, Mr. Koskinen, I guess he’s going to be policing there, and I am concerned also about the noise. Presently we have, 149 was raised at that section if you recall a few years ago, and at that time the noise level increased because now it’s higher. It blows through the woods. You take the woods away we have no sound attenuation in the water. MR. TRAVER-Did you hear the explanation of the percentage of the trees that are going to be removed? MR. ROBERTSON-I did, but he’s got big sections, what percentage in what area, you know. I’m concerned about that. As long as somebody’s willing to walk the property line with me and not jump the border again, that’s one thing, and I am concerned with the noise, hours of 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) operation. We’ve got another project that’s going to be starting across the street from us apparently and we’re going to have building construction. So we’re going to be no longer in the country. It’s going to be noise continuously on both sides of us. MR. SHAFER-Sir, is the property line marked in the field? MR. ROBERTSON-It is marked, but it’s telephone poles, and most of the posted signs have fallen off through the years. I never had any trouble with the previous owners. The new owners are, they inherited the property. They’re intention is to make some money and run. So that’s what they’re going to do, and we’re going to be stuck there. MR. TRAVER-Well we will certainly ask the applicant your questions. MR. ROBERTSON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. ROBERTSON-That’s it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Was there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. ED HAYES MR. HAYES-Just another neighbor that borders the land. Ed Hayes. I live right directly behind the property that’s going to be forested. We’ve lived through that, like he said, about 25 years ago, and everything seemed to go pretty smooth, but loggers generally don’t clean up after themselves. They don’t take care of anything. They just take what they want and run. That’s to be expected, but I’m wondering if there’s going to be anybody there marking the trees they’re cutting down close to property lines. How far away the logger can take his logs, how close to our property line that’ll happen. MR. TRAVER-Your property borders on the proposed? MR. HAYES-Yes, it does. We’ve lived there for 31 years and we live with the noise from 149 also, the same thing like Greg said. It’s going to be a little bit more noisy. Hopefully, eventually, I spoke to Chris and Eustacia the other day and eventually they say they do want to sell off that property also. So there’ll be homes there, and lights that we haven’t been able to see for 30 odd years. I’m wondering if also the trees will be marked by the forest person that are coming down. MR. TRAVER-On their property you mean? MR. HAYES-No on the property that’s being logged. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s what I meant, yes. MR. HAYES-What happens when he’s not there for a week and the logger can just go willy nilly and it’s about 35% right behind your home, something like that. MR. TRAVER-We will ask them to clarify that. MR. HUNSINGER-And I do like that question, how close to the property line can they go. MR. HAYES-Yes, because again, it’s not really well marked. There’s one posted sign here, another 1,000 feet there’s another one. That’s not how it’s supposed to be. We’ve had 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) access to that land for 30 years. We’ve walked the trails. Our kids used to play back there. There’s never been any problems with any of that whatsoever. So we’re kind of concerned what the change is going to be. We understand it’s not going to be clear cutting, but things happen, especially over a period of six months when the owners are living there. So concerns. That’s all. MR. VALENTINE-Laura put a map up here with the tax map parcels. Could you tell me which one is yours? MR. HAYES-Right next to that kind of, looks like a triangle on the bottom, 278.-2-14. That’s us there. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HAYES-I’m hoping it goes well. I question the necessity to, for more forest land. We’re losing more forest land rapidly throughout the whole area of Queensbury. Like Greg said there’s another development, home going up right across the road from us and trees are disappearing, which kind of takes away from the country feel, but anyway. MR. VALENTINE-But it is his property. MR. HAYES-It is his property. He’s entitled, and I understand harvesting is different from clear cutting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it certainly is. MR. HAYES-But I’m hoping it’ll go right the way it should. MR. TRAVER-So are we. MR. HAYES-That’s basically it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thank you very much. Was there anyone else that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this application? Okay. I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we’ll ask the applicant to return to the table. So you heard some of the concerns, the impact on sound from the thinning of the forest. I’m not sure, you’re not responsible for that or it’s difficult to calculate what that would be. I can anticipate or perhaps you can say based on your experience. Is it reasonable to expect an increase in penetration of sound through the forest if there’s 36% of the forest that’s going to be removed? MR. KOSKINEN-How many loads a day do you think you’ll harvest there? MR. TRAVER-Well we’re not talking about the noise of the operation right now. We’re