The URL can be used to link to this page

09-24-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 70-2014 James Varano 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59 Site Plan No. PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings 3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Site Plan No. 58-2019 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 5. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7 Site Plan No. 62-2019 George Hearst, III & Christine Hearst 13. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-79 & 226.19-1-74 Site Plan No. 54-2019 The Great Escape Properties 15. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 53-2019 Apex Capital, LLC 21. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2, 315.5-1-2 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 09/24/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHARIMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Tuesday, September 24, 2019. This is our second meeting for the month of September and th our 19 meeting thus far for 2019. Please take note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency that is the way out. If you have an electronic device if you would either turn it off or silence it we’d appreciate it so it doesn’t interrupt our meeting, and I think this time I remembered to do mine. We have a couple of Administrative Items this evening, and I believe that all of the items on our agenda this evening have public hearings involved. At the table at the rear of the room there are agendas if you don’t have one and you would like one, and there’s also some guidelines for public hearing comment. So with that we’ll begin the agenda with our two Administrative Items. The first one being Site Plan 70-2014 for James Varano, request for a one year extension to October 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO OCTOBER 2020 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is, the owner of the property is John Fazio and he is now starting to work on closing that property transaction with James Varano so he can construct the home. As you understand Mr. Fazio lost a relative. So my guess is this is why it’s taking so long. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. And I believe we have a draft resolution. Does anyone have any concerns or issues with that request? MS. WHITE-I think that we need to have some type of limit on how many extensions we give without an update or something. I mean five years seems excessive to me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. This is an additional one year. So how many previous? MRS. MOORE-He’s been, he received approval in 2014. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MRS. MOORE-Again, I understand, and you as a Board have the right to deny and tell him that he has to go back through the process. The application hasn’t changed. MR. TRAVER-Let me suggest if I may, Laura, to Staff, that if this request is approved by the Board this evening that maybe you communicate to the applicant that this may likely be the last extension that is granted. Any other comments? Okay. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 70-2014 JAMES VARANO Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling Pursuant to Chapter 179-8-060, -070 of the Zoning Ordinance, installing/maintaining a buffer less than 50 feet between zones (CM & MDR – 10 feet is proposed) shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant was granted an extension on 10/20/15 to 10/20/16. Applicant was granted a second extension on 10/18/16 to 10/18/17. Applicant was granted a third extension on 10/17/17 to 10/16/18. Applicant was granted a fourth extension on 10/16/18 to 10/15/19. Applicant has requested another one year extension to October 2020. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought I heard Jamie say that last year we said that that would be the last extension. I mean after five years, I’m not sure I can remember the project. MS. WHITE-Exactly, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t remember the specifics. I remember the name. MR. DEEB-If he did have a death in the family I guess that’s a legitimate reason. MRS. MOORE-I mean it’s an ongoing process. I believe my guess is for what occurred, but again it’s a single family home. The idea that it requires Site Plan Review is because it’s between two zones. So that is why it requires Site Plan. MR. SHAFER-And have any codes and/or regulations changed in that five year period? MRS. MOORE-No, they have not, not for that zone. No. MR. DEEB-I’m okay with Steve’s suggestion that if possible we make this the last extension. MRS. MOORE-Or you can shorten the extension. MR. DEEB-I was going to say, we could go six months. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would suggest we either approve it or deny it, and I would ask, and we haven’t had the vote yet, Laura, but I would ask if it’s true that we had discussed the last extension being the last one, that is it possible for you to put something in the record so that when this comes up next year that we’re reminded of that before we consider the motion? That might be helpful. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I can do that. MS. WHITE-In my head that’s what I remember. MR. MAGOWAN-I think you’re right. MR. TRAVER-I’m sure she is., All right. If there’s no other discussion, Maria, can you can the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Valentine 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. The second administrative item that we have is Site Plan PZ 230-2016, Legacy Land Holdings, request for an additional one year extension. It sounds like this is also an additional to what was approved and asked for. SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO OCTOBER 2020 MRS. MOORE-So this was approved back in 2016 and one of the things that was held up in regards to our end was the discussion of the transportation corporation and that has been resolved. So prior to 2016 Legacy Land Holdings had other discussions and items that they complied with that related to the transportation corporation. It’s a corporation of some sort, and they resolved that issue, and now he’s requesting saying that they’re not ready for construction at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but if they’ve resolved that, why do they need a whole year? MRS. MOORE-That’s a separate issue. One is for the construction of the project. One was because they need to resolve that to the satisfaction of your approved resolution and they have done that. They have now requested this extension again. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Well perhaps if you would make the same note for the file. Note how many extensions they’ve received, if they request another extension next year so we’ll be aware of that. Any other discussion on this? MS. WHITE-Forgive me if I’m confusing this, but weren’t there also discussions that there were anticipated changes to this plan? That it was not working like they originally thought it was going to? Or am I? No? No changes? MRS. MOORE-No changes. MS. WHITE-No changes to this site plan. MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Otherwise it would be a modification. MRS. MOORE-And they’d be coming back anyway. I have not heard that. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Any other discussion? MR. DEEB-On the motion itself, an additional one year extension was granted October 16, 2019. I think you meant 18? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. So we’ll change that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we have an amended motion. Any further discussion? Maria, can we have the vote on that, please. MR. DEEB-I haven’t read the motion yet. MR. TRAVER-You haven’t? My apologies. I’m getting ahead of myself again. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # SP PZ 230-2016 LEGACY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a partial 3 story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the existing pathway is 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site plan and SP 4-2011. The Planning Board approved this application on November 15, 2016. A one year extension was granted on October 17, 2017. An additional one year extension was granted on October 16, 2018. An additional one year extension is requested by the applicant. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-Yes. If you look at that resolution, Applicant was granted a fourth extension on 10/16/18 to 10/15/19. And it wouldn’t meet our deadline. So that’s why it’s on tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So we’ll go back to the other date? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. I did. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ve amended the motion. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Before we move to the regular agenda, Laura, do you have any update from StoredTech on the request from the Technology Committee back in February for the free software? MRS. MOORE-I do not have an update at this time. I know that information about what’s been requested has been transferred to someone else in IT, and I have not heard from that person. MR. TRAVER-Seven months? Their idea of good PR I guess. Okay. All right. Well then we’ll move to the regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is under Old Business and the first applicant is Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Site Plan 58-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 58-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO. AGENT(S): ANDREW DIDIO. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2966 STATE RT. 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 174 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION OVER AN EXISTING DECK AND UNDER THE MAIN FLOOR DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES ADJUSTING OUTSIDE STAIRS AND ADDING NEW STAIRS TO PATH AT GRADE. THE EXISTING HOME HAS 1,096 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, NEW FOOTPRINT TO BE 1,270 SQ. FT./EXISTING FLOOR AREA 2,096 SQ. FT. (28%) AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA TO BE 2,230 SQ. FT. (30%). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-2018 525 SF ADDITION, AV 14-2018, 2003-112 DOCK, 2003-347 DECKS, AV 37-2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: .17 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010,179-6-065, 179-8-010. JOSEPH DIDIO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 174 square foot single story addition over an existing deck and under the main floor deck. They did receive their variance which was granted on 9/18 in reference to setback issues as well as the floor area. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. DIDIO-Good evening. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So you went before the ZBA and it appears that your project was signed off by them. Were there any changes to your design or your application as a result of that discussion? MR. DIDIO-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know we looked at this application on your original plan and then just last week your amended plan, and you say there were no changes. So it is as we had reviewed previously. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-I just had a question about how many bedrooms the new building will have? MR. DIDIO-It will have three bedrooms. There are three bedrooms now. I have no garage, no basement. So there’s a very small bedroom that will become basically basement and the other smaller bedroom that is upstairs will become a walk-in closet for the upstairs room. So it’ll still stay three bedroom. Mr. Magowan had asked last week about the septic I had, and I found it’s rated, I think, for four bedrooms. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you very much for that. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. If you’d come up and get on the mic for our minutes, please. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY BANTA MR. BANTA-I’m Gary Banta. I’m the property owner to the south of Mr. Didio. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome. And, you, ma’am? MR. BANTA-My friend is Liz. She’s my assistant. I have brain damage so I need assistance. The issue is the runoff from this property which has already significantly caused irreparable erosion to my property. This whole property slopes towards mine. This whole front of his property is paved and it’s covered with building. There are two freestanding sheds on either side of his house. He didn’t have permits to build the decks to begin with. He said his brother-in-law was doing the job for him. Now this goes back several years. He completed the decks, but I should go way back to when he built his docks. My dad was alive, and they brought it over on rollers. It did damage our property structurally by moving those materials over our land because there was no other way of getting them down there because his property building takes up the entire frontage of that land. It should be inspected before anything’s approved because it isn’t possible to get move down their other than over my land or Ellie Strack, his neighbor to the north. MR. TRAVER-So the Didio property is landlocked? MR. BANTA-No. It’s available from the road, but not on either side. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Not on either side. Okay. MR. BANTA-And when he applied for his dock permits which he was granted, I never disagreed because we’re fair people, and in the water there had been, years ago, some cribs. So we felt it would be good neighbors and that they deserved to have a larger dock. Well following that, to begin with, he didn’t comply with our agreement to, my father or I, or both would oversee movement of that material over our land and that began the erosion which continued. He promised to correct it and never did so. MR. TRAVER-Can you share that agreement with the Town? MR. BANTA-Yes, I can. MR. TRAVER-So you have a copy of it with you this evening? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. BANTA-No, I don’t, but it was a verbal agreement. I’m sharing it with you now, and then once the damage was done, he didn’t repair it as he agreed to, but it was irreparable. Those paths through my land which Ken Foslacher who’s the only resident who’s been on his side as long as I have, I’m five generations on that property. MR. TRAVER-So if I can attempt to clarify, it sounds as though your objection to what he has proposed in his application before us this evening is because in the past, in previous projects, you were unhappy with the work was done. Is that correct? MR. BANTA-And that he didn’t have permits to build these decks that he now wants to cover. He came here because he placed the hot tub right on our property line. No setbacks. I came here addressing that and the fact that he didn’t have permits to build those decks. MR. TRAVER-How do you know that he didn’t have permits? MR. BANTA-Because I came to Building and Codes and there were no permits to do so. MR. TRAVER-So if he had no permit, then the issued a Stop Work Order. MR. BANTA-It was completed and more damage had been done to my property. I don’t live on the property. I’m there occasionally, but now even to get down to my lakefront for any of my guests or family it’s so eroded you wouldn’t believe it and his whole front yard and in front of his entire house, used to be a yard, is now blacktop. It erodes the water all onto my land and has washed it into a virtual loose rocks everywhere and that was over 200 years old, that established pathway. MR. TRAVER-That’s a stormwater issue we can certainly ask the applicant about that. MR. BANTA-And it’s a major problem, and when he came before the Board to have to move the hot tub they scolded him, telling him, his brother-in-law he claimed had been the builder and had sought the permits which Tim Alden who was my attorney at the time, all these records are on file, he paid for the permits and kept the decks because I didn’t want him bringing them all back over my land improperly without our overseeing which was the original agreement and he had to move the hot tub. The Town forced him to do that which he replaced with a fire pit which sits there now. He hunts on my land. He allows his dog to run on my land. It’s a major issue, plus he threatens me that I can’t use the north side of my dock because it interferes with him putting his boat into his docks that I allowed without any protest for him to enlarge. Well no one owns the body of the lake. It’s unfortunate, I have a copy of the map if you’d like to see it. The property lines run. MR. TRAVER-Well I understand there’s been a history of dispute with Mr. Didio. I hope you can appreciate that our interest this evening is with the application that is before us and not with. I sympathize certainly if you’ve had issues in the past. Our focus needs to be on what we have before us to consider this evening, and I’m sure you can understand that. MR. BANTA-I would like to know, Number One, how is he going to get the building materials on his land and the construction equipment to make this project happen. MR. TRAVER-That’s certainly is a fair question. We will ask him that. We can ask about stormwater as well. Stormwater runoff is a major issue. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Banta, do you want me to read this letter into the record, then? MR. BANTA-That would be wonderful. MRS. MOORE-All right. He has a letter. So I’ll read that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. “I Gary Banta strongly object to the proposed project of Joseph and Cynthia Didio's property in the tax map # 239.20-1-7 as it will cause considerable damage to my property. Gary E. Banta tax # 239.20-1-6. It is my concern that this project is not possible due to the facts that they have no way to get the materials and equipment on to their property without using my property and causing further damage to my property which began when they enlarged their docks many years ago by moving all the docking materials, heavy pressure treated lumber over my property. This caused severe ruts. This ultimately caused significant erosion to what became loose bare rock. The path that was once beautiful and natural and safe, has now become inaccessible to safely articulate. Joseph and Cynthia Didio purposely ignored the agreement made between Joe Didio and Edward Banta and myself. The agreed 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) upon plan had been for Ed Banta to oversee the moving of the Didio's construction materials properly on rollers so as to prevent erosion from occurring. This did not happen and now our property has been severely damaged by significant erosion. We confronted Mr. Didio concerning the problems and he stated he would correct the damage, which never has been corrected from the decks. Mr. Didio built 2 or 3 large decks without permission from the town, further causing the erosion and harm to my property. He has made it financially impossible for me to afford the repair from the extensive damage he has caused to my property that has been ongoing. I have been unable to prevent this further erosion. The entire front road frontage of the Didio house from the house to the road and on both sides of the house are black topped forcing the run off to come onto my property. Proper drainage systems should have been installed prior to construction/paving. They have sheds on either side of their house with no consideration of town setbacks. This project will be more construction that directly and harmfully effects my property once again. This will definitely cause further water runoff because the ground will be covered by the new proposed structure. This needs to be addressed, as well as concerns over adding additional sewage/waste to the existing small septic system. This in itself becomes a very concerning issue for not only myself but other homeowners in Lake George. The Lake George Park Commission has to be active in this matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. “ MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MR. BANTA-I do have some other issues here, too. MR. TRAVER-Relating to the current project? MR. BANTA-I believe so. His neighbor to the north has a very well set up situation to handle their runoff with terraces and she’s paved. MR. TRAVER-You’re speaking not of Mr. Didio but another person that lives nearby? MR. BANTA-Mrs. Strack. Ellie Strack. She’s the property owner just to the north towards Assembly Point from Mr. Didio, and her property I don’t believe she would be pleased to have it damaged either. MR. TRAVER-Is she here this evening to give public comment? MR. BANTA-I don’t believe so. MR. DIDIO-You have received a letter from Mrs. Strack. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Continue. MR. BANTA-The other issue is he threatens me about use of my north dock. I have never parked a boat there for the entire summer season. Perhaps every season since his docks have been there, a matter of weeks at a time, not consistently, but occasionally because I have rental cottages and my main house is an inn and lodge and has been since the 30’s and these cabins have been there since the 40’s. He tells the guests not to use the north dock and threatens me that I’m operating a marina because I occasionally park a boat there and he also has threatened to turn me in for that if I don’t allow him to hunt on my property. MR. DEEB-Sir, we’re not the proper venue for that. MR. TRAVER-You’re talking about a civil matter. MR. DEEB-A civil matter. This is not for us to hear. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything in addition that applies specifically to the application before us this evening? MR. BANTA-Mainly just concerns from the Lake George Park Commission about the water issue which has been recorded with them and they’ve been to my property and they have inspected the runoff from his property as well as other. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned runoff. We will certainly ask the applicant about that. Anything else related to this application this evening? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. BANTA-I think we’ve covered it all. I just want to look at it one more time. Mainly I’m not in favor of anymore damage to my land, and it’s going to be difficult. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that. We understand that. Anything else? MR. BANTA-I think that’ll cover it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any other additional comments? MRS. MOORE-There are other additional written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-So this is from the Lake George Water Keeper. “The above referenced Site Plan Review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper and FUND for Lake George has provided the applicant grant funding for their recent onsite wastewater treatment system upgrade and would like to recognize that effort. The applicant's efforts on landscaping the property are recognized as well; however, we support the Town's recent adoption of shoreline buffer restoration requirements to improve the water quality and the long-term protection of Lake George. We would support more detail on the landscaping plan to ensure compliance with this requirement. The Waterkeeper also views redevelopment as the opportunity to implement important mitigation measures, such as stormwater management, for projects located within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations, specifically Chapter 147 and 175, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced site plan application. The Planning Board should require the installation of stormwater management for impervious surfaces to the maximum extent practicable. The Planning Board should take this advantage to bring the property more into compliance with the Town Stormwater Code and require stormwater management controls to the greatest extent possible. The applicant could utilize the existing planting areas for stormwater management and implement Low Impact Development (LID) measures such as rain gardens or proposed vegetation and soils as part of a stormwater management plan. This could also be worked into the excavation that is proposed for the foundation work on the expanded basement. The applicant should verify the number of bedrooms for the proposed upgraded structure. The information submitted last year for the wastewater treatment grant stated the structure was a "4- bedroom cottage" and the system was designed as such. This application appears to convert a walk-out basement into two guest bedrooms. The Planning Board should require verification that the wastewater treatment system is adequately sized for the number of bedrooms. I apologize that I am unable to attend the public hearing on this application. The Waterkeeper is not opposed to the proposed application with the conditions of restoring shoreline buffer, implementing Stormwater management and verification of the number of bedrooms with the wastewater treatment system. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper” That’s it for that letter. The next one is from Lisa Cadena. “To the members of the Queensbury Planning and Zoning Boards, I’m writing this to inform the members of both boards that the project that the Didio family is planning for their home will have no impact on us. In fact we are all for it! Best Regards”, and their address is 2962 State Route 9L. The next one is addressed to the Planning and Zoning Boards, “I am writing regarding the expansion project my neighbors, Joseph and Cynthia Didio, of 2966 State Rt. 9L, are proposing on their property. It does not impact my property at all and I recommend the Boards pass the variances to allow their expansion project. Sincerely, Eleanor Strack” And this is addressed to the Town Zoning Board, but it would apply. “Be advised that I, Albert A. Turcotte, living at 2970 State Route 9L, have absolutely no problems whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Didio’s variance and/or appeal application for their residence at 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George, NY 12845, Tax ID 239.20-1-7. I truly believe that their application should be granted consent as is! Respectfully submitted, Albert A. Turcotte” And that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Would the applicant return to the table, please. So with regard to public comment, obviously some of your neighbors appear to approve and are in favor of what it is that you are doing on your property. Certainly the one gentleman had a lot of concerns. I heard concerns regarding stormwater runoff causing erosion. Are you aware of an issue? There was some discussion about the Park Commission reviewing the situation. Are you aware of that at all? MR. DIDIO-No, but what I do know is, you know, we moved in about 18 or 20 years ago, and you have photos of what our property was like down to the lakefront. We have planted, in fact Mr. Magowan 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) mentioned it at the end of the meeting, he appreciated what we have done. We have done, I’ve built so many retaining walls with drainage and soil from the areas that I mulch all the leaves. I mean we have planted hundreds of plants and if this guy, he said he visited the site, Laura, the Water shed guy? MRS. MOORE-Well, he’s been on site for your wastewater system, potentially, but I don’t know if he’s been on site. MR. DIDIO-Yes, no, I don’t think he looked at anything because the difference between what it was, what it is, and what we have done is more than significant, and if I may say, you know, responding to Mr. Banta lends it credence and it’s completely confused and disingenuous at best, but I must say that in the 18 to 20 years I’ve been there, Mr. Banta has done nothing to improve his property. In fact, you know, I see him maybe once a year. It’s in such a state of, it’s been raked, the lot next to me has been raked maybe three times in the 18 to 20 years I’ve been there. If I may, he blames all of the erosion, that path is in the exact same condition it was as when I moved in. To alleviate some of the, I had guys build a dock. They came in and dropped the materials on his lot right next to my driveway. I told them they cannot do that and everything was carried down through my property, my stair. Ellie Strack has allowed us, as have the Cadenas, as have the Turcottes, for any staging areas for any construction or whatever. Everything that needs to be built there can be brought down. MR. TRAVER-So you feel confident that the project you’re proposing before us this evening, materials and so on, can be brought on site without traveling on his property. MR> DIDIO-That’s not an issue, no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR> DIDIO-And again, as far as, I would invite that gentleman and the Board actually to visit my property and see what we’ve done to the shoreline. I’ve lived there my entire life on the lake. I do everything I can to be a good citizen. If there is any runoff, 9L is a slanted hill, if you look at it, I mean drive down it, it’s just, the water runs down from everywhere. I’ve done everything I can to alleviate it. Mr. Banta has not touched his property in the 18, 20 years I’ve been there. All of his cabins are basically, they haven’t been occupied other than this house that I think it’s a cousin or nephew or something that he allowed to use it. They’re just, everything is in disrepair. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Maria, before you remind me, I’m not sure if I closed the public hearing. So I will do that now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Are these photos current? MR. DIDIO-Yes. MR. SHAFER-They are current? MR. DIDIO-Yes. MR. DIXON-Are you planning on putting any gutter system on the house to re-direct water? MR. DIDIO-Yes. Anything that, any runoff that would be from that, again it’s going to be a very short addition roof, I think it’s three and a half or maybe five feet, something like that, two feet, and all would be guttered. My son’s an environmental scientist. His engineering firm designed this, and he will be on site. MR. DIXON-Is it going to go to a retention basin or something? MR. DIDIO-I’m sorry? MR. DIXON-Are you re-directing? MR> DIDIO-I don’t know what their plans are, but whatever they do, I mean, I would have no problem doing that, you know, whether it’s a drywell or whatever you do, but I would have no problem with that. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. DIXON-I know it’s tough up here in the wintertime. Things freeze over and in the spring when the runoff takes place it doesn’t work great, but I would be concerned just having gutters just draining off on to the yard. MR. DIDIO-We’ve got gutters now. We would have gutters at that time, and they drain into what is kind of a gravel area that, again, I have built retaining walls with sand and drainage rock and you can probably see there are probably five walls that I’ve built to slow down the flow of water. MR. DEEB-So you could say the stormwater stays on your property. MR. DIDIO-It does. Absolutely does. MR. TRAVER-Which is required. All right. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? All right. I think we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 58-2019 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 174 sq. ft. single story addition over an existing deck and under the main floor deck. Project includes adjusting outside stairs and adding new stairs to path at grade. The existing home has 1,096 sq. ft. footprint, new footprint to be 1,270 sq. ft. / existing floor area 2,096 sq. ft. (28%) and proposed floor area to be 2,230 sq. ft. (30%). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/24/2019 and continued the public hearing to 09/24/2019, 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 09/24/2019; 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 58-2019 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO. 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, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. DIDIO-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Site Plan 62-2019 for George and Christine Hearst. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GEORGE HEARST, III & CHRISTINE HEARST. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 244 LAKE PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 1,480 SQ. FT. HOME WITH NEW DECK 144 +/- SQ. FT., SCREEN PORCH 143.75 +/- SQ. FT., ENTRY PORCH 84 +/- SQ. FT., DORMER ON SECOND FLOOR, NEW BASEMENT AND A NEW FOUNDATION FOR THE EXISTING HOME. FLOOR AREA EXISTING IS 2,135 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 3,895 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2015-480 SUNDECK, BOTH 212-2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LPC. LOT SIZE: .44 ACRE & .2 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-79 & 226.19-1-74. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. TOM HUTCHINS & MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to maintain an existing home of 1,480 square foot, that’s the footprint. They’re adding a few additions, 144 square foot deck, a screened porch of 143.75 square foot, and enlarging the second story dormer. In addition to that there is a new foundation that will create a basement area for this home and the other evening at the Zoning Board they were granted their setback variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, with builder Matt Cifone on behalf of George and Christine Hearst. We did receive our variance. Nothing has changed from what we presented the other night. If you want another overview I’d be happy to do so, but we’re back here for final Site Plan Review. I’d remind you the project includes a new compliant wastewater system. There’s a significant natural buffer area. I hope you’ve had a chance to go to the property because there were, I counted over 70 mature trees on the parcel today and at least 30 of those are between the house and the shoreline, and these are large, mature trees. Some of the photos there show that. I can’t imagine much more of a natural buffer than what we have here. And with that I’d turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you’re confirming no plan changes as a result of the review by the Zoning Board? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. TRAVER-We did look at this last week. Are there any follow up questions from members of the Board for the applicant? If there are none, we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 62-2019 GEORGE HEARST, III & CHRISTINE HEARST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,480 sq. ft. home with new deck 144 +/- sq. ft., screen porch 143.75 +/- sq. ft., entry porch 84 +/- sq. ft., dormer on second floor, new basement and a new foundation for the existing home. Floor area existing is 2,135 sq. ft. and proposed is 3,895 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/24/2019 and continued the public hearing to 09/24/2019, 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 09/24/2019; 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 62-2019 GEORGE HEARST III & CHRISTINE HEARST. 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2019 the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda we’re moving to New Business, and our first application under New Business is The Great Escape Properties, Site Plan 54-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THE GREAT ESCAPE PROPERTIES. AGENT(S): BARTON & LOGUIDICE, DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES STREAM BANK STABILIZATION FOR THE SWAN BOAT RIDE ON GLEN LAKE BROOK. THE PROJECT IS TO OCCUR IN THREE PHASES OVER 1,100 FT. OF THE BROOK. PHASE I IS TO INCLUDE ABOUT 80 FT. OF THE BROOK WITH NEW PLANTINGS, GRADING, STABILIZATION METHODS FOR THE BANK. PHASE II WILL BE SIMILAR TO PHASE I AND WILL COMPLETE THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE BROOK ON BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES. PHASE III INCLUDES THE DREDGING OF THE BROOK FOR THE SWAN BOAT RIDE. ONLY PHASE I TO BE COMPLETED FOR THIS SITE PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING, SHORELINE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 3-2019, SP 5-2017, SP 15-2018 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 237.6 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179- 6-050. CHARLES DUMAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a stream bank stabilization for the swan boat ride on Glen Lake Brook. The project is to occur in three phases over 1,100 feet of the Brook. Phase I is to include about 80 feet of the Brook with new plantings, grading and stabilization methods for the bank. Phase II will be similar to Phase I and will complete the remaining portion of the Brook on both the north and south sides. Phase III includes dredging of the Brook for the swan boat ride. Only Phase I is to be completed at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. Charles Dumas, attorney with Lemery, Greisler. I have with me Stephen Le Fevre from Barton & Loguidice who is the project engineer and Danielle Smith from The Great Escape. As Laura mentioned, we’re not building anything with this application. The idea is to stabilize the bank and do some dredging in three phases for the glen brook. That’s the area where the swan boats are. MR. TRAVER-I understand that this evening you’re only looking for approval for Phase I. Correct? MR. DUMAS-Yes, that’s correct. Phase I would involve a portion of the bank stabilization and Stephen will talk a little bit about this. Phase II would involve further bank stabilization in another area and then Phase III would involve the dredging. It’s our hope this evening that we could get concept approval for the entire project, site plan, conditional site plan approval for Phase I, subject to Army Corps and DEC permitting which is also required. MR. TRAVER-I must say, you know, we received a lot of information from Chazen as they review various applications before us, and I was stunned to get a letter from them that says Chazen does not have any technical comments at this time. I had to read that about three or four times and highlight it. MR. DUMAS-Well this fellow to my right couldn’t be more thorough. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-I think the information that was submitted for site plan approval included a lot of material that, you know, Army Corps and DEC naturally requires for an application. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well it’s a good plan to prepare the whole thing. Sure. All right. MR. DUMAS-Stephen, would you like to talk a little bit about the project? STEPHEN LE FEVRE MR. LE FEVRE-Sure. Thank you very much., So my name is Steve Le Fevre. I’m the Senior Managing Hydrogeologist with the engineering firm of Barton & Loguidice and the project that we’re proposing is to 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) stabilize the failing stream bank which is part of the cause of siltation that’s occurring in Glen Brook, and the siltation is impeding the swan boat ride and we all know that little kids like to go on the swan boat ride. MR. TRAVER-I remember it well. MS. WHITE-I still like to go on the swan boat rides. MR. LE FEVRE-Yes, and there’s nothing more tragic than having a swan boat ride get stuck and you’re out there stuck. So what we did is we did an assessment of the stream bank and we came up with eight reaches which you’ll see here, and we’re basically proposing to use a variety of methods to stabilize the stream bank. We’re going to use rock armoring in some instances, but in most cases we want to use natural vegetation, okay. We’re going to focus, for Phase I we’re going to focus on Reach Seven, Reach Six, and Reach Five, and the reason why we’re focusing on those reaches is because the stream bank is actually beginning to undermine some structures at the Park. So it’s critical that we get those taken care of right away. As you’ve seen on the plans basically the methodology that we’re proposing to use is we’re going to have to shave away some of the stream bank and then we’re going to put down some geo fabric and we’re going to bring in some clean fill material and then we’re going to use, put riprap in some areas and then we’re going to put what’s called Core Logs, and the Core Logs are going to go at the water table interface, and what they do is they stabilize the bank and allow for plantings to be planted and then to grow, mature over a period of a few years. So that’s basically it. So Phase I is, as I told you, the three Reaches that we’re proposing and then Phase II are the other Reaches, and then Phase III at some point down the road would be the actual dredge some of the sediment out of the stream channel. MR. TRAVER-Good. Well that sounds like quite an improvement on the environment of that water body. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-What is the depth you’re looking to dredge it at? MR. LE FEVRE-So we’ve done some profiles. On one of the sheets actually shows the cross sections that we performed. I’d say the thickness of the sediment in the bottom of the channel varies from, it’s probably two to three feet thick. So I think the dredging would be on the order of two to three feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I remember in ’79 I think it was when I worked there, ’78 or ’79, and I think it was my last day before I went back to school I was thrown off one of the bridges, and I remember it was one of those initiation things I guess. I don’t know if they’ve still got that going on, but I just remember it was a little mucky down there. MR. LE FEVRE-It is. MR. MAGOWAN-But the swan boats did run. MR. DUMAS-So you want it deeper, right? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I was just thinking in case they still have that practice. MR. DEEB-Is it accepted practice that, the methodology that you’re using now has been used prior obviously and you’ve had quite a bit of success with it? MR. LE FEVRE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It’s also subject to further review from DEC. MR. DEEB-Yes. I’m just curious. It sounds like a really good process. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not something we see very often. MR. DEEB-No, we don’t see a lot of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially the stream. MR. DUMAS-We did meet with a couple of representatives of the Glen Lake Protective Association in the anti-room and they had some questions about the dredging part of it. One had to do with whether with 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) the milfoil removed, whether there was any invasive species and the answer is, yes. That would be the subject of Site Plan Review for Phase III. MR. TRAVER-The dredging. MR. DUMAS-Yes. So we talked about protective measures at that point in time so that fragmentation of the milfoil wouldn’t find its way into the lake. They’ve spent quite a bit of time and effort to control the milfoil and we wouldn’t, as any part of this project, want to spoil that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Sure. Understood. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, before we do get around to voting, just for full disclosure, my son does work for Great Escape but there’s no conflict whatsoever. He’s a teenager. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you for that disclosure. MR. DUMAS-One other point I would like to make is that the application talks about the applicant as being The Great Escape Properties. The actual legal name is The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC so if there could be a modification to reflect that fact that would be appropriate. MR. TRAVER-That certain can be done in any formal documentation. MR. DUMAS-Right. Thank you. MR. DIXON-I do have one question. So in the wintertime, for a couple of years you did a Christmas theme. Do you do any salting of any of the walkways, roadways, anywhere near the stream bed? DANIELLE SMITH MS. SMITH-We haven’t done a Holiday in the Park for, since 2008. The Park does get plowed but we use regular sand. Most of the time, the only reason we plow is for the fire department. No one’s actually walking on there. So unless it’s absolutely necessary, we don’t sand directly in that area, and actually in Barton & Loguidice’s findings they did find that around the marina there is a lot of sand runoff and that’s actually coming from Route 9 because we have the culverts that go underneath the road. So it’s just regular wintertime protection. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone in the audience. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I had a thought as well when we get to Phase III to the dredging. There may be some interesting artifacts in that sediment, and so it might be worthwhile. When we get to that, we can talk more about that when we get to that Phase. MR. DUMAS-Certainly. MR. TRAVER-Certainly that sediment might be worth setting aside and some screening process. MR. DUMAS-Well actually there is a plan for that. Stephen? MR. LE FEVRE-Sure. So the dredging, when it occurs, probably the methodology that’s going to be used is called hydraulic dredging. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. LE FEVRE-Where they’re actually going to suck up the sediments in the water and then the water, the water in the sediments are going to go into these actual bags. MR. TRAVER-The screens and so on. MR. LE FEVRE-Bags, and then the water will be allowed to seep out and then you’ll be able to go in and look for whatever. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. Yes, that would be neat. MR. DUMAS-And I think the idea is that there’s an a rea at the Park that would receive this material. I think it’s a sand quarry. So it would be there and available for examination. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thanks. Well of course we’ll talk about that when you get to that Phase. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a similar disclosure. My daughter-in-law works for Great Escape. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-But I would make the same comment that I certainly don’t feel that there’s any conflict. MR. TRAVER-Right. Noted. Thank you. Are there any questions before we consider a motion? I think we have a draft motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 54-2019 THE GREAT ESCAPE PROPERTIES 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 stream bank stabilization for the Swan Boat Ride on Glen Lake Brook. The project is to occur in three phases over 1,100 ft. of the brook. Phase I is to include about 80 ft. of the brook with new plantings, grading stabilization methods for the bank. Phase II will be similar to Phase I and will complete the remaining portion of the brook on both the north and south sides. Phase III includes the dredging of the brook for the Swan Boat ride. Only Phase I to be completed for this site plan. . Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, shoreline work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/24/2019 and continued the public hearing to 09/24/2019, 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 09/24/2019; 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 54-2019 THE GREAT ESCAPE PROPERTIES. 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, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) 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. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. LE FEVRE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Continuing under New Business and also under unapproved development we have Apex Capital, LLC, Site Plan 53-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: (SEQR) APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI AREA PARKING LOT, CONSTRUCTION OF A ZIP LINE ATTRACTION, APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING MOUNTAIN BIKING VENUE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECTS. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR A PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PARCELS 315.5-1-3.2 AND 315.5-1-2 FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. THE PARCELS ARE TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-40 TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW SEQR. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22-2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SO 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584-2019 RE- ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & JEFF ANTHONY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain ski area parking lot, construction of a zip line attraction, approval of existing mountain bike venue and other associated projects. This project also includes a Petition for Zone Change for two parcels, 3.2 and 2 for Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking and at this time this Board is looking at Accepting Lead Agency Status and hearing the application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Spencer Montgomery on behalf of the ownership group. Jeff Anthony and Matt Huntington from Studio A. Jeff’s the project landscape architect and Matt’s the project engineer. As Laura said we’re here to give you an overview of the project tonight. We just got Chazen’s stormwater review letter on Friday and we have to provide detailed answers. So we just want to hear your comments and we’ll re-submit Chazen comments and we’d like to be back next month we’re hoping to be in a position where you could recommend this so we could get to the Town Board, but we have to do SEQR first as well. So that’s where we’re at and I don’t have to say much about West Mountain. It’s an important resource for the Town. Since Apex has owned it they’ve put millions of dollars into it which was needed and there’s more than needs to be invested, but this idea of adding the overflow parking is just really to address the safety concern that the busiest times of the year, vacation weeks, holidays, so that people aren’t parking on West Mountain Road. There’s two houses on West 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) Mountain Road that became available adjacent to the parking lot, a nice flat area good for parking. There have been times where people have been parking on West Mountain Road and it hasn’t been a good situation. So that’s the main thing and then the zip line is just an opportunity to have more off season or summer season activity because it’s underutilized, just to help the ownership group and make this as viable a continuing use for the Town as it can be. That’s the general story. I’m going to ask Jeff to walk you through the site plan and just explain it a little bit, and Spencer can answer any questions. MR. ANTHONY-The map that’s on the screen right now illustrates the two parcels that are being considered for re-zoning. That parcel right there is 57. This is 43 West Mountain Road. The ski area they are zoned residential right now, medium density. The parcel for the West Mountain ski area is this parcel right here. So these are contiguous to the ski area and they’re immediately south of the existing parking area. All the surrounding lands within 500 feet are zoned currently medium density residential also. So our request is to re-zone these two parcels from medium density residential to RC, Recreation Commercial, so that they can be used by the ski area for overflow parking. They will not be paved. They will be partially gravel, partially grass. They will be going through transitions as they get used, but we’ve calculated for stormwater this being gravel. Laura, do you have the next map up there? Okay. These are the two parcels. Actually I can hardly read that one there. These are the two parcels and they show existing conditions on the drawing on the left. They show proposed parking on the right. Currently there’s 558 parking spaces at the existing West Mountain ski area parking lot We’re going to, these parcels total four and a half acres roughly, but they’re not going to be used totally for parking. The houses on both of them are going to be retained and used for ski area related activities and purposes. The parking we’ll add an additional 150 cars. So we’ll have a total of 708 car capacity once these are in service, and like Jon said, the primary purpose for this is to accommodate holiday and festival and high use periods at the ski area. The 708 cars is calculated to be pretty acceptable to accommodate the entire highest use at West Mountain. The greatest, we went back and looked at our records for West Mountain and the highest attendance at West Mountain at any time is 2,000 people a day. That doesn’t occur all the time. There’s usually 1,000 on long weekends and 500 on weekdays. Now according to the U.S. Forest Service recreation planning guide for ski areas, you can count on three to four people per car coming to the ski area. So if we use the worst case scenario of 2,000, if you use the worst case of three people per car, not four, we need 668 cars to meet that capacity and we’re proposing 708. Now that some of that space will be used for bus parking and buses will be limited to that current parking lot only. They’re not going to go into the overflow parking area because of the adjacent residential uses. So we don’t want buses idling waiting for the kids to go skiing and come back. So buses will not go into these two overflow lots. So with that number we believe that the ski area will be able to accommodate its highest use peak days without having people parking on West Mountain Road. Laura, can you go to the next one? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to do the zip line? MR. ANTHONY-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. ANTHONY-Okay, Spencer, you may have to help me on this one because you have worked on this course with me. Why don’t you take and run through the zip line. SPENCER MONTGOMERY MR. MONTGOMERY-So the zip line was proposed to be not a traditional one and done kind of like where you leave one platform and land at the bottom. It was going to be more of an interactive zip line and that’s why you see a series of towers. So the treetop aerial adventure that we have has a system, it’s what’s called a double belay system. So that once you clip in, the person once they’re in the treetop can’t clip out and those belays, unlike some that you have to drag along, actually have got trolley wheels in them so that the belays would be able to, the concept was that those same belays and harnesses would be able to be used for this zip line, meaning that it can’t be very steep. So like a traditional zip line like in Lake George and some other ones you go down on a really large like trolley device that has a braking mechanism in it. So as a rule of thumb you can’t drop more than 10% of your grade with the trolley system that we have. So this was more of an interactive system where you go from platform to platform and you go basically through the trees. I’ve never been on one because I haven’t been there but supposedly, and I’ve seen videos of them obviously. Down in Costa Rica these are pretty popular because they’re kind of a jungle tour going through the trees. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we saw a video of that presentation. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. So that’s the concept and that’s why there’s multiple towers is because you can’t drop a lot of grade with these so it’s designed that the belay and the cable, you stop along the way on the way down. You get off one platform and you’d walk down to the next and continue. MR. TRAVER-Now are the riders assisted with the clipping of the harnesses by an attendant or do you do that on your own? MR. MONTGOMERY-No. That’s an attendant that would make sure that you were clipped in. There would be a guide in front of the party. The parties traditionally are five to nine people. Then there would be a guide coming up in the rear of the party. So there would be two guides. And so hence the number of towers that are up there. So that’s kind of it in a nutshell. MR. DEEB-What’s the fastest speed? How fast could you go? MR. MONTGOMERY-I don’t know the exact speed. I mean it’s not anywhere near the, I think the 55 miles an hour that you get on those big long ones. MR. TRAVER-There’s no braking. It can’t be terribly fast. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. They do have an e-brake system that they use, but you’re still allowed to use the same harness system that you’re clipped in with. I mean I don’t understand it exactly but I know it’s not an extensive braking system. It’ll only slow from a particular speed. So I may have described that wrong. These do have trolley wheels that go in them, but there’s still some sort of e-braking mechanism it’s just not very aggressive. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. I remember we had a presentation on that as well. I don’t remember all the details but we have seen them. Thank you for that. MR. ANTHONY-Laura, do we have any other? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. ANTHONY-I think one of the other aspects of this request that the Town has asked us to consider with you is to approve the mountain biking system that is in place. There’s, I don’t fully understand but it’s there. It’s been there since around 2006 I think. MR. MONTGOMERY-No, I think it was 2002. MR. ANTHONY-2002. Okay, and we’re not planning any proposed new construction. There’s no modifications being made to it. There’s nothing being added, but for whatever reason it somehow got there and it wasn’t formally approved by the Town. MR. TRAVER-I see, too, that there was some work done on a proposed parking area without approval. How did that happen? MR. LAPPER-Let me address that. So when they bought these two houses down by West Mountain Road one of them had been used traditionally by the prior owners as a place to leave broken equipment. So it was just a big mess and they came in and cleaned it up without realizing that that would be a stormwater pollution prevention plan issue because of the amount of, once they graded it out., So I mean that was, we’re here to address that. That was innocent and shouldn’t have happened, but it was all part of the site plan. MR. TRAVER-All unapproved development is innocent. MR. MONTGOMERY-So, yes, I’d like to address that specifically because when I was here last time, just to be clear, Mr. Bishop had stood up and I was given approval for the treetop, for the steel building, the addition, and I specifically was not given approval for the parking. So I was aware of that. That piece of property I knew had to have a 50 foot berm before we changed zoning. MR. LAPPER-Buffer. MR. MONTGOMERY-Buffer, sorry, before it changed zoning. So I went over and met with Mr. Bishop and said, I walked the property with him. I brought a sprayer. We put blue lines around the property, measured in 50 feet and I just wanted to better understand his concerns. I think he would describe this 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) the same way. I can’t speak for him. He was concerned about buses being parked there idling. So I said okay that’s one thing we’ll definitely make part of the plan. I said we would like to start cleaning this up in here and you have my word we won’t park a single car here until the Town approves it. So that was kind of the concept. A little deeper into that I had a business partner who was doing some substantial investing up here and one of his complaints when he came to West Mountain was that, I don’t know if you’d use the word Sanford and Son, but it kind of looked like a junkyard, and his brother looked at it and we had stuff strewn all over the property which had been a concern of my wife’s as well, and so we went over there. So I didn’t mean to like poke anyone in the eye because you were very clear that that was not to be done. So, you know, I apologize for that. I did make sure that I had spoken to him and we were going to clear the center section. So there were some trees cut along the edge. We left probably 50 feet of trees between this and the road. We left a buffer, and then the other area which was actually, it was already a field and they’d been dumping wood chips and had a lot of lift debris and that type of stuff. I think what really aggravated or what sort of brought this to a head was we had cleaned that out and then they had run a bulldozer over it and smoothed it and that was a disturbance that equated to an acre. The edge work that we had done, and I actually put in some bushes closer to Bishop’s house, wasn’t anywhere near an acre. So I didn’t think that we were disturbing, I knew that rule. So we did clean that up in there and then Bruce Frank came to see me and I said well we hadn’t planned on any parking there and he said well, so I put a big wood chip berm across the front so that someone inadvertently didn’t park there, but to be clear in hindsight shouldn’t have done that, but I had no intention of using it for parking until it was approved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thank you for that explanation. There are a lot of engineering, there’s a lot of outstanding engineering issues with this, and the complexity of this application is such that my thought obviously I’ll consult with the Board, but mu thought is this may be an application where it would be appropriate for you to work with the engineer, resolve any questions or concerns that the engineer has and then come back to us having resolved the engineering issues, and just deal with the remaining site plan issues. Does that sound appropriate? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We really felt the same way when we saw the Chazen comments. We need to address the science of it first. MR. TRAVER-All right. Laura, I know we have also the outstanding issue of the Lead Agency status. MRS. MOORE-You also need to open the public hearing. I do have public comment. The Lead Agency status, you can accept Lead Agency status. There hasn’t been anybody that has jumped to the plate and said that they would be Lead Agency. MR. TRAVER-What a surprise. MRS. MOORE-So I do have a resolution in front of you that says you acknowledge Lead Agency status. MR. TRAVER-All right. Why don’t we do Lead Agency and then we’ll take public comment. I think obviously SEQR we’re going to have to get the engineer. MRS. MOORE-You’re on hold at the moment because you want to resolve your stormwater and your site issues. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Very good. All right. MR. DEEB-Speaking of SEQR, I know we’re not going to do it, but Page 7 Question L, before you come back check that one again. You’ve got winter hours in that but you don’t have summer hours. MR. TRAVER-Page Seven Question L. MR. DEEB-That way they’ll be done and done correctly. MR. TRAVER-Good catch. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So we have a draft resolution. Board members might recall that we did go out to various agencies regarding Lead Agency and we are in a position to accept Lead Agency status. Does anyone have any issues with that? All right. Why don’t we do that motion, please. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC WHEREAS, The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (SEQR) Applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, construction of a zip line attraction, approval of an existing mountain biking venue and other associated projects. Project also includes a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHERAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC & REZONE APPLICATIONS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So now, why don’t we move to open a public hearing and we’ll ask, are there members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes, sir. I see one hand. So if you would give the table up for public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF TIPKE MR. TIPKE-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Before you begin your comment, I would just like to point out, if you’re not aware already, that the application is incomplete. The application is to some degree incomplete in that all of the engineering issues have not been resolved and we have not yet reviewed the environmental quality review, and with that, proceed. MR. TIPKE-I understand. My name is Jeff Tipke. I live literally across the street from West Mountain and I’d like to say they’re awesome neighbors. Spencer’s done a wonderful job. You’ve done a wonderful job. The place looks awesome. The food is good. The people are good. I do have a couple of issues, small ones, and it is parking, because my driveway literally is across the street from the exit and depending on which way you’re going up and down West Mountain Road, everybody wants to go into that exit. I’ve seen numerous accidents. I’ve seen a couple of people get hurt, and Spencer’s done a great job, you know, do not enter, you know, he’s done all he could. I think you could probably do one more. You could probably put a flagman out there during your busy days during the vacation because it’s not your fault that they’re going in the wrong way. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. TRAVER-And, sir, I would just remind you to address your comments to the Planning Board. MR. TIPKE-I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-That’s all right. MR. TIPKE-And lighting. The new LED lights across the street, they’re pretty bright. I’m easy and it’s okay, but they’re bright. So my concern would be and I have only two concerns out of the whole project because I think it’s awesome. I believe in expansion, I believe in full-time business. I believe, you know, especially up here where there’s a lot of seasonal work, if you can get people working nine or ten months a year, that’s, you know, better insurance. More money, you know, it’s a better lifestyle. So I’m all for it, but I am concerned with the lighting and the safety of the parking. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will ask that. Thank you. I’ll ask again if there’s anyone else in the audience that wanted to address? Yes, ma’am. KRISTEN WILDE MRS. WILDE-Hello. I am Christine Wilde. My husband and I own the property at 56 West Mountain Road. We’re directly across the street from 43 West Mountain, the lot that they’re planning on for their overflow parking. I do have a lot of stormwater concerns but I will come back in when those plans are addressed, but the current overflow that is proposed does flow directly into my property, any existing stormwater outfall that goes underneath West Mountain Road. So that’s how those plans currently are written. MR. TRAVER-So, excuse me. You’re saying that stormwater from the proposed parking expansion currently flows onto your property? MRS. WILDE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. WILDE-Also they reference a current existing stormwater pipe that goes underneath West Mountain Road and then that outflows right into my side yard. So anything directed currently from the proposed rain gardens, any overflow is going into the existing pipe that does flow directly into my yard. MR. TRAVER-Stormwater management is part of what will be reviewed. MRS. WILDE-Yes. So I’ll look at that some more. There was a lot of talk of this 50 foot vegetative buffer along the property lines. My concerns as this goes forward is really what those buffers consist of, what’s going to be planted there. A vegetated buffer in the spring and summer is much different than a vegetative buffer during winter when the cars and the headlights are going to be in that area shining into our homes that are on that property. So there’s no current, on top of additional planting for that buffer, just maintaining what’s already there and what’s already there is not going to screen any headlights or anything into our windows of our homes directly around that property. MR. TRAVER-And if I could ask, approximately how far is it from your home to say the edge to this buffer zone, the new parking that’s proposed? MRS. WILDE-So I’m directly on the other side of West Mountain Road. So it’s across the street. So the current residence at 43 also provides a little bit of a buffer between the parking lot as well, but all the windows in my home do face what would be the new proposed parking area. MR. TRAVER-So you’re on the other side of West Mountain Road. MRS. WILDE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And then about how far are you, your house, physically from that side of the road? MRS. WILDE-I’m not very far off the road. MR. TRAVER-Not very far. MR. MAGOWAN-Those houses are like 50 feet or so, aren’t they? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MRS. WILDE-Yes, the front of our house is very close to the road there. Some other confusion, reading through the application and, you know, the answers to a lot of the questions. It’s been said that there’s not going to be bus parking in that overflow parking lot. That is not true in all of their responses to their questions. There are quotes that does say, you know, it will accommodate cars and buses. So just clarification on that in the future as some of the answers do say that it’s going to be used for buses. I have some concerns of continuing use of the homes that are on those properties. What really constitutes business related purposes? Overnight staying of ski racers, you know, are they using these buildings for offices, for storage? There’s a garage, you know, directly across the street, you know, in the last year I have no idea who’s living across the street from me. There’s been a lot of turnover and in and out of construction workers living in those homes and it’s just a concern for my family. I don’t know who’s coming in and out of these houses, if it’s storage facility and people are going in and out of the garage at 43 West Mountain Road and I don’t know who these people are, if they’re workers and things like that. So is it going to be a storage facility in the future? Is it going to be somebody living there that works on the mountain? What really constitutes business uses for the ski area of maintaining these homes on that property as well. It’s just a concern, and then really just the justification for needing the overflow parking. I would like to see some counts of cars. How many cars do they have going in and out of West Mountain? Right now it’s just based on their attendance records and if you’re looking at expanding a parking lot you would first need to know how many cars do you have on average and there’s no information on that. I’ve lived in this home my entire life. I purchased this house from my parents. In the last year there’s no cars parking in front of my house. There were one or two Saturdays this winter that there were cars on West Mountain Road and that was because yes, there was a ski race. There were other events going on. So the parking that they need is not actually for skiers and tubers and things like that. So I’m not sure that there really is a need to have this overflow parking. MR. TRAVER-There was, you might have heard earlier representation from the applicant regarding the number of cars, the number of participants and be aware, if you’re not, that they plan on expanding the recreational opportunities at this site. So they’re certainly hoping that part of the reason they need this additional parking is they’re going to attract additional customers. MRS. WILDE-Correct, but the numbers are just based on some formulas currently. There’s no actual car counts on the busiest days. They know how many people were there, but they don’t know how many cars were in that parking lot. It’s just kind of a guess on, you know, we think three people riding in a car at a time, you know, based on, there’s a lot of turnover as well. There’s a lot of in and out. People, you know, are getting a two hour skiing pass. They’re skiing for four hours. So it’s not that many cars at one time in the parking lot. So I really haven’t seen a lot of traffic issues on West Mountain over the years to then have to worry about a constant headlights and things in my front windows constantly from buses and additional cars across the street. There’s also no talk of lighting in the overflow parking area, whether or not there’s going to be any kind of lighting, whether they’re going to be directing current lighting towards that lot as well. So that isn’t something that is addressed anywhere in the application. I think that covers it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. STEPHEN BISHOP MR. BISHOP-I’m the Bishop guy. We have a lot just to the south. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, if you could state your names for the record, please. MR. BISHOP-Stephen and Cynthia Bishop, 37 West Mountain Road. We’re directly on the south border. Spencer and I did have a good conversation after the last meeting. At this point in time, if the engineering’s not done, I have some questions and what have you, but until this is done we can’t get into it pretty well, and I would ask one thing from the engineers if they could. If they could get rid of the yellow lettering on the CAD drawings and make it into something you can see for the eye challenged that would be great. Other than that, we’re supportive of West Mountain. We just, we’ve got to take care of us, too. I have faith they’ll do that. CYNTHIA BISHOP MRS. BISHOP-And I agree with all the comments that the previous person made. I was shaking my head yes. They’re all the same things, in addition to if the parking is an issue now and there’s expansion to the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) ski center, is that going to mean that the overflow parking that’s going to be allowed with a zoning change, if that is going to be brought up again to be more of a significant parking. That’s a concern to me. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure I completely understand you. In other words, are they going to expand the parking again? MRS. BISHOP-Right. If the idea, I mean I am totally in support of West Mountain also and I think they did an amazing job at the top. I brought my family up to do the zip line. So that was really nicely done and they have great workers there and everything. MR. TRAVER-So you’re concern is they’re proposing what they’re proposing for expanded parking. Your concern is, is that big enough or are they going to need to expand it yet further. MRS. BISHOP-I’m afraid that in the future they’re going to, I’m worried that there might be coming back saying we need more overflow parking or there’s more additional parking. While I can understand the situation of a need occasionally and the hazard of having people park on West Mountain Road, I wouldn’t want to see more parking in the proposed overflow parking area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BISHOP-One question in the RC designation from what we read in the Code, it doesn’t allow parking. Is that part of the whole process that’s underway now here that will deal with that? Because they’re going to an RC. That’s my understanding. I could be wrong. When you go to the chart it doesn’t have an X for allowed. It’s just blank. So at this point it doesn’t allow for parking. MR. TRAVER-For Recreation Commercial there’s no parking allowed. MRS. BISHOP-Well parking lot is not an allowable use. MR. TRAVER-I see what you’re saying. All right. MR. BISHOP-I understand they’re going to address this accordingly. That’s all I have at this time. MRS. BISHOP-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Now is there anyone else in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. ANDREW FRENYEA MR. FRENYEA-Hi, there. My name’s Andrew Frenyea and I live at 38 Apres Circle, which is the property that runs parallel to West Mountain and the surrounding area where the parking lot’s going to be. So my main concern is like some of the others have mentioned. Obviously the lighting. About 40, 50 yards from where that parking lot is my property line and also as far as like security, are we going to have some sort of fencing around there? Is it going to be a solid fence like for headlights? Because again once the leaves are gone I have a perfect view of that field and there’s nothing blocking headlights seeing people, seeing me, coming over to my property. I’ve had people walk their dogs on my property. It happens. I understand, and like everyone else has said it’s a business. I want them to succeed. It’s great for our area. Have we ever explored other options as far as having people bused in? I know like Lake George has the trolley system. What if we had people park in the Municipal Center and get trucked in? That could help with getting people to and from West Mountain. Maybe this isn’t the answer. One hundred and fifty cars seems like a lot for that specific area. Five hundred and fifty cars seems like a lot for that area that’s there now. However I do see it as a major safety concern. I know a couple of years back with Fire on the Mountain and I came home from work at like nine, nine fifteen and there were cars all down West Mountain walking and the road itself is not wide enough to accommodate cars parking and people walking. So I’m totally for the safety and having people in there, but that is a big event. So maybe something needs to be done to accommodate those issues on specific large events like that day seems to be. So that’s my concern for now, and of course the stormwater issue, but it seems like you guys are going to be looking into that. So I appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board this evening? I’m not seeing any. MRS. MOORE-I do have a written public comment. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the Planning Board. “The intent of this letter is to inform the planning board of our opposition to the re-zoning and subsequent approval of the West Mountain parking lot expansion, as well as some concerns regarding the zip line operation. Our property is the 2nd lot from the southern border of the West Mountain property. We built this property in 2011, when Mike Barbone owned West Mountain. At the time, we understood that building near the ski area would subject us to skiing operations. However, the expansion of the mountain's operations has created significant issues for us and our neighbor (38 Apres Circle). We were already experiencing problematic spring water run-off flooding prior to recent expansions of ski runs and snow-making. West Mountain improperly directs (dumps) the water from the southernmost ski runs onto our properties. With the expansion of the Gnar Wall and snow-making capabilities, the run-off and flooding of properties and basements has been excessive, lasting weeks. No action has been performed to address this issue, even though the town and mountain have been notified. It can be stated that West Mtn. has not been a good neighbor, and future expansion is concerning and not welcome based on these behaviors. We are opposed to the change in zoning allowing a parking lot, where a residential property is zoned. Adjacent property owners will lose privacy and be exposed to increased noise, overall decreasing property values. We ask all planning board members, how would you like to have a parking lot as a next door neighbor? A parking lot that is built long after you had established residence? However, since recent history has shown that West Mountain can expand and infringe on neighboring property owners with abandon, it is likely that the board will recommend re-zoning. As such, we ask that the following requirements be established. 1) Earth Buffer (Berm) with Evergreen trees. The current parking lot site plan includes a "vegetative buffer" along with a small elevated berm. This berm is not true earth and is simply a pile of wood chips left when the mountain cleared the lot. It is inadequate in providing any line-of-site privacy to the neighboring properties. We request that a real berm, aka. small hill of earth, on the order of 10-15 feet tall, lined with evergreen trees be installed along the length of the parking lot. The current noted "vegetative buffer" on the site plan is useless in the winter when all the leaves are down. 2) Water removal provisions: Many of the issues with West Mountain come in the form of water run-off onto neighboring properties. The plan should include the proper provisions to control the run-off to west mountain property and divert it to the proper water management areas. 