talking about the noise penetrating from, at least one of the questions was 149 was modified some years ago as you know and that increased the decibel apparent sound to some of the 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) residents and they were questioning about the forest was having an impact on diluting or reducing that sound and the concern was now we’re going to be harvesting 36% of some parts of that. Is that going to result in an increase in the sound? I would say generally yes. It would be significant, but do you have any comment on that concern based on your experience, perhaps in other projects? MR. KOSKINEN-I would have to say roughly a third of the trees, 35% or so is coming out, you’d probably have a 35% increase, that kind of thing, but just those hours of the day. MR. TRAVER-We’re talking about traffic on 149. MR. DEEB-Once they’re removed. MR. KOSKINEN-Oh. Okay. I’m sorry. Probably 30 odd percent increase because you’re taking away part of a wall, you know. MR. TRAVER-I would say just from the physics of it it probably wouldn’t be quite a one to one increase. It would be some increase, but it wouldn’t be hardly anything like 30%, but we’re just speculating. The other question would be, you know, you spoke about I guess 36%, right, harvest. Are there any areas where it’s going to be 75% or 100%? MR. KOSKINEN-No, no. That area around the residents, it’s going to be marked trees. I think Mr. Sander only wanted to mark 10 or 12 trees in the whole area. MR. TRAVER-And how do you determine the border of the area that you’re harvesting? MR. KOSKINEN-The boundary line? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KOSKINEN-Well what we can do is Mr. Sander can walk with us. We’ll all walk together. MR. JENKINS-You’re welcome to walk with us. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, the neighbors. We’ll can all walk together and say, yes, that’s it and every 30 feet put a flag. MR. DEEB-I think that would be a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that seems like a reasonable concern. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. I guess you’d call it using the same hymn book, you know, we’re all happy. MR. TRAVER-Along those lines, now that you have the boundary marked, how close to that boundary do you intend to harvest? MR. KOSKINEN-Well what I always tell my men, or advise the current landowner, any tree that is obviously leaning towards the boundary line, towards the neighbors’ property, if it was severed it would only fall into the neighbor, I tell them to leave it. If a tree, there’s no way I’m dropping it on the applicant’s property. Just leave it. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds like what you’re saying is you would harvest right up to the edge of the property. MR. KOSKINEN-Well it’s up to the Planning Board. If you want us to stay back. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well we’re asking, I’m asking, right now I’m just asking you. You have, hypothetically at this point we’re in August. You have walked the property line. You’ve marked the boundary. Your default plan would be to harvest right up to the edge of the property. Is that our understanding? MR. KOSKINEN-We’ve done that before. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m not asking what you’ve done before. I’m asking what your plan is for this parcel and possibly I’ll ask the same thing in the next one. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, right now we’re planning on right up to the line and any tree that’s a danger tree we would definitely leave standing. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, say that again. A danger tree? MR. KOSKINEN-That may fall into the neighbors’ property. The other point of view would be in Lake George I made a deal with the Town that any tree of a certain height, like say a 60 foot tree, if it was more than 60 feet from the property line, then we could harvest it. It could never fall into the neighbors’ property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well you just said that before, if a tree was going to fall if you cut it. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. JENKINS-The line, too, you’re leaving a lot of trees because they’re under the size. So you’re only talking about a handful of trees along the line. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand you’re not clear cutting, and it’s only the larger trees. MR. DEEB-But the harvested trees will be marked along that line. So we can see the number that are going to be harvested. I think that would be important so that we know. I think the other alternative was to stay so many feet off the border, you can’t harvest up to that. Put a buffer in there, but if you put the, if you mark the trees and show the neighbors which ones you mark, make sure everybody is agreeable, I think that would work well. MR. TRAVER-You can do that when you walk the property line. MR. DEEB-Right. MR. JENKINS-Yes, we can show them. MR. KOSKINEN-Stay within a certain distance of the boundary? MR. DEEB-That’s what I was thinking, yes. Just leave it. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I don’t know, at the risk of maybe disqualifying myself, I thought that was a great question. I’m on the other end. I live right off Martindale Road. So your property, it would be easier if I walked up and pointed it out, but it’s a different issue on that side than the other sides. So this is my house, and then this property and this property is owned by my brother-in-law. This is all wide open fields. So your trees grow right up to the property line, and there’s a couple of very large trees, you know, right here, and they’re either right on the line or just off the line. So that’s why I thought that was a great 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) question. I’ve got to be honest, I’m not sure how I’d feel if they were to be removed, but that’s why I thought it was a good question. MR. TRAVER-Are they hard wood, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-You know what, I’m not sure. I’m not sure. MR. TRAVER-That would make a difference I would think. If they’re not hardwood, they may not be valuable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-They could also be danger trees. We don’t know yet, and you can’t touch them. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s one in particular that’s very large that’s, you know, right about here, and then this is woods into here, but that’s off your property anyway. So it would be right in this corner. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, but walking the lines and then marking the trees to be cut within the first 100 feet maybe, whatever. MR. TRAVER-In other words not harvest within 100 feet. MR. KOSKINEN-Well mark the trees that we are going to harvest. MR. TRAVER-Mark the trees. MR. DEEB-Yes, I think clarification is important and make sure the neighbors know which ones you’re marking and make sure they’re in agreement. That would be okay. MR. HAYES-If the owner’s there we could talk about it perhaps, if there’s a situation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. This is also an Unlisted plan under SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a question on your SEQR form that you did not complete. There was a little ‘X” by it. You had a letter to cover it, but it wasn’t answered. Question 15, Does the site or the proposed action contain any species of animal or associated habitats listed by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered, and you didn’t answer it, but you did have a letter in here saying. You need to check the box and initial it. MR. KOSKINEN-Okay. That’s Number 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Page Two of Three on SEQR. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, right there. No. MR. HUNSINGER-There was even an arrow, that was Laura’s. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t usually pick up on that stuff. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. So now that we have the completed form, are there any, do members of the Board see any concerns under SEQR that would question our ability to grant a Negative Declaration? Okay. Then I guess we’re ready for that motion. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 38-2019 JENKINS/SANDER SEQR RESOLUTION – Grant Negative Declaration SITE PLAN 38-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING Tax Map ID: 278.-2-30, -29, -28, -27 / Property Address: 572 State Route 149 / Zoning: RR3A The applicant proposes to utilize four parcels of approximately 76 +/- acres to timber harvest approximately 63 +/- acres. Forest management plan shows four parcels: Parcel 278.-2-30 has one landing, Parcel 278.-2-27 has one landing, and Parcel 278.-2-29 has single family home and a designated stream. Plan shows 12 forest types and approximate amount of trees to harvest. Plan also shows some areas of removal to be >16 or >12 DBH and no harvest within 35 ft. of the stream on either side. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, extensive clearing 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 38-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING. Introduced by David Deeb 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. rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay, and where do we stand on conditions? MR. DEEB-I have three conditions listed. MRS. MOORE-Could I ask a question? MR. TRAVER-Sure. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-In regards to walking the property line, when do you think that might occur, within the next few weeks, within a month? MR. JENKINS-We could do it the following weekend. MR. TRAVER-They need to make an appointment with the neighbors. MRS. MOORE-I just, if I may assist with the language that you may use for your condition, a timeframe. MR. DEEB-So we need to condition that walk through. MRS. MOORE-I have a condition of walk through, but I need a result. So then our Code Compliance Officer isn’t left in limbo wondering what the outcome was. MR. TRAVER-So you would like that review within a month. MRS. MOORE-A written response. MR. TRAVER-Followed by a written report to be submitted in addition to the application to the Town? MRS. MOORE-My guess is he’s going to start logging as soon as he’s able to. Is that right? MR. KOSKINEN-Well sometime in August. MR. TRAVER-August. MR. JENKINS-We don’t have to go anywhere near the lines. MRS. MOORE-So if the applicant wants to say I’m going to stay 20 feet from the property line and not harvest anything within 50 feet, I don’t know what that distance is on your behalf. MR. TRAVER-Well we also may not know where the line is until it has been walked with the neighbors. So it would seem as though a good practice would be to arrange within say the next two weeks to walk with the neighbors, identify those trees that are projected to be harvested. MS. WHITE-And the distance from the neighbors’ boundaries. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’re going to note the property line and mark that, and then report, at the conclusion of that walk or review, let Laura know that that’s taken place and what the outcome was. MRS. MOORE-So one of the things that you noted that you may identify to mark trees within 100 feet to be harvested. Is that, is 100 feet a reasonable area? MR. JENKINS-That’s fine. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. DEEB-One hundred feet from where? MR. KOSKINEN-From the boundary line. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-From the property line. MR. DEEB-So they’re going to go from the boundary line to 100 feet back and mark the trees. MR. TRAVER-That are to be harvested. MRS. MOORE-And mark trees that are within that 100 feet. I mean there’s also other trees obviously being harvested, but this way the property owners adjacent to this property line within 100 feet on the applicant’s property. That’s why I don’t know if 50 feet is a better distance. MR. KOSKINEN-Fifty or one hundred is good. MR. TRAVER-Yes, let’s do 100. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. SHAFER-What is the definition of that 100? MRS. MOORE-It’s from the property line. MR. TRAVER-It’s 50 feet from the property line that they will identify during their walk. MR. SHAFER-If there’s a tree five feet from the property line and can clearly be felled onto the applicant’s property. MRS. MOORE-Yes, then that’s to be marked. MR. DEEB-It has to be marked. MR. SHAFER-It can be harvested. MRS. MOORE-The idea here is that there’s a solution between the applicant and the adjacent property owners, and that’s where I guess I’m a bit concerned in case the property owner says well I don’t want you to harvest that tree, but it’s clearly on the applicant’s property that they could harvest it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I’m a bit concerned with that outcome. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s in the applicant’s interest to work with the neighbors and work that out. MR. DEEB-So for clarification then, 100 feet from the neighbors’ boundary to inside the property line they’re going to mark to harvest trees. Other trees are going to be harvested, but the neighbors won’t have any. MR. TRAVER-They won’t be marked. They’ll be identified by the forester. MS. WHITE-Outside of that boundary. MR. DEEB-Outside of that boundary. MR. TRAVER-As part of that harvesting plan. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-I have a general question in all this, in defining the property line and stuff. The owners can define, you know where the property line is on an 80 acre parcel? MR. TRAVER-Well there are some identifying boundary signs, no trespassing signs and so on. So there may be some areas where they’ll need to clarify that and they can mark those once they identify them and agree with them. MR. KOSKINEN-And that’s why it’s good to walk with the neighbor at the same time. Sir, we’ve closed the public hearing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I just wanted to clarify something for you. MR. TRAVER-Well you can do that because you’re going to be talking, within the next couple of weeks they’re going to be reaching out to try to address these issues, to try to address your concern. How are we doing on the motion? MR. DEEB-I’ll give it a shot. I might be modifying it, but let’s give it a shot. MR. TRAVER-I’m sure it’ll be perfect. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 38-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING (SANDER) 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 utilize four parcels of approximately 76 +/- acres to timber harvest approximately 63 +/- acres. Forest management plan shows four parcels: Parcel 278.2-30 has one landing, Parcel 278.-2-27 has one landing, and Parcel 278.-2-29 has single family home and a designated stream. Plan shows 12 forest types and approximate amount of trees to harvest. Plan also shows some areas of removal to be >16 or >12 DBH and no harvest within 35 ft. of the stream on either side. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, extensive clearing 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 07/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 07/23/2019, 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 07/23/2019; 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, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 38-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. 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) Applicant to provide the construction entrance details to Town Staff as part of final plans. i) Project to be completed within 12 months. j) Hours of operation to be 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. with a total of five days per week. k) Applicant to complete a walk through with neighbors within two weeks to identify projected harvested trees within 100 feet from property line and results to be submitted to Staff within the following seven days. rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-H, applicant to provide more detail on the two landing areas. Do you want more than that? MRS. MOORE-Construction entrance details. MR. DEEB-Okay. Applicant to provide. MR. TRAVER-Detail to the Planning Office. MRS. MOORE-It’s actually the terminology. So say construction entrance details. MR. DEEB-Okay. To provide, okay, construction entrance detail. MR. TRAVER-To Town Staff. MRS. MOORE-As part of final plans. MR. DEEB-As part of final plans. All right. I’ll read that again. Including H., applicant to provide construction entrance detail as part of final plans. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Good. Outstanding. All right. We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. SHAFER-I’ll second. MR. TRAVER-Is there any discussion? MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion. How will the neighbors know? How would that work? MR. TRAVER-How will the neighbors know? MR. HUNSINGER-About the walk through? MRS. MOORE-So potentially, at the adjournment of their session, or after they adjourn the second session. MR. KOSKINEN-We’ll give them our phone number. MRS. MOORE-Awesome. MR. TRAVER-That is the applicant’s responsibility. MR. VALENTINE-One other question under discussion. Do the two landings require a curb cut permit from DOT? MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure. MR. TRAVER-I think they’re pre-existing, aren’t they? MRS. MOORE-They’re not pre-existing. So that’s something the applicant would have to look into, but I don’t know the answer off the top of my head. MR. VALENTINE-My answer would be yes, but I’m just saying, I’m sort of leaving it out there for whatever. I’ve seen it in instances I’ve had in Saratoga County that the logging operation does require a permit from DOT for that. That’s why I was wondering when you said a question was asked by John about sight distance and it was not an affirmative answer of what that number was and I would have thought DOT would have said this is what it is. MR. TRAVER-Well if they’re required to do so, obviously they’ll have to as part of their approval. Any other discussion? Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the next item on our agenda is also Chris Jenkins Logging. This is the Kraft property. Site Plan 41-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING (KRAFT). AGENT(S): KURT KOSKINEN, SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY, LLC. OWNER(S): RAYMOND KRAFT. ZONING: WR/SPLIT ZONE/LC-42A. LOCATION: ROUTE 9L & CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVEST PLAN FOR 34 +/- ACRES OF PARCELS TOTALING 53.48 +/- ACRES OF MOSTLY 12” OR GREATER TREES. PROJECT INCLUDES FOUR PARCELS INCLUDING TWO FOREST TYPES AND WORK 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) NEAR APA WETLANDS. APPLICANT PLANS FOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DUE TO WETLANDS, FLORA AND FAUNA IN AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXTENSIVE CLEARING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BOTH 278-2016 DECK; AV 49- 2009, SUP 52-2009, FWW 8-2009 MARINA. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, WETLANDS, LGP. LOT SIZE: 53.48 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-16.11, 240.9-1-1, 240.5-1-16.1, 240.5-1-16.2. SECTION: 179-6-010. KURT KOSKINEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHRIS JENKINS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a harvest plan for 34 acres of parcels totaling 53.48 acres. This, again, is part of four parcels, includes forest types and their work is near APA wetlands and they have identified a plan that stays away from those wetlands and harvesting mostly uplands. MR. TRAVER-Welcome again. Repeat your name for the record, if you would. I notice you have a new person at the table. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. My name’s Kurt Koskinen, forester, owner of Sustainable Forestry. Chris Jenkins logging and Mr. Kraft land owner. Essentially 34 of the 53 acres will be thinned, harvested. We’re looking at a 12 inch harvest because there’s many, many trees that are under 12 inches in diameter. So he would basically help the forest thin out, help it grow. Essentially the most important thing on the property is the wetland, the southern part of the property, south of 9L. I’ve had good discussions with the Soil and Water people and the APA people. Technically we’re going to provide a 35 foot wide buffer along that entire wetland, and I feel that we probably shouldn’t go in there at all. MR. TRAVER-I think regulations prohibit you from. MR. KOSKINEN-Well technically you can harvest 30% of the trees over six inches in diameter. MR. TRAVER-You’re talking about in the 35 foot buffer. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. You can harvest timber up to 30% of the basal area, but it’s so close to there and we don’t want to get too close to any kind of potential species that may be in that water itself. The species that may be considered rare and endangered are actually water species. So he just doesn’t want to get into the water at all. We’re looking at three landings, the northern end of the property and then two bordering 9L. MR. TRAVER-And as with the other project you will need to, again, there will be a requirement that you submit detail to the Town on those construction. MR. KOSKINEN-We can do that, too. Sure. And the most important thing overall is the Soil and Water Conservation. That’s the biggest thing, and with our agreement, or not agreement but advice from the Warren County people, they had mentioned there that get everything put in place, any kind of buffer zone, get them all flagged first, correct construction entrances, any kind of, if there’s any potential wet spot, get them ready for any crossing, if you have to cross a wet spot, because we just don’t want to be working in there when it’s rainy. We don’t want to be working in there in any rainy period at all. It’s going to be touch and go because of the fact there’s been so much rain lately. You just don’t know what’s going to happen next. So we’re looking at doing it when it’s dry or frozen technically is what we’re looking at. We’ve got a dry spot coming now. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Were you looking at a different timeline than the other parcel? Are you going to do them both at the same time? MR. KOSKINEN-We’re looking at them both the same time. MR. TRAVER-Both the same time. So within 12 months then would be your, okay. Well what about the hours of operation? Would that be the same as well? MR. JENKINS-Roughly the same, yes. MR. TRAVER-And the days. MR. JENKINS-Yes, it would be the same. RAY KRAFT MR. KRAFT-There’s no neighbors involved either. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You know where the boundaries are, though, right? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. TRAVER- Are they marked? MR. KRAFT-Some of them were just surveyed for the Kirkpatrick logging. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Why do you say there’s no neighbors? MR. KRAFT-Because there isn’t any. MRS. MOORE-He’s his own neighbor. MR. SHAFER-Well there are parcels adjacent to yours owned by other people. MR. TRAVER-I think you mean residential properties, right? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-There are properties that have owners, but you’re saying there’s no residential. MR. KRAFT-There’s nobody there. There’s big wetlands. There’s the fire department and all that stuff. MR. KRAFT-And we’ve logged this property before. MR. KRAFT-The old 9L comes up through there and the old road is what they’re going to use. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. KRAFT-We logged this property about 40 years ago. MR. TRAVER-Forty years ago? Wow. MR. KRAFT-We’ve owned the property 103 years. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. SHAFER-Interesting. Who owns the old 9L, the old 9L corridor? MR. KRAFT-We own half of it and the firehouse owns the other. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. So that makes the property line pretty clear, doesn’t it, just in that section. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-I guess the same questions on the landings in terms of the sight distance along 9L. You may have to hook up with DOT in that respect. There is a vertical curve a horizontal curve there of course and it’s 65 miles an hour. MR. TRAVER-On a slow day. MR. JENKINS-We’d be pulling out of 9L and come right out at the light. Our entrance wouldn’t be off of 9L. It would be off actually off of whatever that driveway they use to the old firehouse. MR. TRAVER-Well you want to reach out to them to see if you do need to file a permit, if you start something and it turns out that you did not apply for the appropriate, then that’s going to really set you back. MS. WHITE-Yes, so reach out to DOT. What about an agreement with the firehouse? Do we have anything in writing from them saying? MR. TRAVER-Well you’re not talking about harvesting anything on firehouse property. MS. WHITE-No, but just an agreement that they’re okay with the project. MR. TRAVER-They would have been notified, right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-They were notified. MR. KRAFT-I’m a member there anyway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well their board would have gotten something. MS. WHITE-Sometimes it’s just nice to have something in writing that they’re aware of it, they don’t have any big issues. MR. DEEB-There’s a public hearing. They could have been here. MR. KRAFT-And I’m Vice President of the rescue squad. MR. SHAFER-That was going to be my next question, the EMS. I assume there’ll be no blockage of that entrance, the EMS? MR. JENKINS-No. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Ma’am, I see an audience of one. Did you want to address the Planning Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. KRAFT-She’s my wife. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This also is a SEQR Unlisted. So under SEQR we do need to take a look at that. Are members of the Board comfortable with moving ahead with the SEQR resolution? MRS. MOORE-You should note that there’s information from DEC. However the way the DEC letter is written, the applicant is not affecting those areas. The bat is not located in that area, and the bog turtle is a wetland species and they’re proposing harvest in the uplands and the fact that DEC gave them significant if they notice a bog turtle in the area they’re harvesting they need to stop immediately. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the high bush blueberry bog thicket? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, that’s all in the swamp, all in the wetlands. MS. WHITE-That you’re staying away from. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. That’s why I wanted the 35 foot buffer and don’t go in there at all. MR. VALENTINE-Can I go back? In the DEC letter here it does say that the bat has been documented within 3.3 miles of a five mile radius. MRS. MOORE-Right but there’s further documentation of that that says that they’re not concerned about the harvest impacting that. So I don’t know how it’s worded. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, it’s further in that letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Well look it I don’t really want to live by chasing around bats in here. So if you’re saying it’s okay. My thing is always looking to say okay so within a five mile radius and then I saw it said 3.3 and I, you know. MRS. MOORE-There’s definitely additional language in there that talks about that they’re not, that their harvest is not going to impact the bat. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because it says you have to be within a quarter mile. MR. JENKINS-If we see any tree that’s hollowed then we won’t cut them because it could potentially be a bat home. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. I call them den trees, raccoons and possums go there in the wintertime. We leave them standing if they’ve got holes. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. VALENTINE-Well if you come to our conference in February we’re going to have a class on the long eared bat. MR. TRAVER-And then what is it, the white nose. MR. VALENTINE-No, we’ll just start with the bat, oh that is, yes. MR. DEEB-We’re getting sidetracked here, gentlemen. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right so I guess I would repeat, then, following the discussion to clarify the DEC response to the project, are members comfortable moving ahead with the SEQR resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll entertain that motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 41-2019 JENKINS/KRAFT The applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for 34 +/- acres of parcels totaling 53.48 +/- acres of mostly 12” or greater trees. Project includes four parcels including two forest types and work near APA wetlands. Applicant plans for best management practices due to wetlands, flora and fauna in area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, extensive clearing 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 41-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING. Introduced by David Deeb 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 potential moderate to large impacts. rd Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we move to the Site Plan resolution, and for conditions we have the work hours. As with the prior project, five days a week I think as with the prior project and we also have the clarification of the construction entrances. Right? MR. DEEB-Got it all. MR. TRAVER-I think there wasn’t anything else on this project. All right. So can you read that, please? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 41-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING/KRAFT 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 timber harvest plan for 34 +/- acres of parcels totaling 53.48 +/- acres of mostly 12” or greater trees. Project includes four parcels including two forest types and work near APA wetlands. Applicant plans for best management practices due to wetlands, flora and fauna in area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, extensive clearing 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 07/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 07/23/2019, 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 07/23/2019; 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 41-2019 CHRIS JENKINS LOGGING; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 3) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. 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 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) 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) Applicant to provide the construction entrance details to Town Staff as part of final plans. i) Project to be completed within 12 months. j) Hours of operation to be from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. with a total of five days per week. rd Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. MR. KRAFT-Thank you. MR. KOSKINEN-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-Prior to adjourning, I would ask that you clarify the motion that you made for Shearer. That should be the second meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. My apologies. That was my mistake. I evidently looked down at the wrong date. We intended to table that to the second meeting in September and not the first, and thth somehow or other I thought the 17 was the first and it is not. It is the 24. Do we just need to repeat that tabling motion? MRS. MOORE-Maria, do you want a new resolution? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes, that would be good. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tabled to 9/24. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 42-2019 MIKE SHEARER MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2019 MIKE SHEARER, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) th Tabled to the September 24, 2019 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting with th submissions due by August 15. As an amendment to the original motion. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? MR. VALENTINE-I have a question. Under Administrative we didn’t have anything, but in our packet we had about the public hearing for the ground mounted solar. MS. WHITE-The moratorium. th MR. TRAVER-Yes. That’s going to be August 5 I think, the Town Board is holding a public hearing. MR. VALENTINE-They look for an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. I mean if we’re going to give an advisory opinion, this is the only time to do it. MR. TRAVER-I wasn’t aware they were looking for an advisory. MR. SHAFER-It says it in the resolution. MRS. MOORE-I wasn’t aware of that. MR. VALENTINE-It says here in the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We did not, we didn’t receive anything. I mean we received this notice, but. MS. WHITE-No, I received the information, but I don’t feel I know enough, I mean to provide advice about. MR. TRAVER-So how do you suggest we proceed? MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Board’s going to propose a moratorium. Are they looking for our input? Do they propose solutions? MRS. MOORE-Not prior to the moratorium. th MR. VALENTINE-No, they’re looking to adopt the moratorium on the 5, to carry it out for six months. th MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t believe so. They’re having a public hearing on the 5. th MR. VALENTINE-The 5, but they’re also doing, the six month goes from that day through to th February 5. So they’re looking to have a public hearing and adopt it the same night. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well they’re looking for public input. If they want our input, Laura, they’re going to have to get it on the agenda, I guess. MR. DEEB-Could they adopt it at a workshop, Laura, or do they have to do it in a Town Board meeting? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-Can I just take a look at that? Because that doesn’t. MR. SHAFER-I think they already adopted the moratorium. The resolution sets up the public hearing. MR. VALENTINE-It says here resolution setting a public hearing on proposed local law, and then th it says a temporary moratorium through February 5. A six month moratorium would mean thth that it goes into effect August 5. Monday, August 5, 7 p.m. to hear all interested parties. So that’s the public hearing, and like I said, if it’s a six month moratorium and they say it ends thth February 5, six months is going to have to start August 5. MR. TRAVER-So I didn’t hear anything about Planning Board in that. MR. VALENTINE-It’s in there. The Queensbury Planning Board for their advisory recommendations in accordance with GML 239. Resolved that the Town Board hereby refers such proposed local law to the Warren County Planning Department. MRS. MOORE-What I would suggest that you do, if you have an opportunity to review it on your own, is to e-mail your comments to me and I can share that. MR. TRAVER-E-mail who, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Do you want comments now? I only have one. The whole thing says ground mounted but it doesn’t differentiate between ground mounted in somebody’s backyard versus ground mounted as a commercial. MR. DEEB-There was something that it’s going to be just ground mounted residential. MR. TRAVER-They need to clarify the definition. MR. VALENTINE-It doesn’t say it in this. MR. DEEB-Well, they need to clarify the resolution, but I agree with that. It should be for residential, and that was the problem was that one solar panel that was put next to, a foot from the line. MR. TRAVER-There were no setback regulations. MR. DEEB-No setbacks and the guy has to look at it the rest of his life. MR. SHAFER-Why would you eliminate commercial from that? MR. TRAVER-I’m not saying they’re going to eliminate it. We’re saying they need to define what this resolution would apply to. MR. SHAFER-It just says ground mounted solar panels. MR. DEEB-For residential. For commercial I think what they’re trying to do is you’re going to allow ground mounted. MR. TRAVER-For example at the landfill. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) MR. DEEB-At the landfill they’re going to define the parameters for ground mounted in commercial. MR. SHAFER-But it doesn’t say anything. It only refers to ground mounted solar panels. It’s all encompassing. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-But then again if I’m a homeowner with a five or ten acre parcel and I want to put ground mounted in my backyard. MR. TRAVER-That may not be their intent. So we would ask them to clarify. MR. DEEB-Well that’s why they’re having the moratorium so they can make these definitions and get it done. So that’s why it expires in six months, but they want to make sure that they get all of the T’s crossed and I’s dotted so they can work this out. MR. SHAFER-Setbacks, heights, all that stuff. MR. DEEB-They want to get everything set, and then when the moratorium’s lifted it will be in place. MR. TRAVER-Including recommendations from us. th MR. DEEB-These are our recommendations. Like Mike said they’re going to adopt it August 5. MR. TRAVER-The moratorium, but not the final recommendation. MR. SHAFER-So before six months we’re just going to get e-mails to Laura as opposed to say a workshop? th MR. TRAVER-Before August 5, if you have questions about the moratorium as written, notify Laura and she will pass those along, and one of them we’ve identified is just clarification of the definition of ground mounted, is it all inclusive or whatever and then I would think, or maybe another question would be, during this moratorium period, would the Planning Board have an opportunity to review any proposed Code? MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-But they don’t have to. You do understand they don’t have to refer it to the Planning Board. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-But you would like to be notified. MR. DEEB-Yes. It would be good to look at. MR. TRAVER-It certainly would be appropriate. MR. VALENTINE-John, the reason I brought it up is because on the first page, along with the local law, the very last sentence in Section Two says this moratorium does not include roof 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2019) mounted solar systems. So they were specific at one point. They weren’t specific about ground mounted in a residential property, and that was just the differentiation I was looking at. th MR. TRAVER-All right. So everybody understand, before August 5 if you have comments on the proposed moratorium please communicate that to Laura. She will be our liaison with the Town Board and we’ll see where it goes. Anything else before us tonight? So if there’s nothing else, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. rd MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 23, 2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 39