3) Noise: West Mountain has been good neighbor during this past summer's operation by not creating noise pollution. The primary source of noise pollution is the constant streaming of loud music. During winter operations, the blaring of music carries into neighboring communities. Noise pollution also comes from the zip line or mountain coaster's operation. How can this noise be controlled? We ask that some level of controls be required so that any summertime music or ride noise not be audible beyond West Mountain property. It goes without saying, there is no rationale homeowner who wants to listen to a neighbor's noise every day, all summer long, it becomes a form of torture! We respectfully submit our feedback and hope that the planning board will hear and comply with the request of the tax paying neighbors. Sincerely, Thomas & Mara Powell” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I would note for the audience and for the applicant that we will be leaving the public hearing open because we’re not through with this application yet, obviously, and we’ll be getting some additional information. So when this project returns there will be additional time for public comment. I’d ask the applicant to return to the table. I know the information before us is somewhat incomplete but you did hear the public comment. Do you have some responses to some of the concerns regarding lighting, expanding the parking lot and traffic? MR. LAPPER-We will certainly look into the winter buffer, the berms, you know, trying to protect the neighbors. I mean I think everyone knows the Mountain was there before the subdivision next door, but they have rights and we’ll do the best that we can to protect them and look at this again in terms of buffers and winter especially, and we’ll re-submit in response to that, see what we can come up with. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Do you have anything, Spencer? MR. TRAVER-Stormwater, we’re confident that between you and the engineer we’re going to address stormwater that maybe hasn’t been addressed before. It was essentially an empty lot. Is there going to be additional, I don’t recall. Is there additional lighting proposed for the expanded parking lot? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, yes. I mean I guess it hadn’t been thought out at this point. In response to everyone’s concerns, at least the people that were here in the public, those all seem like reasonable concerns and requests. I agree. So I wouldn’t want headlights pointing in. As far as the traffic mitigation, you know, sometimes we do put people out there. I would say that there is a real parking problem. It’s not like something that is one or two days. We have frequent occurrences with the Sheriff’s Department because the lot is so full that, sometimes not even when they’re on West Mountain Road, but everybody triple parks everybody in. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the Board is all familiar with anecdotal information that there’s been an issue periodically, particularly when there’s special events and so on. MR. MONTGOMERY-I’ll say I’m sympathetic for sure to the things that were raised here in person. I don’t particularly want to address the letter because some of that I’m unfamiliar with, but for sure the concerns that were brought up here tonight, you know, would be something that we would look to mitigate. MR. TRAVER-One of the things I guess from my standpoint, and we have yet to hear from other members of the Board, but as far as the expanded parking area, does that need to have lighting all the time, or is that something that maybe just when there’s a special event it needs to be used? MR. MONTGOMERY-So what I could do there, which would be fairly easy, is just to use that as an overflow parking lot. In other words, we could have some sort of barrier to it so that if somebody just wanted to park over there and hang out that wouldn’t be available to them. MR. TRAVER-There were some security issues raised, and I guess if we are looking at this as an expansion of parking, then that would seem to be appropriate. Let’s not spread out the cars that are there unnecessarily, but rather use it specifically for only when it’s needed, and therefore the lighting and the driving and the headlights and all that would go with that. MR. MONTGOMERY-Correct, and the lighting, it would not need to be lit. During hours of operation at night there would be some lighting. MR. TRAVER-But only if it were being used. Right? MR. MONTGOMERY-Only if it were used, correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MONTGOMERY-And then as far as the gentleman who was talking about the entrance and exit, it has been an issue getting people to read signs. I put up enormous signs, do not enter. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I know. MR. MONTGOMERY-As far as the lighting there, that’s something I think I can address immediately. I know there is some lighting out near the entrance and exits that we have that are specifically, that’s for people pulling in and out, but I’ve actually even, this has crossed my mind, re-positioning that so that it’s directed at the Mountain. That would not be hard. I didn’t put it up but the light was affixed sort of at this angle, and those lights shine at a 180 degree rays. So they don’t have to be, they’re not directional lights. So the black face of that I think could be turned towards the Mountain. MR. TRAVER-That sounds like that would be an improvement. Yes. Good. MR. MONTGOMERY-And I can install timers on the other lights. We do have some lighting around the ski area for security, but there are some parking lot lights there as well that I have no issue putting on a timer that would shut off. So I wouldn’t want that shining in my windows. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. If you could include those concerts in your update that would be very helpful because as you know the public hearing will be before us again and the public has an opportunity to see, between now and then, you know, what you’ve proposed to try to address some of these concerns. I think that would be very helpful for all of us. MR. LAPPER-I think you’ve heard that Spencer wants to be responsible to all of this and we will address all of that. MR. TRAVER-Sure. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) MR. SHAFER-IF you can think about the issue of people going in the exits. There are often more active solutions to those kinds of issues as well. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. So the entrance and exit as it stands now, there’s two main entrance and exits, and someone had thought we should maybe move one of those. That would probably further complicate because we would move into maybe where the overflow. No one probably wants another exit there. They’re fairly wide exits. They’ll take two cars in and out. The problem is for some reason people like to enter the northern exit. So at busy times we could work to try to get a staff member out there. We do position people there when it’s crazy, just to try to stop people from triple parking people in which they continually do. It’s strange. We will work to address that. MR. DEEB-One other issue was the use of the buildings. What’s going to happen with the buildings? MR. MONTGOMERY-Correct. So for right now what they’re being used for currently and then what we expect. So the 43 West Mountain Road is being rented to Stephen Lathrop. He’s the director of the race program. He’s from Stratton Mountain School. He came over here. So it’s being used as a residence. The Brant house, maybe or not be worth pointing out, that used to be part of, that was recreationally zoned. When Mike took, you know, the whole history of that, in 1997 he sold that house off to raise some money or whatever. For whatever reason the sold it off. That h ad been part of West Mountain proper. That’s the old Brant house. The front of it is an 1850 house and then the back of it is sort of a long addition, two big rooms. Our thoughts with that is to use it as employee housing, like we’re using the other house for, but also, they could drive into the parking lot. It wouldn’t necessarily have to go out to West Mountain Road the way it’s configured, but we would like to use that for ski races and camps and that type of stuff, where people can stay. So if someone were to come, like we host a lot of camps. We host a lot of ski races where someone could, say we’re doing a week camp and the Stratton Mountain School is coming to train. There might be two or three coaches in there and some kids. Not like a, it could be permanent residence as well, but that house we sort of envisioned more for using for camps and like camps in the summer, like treetop aerials. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well if you could do some more thinking on that and maybe elaborate on that when you finish your plan that would be great. Any other comments for the applicant? All right. So, Laura, what are your thoughts on scheduling? th MRS. MOORE-Okay. So our next deadline would be October 15 for November’s agenda. November it thth would be the 19 or the 26. thth MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for November we have the 19 and the 26. So your preference would probably be the first. th MR. LAPPER-The 19. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, I mean just for me on a sense of urgency, not as much as where the zip line is concerned, but as far as overflow for parking. If we could just come to terms that we use it strictly for overflow and have that approved where we could use it this season is kind of, we’d like to have it in place, you know, really the busiest week is Christmas week, and I know I still have to go in front of the Town Board on the re-zoning front. So if I was able to get in in October or something. I don’t know if we have much turnaround time, and we could get ahead of the season, that would be helpful. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I just don’t know what your turnaround time is. And we’re already past that deadline th to be o October, but it’s safer to say the 19. MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you comment on the re-zoning timeline? I know we have limited control over that, but what’s that timeline like? MRS. MOORE-Right. Once it comes back for a referral to the Planning Board then it would be placed on a Town Board agenda. So potentially whatever, they meet the first and the third Mondays, from what I understand. So it would be the first December meeting that you would be on, I believe, for the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I’m not 100% sure because there’s holidays in there. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) th MR. LAPPER-Okay. So the 19 would help to at least move it earlier. th MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. So November 19. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: : (SEQR) Applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, construction of a zip line attraction, approval of an existing mountain biking venue and other associated projects. Project also includes a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040 Town Board may refer proposed amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation, and Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a recreation center shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board to review SEQR. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, thth Tabled to the November 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting with submissions by October 15. th Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Good luck. We look forward to you coming back. MR. MONTGOMERY-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-I guess a reminder that you have a meeting tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-So we’ll see everybody in 22 hours. We have a motion to adjourn? MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. See you in 22 hours. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/24/2019) Stephen Traver, Chairman 30